Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[SuperdadV8]

Can the BKA question CB in relation to MM like they did (or didn't in 2013) whilst he is in prison now, as suggested by HCW in recent reports?
Not that he'll speak from what FF has said.

Or do they have to charge him first (prior to questioning) now that he has been declared a suspect?

They can. There is no need to charge before interrogation.

But being questioned as the suspect (not witness e.g) gives the suspect the right to decide if or what to confirm or not, after watching the files. Even in this case!

So it's usually the final step before charging someone.

 

[tedtink]

They can. There is no need to charge before interrogation.

But being questioned as the suspect (not witness e.g) gives the suspect to decide if or what to confirm or not, after watching the files. Even in this case!

So it's usually the final step before charging someone.

Thank you
So how soon could they question him after handing over the files?
For instance, is there a certain amount of time given to the defence team before perp is questioned?

 

[mrjitty]

In Germany the suspect has access to all the evidence against them soon after arrest. That's a reason given by HCW as to why CB hadn't been questioned yet

It's a basic principle of discovery across jurisdictions.

We don't allow people to be arrested, charged, jailed, arraigned etc based on secret evidence.

This is why I don't like what HCW is doing. By stating point blank CB is guilty, but without charging or arresting, the accused cannot defend himself, which is a breach of natural justice, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

They can. There is no need to charge before interrogation.

But being questioned as the suspect (not witness e.g) gives the suspect the right to decide if or what to confirm or not, after watching the files. Even in this case!

So it's usually the final step before charging someone.

The UK has some similar rules

If you want to question someone around evidence you hold, then you have to disclose. Otherwise it becomes trial by ambush.

 

[tedtink]

It's a basic principle of discovery across jurisdictions.

We don't allow people to be arrested, charged, jailed, arraigned etc based on secret evidence.

This is why I don't like what HCW is doing. By stating point blank CB is guilty, but without charging or arresting, the accused cannot defend himself, which is a breach of natural justice, IMO.

And yet there doesn't seem to be anyone protesting against it in any media outlet except FF, which is also odd imo.
Seems like media is 'happy' to let this run or just to 'sort of close' the case whatever the outcome.

Like Brunt said......."An unhappy conclusion with questions that might never be answered"

 

[Ardoch]

I do think it's interesting how many people are willing to assume guilt based on the mere say so of a german prosecutor.

As a lawyer - that is a place I am never going, as a matter of principle

Put your evidence on the table.

Anyone know what kind of work reputation he's had up to this? If it's been discussed earlier, let me know and I'll search.

I can't honestly believe that he's a lone wolf standing up and making these statements without some kind of backup either by evidence and also a team behind him.
What exactly is a 'First Prosecutor' in Germany?

 

[Dave55]

It's a basic principle of discovery across jurisdictions.

We don't allow people to be arrested, charged, jailed, arraigned etc based on secret evidence.

This is why I don't like what HCW is doing. By stating point blank CB is guilty, but without charging or arresting, the accused cannot defend himself, which is a breach of natural justice, IMO.

He could defend himself...he could say where he was and who he was with that night. I think Wolters is in a difficult position and is trying to put pressure on CB. Is it fair...that's another question. He isn't saying he is guilty...he is not saying he has proof...he's saying he has concrete evidence.

 

[Ardoch]

They can. There is no need to charge before interrogation.

But being questioned as the suspect (not witness e.g) gives the suspect the right to decide if or what to confirm or not, after watching the files. Even in this case!

So it's usually the final step before charging someone.

I expect that he'll have been advised to give the "no comment" reply.

 

[tedtink]

I can't honestly believe that he's a lone wolf standing up and making these statements without some kind of backup either by evidence and also a team behind him.
What exactly is a 'First Prosecutor' in Germany?

Agree with that too.

 

[Dlk79]

So w

That seems to be the sum total of research. So no studies to see if the dog can be fooled by stale urine and other substances. As regards the 12 month test I've seen that study and as I understand the building was totally sealed.
I still don't see how an alert outside could happen with no physical remains . The scent would be dissipated

To be honest, I'm not convinced by the "alert" given in the garden outside 5A. It didn't seem to me to be a strong alert by Eddie. Almost as though, he could smell something familiar but wasn't convinced about it.

Should be noted though that cadaver dogs have been known to locate outdoors to places where a body has at some time been left, but later moved. I think in the Caylee Anthony case, the dogs alerted to cadaver scent in the mother's car and a spot in their garden, and this was just over a month after she was killed.

Regarding the building experiment, while it wouldn't have experienced the same level of disturbance as 5A, the fact that remnant cadaver scent could still be sniffed out by the dogs a year later does at least prove that even without a body, the smell has quite a long half-life. And so, it is at least 'possible' that cadaver scent might still be evident in 5A when the dogs were sent there 3 months later. (Assuming of course, that is what Eddie alerted to).

As for whether dog's have been tested with other scents to see if they give false alerts, that is part of their basic training. To check that all they alert to is the correct scent. Any dogs which don't make the grade don't qualify for deployment. But yes, the same as humans, dogs can make mistakes.

 

[Ardoch]

He could defend himself...he could say where he was and who he was with that night. I think Wolters is in a difficult position and is trying to put pressure on CB. Is it fair...that's another question. He isn't saying he is guilty...he is not saying he has proof...he's saying he has concrete evidence.

Pressure to confess? Has this been his reasoning behind going to the press and making these interviews all along?

 

[SuperdadV8]

Thank you
So how soon could they question him after handing over the files?
For instance, is there a certain amount of time given to the defence team before perp is questioned?

Usually for fixing the date and time the prosecuters are in charge and the suspect will recieve a subpoena. According to CB, he will be brought from prison to the prosecuters office. It's on him, to speak to his solicitor or not.

