Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[RichardKimble]

It is only logical to think CB had something to do with MM if there is evidence to prove he did. At this stage, there is no evidence, available to the public, that provides any such proof. Therefore, any conclusion that CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance is based on beliefs or guesswork - this is not logical.

What was it HCW said if you knew the evidence we have you'd reach the same conclusion, obviously only applies to a lay person, more importantly not a panel of judges to which it matters.

 

[Consider Dudley]

When did the last murder/disappearance take place?

The point is there never was any murder or disappearance (carried out by Quick anyway), there were no forensics either because no crimes took place, only confessions and false alerts by a cadaver dog.

 

[Consider Dudley]

It is only logical to think CB had something to do with MM if there is evidence to prove he did. At this stage, there is no evidence, available to the public, that provides any such proof. Therefore, any conclusion that CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance is based on beliefs or guesswork - this is not logical.

There is evidence, just not proof, two different things.

 

[Consider Dudley]

What was it HCW said if you knew the evidence we have you'd reach the same conclusion, obviously only applies to a lay person, more importantly not a panel of judges to which it matters.

Which is why it hasn’t gone to court yet, but as this recent conversation shows some lay people might accept that a photograph of Madeleine post disappearance on CB’s laptop is conclusive evidence of involvement, but IMO this would not necessarily reach the high burden of proof required by a court.

 

[mrjitty]

Which is why it hasn’t gone to court yet, but as this recent conversation shows some lay people might accept that a photograph of Madeleine post disappearance on CB’s laptop is conclusive evidence of involvement, but IMO this would not necessarily reach the high burden of proof required by a court.

I think the answer depends on the nature of the photo and the corroborating evidence.

But if it could definitely be proved the photo was post disappearance, IMO you are close to or beyond the conviction threshold if you have multiple confession witnesses, Das Book etc

 

[Lyall0814]

Lyall, the last of the victims was 30 years ago, the first 70 years ago. I said the last 25 years to be relevant to MM and reflect modern forensics.

What happened in Sweden is relevant. It showed the errors prosecutors and psychologists - and judges - can make and do make, particularly when they are relying heavily on 'confession' evidence. For all we know something of a similar phenomenon may be involved in Germany's MM investigation.

 

[sandy_80]

There is a body and forensics in the case of Susan Berman. He wasn’t charged or convicted of the 1982 disappearance of his wife.

To be the same as MM, we need a murder conviction from a case without forensics or a body that happened in the last 25 years.

Susan Berman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

he was indicted for his wife murder

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1051278966/robert-durst-indicted-1982-murder-wife-kathie

the prosecutor used all three crimes for get a conviction..meaning his wife murder was part of it ..
thats how I understood it

Lead prosecutor shares courtroom strategy that took down Robert Durst

 

[Denis R Tandib]

What happened in Sweden is relevant. It showed the errors prosecutors and psychologists - and judges - can make and do make, particularly when they are relying heavily on 'confession' evidence. For all we know something of a similar phenomenon may be involved in Germany's MM investigation.

I agree with that, I made a similar point.

However, I asked for an example with specified criteria to show that in this day and age, it is impossible to get a murder conviction without a body or forensics. I don’t think they get to trial because they are unlikely to get a conviction.

If my suspicions are right, this is why there has been no charge against CB for a crime against MM… nor will there be IMO.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

he was indicted for his wife murder

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1051278966/robert-durst-indicted-1982-murder-wife-kathie

the prosecutor used all three crimes for get a conviction..meaning his wife murder was part of it ..
thats how I understood it

Lead prosecutor shares courtroom strategy that took down Robert Durst

It doesn’t meet the conditions I specified - not nearly.

1. He was not convicted of the 1982 murder of his wife. This would be a no body case (albeit more than 40 years ago) but no conviction was obtained.

2. He was convicted of the 2000 murder of Sandra Bernan but there was a body and forensics in this case.

In the MM case, there is no body and no forensics. How can the prosecution even prove death?

 

[Consider Dudley]

I think the answer depends on the nature of the photo and the corroborating evidence.

But if it could definitely be proved the photo was post disappearance, IMO you are close to or beyond the conviction threshold if you have multiple confession witnesses, Das Book etc

Close to I agree but unless the photo also clearly also shows CB or his camper van in the picture I think the prosecutor is wise not to assume a slam dunk conviction and to look for further evidence.

