Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #33

[Dave55]

W

^Bold, if you listen to them, they’ve solved it but they’re not telling anyone, even the defendant how. I don’t think this is r

It all depends on what we view as right and wrong - a deep ethical subject.

We can agree that MM was very likely a victim but until Christian Breuckner is convicted of abducting and murdering her, IMO, it is not right that we accept HCW’s, at present, baseless accusation that CB committed this crime.

IMO, the public accusation of CB is wrong. The investigation into CB could have occurred without the public accusation and this would have been completely fair to MM and her family. This is the way it normally happens and I think HCE kicked the hornets nest by taking the investigation in this unusual direction. FF has had to react and manage the situation as best as he can for his client.

Have you thought that perhaps CB didn’t commit this crime? He is one of four people to be made an official suspect - the other three never faced charges.

If the same situation happens again with CB, has the public accusation by HCW been right? Has it been fair treatment to MM and the many people who care that she gets justice?

So that I am clear as to my position, I have no idea what happened to MM. Until someone is convicted BARD, I am completely open to why and how she disappeared and who was involved - this is as fair as I can be to the victim.

Wolters says he does know..if she died at the hands of CB....tortured..similar to the two rapes...and Wolters knows this for sure..it might explain why he says this. Not saying it's right..but

 

[Janosch]

My opinion is changing and every day I am more convinced that CB did it. But that doesn't change what I consider to be a mistake by the prosecution, publicly exposing CB as a murderer without legal process. Did any journalist point this out to HCW?

 

[Malleux]

He didn't, actually, in that he appealed against the trial being held in Germany following extradition from Italy.
He was found to be wrong.

True, but that was after the fact and the objection was about whether Germany had filed the extradition warrant with the correct country. If there was an additional objection about Braunschweig specifically taking jurisdiction over Madgeburg, that should have been raised in addition but it wasn't.

FF was involved in that appeal too so you can't blame the original defence counsel for that. To me, this whole objection seems to be an afterthought, a legal technicality they are trying to use to disrupt proceedings. JMO.

 

[Dave55]

It's clear to me that CB and his legal team think they are unlikely to receive a fair trial in Braunschweig and that is due to the behaviour of the Braunschweig Prosecutor's Office. So his legal team can't be blamed for taking the actions they have taken in my opinion.

His legal team are entitled to take any action they like within the law..I doubt anyone would argue with that,...but I don't agree he would not get a fair trial in Braunschweig. Wolters seems to want to bring evidence that makes a miscarriage of justice Impossible

 

[enquirer6]

The prosecutor has expressed an opinion of guilt, not declared guilt as an absolute legal fact.

Depends which prosecutor you are

It is clear to me that CB and his legal team are using every legal method at their disposal to disrupt the proceedings. Probably in the hope another jurisdiction might not take on all the charges or at least will not be able to argue as strong a case as the team who have been working on it for years.

Where does fairness come into it from CB's viewpoint? It's an independent judge who decides and they don't judge based on public claims in the press from the local prosecutor but on the evidence presented at trial. I don't see why a judge in Braunschweig will be less fair than a judge in Madgeburg. The only people all this isn't fair on is the victims IMO.

I think there's another important point about the way trials are conducted in Germany versus the way they are conducted in England. In England, cases are determined by lay-jurors, and it is to protect their impartiality that there are strict rules limiting, but not prohibiting, comment on proceedings up to and including trial, until AFTER the point that a verdict, either way, is reached.


In Germany, cases are both heard and determined by judges, no deemed sufficiently rigorous and impartial not to allow their judgements to be influenced by pre-trial publicity, just as more senior English judges are not.

 

[Malleux]

My opinion is changing and every day I am more convinced that CB did it. But that doesn't change what I consider to be a mistake by the prosecution, publicly exposing CB as a murderer without legal process. Did any journalist point this out to HCW?

They have followed legal process. In order to make a public appeal (and in turn state their belief that CB is the guilty party) they have to get permission from a judge who assesses the evidence. This is a legal requirement because a public appeal is seen as a last resort, so the judge has to balance the rights of the defendant to not be exposed publicly, against the strength of the suspicion against them. Based on that they decide, if on balance, it is appropriate to allow the public appeal to go ahead.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It very clearly isn't "baseless", else they wouldn't have been permitted to make the public appeal in the first place. It may not be BARD, but it is certainly isn't baseless.


The investigation into CB had already been going on for 3 years in private and they obviously felt the public appeal was necessary in order to see if others could help fill in the blanks about CB's movements. It's about fulfilling their mandate when they already have strong evidence of a crime but not quite enough to convict.

You can argue the about the appropriateness of what HCW has said since then but it in order to do the appeal they had to state the crime they were investigating, which is murder, and the consequence of that means there is a public accusation that they believe CB is a murderer.

Speaking about fairness to the McCanns, they have supported and welcomed the investigation, not criticised it.

i was only responding on the subject of fairness, any points I made were to discuss fairness.

Regarding the bold, considering they are both the parents of the missing child and have previously been suspects in this case, it is rather obvious they would welcome an investigation into an alternative suspect.

I’ve made my position very clear. I hope now we can move on to sleuthing vs who is right etc.

God save the King!

 

[Malleux]

Depends which prosecutor you are

I think there's another important point about the way trials are conducted in Germany versus the way they are conducted in England. In England, cases are determined by lay-jurors, and it is to protect their impartiality that there are strict rules limiting, but not prohibiting, comment on proceedings up to and including trial, until AFTER the point that a verdict, either way, is reached.


