Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #30

[Lilly b]

Thanks, Lily. CB is very much a person of public interest and, as someone currently serving a long prison sentence for a brutal rape, and with a string of other convictions, no reputation to defend.

I note, also, that the prohibition is discretionary, not compulsory.

Criminal Procedure Law in Germany this link goes into much more details

 

[C.greek]

Criminal Procedure Law in Germany this link goes into much more details

"If there is an initial suspicion, § 152 (2) StPO and § 160 StPO not only standardise the right, but also the duty of the public prosecutor’s office to investigate the facts of the case. A suspected person becomes an accused in criminal proceedings through this initial suspicion."

that's interesting - this occurs in the preliminary proceedings!

also interesting:

"This list of possible measures is not exhaustive. Ultimately, the public prosecutor’s office and its investigators have many investigative measures at their disposal when clarifying the facts of a case. To counter these measures without impairing or thwarting the rights of the accused or other persons concerned, legal counsel familiar with the requirements and correct procedure is indispensable."

so, FF has never ever complained about HCW's comments or direct accusations. How possible is it then that HCW doesn't do everything by the book? jmo

 

[Anxala]

The link between the crimes could be: CB chatting about the crime-to-be and then carrying it out.
Pre-crime chats for the other rapings might have been discovered.

When you say 'chatting', I assume you mean online chatting where a record exists, yes?

Again, an interesting thought, as is the 'Das Buch' (if it exists) possibility posited by Betty_Boop above and Megnut's earlier speculation re some crucial commonality in found images, still or otherwise.

 

[C.greek]

When you say 'chatting', I assume you mean online chatting where a record exists, yes?

Again, an interesting thought, as is the 'Das Buch' (if it exists) possibility posited by Betty_Boop above and Megnut's earlier speculation re some crucial commonality in found images, still or otherwise.

can you elaborate please?

 

[Anxala]

can you elaborate please?

In that any or all of the above, if the case, might throw some light on what it is HCW actually has that convinced him in 2020, when he went public with his accusation, and is still convincing him to this day, that CB is the answer to this 15 year old question.

 

[G-Unit]

Does this help at all

That's why Section 8.1 of the German press codex (the nonbinding but usually followed rules for ethical journalism) recommends to not publish the names of criminals (alleged or not) except for some special situations (for example, when the criminal is already a person of public interest or when the police asks the population for help).
Or did you mean more to do with the courts etc

I was asking why some seemed to think the courts told the prosecutor what he was allowed to say. The basis for that belief hasn't been found as yet.

The German press codes, drawn up by the press council, is concerned with ethical journalism and isn't connected to laws or courts.

Journalists revealing suspect's surnames could be said to be breaching Germany's privacy laws, I suppose. Usually those are not revealed even after conviction. These laws are to be found in the German Penal Code.

There are also human rights laws, which prohibit suggesting someone is guilty before a trial has been held.

 

[Lilly b]

I was asking why some seemed to think the courts told the prosecutor what he was allowed to say. The basis for that belief hasn't been found as yet.

The German press codes, drawn up by the press council, is concerned with ethical journalism and isn't connected to laws or courts.

Journalists revealing suspect's surnames could be said to be breaching Germany's privacy laws, I suppose. Usually those are not revealed even after conviction. These laws are to be found in the German Penal Code.

There are also human rights laws, which prohibit suggesting someone is guilty before a trial has been held.

Are you from Germany ?

 

[C.greek]

I was asking why some seemed to think the courts told the prosecutor what he was allowed to say. The basis for that belief hasn't been found as yet.

The German press codes, drawn up by the press council, is concerned with ethical journalism and isn't connected to laws or courts.

Journalists revealing suspect's surnames could be said to be breaching Germany's privacy laws, I suppose. Usually those are not revealed even after conviction. These laws are to be found in the German Penal Code.

There are also human rights laws, which prohibit suggesting someone is guilty before a trial has been held.

The prosecutors treat the suspect as the accused, so guilty in their eyes based on the evidence they have and can openly say so. This is their job also. What is the issue at stake here?

 

[C.greek]

In that any or all of the above, if the case, might throw some light on what it is HCW actually has that convinced him in 2020, when he went public with his accusation, and is still convincing him to this day, that CB is the answer to this 15 year old question.

So you are trying to understand the possible evidence they have?

 

[G-Unit]

Are you from Germany ?

No

 

[G-Unit]

The prosecutors treat the suspect as the accused, so guilty in their eyes based on the evidence they have and can openly say so. This is their job also. What is the issue at stake here?

Isn't the attitude of a prosecutor, which appears to be guilty until proved innocent, at odds with human rights laws which say that suspects are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Isn't the attitude of a prosecutor, which appears to be guilty until proved innocent, at odds with human rights laws which say that suspects are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Have you a link that states suspects are entitled to presumption of innocence?

