Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #33

[Malleux]

The most telling of all and its the same in both cases, the victim and suspect cannot be placed together.

We don't "know" if that's the case in terms of CB and MM. As I mentioned previously, HCW seemed very reluctant to address the question of forensic evidence linking CB and MM. He would only state that there was no forensic evidence of her death, even though the questions were directly about forensic evidence linking one party to the other.

ETA: there could also be other evidence linking the pair for all we know, such as a photo, a confession or something CB wrote in Das Buch.

 

[Pixie Child]

In theory, CB could take legal action for defamation, libel or HR violation based on what the Prosecutors have said. He hasn't done so. IMO that is probably because he would have to show that the accusations are unfounded - and he can't.

That is the bit that I think some people are finding strange about this case, the public accusation. The reality - and the most plausible explanation for it - is that the Prosecutors are confident the evidence is substantial enough to protect them from any claims of any violation of CB's rights. JMO.

CB can’t take an action for defamation because as a convicted rapist & pardophile, he has no reputation to defend. The Judiciary (unlike a jury) cannot be influenced by tabloids or Prosecutor statements. CB may be in solitary/protected from avenging inmates.

So it’s unusual but this is a perfect case for accusing CB of being the murderer in order to collect evidence.

 

[Deleted member 268165]

They don't need forensic evidence. I think many here underestimate Wolters and the BKA

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?

 

[Mex]

With out a body and a clear sighting of any suspect then it was and will always remain a complicated case imo.

It was in my opinion, a far more complicated case than it ever needed to be even when taking into consideration the difficulties involved in any child abduction case.

But even considering the initial mistakes which were made in the investigation, that some excellent work was carried is irrefutable when one considers the groundwork to which later investigators had access many years after the event.

To support that opinion, I refer to the official files, not the internet version to which we have access and the work which was carried out via the cell dump etc.

I think it is more than a “complicated” case. I think it is more in line with being an impossible one.

Which makes the evidence gathering involved to take it to where it is today one of the most extraordinary investigative feats in the history of policing.

 

[Dave55]

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?

From everything he has said he could well have a video of abuse...hel needs a link to CB to prove his involvement...CB seemed to like making videos. Is the link the MO that runs through all the rapes......It does explain everything.

 

[Trivento]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Referring to forensic evidence question from Janosch above … at around 2.36 into attached clip ( from interview Sep. 2020 ) , HCW said it is not necessary to have forensic evidence to charge CB , but they do need more of other types of evidence ( perhaps they have that now ? )

 

[Deleted member 268165]

From everything he has said he could well have a video of abuse...hel needs a link to CB to prove his involvement...CB seemed to like making videos. Is the link the MO that runs through all the rapes......It does explain everything.

Yes, I think we all see the Modus Operandi of CB. And think we all consider that CB has the criminological and psychological characteristics of a person who would commit MM's crime. What I want now is to see the proof he did it.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Fair enough, Misty and Malleux. We shall see if it's actually an easy issue to resolve and not something that will result in considerable delay.

The thing for me if when people like Clarke - who wants us to believe he's in regular contact with Wolters, and maybe even investigating for the prosecutors - say the strategy might actually be to try to convince CB to confess, after he's been convicted on the other charges and begins to understand he's never going to be going to be a free man again, alarm bells start ringing. That makes me even more suspicious than I already was that a good deal of Wolters says is bluffing.

(JMO though!)

"...he's never going to be a free man again"
Yes, IMO too. This appears to be "solved" only by a confession for "better" prison conditions.

 

[G-Unit]

I agree there are some uncanny parallels in terms of the public accusation. The overriding point though is that, for all it seems that Cannan was unfairly publicly accused, he's had no joy in taking any legal action over it. The reason - he can't show the claims are unfounded.

If you don't have the money to sue them people can say what they like about you. If you are pronounced guilty before you're tried it affects your right to the presumption of innocence, however, and your right to a fair trial.

 

[Malleux]

If you don't have the money to sue them people can say what they like about you. If you are pronounced guilty before you're tried it affects your right to the presumption of innocence, however, and your right to a fair trial.

Technically, HCW hasn't pronounced him guilty. But I understand what you're trying to get at in terms of the rhetoric. At the end of the day, when a public appeal is felt necessary, the Prosecutors in Germany first have to go before a Judge who will balance the rights of the defendant with the strength of the suspicion against them when deciding if it can go ahead.

Also, if it was a Jury case then you could argue people's views might be tainted by the public accusations. That's not the case here though, if this goes to trial it will be decided by a Judge. To assume CB would not be given a fair trail would be to assume a dereliction of duty by the Judiciary who have to form their judgement purely based on the evidence and not Prosecutor claims or tabloid gossip.

 

[Anxala]

Technically, HCW hasn't pronounced him guilty.

He absolutely has. Technically and all other ways. Technically means according to facts. How clearer can it be? And this is just one instance when HCW has done exactly that:

He added: “We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann. The investigation is still going on and I think we found some new facts, some new evidence – not forensic evidence, but evidence.”

Madeleine McCann: ‘new evidence’ linked to suspect found, prosecutor says

German prosecutor says investigators are sure Christian Brückner killed three-year-old and have ‘new facts’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Malleux]

He absolutely has.

