Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #33

[Malleux]

People who make extraordinary claims should be held accountable to support them. The issue for me is that the claims have been made and if this case doesn’t go to trial, HCW will never have to support them. Bad, very bad IMO.

It's a prosecutor's job to accuse people of crimes. They don't get held accountable in terms of legal recourse simply because the defendant doesn't end up being convicted after those claims are made.

If the Prosecutors were under that constant threat, nothing would make it to trial.

 

[Mex]

And where is it today? This, IMO, is the problem with both sides of the argument. Despite strong statements over three years, a charge for MM does not appear to be forthcoming. This is why people are doubting HCW and, IMO, it’s fair.

I do not understand why there should be a ‘both sides of the argument’.

MM’s is a criminal case which resulted from an act by person or persons unknown, which took place in 2007.
That is a very long time ago. Which rather makes three years look like the twinkling of an eye.
Surely it makes sense for everyone to be on the same side of focusing on favouring the resolution such a long running investigation. Particularly when there is hope of that for the very first time since 2007 thanks to the work of German investigators.

Also my opinion leans towards festina lente (more haste, less speed). There are five serious cases pending. Once the outcome of those are out of the way might be the time to progress other cases which might be pending.

 

[Mex]

People who make extraordinary claims should be held accountable to support them. The issue for me is that the claims have been made and if this case doesn’t go to trial, HCW will never have to support them. Bad, very bad IMO.

I don’t think there are any spurious claims being made. I think everything said is supported by evidence. It is just that we do not know what that evidence consists of. The police and prosecutors do.

My opinion is that HCW will move to trial if and when the evidence supports that. Hopefully the argument regarding jurisdiction will be settled soon enabling everything to move on.

 

[misty48]

If a photograph has to be proven to be authentic before it can be admitted into evidence, how does that work in a case whereby the accused was the photographer?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It's a prosecutor's job to accuse people of crimes. They don't get held accountable in terms of legal recourse simply because the defendant doesn't end up being convicted after those claims are made.

If the Prosecutors were under that constant threat, nothing would make it to trial.

My point was a general one about claims and the onus of proof. If someone makes a claim, it’s their responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. The evidence can then be scrutinised and tested. If the claim is supported by the evidence to a point where it’s upheld then it becomes a fact - this is why the world is round and not flat.

If you or anyone else wants to believe that HCW has evidence without hearing or seeing it that’s their choice.

However, until the evidence is provided, I’ll be staying skeptical which I think is completely reasonable.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I do not understand why there should be a ‘both sides of the argument’.

MM’s is a criminal case which resulted from an act by person or persons unknown, which took place in 2007.
That is a very long time ago. Which rather makes three years look like the twinkling of an eye.
Surely it makes sense for everyone to be on the same side of focusing on favouring the resolution such a long running investigation. Particularly when there is hope of that for the very first time since 2007 thanks to the work of German investigators.

Also my opinion leans towards festina lente (more haste, less speed). There are five serious cases pending. Once the outcome of those are out of the way might be the time to progress other cases which might be pending.

Respectfully, CB has been investigated for six years, the case has been unsolved for 16 years.

I cannot speak for everyone else but I want the case to be solved.

My problem is that CB was publicly accused three years ago for MM’s murder yet the case against him still isn’t strong enough to charge him.

You may think that this is good police work but if CB doesn’t face a court for murdering MM it will be an absolute travesty.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe I was not clear. What I am saying is, leaving aside ethics, that if you expose publicly a person as a child killer, and in a few days the press publish his name and his photo, any following witnesses testimonies could be considered "contaminated" and discarded by a judge.

But nevertheless, @Dave55, why do you think HCW does not need forensic evidence?

Personally I suspect this is where the problem lies.

How do they rule out other theories as possibilities without any physical evidence?

 

[G-Unit]

Some very frank statements have been made by Wolters and have been reported all over the world. Articles and books have been written examining CB's life and repeating witnesse's opinions about it and about him. Many people are sure he killed MM as a result of this 'trial by media' but all I see is rumour and gossip, not knowledge.

The evidence needed to charge CB doesn't seem to be available or he would have been charged and tried in a court of law in my opinion. 'If you knew what I know' isn't enough to convince me and if what Wolters knows is so convincing it should be revealed and tested in the right place; in court, not in newspapers.

 

[mrjitty]

It's a prosecutor's job to accuse people of crimes. They don't get held accountable in terms of legal recourse simply because the defendant doesn't end up being convicted after those claims are made.

If the Prosecutors were under that constant threat, nothing would make it to trial.