If he refuses to speak, he will be interrogated anyway and a protocol of it will be made. It doesn't matter, if his solicitor is present at interrogation, or writes a letter in which he tells for his client to remain silent until given access to the files.

The prosecuters may decide, if another interrogation after handing out files will be made or not. Access to the files is more related to defence, not the investigation itself. So that access should be granted, if the process of investigation is finished. Otherwise it could jeopardise that process.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Pressure to confess? Has this been his reasoning behind going to the press and making these interviews all along?

IMO that pressure is more likely a possible result to the public investigation, than it's purpose.

 

[mrjitty]

He could defend himself...he could say where he was and who he was with that night. I think Wolters is in a difficult position and is trying to put pressure on CB. Is it fair...that's another question. He isn't saying he is guilty...he is not saying he has proof...he's saying he has concrete evidence.

It would be a strange state of affairs to require the suspect to make statements that would be admissible against him in Court, without disclosing the evidence against him relating to those statements.

This whole situation is so unusual. I have never come across it before.

 

[C.greek]

To be honest, I'm not convinced by the "alert" given in the garden outside 5A. It didn't seem to me to be a strong alert by Eddie. Almost as though, he could smell something familiar but wasn't convinced about it.

Should be noted though that cadaver dogs have been known to locate outdoors to places where a body has at some time been left, but later moved. I think in the Caylee Anthony case, the dogs alerted to cadaver scent in the mother's car and a spot in their garden, and this was just over a month after she was killed.

Regarding the building experiment, while it wouldn't have experienced the same level of disturbance as 5A, the fact that remnant cadaver scent could still be sniffed out by the dogs a year later does at least prove that even without a body, the smell has quite a long half-life. And so, it is at least 'possible' that cadaver scent might still be evident in 5A when the dogs were sent there 3 months later. (Assuming of course, that is what Eddie alerted to).

As for whether dog's have been tested with other scents to see if they give false alerts, that is part of their basic training. To check that all they alert to is the correct scent. Any dogs which don't make the grade don't qualify for deployment. But yes, the same as humans, dogs can make mistakes.

I think we are really going in circles regarding the dogs. The PJ initially doubted the handler's approach, almost like saying that the handler cued Eddie as I quoted above from the files. Moreover, Eddie could have given an alert to some other scent, ie other bodily fluids which keela was not trained to detect.

As much as i love dogs and admire their abilities(I am part of a trial of canine detection of covid19), I am sceptical about their handler and what scent Eddie detected that Keela did not. Forensics analysis did not show blood but did find DNA behind the sofa under the tiles etc which in one instance surprisingly belonged to the forensic analyst on the scene... in this kind of botched investigation I cannot trust anyone.

It's the first time now with CB that I hear of concrete evidence. It is the first time that an actual dangerous person is suspected of this crime. I am not here to throw doubts on HCW's approach, I am here to try and help his investigation.

 

[SuperdadV8]

Anyone know what kind of work reputation he's had up to this? If it's been discussed earlier, let me know and I'll search.

I can't honestly believe that he's a lone wolf standing up and making these statements without some kind of backup either by evidence and also a team behind him.
What exactly is a 'First Prosecutor' in Germany?

A prosecuters office is filled with a lot of prosecuters.

The so called first prosecuter (1. Staatsanwalt) is the head of a group of them.

 

[Chiatos]

The use of these dogs was suggested by the NPIA
P.J. POLICE FILES: MARK HARRISON NATIONAL SEARCH ADVISER

Thanks for reminding me of this page. I had read it in the past and now I have refreshed my memory.
For all EVRD alerts (car, sofa, pink toy and clothing) Grimes has stated that they can't be considered to be evidential or intelligence reliable unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

I believe that the scent in the vehicle was traced back to meat/fish that had been in the boot(?)
So much has been written about the blood droplets by the sofa, that I don't know where to look anymore .....

Makes one wonder where that cadaver scent on the clothing and pink toy came from ...

 

[C.greek]

Access to the files is more related to defence, not the investigation itself. So that access should be granted, if the process of investigation is finished. Otherwise it could jeopardise that process.

That's very interesting and explains IMO why CB hasn't been charged yet. I also tend to think that CB has spoken to FF about the case, and this is what has silenced FF. Jmo!

 

[Chiatos]

I think that the majority of the solid evidence cannot be found in the PJ files.
I have a suspicion that the majority of the evidence has been found in cyberspace.
Nothing to do with the statements of the T's, nothing to do with the dog alerts, nothing to do with the minor stuff we know of in the PJ files...

 

[SuperdadV8]

That's very interesting and explains IMO why CB hasn't been charged yet. I also tend to think that CB has spoken to FF about the case, and this is what has silenced FF. Jmo!

I agree with that. After some announced bombshells that never came, the solicitor stays quiet.

If my theory of a chance find from bigger darkweb investigations turns out as correct, the solicitor could be assuming a big avalanche of accusations could become present. By now, it is a manageable verdict, according to MM. The possible evidence against CB is managable by existing files and some witness statements from the media.

Like @mrjitty comprehensible and frequently states, what is known is not much that could justify calling someone a murderer in public.

But if the major clue in the MM case is buried in the bigger darkweb BKA investigations, FF should be groping in the dark about the things, he will probably have do deal with. So it's better to remain silent and not to focus to much on the vanishing out of 5A IMO. Because if footage of MM may exist on the darkweb, she had been removed from there. So the circumstances around that shouldn't take the major part in that murder case. Especially if CB may haven't took her by himself for example.

Telling what they have wouldn't just jeopardise the MM case but maybe many others either. That child dark web thing is way bigger than we might assume.

And if my theory turns out as true, the public investigation has just one target. Finding more evidence like footage and at least one dead body.

JMO