He added: “We are sure that he is the murderer of Madeleine McCann. We are sure that he killed Madeleine McCann. The investigation is still going on and I think we found some new facts, some new evidence – not forensic evidence, but evidence.”

Nope. It's a strongly worded statement, I agree, but he has never technically said "CB is guilty". He is stating the opinion of the office. They are "sure".

I know it may seem like nitpicking but for good reason he has been careful not to explicitly say "CB is guilty". What he has done is state the firm opinion of the Prosecutors office that they are confident they have the right man based on their evidence. There is a difference, at least in a legal sense.

 

[Mex]

Nope. It's a strongly worded statement, I agree, but he has never technically said "CB is guilty". He is stating the opinion of the office. They are "sure".

I know it may seem like nitpicking but for good reason he has been careful not to explicitly say "CB is guilty". What he has done is state the firm opinion of the Prosecutors office that they are confident they have the right man based on their evidence. There is a difference, at least in a legal sense.

We really do not have to see the evidence which entails a person of interest becoming a suspect. Nor would we expect in any other case to see all the evidence to be convinced the police have got it right. Yet in the MM case it seems there is a demand and an absolute expectation to know all the confidences and operational matters of the investigation before charges are even laid.

I take on board the suspect’s right to the presumption of innocence. That is so for every suspect but CB I think has fallen victim to the spotlight and the criteria imposed on very few other investigations or prosecution bodies as the MM case does.

I think a prosecutor of HCW’s standing knows his job and won’t prejudice either the suspect’s rights or by the same token prejudice the case being made.

Scrutiny is fine and to be welcomed. But the negativity and the intensity directed against those who in particular are seeking information and evidenc which who knows, might even exonerate the suspect, has been controversial since inception of the suggestion the MM case might have a chance of being solved.

 

[Malleux]

We really do not have to see the evidence which entails a person of interest becoming a suspect. Nor would we expect in any other case to see all the evidence to be convinced the police have got it right. Yet in the MM case it seems there is a demand and an absolute expectation to know all the confidences and operational matters of the investigation before charges are even laid.

I take on board the suspect’s right to the presumption of innocence. That is so for every suspect but CB I think has fallen victim to the spotlight and the criteria imposed on very few other investigations or prosecution bodies as the MM case does.

I think a prosecutor of HCW’s standing knows his job and won’t prejudice either the suspect’s rights or by the same token prejudice the case being made.

Scrutiny is fine and to be welcomed. But the negativity and the intensity directed against those who in particular are seeking information and evidenc which who knows, might even exonerate the suspect, has been controversial since inception of the suggestion the MM case might have a chance of being solved.

Another great post and accurate summation IMO.

 

[Chelly]

I think I am asking a very dumb question, so apologies in advance...Why is CB being held in Germany for crimes he committed in Portugal?

 

[Malleux]

I think I am asking a very dumb question, so apologies in advance...Why is CB being held in Germany for crimes he committed in Portugal?

Not dumb at all. Held in Germany on other charges committed abroad which Germany can claim jurisdiction for based on their legal system because he is a German citizen. Portugal could have tried him too if they wanted and would have had primacy if arrested there, if they were arsed of course.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It was in my opinion, a far more complicated case than it ever needed to be even when taking into consideration the difficulties involved in any child abduction case.

But even considering the initial mistakes which were made in the investigation, that some excellent work was carried is irrefutable when one considers the groundwork to which later investigators had access many years after the event.

To support that opinion, I refer to the official files, not the internet version to which we have access and the work which was carried out via the cell dump etc.

I think it is more than a “complicated” case. I think it is more in line with being an impossible one.

Which makes the evidence gathering involved to take it to where it is today one of the most extraordinary investigative feats in the history of policing.

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.

 

[Chelly]

Not dumb at all. Held in Germany on other charges committed abroad which Germany can claim jurisdiction for based on their legal system because he is a German citizen. Portugal could have tried him too if they wanted and would have had primacy if arrested there, if they were arsed of course.

Thank you. Your explanation is very helpful.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

We really do not have to see the evidence which entails a person of interest becoming a suspect. Nor would we expect in any other case to see all the evidence to be convinced the police have got it right. Yet in the MM case it seems there is a demand and an absolute expectation to know all the confidences and operational matters of the investigation before charges are even laid.

I take on board the suspect’s right to the presumption of innocence. That is so for every suspect but CB I think has fallen victim to the spotlight and the criteria imposed on very few other investigations or prosecution bodies as the MM case does.

I think a prosecutor of HCW’s standing knows his job and won’t prejudice either the suspect’s rights or by the same token prejudice the case being made.

Scrutiny is fine and to be welcomed. But the negativity and the intensity directed against those who in particular are seeking information and evidenc which who knows, might even exonerate the suspect, has been controversial since inception of the suggestion the MM case might have a chance of being solved.

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.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Some recent posts have been removed.

Everyone, please read The Rules. Random social media, FB, Twitter, etc are not approved sources at Websleuths.

Rules - Social Media - Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I could create a social media account as SantaClaus @theRealSantaClaus and say anything at all but that does not make it true.

Read The Rules and post accordingly or your post will be removed.

Thank you.