Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[C.greek]

Of course CB doesn't need an alibi.

Its up to prosecutor to demonstrate that he was in 5A in order to abduct MM

I am not that certain whether the prosecutors need to demonstrate that CB abducted MM if they have evidence to show that he murdered her jmo

 

[enquirer6]

I am not that certain whether the prosecutors need to demonstrate that CB abducted MM if they have evidence to show that he murdered her jmo

If they can show that, then Madeleine's absence from apartment 5a is all they would need to show to prove, also, abduction?

 

[Davieson]

That’s good because despite volunteering one prev to MWT he clearly doesn’t have one.

Good in what way ?

 

[Davieson]

I am not that certain whether the prosecutors need to demonstrate that CB abducted MM if they have evidence to show that he murdered her jmo

No, its like a chain of custody. They need to demonstrate how she came to be in his possession. IMO

 

[Mex]

No, its like a chain of custody. They need to demonstrate how she came to be in his possession. IMO

Why would do you think it should be necessary to prove CB abducted MM but to ignore evidence that he murdered her?

 

[Davieson]

Why would do you think it should be necessary to prove CB abducted MM but to ignore evidence that he murdered her?

Not a question of ignoring evidence, but in order to murder her, he had to get possession of her. That cannot be ignored. IMO
I don't believe they can prove he murdered her, but that remains to be seen.

 

[SuperdadV8]

I am not that certain whether the prosecutors need to demonstrate that CB abducted MM if they have evidence to show that he murdered her jmo

Right!

I'm pretty sure, they do have evidence that CB and MM "met" each other.

But they want to charge him for murder, what's difficult, without a body or other forensics.

Yet...

 

[mrjitty]

No but he claims to be suffering terribly because of all the unfair accusations. Imagine for a moment he does have a cast iron alibi for 3rd May 2007 and knows it. What sort of a sick game would he he be playing by allowing all these accusations to fester in the media? Do you think he might have one but is just enjoying the attention so won’t play it unless formally charged? That sounds too far fetched to me.

What is far fetched is his counsel recommending he follow your advice!

They'd instead do what they have done - float the existence of an alibi in 3rd party media with no direct quote.

It remains very odd and kafka to me the suggestion that anymore should have to defend themselves in the media to unsubstantiated claims from the prosecutor, when such public statements could then be used against them in court.

it goes against all the concepts of procedural fairness and burden of proof.

 

[mrjitty]

Sinister though. JC, since he provided the images, may have helped them along the way with that conclusion.

I really don't understand how a journalist goes around implying someone did 2-3 murders with no evidence

 

[mrjitty]

I don't understand why you think the prosecution and the defence need to trust each other. Both sides are trying to win the case within the law and no doubt they trust each other to do so to the best of their ability.

I appreciate that there has been some disquiet expressed about on the record statements from the BKA spokesman. I don't think that constitutes constantly leaking though.

Where did the claims about 2-3 bodies come from then?

Did the jounro just make that up?

 

[mrjitty]

Because I wasn’t discussing the rights and wrongs of HCW’s actions, I was pointing out the very obvious (to me) course of action anyone in CB’s position would take were they (in their view) being unfairly accused over a prolon period in the media and able to categorically refute such allegations with a cast iron alibi. I’m bemused that anyone here seriously entertains the idea that he has such a thing and is just biding his time, quite frankly.

One very important reason is frequently an innocent defendant may want to invoke his/her right to silence at trial, which can be undone by having made pre-trial statements

In the US for instance, it is highly recommended not to volunteer an interview even if innocent. Especially because investigators are allowed to lie, mislead and bluff the accused, and innocent people are know to be untruthful in attempting to explain away embarrassing or potentially incriminating facts.

In the UK, such interview has to include disclosure of the underlying evidence in order to be used at trial - as a procedural protection.

At the end of the day, there are extremely good reasons not to run to the media or the police to give volunteer info that could be used against you at trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Then I think CB’s legal team is causing their client unnecessary stress and suffering if he really is able to show that he was nowehere near the crime scene that night. It is often the case that a police suspect will provide an alibi long before charges or trial has commenced in order to be cleared of suspicion as soon as possible, I don’t understand why that wouldnt work for the suspect in this case too.

Yes - but for instance in the UK where alibi evidence is subject to special rules meaning you have to disclose it early, the suspect will give the alibi in an interview under caution, at which the basis of suspicion must be outlined against him.

In this case it really is HCW who is controlling the timing, by not interrogating his main suspect - who is in jail anyway, so has no incentives to avoid arrest

 

[C.greek]

Yes - but for instance in the UK where alibi evidence is subject to special rules meaning you have to disclose it early, the suspect will give the alibi in an interview under caution, at which the basis of suspicion must be outlined against him.

In this case it really is HCW who is controlling the timing, by not interrogating his main suspect - who is in jail anyway, so has no incentives to avoid arrest

What about the interview he had when he was officially made an arguido in Portugal? Couldn't he have disclosed his alibi then?

 

[C.greek]

One very important reason is frequently an innocent defendant may want to invoke his/her right to silence at trial, which can be undone by having made pre-trial statements

In the US for instance, it is highly recommended not to volunteer an interview even if innocent. Especially because investigators are allowed to lie, mislead and bluff the accused, and innocent people are know to be untruthful in attempting to explain away embarrassing or potentially incriminating facts.

