Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #34

[mrjitty]

Maybe we must stop speculating and returning to the basic and sure data?

BKA updated October 11, 2022:

Fahndung nach Personen - Zeugenaufruf - Verschwinden der Madeleine McCANN

www.bka.de

No updates in the pages of MET and PJ.

Right.

Quite apart from anything I don't think prosecutors work by trying to drop subtle hints about the case via micro-selecting individual words. What would be the point?

IMO mostly HCW has done two things

1. Tell the public what the prosecutor needs them to focus on (the car, holiday photos etc)

2. Justify going public.

The reason why he does this is because politics matter. They made a huge media splash then so far haven't delivered. So as much as possible, he has to say the actions were justified.

Trying to tease micro-meaning out of "concrete" is fruitless, because IMO the intention was justification, not trying to drop clues.

 

[Lyall0814]

Why is it not the same? The UK police made it very clear at the time that they believed JC murdered Suzy Lamplugh, in fact JC threatened legal action, much as CB has though to date neither has followed through with their threat. Additionally which part of HCW's press conference in 2020 do you consider hyperbolic?

The certainty he was and is still expressing about his claims, because - as many of us say and will continue saying - if you're certain you should charge him. I get what HCW says when he tells us in Germany (and in France and other countries that don't have the UK/US system) they can't (or aren't supposed to) charge someone and then keep on investigating until trial.

We know in the UK and US (apart from Scotland maybe) they can charge someone - very often when they only have flimsy evidence - and keep investigating, and then when it gets to trial, surprise, surprise, in many cases they still only have flimsy evidence, though the prosecution and media will call it "overwhelming". Can't do that in Germany, HCW tells us. And I'm sure he has a point there. But he can't carry on telling the world they're convinced - but not enough to charge him - forever.

 

[Mex]

The certainty he was and is still expressing about his claims, because - as many of us say and will continue saying - if you're certain you should charge him. I get what HCW says when he tells us in Germany (and in France and other countries that don't have the UK/US system) they can't (or aren't supposed to) charge someone and then keep on investigating until trial.

We know in the UK and US (apart from Scotland maybe) they can charge someone - very often when they only have flimsy evidence - and keep investigating, and then when it gets to trial, surprise, surprise, in many cases they still only have flimsy evidence, though the prosecution and media will call it "overwhelming". Can't do that in Germany, HCW tells us. And I'm sure he has a point there. But he can't carry on telling the world they're convinced - but not enough to charge him - forever.

The prosecution process​

The police carry out an initial crime investigation​

If they think there may be enough evidence to support a prosecution, they'll submit a report to the local procurator fiscal.

The procurator fiscal decides if there's enough evidence​

There must be at least 2 independent pieces of evidence for this, like:

• eye-witness stories
• fingerprint evidence
• other forensic or scientific evidence

If they think more evidence is needed, the procurator fiscal may ask the police to do more investigating.

If there's enough evidence, the procurator fiscal will decide what action needs to be taken in the public interest​

This means they'll make decisions based on what's best for the general public. They'll take into account things like the nature and seriousness of the crime and the risk the offender might commit a crime again.

Actions include:

• prosecution in court
• warnings
• fiscal fines
• compensation offers
• no action at all The decision to take a case to court

The Procurator Fiscal in Scotland decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to pursue a case or not and even in which court the trial will take place.

Can anyone enlighten me why the insistence that charges must be laid in the MM case only to sit in the current jurisdiction log jam?
______________________________________
Hans Christian Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said this weekend that police now have enough evidence to charge 43-year-old Christian Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile, but want to “strengthen their position” first.

Madeleine McCann suspect ‘believes investigators don’t have a shred of evidence’

The man who German prosecutors are “convinced” murdered Madeleine McCann is reportedly of the belief that they do not have “a shred of evidence” with which to charge him.

www.sundayworld.com

 

[Davieson]

The prosecution process​

The police carry out an initial crime investigation​

If they think there may be enough evidence to support a prosecution, they'll submit a report to the local procurator fiscal.

