Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[Mex]

One doesn't know who might be involved, but as Wolters is lead/spokesperson, it seems sensible to use his name, rather than an anonymous group.

The use of his name is not in the abstract it is highly personalised and pejorative in many instances.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't see a contradiction there.
FF would have known by September that charges were imminent and wrote to the Prosecutor about jurisdiction.
He did not raise the issue with the Court at that time as charges hadn't been laid.
The Prosecutor clearly chose to ignore the issue of jurisdiction and went ahead with the charges, which is why they are in the present situation

He couldn't raise the issue with the court as the indictments had not been laid.

i.e. there were no Court proceedings at the time

 

[Mex]

it seems that Fulscher was only compelled to make this move after he’d seen the evidence files. IMO the timing could be significant & may be a reflection of how he perceives the strength of the prosecutions case.

I don't pretend to understand the rationale behind the two anonymous rape cases but they did meet the lawful criteria to support indictment.
But as far as the other three indictments are concerned I have seldom seen more compelling supporting evidence. FF devalues the evidence in all five cases - then he would say that wouldn't he? he may indeed see it like that for real in which case one should reach one's own conclusions as his are not sound.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

I'm sure CB's preference would be to avoid the trials in the first place if at all possible

That would be the case throughout his career but as the saying goes "if you can't do the time - don't do the crime"

 

[enquirer6]

So this is not particularly recent, published in April:

Madeleine McCann suspect may not face charges in Germany

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner may not face charges in Germany after a court there ruled prosecutors had no jurisdiction to pursue a case against him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

From it:

The Braunschweig state court said its supposed responsibility for the case being in the area had been based on his last residence before going abroad and then to prison.​

​

But it said that isn't valid, because the suspect produced evidence of a later residence in the neighboring state of Saxony-Anhalt, where he was registered as the owner of a property that he kept after going abroad.​

That suggests collapse of a whole case based on a technicality of where he was living relative to where the court is based charges were filed in.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for all your clarifications, MrJ. Very hepful in keeping the thread in the realms of reality rather than fantasy. Can you please clarify further on the following, when you have a moment:

Once a new jurisdiction is established and agreed upon, the 5 pending case files will be handed over to the corresponding police force/prosecutors and court in this new jurisdiction, right? And HCW & his team won't have any further involvement in a legal sense? And a new prosecutor will take over? And this new jurisdiction will be the jurisdiction in which any future charges against CB will be handled/tried, is that correct?

I have more questions (not least where does that leave HCW & co in terms of their ongoing investigation into CB/MM?) but clarity on the above in the interim would be great.

Assuming Braunschweig appealed the jurisdiction issue, and assuming they lose that appeal, then the only way forward is for the indictments to be filed in the correct Court (seemingly in Saxon Anhalt)

The local prosecutors office for that Court would lead.

I have no idea bureaucratically, how HCWs team, and the new prosecution team would work together.

 

[Davieson]

So this is not particularly recent, published in April:

Madeleine McCann suspect may not face charges in Germany

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner may not face charges in Germany after a court there ruled prosecutors had no jurisdiction to pursue a case against him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

From it:

The Braunschweig state court said its supposed responsibility for the case being in the area had been based on his last residence before going abroad and then to prison.​

​

But it said that isn't valid, because the suspect produced evidence of a later residence in the neighboring state of Saxony-Anhalt, where he was registered as the owner of a property that he kept after going abroad.​

That suggests collapse of a whole case based on a technicality of where he was living relative to where the court is based charges were filed in.

That is so, pending determination of jurisdiction. Once that has been established, new charges can be issued if the responsible prosecutor so determines.

 

[enquirer6]

That is so, pending determination of jurisdiction. Once that has been established, new charges can be issued if the responsible prosecutor so determines.

The other point would be that no charges have yet been filed in respect of Madeleine's disappearance, 'only' in respect of the raft of other crimes of which Brueckner is suspected, suggesting little or no bearing on the course of the Madeleine investigation.

ETA: There is no suggestion of a question over the strength of the case(s) against Brueckner arising from procedural wrangling about where the trials should take place.