In the UK, such interview has to include disclosure of the underlying evidence in order to be used at trial - as a procedural protection.

At the end of the day, there are extremely good reasons not to run to the media or the police to give volunteer info that could be used against you at trial.

Seemingly there is a 4 page letter that CB himself wrote to MWT where he presented two possible alibis. Why volunteer this info to the media? He knew very well this would be floated to the media and therefore the public. So, it seems he is either not following his lawyers' advice or their advice is exactly that: to 'muddy' the waters by presenting some facts pertaining them to be related to the timeframe he is accused of MM's demise... jmo


"Madeleine McCann: The Case Against Christian B is available to watch on My5.
In one four-page letter, the suspect insisted that from September 2006 he did not return to Praia da Luz and began selling drugs from February 2007, which saw him fly back and forth from Spain at least six times....

Elsewhere in his letter, Christian detailed his alibi and how he spent a week with the woman, staying at her parents house and in his campervan.

He admittedly still doesn’t remember if he was with the alibi on the specific night Madeleine went missing, but knows that he was with her from midnight to 2am. However, the toddler was taken from her hotel room three hours before that and so there are several hours of his whereabouts unaccounted for.

Christian B did offer another possible alibi, claiming he was stopped by Scotland Yard police three days after Madeleine’s abduction and that they took a photo of him..."

Madeleine McCann documentary tracks down suspect Christian B’s ‘alibi’​

 

[mrjitty]

As I understand it, the non adversarial system in force in Germany insists that prosecutors must actively seek out any exonerating evidence as well as incriminating evidence. And if there was a firm alibi this would very likely result in no charges and no trial.

Therefore it would be extraordinary if the accused didn't take advantage of the system.

He can only take advantage of the system when formally interrogated.

The very nature of the system is intended that the accused respond to questions based on the incriminating evidence. As is the case in UK, which has similar protections, it would be completely kafka if suspects were forced to give alibis without even knowing what they were accused of or why.

In the present proceedings, if CB were to be formally interrogated and gave a good enough alibi such that it caused the prosecution case to be put into question, either he would not be charged, or at the next step the Court could decide that the case does not proceed.

So basically the thing you are suggesting would in fact happen - it is just the timing in this is set by the prosecutor and not by the defendant.

 

[mrjitty]

No, its like a chain of custody. They need to demonstrate how she came to be in his possession. IMO

No they do not need to show that in a murder case.

 

[mrjitty]

What about the interview he had when he was officially made an arguido in Portugal? Couldn't he have disclosed his alibi then?

I can't imagine he would have. Do PJ even know the evidence against him?

 

[C.greek]

I can't imagine he would have. Do PJ even know the evidence against him?

I have no idea ! But they must know something to have presented in order to officially proclaim him an arguido? I have really no idea how the system works and what evidence they need to support making someone an arguido in Portugal. Maybe our Portuguese sleuths could help out?

 

[mrjitty]

Seemingly there is a 4 page letter that CB himself wrote to MWT where he presented two possible alibis. Why volunteer this info to the media? He knew very well this would be floated to the media and therefore the public. So, it seems he is either not following his lawyers' advice or their advice is exactly that: to 'muddy' the waters by presenting some facts pertaining them to be related to the timeframe he is accused of MM's demise... jmo


"Madeleine McCann: The Case Against Christian B is available to watch on My5.
In one four-page letter, the suspect insisted that from September 2006 he did not return to Praia da Luz and began selling drugs from February 2007, which saw him fly back and forth from Spain at least six times....

Elsewhere in his letter, Christian detailed his alibi and how he spent a week with the woman, staying at her parents house and in his campervan.

He admittedly still doesn’t remember if he was with the alibi on the specific night Madeleine went missing, but knows that he was with her from midnight to 2am. However, the toddler was taken from her hotel room three hours before that and so there are several hours of his whereabouts unaccounted for.

Christian B did offer another possible alibi, claiming he was stopped by Scotland Yard police three days after Madeleine’s abduction and that they took a photo of him..."

Madeleine McCann documentary tracks down suspect Christian B’s ‘alibi’​

It's possible he was just being stupid and didn't follow counsel's advice

But also this is a reasonable strategy which has been seen in other cases. Give carefully curated content to a 3rd party on your behalf to create a public version which either can't be used against you at trial, or if you make admissible statements, be careful what they are.

We've seen before that MWT is an access merchant who will carry water for the defence

The thing that makes less sense to me here is there are no jurors to try to influence

 

[Consider Dudley]

What is far fetched is his counsel recommending he follow your advice!

They'd instead do what they have done - float the existence of an alibi in 3rd party media with no direct quote.

It remains very odd and kafka to me the suggestion that anymore should have to defend themselves in the media to unsubstantiated claims from the prosecutor, when such public statements could then be used against them in court.

it goes against all the concepts of procedural fairness and burden of proof.

Do you have an example of a suspect who provided a cast iron alibi for a crime which was later used against them in court? My understanding of the term “cast iron” is that it is indisputable and proof positive of innocence of involvement of the crime the suspect stands accused of.