The procurator fiscal decides if there's enough evidence​

There must be at least 2 independent pieces of evidence for this, like:

• eye-witness stories
• fingerprint evidence
• other forensic or scientific evidence

If they think more evidence is needed, the procurator fiscal may ask the police to do more investigating.

If there's enough evidence, the procurator fiscal will decide what action needs to be taken in the public interest​

This means they'll make decisions based on what's best for the general public. They'll take into account things like the nature and seriousness of the crime and the risk the offender might commit a crime again.

Actions include:

• prosecution in court
• warnings
• fiscal fines
• compensation offers
• no action at all The decision to take a case to court

The Procurator Fiscal in Scotland decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to pursue a case or not and even in which court the trial will take place.

Can anyone enlighten me why the insistence that charges must be laid in the MM case only to sit in the current jurisdiction log jam?
______________________________________
Hans Christian Wolter, who is leading the investigation, said this weekend that police now have enough evidence to charge 43-year-old Christian Brueckner, who is a convicted paedophile, but want to “strengthen their position” first.

Madeleine McCann suspect ‘believes investigators don’t have a shred of evidence’

The man who German prosecutors are “convinced” murdered Madeleine McCann is reportedly of the belief that they do not have “a shred of evidence” with which to charge him.

www.sundayworld.com

The jurisdiction log jam is only recent and should be resolved shortly.
Is anyone insisting that CB should be charged ? I thought the general consensus is that Wolters doesn't feel confident enough to charge at this time.

 

[RichardKimble]

The fact that their main suspect is not wandering around the streets free to harm other women and children gives them the time to consolidate their case by gathering evidence to make a cast iron case against him. It's quite possible however that they may never charge him (see also John Canaan, similar situation), and then it's up to him to decide how to handle that - whether he wants to sue or go to the ECHR, or whatever.

Re Canaan ,files were passed to the cps on two occasions, turned down amongst other things because no link could be found between the victim and JC also the publicity would prevent a fair trial.HCW hasn't even got to an indictment stage.

 

[enquirer6]

Re Canaan ,files were passed to the cps on two occasions, turned down amongst other things because no link could be found between the victim and JC also the publicity would prevent a fair trial.HCW hasn't even got to an indictment stage.

As I've pointed out before, we needn't worry that Brueckner, if he is tried, won't get a fair trial. There are no juries in Germany and German judges, just as more senior English judges, are deemed sufficiently rigorous and impartial not to allow their judgements to be influenced or swayed by publicity surrounding a case or an investigation.

The other point that would oridinarily apply, but doesn't, to Brueckner, is protection of the reputation of someone accused but not convicted. Brueckner is currently serving a prison sentence for a brutal rape and has a string of convictions for other offences, including against children.

 

[Consider Dudley]

The certainty he was and is still expressing about his claims, because - as many of us say and will continue saying - if you're certain you should charge him. I get what HCW says when he tells us in Germany (and in France and other countries that don't have the UK/US system) they can't (or aren't supposed to) charge someone and then keep on investigating until trial.

We know in the UK and US (apart from Scotland maybe) they can charge someone - very often when they only have flimsy evidence - and keep investigating, and then when it gets to trial, surprise, surprise, in many cases they still only have flimsy evidence, though the prosecution and media will call it "overwhelming". Can't do that in Germany, HCW tells us. And I'm sure he has a point there. But he can't carry on telling the world they're convinced - but not enough to charge him - forever.

Why not? Is there a law against it? If he and the body he represents are convinced and there is not enough to charge him they why should they retract? It's their opinion based on the facts of the evidence they have amassed and they're entitled to it no matter how much harm they cause to others, at least so it would seem as far as the ECHR is concerned.

Re Canaan ,files were passed to the cps on two occasions, turned down amongst other things because no link could be found between the victim and JC also the publicity would prevent a fair trial.HCW hasn't even got to an indictment stage.