 

[Davieson]

The other point would be that no charges have yet been filed in respect of Madeleine's disappearance, 'only' in respect of the raft of other crimes of which Brueckner is suspected, suggesting little or no bearing on the course of the Madeleine investigation.

ETA: There is no suggestion of a question over the strength of the case(s) against Brueckner arising from procedural wrangling about where the trials should take place.

If it is determined that Braunschweig does not have jurisdiction over these cases, presumably that ruling would apply to any other future case against CB and if so, then the Braunschweig prosecutors would have no further role in any case against CB.

It all seems rather complex to me.

 

[enquirer6]

If it is determined that Braunschweig does not have jurisdiction over these cases, presumably that ruling would apply to any other future case against CB and if so, then the Braunschweig prosecutors would have no further role in any case against CB.

It all seems rather complex to me.

Unsure about 'complex'

Just time-consuming and laborious. Presumably, a different set of prosecutors would have to pour over the files, for all the crimes Brueckner is accused of?

 

[Davieson]

Undoubtedly

 

[enquirer6]

In respect of Madeleine there is little or no difference, since charges against Brueckner have not, yet, been pressed.

It's a simple question of whether Brueckner's trial will take place in court 'X' or court 'Y'.

 

[Davieson]

In respect of Madeleine there is little or no difference, since charges against Brueckner have not, yet, been pressed.

It's a simple question of whether Brueckner's trial will take place in court 'X' or court 'Y'.

Or even at all.

 

[Mex]

Or even at all.

Which may very well be the end game.

 

[Davieson]

Which may very well be the end game.

That has crossed my mind.
Nobody charged,CB guilty by insinuation without anyone actually looking too closely at the evidence.

 

[enquirer6]

That has crossed my mind.
Nobody charged,CB guilty by insinuation without anyone actually looking too closely at the evidence.

I think you must be mistaking Brueckner for the McCanns.

In respect of Brueckner Herr Wolters has said several times, if you could see the evidence we have .... implying strongly that he hasn't revealed everything he knows, at least publicly. I think he might have, to Herr Fulscher, because Fulscher's approach seems to be trying to prevaricate on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than challenging the case against his client.

Madeleine McCann: Public 'would reach same conclusion' on suspect

Prosecutor says if public "knew the evidence we had" they would think Madeleine McCann was killed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mr Wolters said: "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do but I can't give you details because we don't want the accused to know what we have on him - these are tactical considerations."

That was in 2020.

 

[Davieson]

I think you must be mistaking Brueckner for the McCanns.

In respect of Brueckner Herr Wolters has said several times, if you could see the evidence we have .... implying strongly that he hasn't revealed everything he knows, at least publicly. I think he might have, to Herr Fulscher, because Fulscher's approach seems to be trying to prevaricate on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than challenging the case against his client.

Madeleine McCann: Public 'would reach same conclusion' on suspect

Prosecutor says if public "knew the evidence we had" they would think Madeleine McCann was killed.

www.bbc.co.uk

That was in 2020.

Talk is cheap. It remains to be seen what actually happens and whether CB is charged with anything related to MM.

 

[enquirer6]

Talk is cheap. It remains to be seen what actually happens and whether CB is charged with anything related to MM.

Of course the same words can be precisely repeated to describe tittle-tattle about the McCanns.

 

[Mex]

That has crossed my mind.
Nobody charged,CB guilty by insinuation without anyone actually looking too closely at the evidence.

I don't think it necessarily ends like that. Once criminality is uncovered, particularly with regard to repeat sexual offenders, authorities have an obligation to protect citizens. Human rights or no.
So they are going to have to come up with a lawful solution to this conundrum and not only the German authorities.
My opinion

 

[enquirer6]

This was Fulscher in August 2020:

My client won't be charged because the principal witness against him is a criminal whose word can't be trusted:

Lawyer for Brueckner does not believe client will ever be charged

German Friedrich Fulscher (pictured), the lawyer of the key suspect in the Madeline McCann case Christian Brueckner has said that the witness against him is 'the worst witness you can get'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Fulcscher's position now:

My client can't be tried because he wasn't living in the jurisdiction of the court you want to try him in.