 

[Betty_Boop88]

Again, an interesting thought, as is the 'Das Buch' (if it exists) possibility posited by Betty_Boop above

Ah now, I can’t be taking the credit for that. T’was a much wiser human than myself that first brought that theory to the thread.

 

[C.greek]

Isn't the attitude of a prosecutor, which appears to be guilty until proved innocent, at odds with human rights laws which say that suspects are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

are you implying that the prosecutor would have to say the suspect is innocent at court?? It's the first time I hear that argument... what is the job of the prosecutor if not accusing the suspect of being guilty? And interestingly enough in Germany it is also the job of the prosecutors to find evidence for the innocence of a suspect - HCW and the team have said many times they have not found any such evidence.

Eta if that were the case, don't you think FF would have been the first person to jump on that bandwagon?? Instead the only thing he is saying is that they haven't called his client yet to interrogate him...

 

[G-Unit]

Have you a link that states suspects are entitled to presumption of innocence?

The ECHR has taken the view that Article 6 is applicable to suspects before they are charged, for example;

a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39), irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41)
page 9 https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

 

[G-Unit]

are you implying that the prosecutor would have to say the suspect is innocent at court?? It's the first time I hear that argument... what is the job of the prosecutor if not accusing the suspect of being guilty? And interestingly enough in Germany it is also the job of the prosecutors to find evidence for the innocence of a suspect - HCW and the team have said many times they have not found any such evidence.

Eta if that were the case, don't you think FF would have been the first person to jump on that bandwagon?? Instead the only thing he is saying is that they haven't called his client yet to interrogate him...

The prosecutor obviously believes someone is guilty. What he shouldn't do is claim publicly that his/her suspect IS guilty. That's for the courts to decide, not the prosecutor.

 

[C.greek]

The ECHR has taken the view that Article 6 is applicable to suspects before they are charged, for example;

a person who has been questioned in respect of his or her suspected involvement in an offence (Stirmanov v. Russia, § 39), irrespective of the fact that he or she was formally treated as a witness (Kalēja v. Latvia, §§ 36-41)
page 9 https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf

The system in Germany appears to be different. Perhaps a link from a ECHR decision about prosecutors publicly calling a suspect guilty in Germany when the process is into the investigative steps would better support your argument. Is there any?

Since I am a lay person I am not so tuned in to ECHR but from your link

90. However, the guarantees of independence and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 concern only the body called upon to decide on the criminal charge against an applicant and do not apply to the
representatives of the prosecution who are only parties to the proceedings (Kontalexis v. Greece, § 57; Haarde v. Iceland, § 94; Thiam v. France, § 71).

P. 21-22

 

[C.greek]

The prosecutor obviously believes someone is guilty. What he shouldn't do is claim publicly that his/her suspect IS guilty. That's for the courts to decide, not the prosecutor.

I cannot find anything saying the prosecutor cannot publicly claim someone is guilty. See my post above

 

[katydid23]

I cannot find anything saying the prosecutor cannot publicly claim someone is guilty. See my post above

Here is how the US courts deal with the presumption of innocence:


A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted.

presumption of innocence | Wex | US Law - Law.Cornell.Edu​

How does the state prosecution overcome the presumption of innocence of a criminal defendant?

Once the trial begins, however, the presumption of innocence becomes a “rebuttable” presumption, meaning that the prosecution can overcome the presumption by introducing evidence at trial tending to show that the defendant is indeed guilty of the alleged crime.



So the prosecutor must introduce evidence that the defendant is guilty of the crime, and while doing so, they are allowed to state that they believe him to be GUILTY, thus that is why they are offering the evidence to the jury.

 

[C.greek]

The prosecutor obviously believes someone is guilty. What he shouldn't do is claim publicly that his/her suspect IS guilty. That's for the courts to decide, not the prosecutor.

can you please provide a quote where HCW hasn't used the word 'we believe' or 'we are certain' when proclaiming that they think CB is guilty? I thought HCW always qualified it as their opinion and not a fact.

Here is how the US courts deal with the presumption of innocence:


A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted.

presumption of innocence | Wex | US Law - Law.Cornell.Edu​

How does the state prosecution overcome the presumption of innocence of a criminal defendant?
Once the trial begins, however, the presumption of innocence becomes a “rebuttable” presumption, meaning that the prosecution can overcome the presumption by introducing evidence at trial tending to show that the defendant is indeed guilty of the alleged crime.

thanks, and in the case of Germany and the legal system, the above should fall under the investigative procedure as well I gather? So in other words, the prosecution can claim someone is guilty when the investigative process is under way?