In Germany, cases are both heard and determined by judges, no deemed sufficiently rigorous and impartial not to allow their judgements to be influenced by pre-trial publicity, just as more senior English judges are not.

I agree. The situation is a lot different when jurors are involved and could be influenced by press articles and such in the public domain.

When jurors are given their instructions by the court usher they are told not to research the defendant online but a huge proportion of them still do because they just can't help themselves.

In that respect, I personally do think the German system is fairer than the UK one, where you have experienced judges deciding. JMO.

 

[Janosch]

They have followed legal process. In order to make a public appeal (and in turn state their belief that CB is the guilty party) they have to get permission from a judge who assesses the evidence. This is a legal requirement because a public appeal is seen as a last resort, so the judge has to balance the rights of the defendant to not be exposed publicly, against the strength of the suspicion against them. Based on that they decide, if on balance, it is appropriate to allow the public appeal to go ahead.

And who was the Judge that gave permission?

 

[Malleux]

And who was the Judge that gave permission?

I don't know who the specific Judge was sorry, I only know that is the legal process.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

.

 

[Janosch]

I don't know who the specific Judge was sorry, I only know that is the legal process.

Thanks @Malleux
My question points to the fact that the Judge seems to have no jurisdiction to pursue a case against CB. But can he/she give permission to a public appeal which includes the assertion that CB is MM's killer?

 

[Mex]

It's clear to me that CB and his legal team think they are unlikely to receive a fair trial in Braunschweig and that is due to the behaviour of the Braunschweig Prosecutor's Office. So his legal team can't be blamed for taking the actions they have taken in my opinion.

My opinion

We are witness to the equality and fairness of the lesser court in Braunschweig.

We are also witnessing defence lawyers doing their job and pulling rabbits out of hats in strategies to delay ultimate judgement.

Madeleine McCann suspect: defence lawyer pulls ‘rabbit out of hat’

Madeleine McCann suspect: defence lawyer pulls ‘rabbit out of hat’; Prosecutors who claimed ‘concrete evidence’ have no jurisdiction for case

www.portugalresident.com

 

[RichardKimble]

But nothing moves forward anyway until the question of jurisdiction is dealt with. There are still five cases to be sorted out.

Why would any prosecution worth its salt flag up the evidence they hold regarding the MM case to the defence prematurely or until they re ready to do so.

Did the prosecution reveal their evidence before jurisdiction was established when indicting CB on the charges.

 

[Davieson]

My opinion

We are witness to the equality and fairness of the lesser court in Braunschweig.

We are also witnessing defence lawyers doing their job and pulling rabbits out of hats in strategies to delay ultimate judgement.

Madeleine McCann suspect: defence lawyer pulls ‘rabbit out of hat’

Madeleine McCann suspect: defence lawyer pulls ‘rabbit out of hat’; Prosecutors who claimed ‘concrete evidence’ have no jurisdiction for case

www.portugalresident.com

Or to have charges dismissed

 

[Malleux]

Thanks @Malleux
My question points to the fact that the Judge seems to have no jurisdiction to pursue a case against CB. But can he/she give permission to a public appeal which includes the assertion that CB is MM's killer?

They only give permission to make the appeal and in that respect, there will naturally be a public accusation against the defendant from the Prosecutors that they believe the suspect committed this crime.

There are certain restrictions on what can be said, such as not being permitted to give the suspect's full name for example and they aren't allowed to explicitly say "he is guilty", they can however say they believe he committed the crime, which is different. But the Judge cannot directly control the rhetoric from the prosecutors. I think that is what is irking people in this case, legal process has been followed in respect of being able to publicly accuse CB, it seems mainly to be about the appropriateness of some of the prosecutors specific comments. HCW can of course be held accountable if it is felt he has overstepped the legal guidelines but no action has been taken against him thus far.

 

[RichardKimble]

Thanks Misty. But I'm still left wondering why? He's already got Fulscher and Schwenn, two of the best defence lawyers in the country, them having represented major organised crime figures prior to this.

I just can't help but contemplate who is footing this bill?

The state isn't it ?

 

[Mex]

Or to have charges dismissed

I'm not sure why you ask the question. Don't the judges decide what charges will proceed to trial?

Did CB's lawyers ask to have charges reduced as part of the process or did they go straight for the technicality of jurisdiction when all else had failed?

 

[Malleux]

Did the prosecution reveal their evidence before jurisdiction was established when indicting CB on the charges.

Jurisdiction had already been established by the Judiciary. It's that decision that the defence have challenged, based on their assetion that the box factory counts as a domicile, despite it not being a registered residence. I think the prosecutors would argue that it having no utilities makes it an unviable permanent place of residence and it was technically illegal to "live" there unless CB were to apply for a change of use. It was a commercial property not a home.

It's a bit like someone turning around and claiming they'd stopped living in their home and that they were actually living in their workplace in another region, so the prosecutors in their home region no longer have Jurisdiction to charge them. And then putting the onus on the prosecutors to prove their claim of residence was untrue.

 

[RichardKimble]

Jurisdiction had already been established by the Judiciary. It's that decision that the defence have challenged, based on their assetion that the box factory counts as a domicile, despite it not being a registered residence. I think the prosecutors would argue that it having no utilities makes it an unviable permanent place of residence and it was technically illegal to "live" there unless CB were to apply for a change of use. It was a commercial property not a home.

It's a bit like someone turning around and claiming they've stopped living in their house and that they now live in their office in another region so the prosecutors in their home region no longer have Jurisdiction to charge them.

FF said that this was brought up in preliminary hearings, did they therefore jump the gun in assuming rather than waiting.