Immaterial - this is to do with the legalities and ethics of publicly accusing a suspect of a crime prior to charges being laid. See also the Daily Mail headline wrt to the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.

 

[Lyall0814]

Why not? Is there a law against it? If he and the body he represents are convinced and there is not enough to charge him they why should they retract? It's their opinion based on the facts of the evidence they have amassed and they're entitled to it no matter how much harm they cause to others, at least so it would seem as far as the ECHR is concerned.

The ECHR decision was about a book and an individual's rights to have an opinion, wasn't it? It wasn't about the actions of the Portuguese state, who very publicly said - after just one year - they didn't have the evidence to take any action against anyone.

HCW and any other prosecutor or police and any other individual would have every right to write about what they think and every right to continue to think it, but states can't pursue individuals forever can they. If they could there'd be no need for trials.

 

[Consider Dudley]

The ECHR decision was about a book and an individual's rights to have an opinion, wasn't it? It wasn't about the actions of the Portuguese state, who very publicly said - after just one year - they didn't have the evidence to take any action against anyone.

HCW and any other prosecutor or police and any other individual would have every right to write about what they think and every right to continue to think it, but states can't pursue individuals forever can they. If they could there'd be no need for trials.

Of course states can pursue individuals forever, all the while they have grounds to. You seem to be mixing up pursuing an individual with locking them up without due process.

 

[Davieson]

Of course states can pursue individuals forever, all the while they have grounds to. You seem to be mixing up pursuing an individual with locking them up without due process.

Ultimately it would come down to resources i.e. Is the cost of attempting to prosecute CB worth the effort.
There will be other crimes that need the attention of State prosecutors. Its just a question of priorities.

 

[enquirer6]

The certainty he was and is still expressing about his claims, because - as many of us say and will continue saying - if you're certain you should charge him. I get what HCW says when he tells us in Germany (and in France and other countries that don't have the UK/US system) they can't (or aren't supposed to) charge someone and then keep on investigating until trial.

We know in the UK and US (apart from Scotland maybe) they can charge someone - very often when they only have flimsy evidence - and keep investigating, and then when it gets to trial, surprise, surprise, in many cases they still only have flimsy evidence, though the prosecution and media will call it "overwhelming". Can't do that in Germany, HCW tells us. And I'm sure he has a point there. But he can't carry on telling the world they're convinced - but not enough to charge him - forever.

He hasn't said that he doesn't have enough evidence to charge. He has said that he wants the best body of evidence he can muster before he does charge, and believes there is opportunity to attain that evidence.

<modsnip: Amaral's book is off topic in this discussion>

 

[Tekno]

Tekno, so you think think there is physical evidence that proves a connection between CB and MM. Why wouldn’t this be enough to charge him?

I think it could be a photo on a usb stick that shows something that belonged to her or the family.

 

[Mex]

The jurisdiction log jam is only recent and should be resolved shortly.
Is anyone insisting that CB should be charged ? I thought the general consensus is that Wolters doesn't feel confident enough to charge at this time.

I'm not getting the same vibes as you seem to be when you mention HCW in relation to the MM case.

I see a man exuding professional confidence and one determined to get things right on behalf of the victim. And who is on record as saying, that the intention is to proceed to charging CB with the addition of crimes against MM to the five outstanding charges,
“with the best body of evidence possible” and “When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position”

Now I think that is a perfectly logical and very sensible approach particularly when the court system is tied up at the moment in dealing with "Justice for CB".
I'm fine with that. But finer still is that HCW is not deterred from working hard on behalf of MM and other victims.

 

[Davieson]

I'm not getting the same vibes as you seem to be when you mention HCW in relation to the MM case.

I see a man exuding professional confidence and one determined to get things right on behalf of the victim. And who is on record as saying, that the intention is to proceed to charging CB with the addition of crimes against MM to the five outstanding charges,
“with the best body of evidence possible” and “When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position”

Now I think that is a perfectly logical and very sensible approach particularly when the court system is tied up at the moment in dealing with "Justice for CB".
I'm fine with that. But finer still is that HCW is not deterred from working hard on behalf of MM and other victims.