 

[Consider Dudley]

It doesn’t meet the conditions I specified - not nearly.

1. He was not convicted of the 1982 murder of his wife. This would be a no body case (albeit more than 40 years ago) but no conviction was obtained.

2. He was convicted of the 2000 murder of Sandra Bernan but there was a body and forensics in this case.

In the MM case, there is no body and no forensics. How can the prosecution even prove death?

perhaps this one meets your criteria? Murder of Suzanne Pilley - Wikipedia

 

[Anxala]

I'll be more convinced when he has actually laid charges against CB for the murder of MM and had them accepted by a judge to go to trial
Until then it's just all talk.

Essentially, that's the nuts and bolts of things, isn't it? We're just passing time in the interim.

If/when the time comes (and I really hope it does because this really seems like last chance saloon for MM), what's going to interest me most is the 5A aspect and how MM allegedly came into CB's possession. I think anyone who's followed this case from the beginning will understand why clarity on this is so important.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Essentially, that's the nuts and bolts of things, isn't it? We're just passing time in the interim.

If/when the time comes (and I really hope it does because this really seems like last chance saloon for MM), what's going to interest me most is the 5A aspect and how MM allegedly came into CB's possession. I think anyone who's followed this case from the beginning will understand why clarity on this is so important.

Hypothesising - if the BKA have a photo of post disappearance Madeleine from CB’s hard drive (according to some on here this would be strong enough evidence to take it to trial when taking all the other evidence into account) but cannot demonstrate exactly how CB gained access to her from the apartment what crime would he would be charged with?

 

[Mex]

You have misunderstood the point I am making.

CB has already allegedly confessed to the crime to witnesses. My point is, that without support from forensics, these statements are easy to defend. This is likely why the MM case has not progressed since the appeal. IMO, it will not progress unless there is more than hearsay evidence.

Interestingly hearsay evidence is admissible in German courts but how defensible it may is another question altogether.

There is no way of telling how many credible witnesses he said things to which might have sounded a bit odd at the time but which became as clear as day when put into the context of his now known profile.

The weakness in your argument that there has been no progress is that it is opinion unsupported by evidence because you have no knowledge of what the evidence is and how much of it will be admissible for use in court.

We have been told there is circumstantial evidence.

But I'm not sure putting up a case for lack of evidence is appropriate while the investigation is still a live one.
My opinion

 

[Lyall0814]

It doesn’t meet the conditions I specified - not nearly.

1. He was not convicted of the 1982 murder of his wife. This would be a no body case (albeit more than 40 years ago) but no conviction was obtained.

2. He was convicted of the 2000 murder of Sandra Bernan but there was a body and forensics in this case.

In the MM case, there is no body and no forensics. How can the prosecution even prove death?

There was a BBC programme in August about the trial of William MacDowell in Scotland for the murders of Renee and Andrew MacRae. Very interesting and (imo) relevant if you didn't see it. It's on Iplayer. (No spoiler just in case)

Murder Trial - The Disappearance of Renee and Andrew MacRae: Episode 1

 

[Mex]

It is only logical to think CB had something to do with MM if there is evidence to prove he did. At this stage, there is no evidence, available to the public, that provides any such proof. Therefore, any conclusion that CB is responsible for MM’s disappearance is based on beliefs or guesswork - this is not logical.

Evidence is not proof until it has been tested and proven. Until then it is probably best to consider it as intelligence.

What is the usual approach to any other case involving a police suspect in a criminal investigation?

It is usual for the police to be allowed to get on with their jobs without criticism.

Why doesn't that approach appear to be reflected in the MM case?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Evidence is not proof until it has been tested and proven. Until then it is probably best to consider it as intelligence.

What is the usual approach to any other case involving a police suspect in a criminal investigation?

It is usual for the police to be allowed to get on with their jobs without criticism.

Why doesn't that approach appear to be reflected in the MM case?

My response to @onemoremiletogo was to point out that police activity, the suspect’s letters to media outlets and his profile are not logical reasons to suggest he is guilty. He suggested that these things logically make CB guilty, which is untrue.