As a general principal prosecutors accuse people of crimes by charging them

 

[Hexe]

It's a prosecutor's job to accuse people of crimes. They don't get held accountable in terms of legal recourse simply because the defendant doesn't end up being convicted after those claims are made.

A prosecutor's job is to accuse people in court, not in media. Prosecutors in Germany remain very tight lipped until the trial, the media show done by Wolters is highly unusual and unprecedented. It can be also highly damning for the case (CB's mug being plastered all over media as "Maddie's murderer" can be grounds for throwing any identification by witness, done after Wolters informed media, outta window as unreliable) and for Wolters's reputation.

 

[mrjitty]

A prosecutor's job is to accuse people in court, not in media. Prosecutors in Germany remain very tight lipped until the trial, the media show done by Wolters is highly unusual and unprecedented. It can be also highly damning for the case (CB's mug being plastered all over media as "Maddie's murderer" can be grounds for throwing any identification by witness, done after Wolters informed media, outta window as unreliable) and for Wolters's reputation.

What I find especially bizarre, is how after the public appeal, which was at least tightly controlled he then did various adhoc hits with UK tabloids etc where he seemed to speak quite outside the ambit of the appeal.

And for those who think there is no danger to this, see the Wirecard case where german financial prosecutors accused the FT and two of its reporters of corruption, based only on the say so of a criminal Wirecard exec.

 

[Janosch]

Sent twice.

 

[Janosch]

Why HCW/BKA said a lot? They could only say that they were trying to locate people who saw the Westfalia or the Jaguar, and wanted to talk with the person who called with the 683 phone, and if someone has the 680 or 683 in the directory, etc.
Why they added that they have a person in prison who they are sure killed Madeleine?
IMO because OG were also investigating CB since 2017, and they wanted to be the champions of the three nation investigation.
Now they rush to talk, and are in a problem: must charge CB asap.

 

[mrjitty]

I also think there is a significant possibility they got gassed. Famous case, they had the 'breakthrough' and felt they would be able to unravel the mystery from there. Doing media in Braunschweig is a lot different than national/global media.

 

[Malleux]

Whether CB is or isn't guilty has nothing to do with the way the investigation has been managed. Either he did it or he didn't, regardless of whether or not you agree with HCW's conduct.

I get that some people have objections to the public accusation but the authorities themselves have admitted they've taken unusual steps with this case. There must be good reason for that IMO.

Personally, I just don't see what value it adds to the discussion here to constantly go over and over it.

 

[G-Unit]

Whether CB is or isn't guilty has nothing to do with the way the investigation has been managed. Either he did it or he didn't, regardless of whether or not you agree with HCW's conduct.

I get that some people have objections to the public accusation but the authorities themselves have admitted they've taken unusual steps with this case. There must be good reason for that IMO.

Personally, I just don't see what value it adds to the discussion here to constantly go over and over it.

HCW's behaviour has lessened the chance of CB being found guilty even if he is actually guilty, that's why.

 

[Malleux]

HCW's behaviour has lessened the chance of CB being found guilty even if he is actually guilty, that's why.

In your opinion.

If the appeal was done differently, let's say the authorities were far less accusatory, gave out far less detail, even kept CB's identity hidden, would it have been taken as seriously by the public? Would it have led to all the same witnesses coming forward?

You don't have to agree with HCW's strategy but you can't deny it's been effective in broadcasting CB's profile to the wider public in order to optimise finding potential witnesses.

 

[RichardKimble]

In your opinion.

If the appeal was done differently, let's say the authorities were far less accusatory, gave out far less detail, even kept CB's identity hidden, would it have been taken as seriously by the public? Would it have led to all the same witnesses coming forward?

You don't have to agree with HCW's strategy but you can't deny it's been effective in broadcasting CB's profile to the wider public in order to optimise finding potential witnesses.

That only works if its successful, is it ?

 

[Davieson]

HCW's behaviour has lessened the chance of CB being found guilty even if he is actually guilty, that's why.

Conversely, if he is innocent he'll be stuck the the label of being the killer of MM, while the real culprit goes unpunished.

 

[G-Unit]

In your opinion.

If the appeal was done differently, let's say the authorities were far less accusatory, gave out far less detail, even kept CB's identity hidden, would it have been taken as seriously by the public? Would it have led to all the same witnesses coming forward?

You don't have to agree with HCW's strategy but you can't deny it's been effective in broadcasting CB's profile to the wider public in order to optimise finding potential witnesses.

Any detective will attest that publicity yields witnesses, but very few of them have anything helpful to contribute. You only have to add up the number of sightings of MM which were reported to see what publicity can lead to.