I was meaning confidence in the strength of his evidence to test it in court.

 

[Pixie Child]

I think it could be a photo on a usb stick that shows something that belonged to her or the family.

I think it’s the chat logs so he corroborates HB & DR’s evidence. The problem is he could have lied to HB, DR & PanikSpatz. The Defence could argue he’s a fantasist.

They need something outside his own confessions to tie him to the crime. They have witness evidence placing him in the vicinity during the day but he could argue he was waiting for a friend employed by OC or even admit he was out burgling at that time.

In the absence of a body, they need fibres and/or photos to tie him to MM.

 

[Mex]

I was meaning confidence in the strength of his evidence to test it in court.

I think he is 100% convinced of the strength of the evidence and but for the jurisdiction issue would have been well on the way to considering laying charges against CB in the MM case.

Why on earth wouldn't he be?

'If only you knew': Chilling update on M M case​

Prosecutors insist they have substantial evidence that Madeleine McCann was killed by their German suspect but sharing it would compromise their investigations.

Lead investigator Hans Christian Wolters told the BBC he is “very confident” on eventually charging jailed sex offender Christian Brueckner over the British girl’s death.

"If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do,” he said.

“What we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all.”

Wolters said it was “tactical considerations” as to why prosecutors were keeping their cards close to their chests.

“I can't give you details because we don't want the accused to know what we have on him.”

'If only you knew': Chilling update on Madeleine McCann case

The leading prosecutor in the case said if the public knew what he knew, they'd be adamant their main suspect was responsible for killing the British girl.

au.news.yahoo.com

I'm at ease with that and I don't see why the MM investigation should be compromised by the unnecessarily premature release of the information police and prosecutors hold. I am at ease with them taking the time to ensure they are able to build the best case possible based on the available evidence.

I respect the law regarding the rights of the accused and I also respect the right of victims to the appropriate conduct of their case. I think HCW has struck the balance with his approach.

 

[Lyall0814]

Wolters said it was “tactical considerations” as to why prosecutors were keeping their cards close to their chests.

On Dec 9 2020! The guy could waffle for England. (Or Germany)

Ok they found other offences to prosecute (assuming they can do that successfully) so they can claim success but he can't keep saying in 2023/4/? exactly what he was saying in 2020 about the original case can he?

(I know you're "at ease" with it but plenty in Germany won't be)

 

[Mex]

I think it’s the chat logs so he corroborates HB & DR’s evidence. The problem is he could have lied to HB, DR & PanikSpatz. The Defence could argue he’s a fantasist.

They need something outside his own confessions to tie him to the crime. They have witness evidence placing him in the vicinity during the day but he could argue he was waiting for a friend employed by OC or even admit he was out burgling at that time.

In the absence of a body, they need fibres and/or photos to tie him to MM.

In my opinion that is a good assessment but negated by my opinion also that the police do indeed have the evidence they require. Some of which we will find out about when or if charges are laid.
Certainly any perpetrator has had sixteen years to obliterate tracks, which at one time would have been an insurmountable obstacle. But recently scientific advances have shown this is not always so any longer.

 

[Mex]

On Dec 9 2020! The guy could waffle for England. (Or Germany)

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

My opinion is more respectful of the man and the office held than that and ultimately a lot more positive to the chance that the MM case may at last be solved.

That will be good for justice as a whole but also very good for the family which has spent over sixteen years working towards that end.

 

[RichardKimble]

Why not? Is there a law against it? If he and the body he represents are convinced and there is not enough to charge him they why should they retract? It's their opinion based on the facts of the evidence they have amassed and they're entitled to it no matter how much harm they cause to others, at least so it would seem as far as the ECHR is concerned.

Immaterial - this is to do with the legalities and ethics of publicly accusing a suspect of a crime prior to charges being laid. See also the Daily Mail headline wrt to the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.

That was a newspaper ,not the police themselves declaring a suspect which ultimately allowed a media scrum.