It is logical to doubt guilt and be sceptical of a suspects involvement in a crime until proven otherwise. This is not my opinion, it’s the way our legal systems operate.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Interestingly hearsay evidence is admissible in German courts but how defensible it may is another question altogether.

There is no way of telling how many credible witnesses he said things to which might have sounded a bit odd at the time but which became as clear as day when put into the context of his now known profile.

The weakness in your argument that there has been no progress is that it is opinion unsupported by evidence because you have no knowledge of what the evidence is and how much of it will be admissible for use in court.

We have been told there is circumstantial evidence.

But I'm not sure putting up a case for lack of evidence is appropriate while the investigation is still a live one.
My opinion

My opinion is supported by the lack of progress in the case and the diminishing conviction of the prosecution’s public statements.

That, and the fact that a no body case without forensics is almost impossible to win. These points form my opinion.

 

[Mex]

It doesn’t meet the conditions I specified - not nearly.

1. He was not convicted of the 1982 murder of his wife. This would be a no body case (albeit more than 40 years ago) but no conviction was obtained.

2. He was convicted of the 2000 murder of Sandra Bernan but there was a body and forensics in this case.

In the MM case, there is no body and no forensics. How can the prosecution even prove death?

Murders without a body

Allison McGarrigle - vanished in June 1997 and was formally declared dead eight years later. Paedophiles Charles O'Neill and William Lauchlan were later jailed for her murder.

Arlene Fraser - disappeared from the family home in Smith Street, Elgin, Moray, on 28 April, 1998. Her husband Nat was found guilty of her murder after a second trial in 2012

Suzanne Pilley - The Edinburgh book keeper went missing in May 2010. Her lover David Gilroy was later convicted of her murder and burying her in a remote part of Argyll.

Lynda Spence - The businesswoman disappeared in April 2011 Colin Coats and Philip Wade were found guilty of abducting, torturing and murdering the 27-year-old.

Murder cases where there is no body are still extremely rare in Scottish courts, but prosecutors say technology has increased the likelihood of them being brought before a jury.

Kenny Donnelly, a procurator fiscal at the High Court, said: "In today's society, it is very difficult to go completely unnoticed and undetected. There are digital footprints and this information can be gathered quickly and with greater reach than ever before.

"This growing expertise, together with developments in case law, forensic examination and investigative tools has led to the Crown challenging the boundaries of the circumstantial case and considering proceedings in matters which may once have been considered lacking in sufficient evidence."
___________________________________________

Margaret Fleming: How do you solve a murder without a body

The body of Margaret, who was 19 when she was last seen in Inverkip, has never been found.

Det Supt Livingstone said: "Everybody we spoke to had not seen her since 1999."

The investigation that followed unearthed a story of neglect, exploitation, fraud and murder.

It also posed the ultimate test for detectives and prosecutors: how do you secure a conviction without a body?

The scale of the task facing police was highlighted when Cairney and Jones could not help them obtain a forensic profile of Margaret.

The random items they handed over - a tartan jumper, blue T-shirt, socks and a toy penguin - contained no trace of the former college student.

If it wasn't for a routine blood sample taken shortly after she was born on 1 November, 1980, then officers would have been unable to get any of her DNA. These samples are not always retained by the NHS but, fortunately, Margaret's was.

The DNA profile was compared against a number of unidentified bodies and body parts across the UK but there was no match.

The search operation, including a full excavation of the garden, took six months but also found no trace of Margaret.
___________________________________________

"To do what they have ultimately done and to just cover it up and get away with it for so long is beyond wickedness."
As Cairney and Jones each face at least 14 years in prison, the senior detective has a simple message for the carers turned killers.
He said: "Your lies and deceit have caught up with you so, for once, just think about Margaret. That wee girl deserves a proper funeral."

Margaret Fleming: How do you solve a murder without a body?

The detective who helped bring Edward Cairney and Avril Jones to justice describes how his team cracked the case.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Mex]

My opinion is supported by the lack of progress in the case and the diminishing conviction of the prosecution’s public statements.

That, and the fact that a no body case without forensics is almost impossible to win. These points form my opinion.

There has been no indictment in MM's case. Nor is there any necessity for undue haste regarding that fact for the simple reasons

• the suspect is already in custody
• the suspect still has two years of his current sentence to serve
• investigators are still in the field working MM's case most recently as far as we know, at the Arade dam