www.thesun.ie
The two cases illustrate the role of surveillance. James Bulger was abducted from under his mother's nose. Madeleine was abducted while fast asleep in her own bed and being watched on regularly by the McCanns or their friends, just as the children of other members of the holidaying group were.
Not everyone subscribes to the naive belief that a sleeping child needs no supervision.
James Bulger was with his mum at their local shops during the day. His abductors took advantage of his mum’s lapse of concentration. This was unintentional on her part. I think most parents can understand how this happened and do not attribute blame to his mum.The two cases illustrate the role of surveillance. James Bulger was abducted from under his mother's nose. Madeleine was abducted while fast asleep in her own bed and being watched on regularly by the McCanns or their friends, just as the children of other members of the holidaying group were.
Peter Voisey took his victim from the bath of a ground-floor flat, and while the whole family was in.
Levels of surveillance, no matter how strict, can never completely guarantee the safety of a child.
Crimes that shocked Tyneside: Peter Voisey bath snatch case
IN the Chronicle’s series on the region’s most notorious crimes, Lisa Hutchinson steps back to December 2005 to take a look at the horrific bath snatch case which shocked the nation.www.chroniclelive.co.uk
Well that's interesting/curious on a number of levels:Maddie's parents' joy as £13m probe into disappearance gets another £300k
THE parents of Madeleine McCann have been offered a new lifeline in the hunt for their daughter as police have been given more time and money to continue searching. It was feared the inquiry into M…
There was nothing intentional on the part of Kate and Gerry or their friends about the abduction of Madeleine.
They have to convince a judge first, don't they?
Wolters is the press spokesman for the Braunschweig prosecutor's office which is in charge of investigating Brueckner. The BKA is not responsible for what Wolters says.
Can you please provide a link?
IMO the case files regarding the other 5 crimes will be very detailed & heavy. The BKA took their time & now the defence are taking theirs. Fulscher likes to go after technicalities, extraction rules & other administrative or paperwork process. But when it comes to hard evidence Fulscher comes up short. Tough client, elite LEA! Fulscher is slowing everything down & IMO it’s because he has little to work with to build a strong defence. He’s buying some time. Fulscher already knows the request to have the DM case reopened would fail, but he chose to do it anyway. I think 5 charges & possibly 1 or 2 unexpected (by us) charges will come very soon. HCW commented that he thought there were more victims of sexual crime before the victims even came forward (as a consequence of the appeal), therefore they must have something that indicates that CB comitted multiple sexual crimes. For that reason I think these linked cases may share some of the same types of evidence. E.G the evidence in the HB case could give us a clue about what they’d have in the MM cases. It’s taking a lot longer than any of us thought it would but I think when it this progresses we’ll all see why.It's way too quiet right now IMO!
No Wolters, no Fülscher, no Brueckner. Nothing!!!
Meanwhile, a big darkweb based trial in relation to peadophilia running in germany (Boystown).
Some kind of deal between all of them going on? Nobody is blaming prosecutors actually, as it has been made over the last two years? The alleged re-hearing appeal of the Diana M. trial as a kind of legal negotiaton quantity, that could be some kind of way to delay the HB case, according to the BKA assessment?
How interesting! What's going on? Has he started to "unpack" maybe?
Hopefully we’ll find out if your opinions are correct sometime soon.
No, it was on tv. HLN is the channel it was on. Hopefully, they will repeat it. I'd like to see it again myself.
Right....but also not that right at all, maybe!
FF knows how the judicial system is working. Not more, not less. And he is doing a good job so far, just to be honest.Right....but maybe not that right at all, maybe!
Building up a case based on evidence, whilst somebody ist trying to put that evidence in denial, could be some kind of strategy.....
It's kind of obvious that HCW leads a circumstancial evidedence case, like the Australians are heading up to, according to the Simone Strobel case e.g..
Circumstancial evidence is still evidence, but vulnerable by doubt. Sowing doubt, is a legit strategy to weaken the case!
If the case is based up upon circumstancial evidence upon a profilers assessment, just try to attack the assessment!
IMO Fülschers achievements to attack the DM rape sentence are nothing more than strategy. Legit, of course! And it wouldn't make any sense to face a charge, until some court rejected the appeal for the re-trial maybe?!
But also an foreseeable step as well....
We'll see!
Good point Superdad. IMO reopening the DM rape case is a stalling tactic to slow things down. I think that because Fulscher admitted it would likely fail, therefore the only benefit from doing it (IMO) is to slow things down. I think his criminal profile evidenced by whatever evidence they have in the HB case may be used as the evidence in the 2 other rape cases. HCW said that they thought CB had committed other sexual crimes in the area and he said this even before the victims came forward. I think they have circumstantial evidence that he comitted sexual crimes but possibly not directly tied to individuals, but admissions in the form of written accounts & witness testimony. I think they’ll soon arrest him for 5 cases & possibly 1 or 2 we didn’t expect. Maybe they need to wait for the appeal to reopen the DM case to fail. It’s certainly taken a lot longer than anticipated. IMO it’s taken so long because there are Multiple victims, from various counties, being investigated by the German police for crimes committed in Portugal. Then add a global pandemicRight....but also not that right at all, maybe!
Building up a case based on evidence, whilst somebody ist trying to put that evidence in denial, could be some kind of strategy.....
It's kind of obvious that HCW leads a circumstancial evidedence case, like the Australians are heading up to, according to the Simone Strobel case e.g..
Circumstancial evidence is still evidence, but vulnerable by doubt. Sowing doubt, is a legit strategy to weaken the case!
If the case is based up upon circumstancial evidence upon a profilers assessment, just try to attack the assessment!
IMO Fülschers achievements to attack the DM rape sentence are nothing more than strategy. Legit, of course! And it wouldn't make any sense to face a charge, until some court rejected the appeal for the re-trial maybe?!
But also an foreseeable step as well....
We'll see!
