Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[Consider Dudley]

I really would be interested in the German perspective on all of this. Do we not have any German members on here? I thought we did.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Your point is a fair one but so is ours.

It seemed very obvious in June and July 2020 that the German authorities were happy with media sensationalising and interfering with witnesses. That told me they were just speculating and the spokesperson's bullish comments were not to be taken seriously.

At least not in connection with MM anyway. It may well be they always intended the publicity to assist them in finding other offences to prosecute him for. If the five cases are eventually prosecuted they'll say their strategy was successful.

BIB (learned a new thing there, see?!)
I don't see evidence of German authorities happiness at media sensationalising and witness tampering, sorry.

 

[Lyall0814]

BIB (learned a new thing there, see?!)
I don't see evidence of German authorities happiness at media sensationalising and witness tampering, sorry.

I deliberately didn't say tampering (no way I could prove that even if I thought it) and imo they made no public effort to request media responsibility, so what else can we conclude?

 

[Consider Dudley]

I deliberately didn't say tampering (no way I could prove that even if I thought it) and imo they made no public effort to request media responsibility, so what else can we conclude?

is there a material difference between interfering and tampering? I think it’s a leap to conclude happiness on the part of the German authorities simply on the basis that they apparently did not specifically ask the media to behave responsibly.

 

[Lyall0814]

is there a material difference between interfering and tampering? I think it’s a leap to conclude happiness on the part of the German authorities simply on the basis that they apparently did not specifically ask the media to behave responsibly.

Maybe you're right, I can't possibly know what they were actually thinking can I. Whatever it was imo the MM-related part of it didn't work. Yes, I think there's a difference between interfering and tampering. Maybe depends on what you mean by tampering though (you mean altering? enhancing? inventing?)

 

[Consider Dudley]

Maybe you're right, I can't possibly know what they were actually thinking can I. Whatever it was imo the MM-related part of it didn't work. Yes, I think there's a difference between interfering and tampering. Maybe depends on what you mean by tampering though (you mean altering? enhancing? inventing?)

I meant interfering, the word you used and also the definition of tampering. What did you mean by interfering?

 

[Lyall0814]

I meant interfering, the word you used and also the definition of tampering. What did you mean by interfering?

Just talking is interfering imo Like discovering an uncharted island. However careful you might be just getting off the boat can have unforeseen consequences.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Just talking is interfering imo Like discovering an uncharted island. However careful you might be just getting off the boat can have unforeseen consequences.

Interviewing is interfering? In your view maybe, but there’s no evidence that the Germans were happy for witnesses to be interfered with or interviewed or whatever word you want to called it.

 

[Lyall0814]

Interviewing is interfering? In your view maybe, but there’s no evidence that the Germans were happy for witnesses to be interfered with or interviewed or whatever word you want to called it.

It has the potential to be interfering. Just like in 2007 journalists have deadlines and they need to make their stories interesting. The potential for interpretation is there, and I don't think anyone can deny that really. We saw it previously in this case and have seen it in so many other cases.

 

[enquirer6]

I think this link is useful?

FALQs: The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany | In Custodia Legis

This FALQ post looks at universal jurisdiction in Germany and surveys recent court cases.

blogs.loc.gov

Universal jurisdiction provides a state with the authority to prosecute individuals for atrocities, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and torture, based on the idea of the responsibility to protect the international community. It allows for prosecution without any reference to the place of perpetration, the nationality of the suspect or the victim, or any other basis to exercise jurisdiction – potentially opening the door to lawsuits from all over the world, which is why the exercise of universal jurisdiction has been quite controversial in some instances.​

 

[Consider Dudley]

It has the potential to be interfering. Just like in 2007 journalists have deadlines and they need to make their stories interesting. The potential for interpretation is there, and I don't think anyone can deny that really. We saw it previously in this case and have seen it in so many other cases.

Your assertion was that the German authorities were happy for media interference, interpretation whatever. My view is that that assertion remains unsubstantiated. Can we move on now?

 

[enquirer6]

Another procedural anomaly Herr Wolters flagged up is that the decision of the court to decline the case ought to have been given simulataneously to the defence lawyer and the prosecution lawyer.

Rummer and rummer .....

 

[Mex]

I think this link is useful?

FALQs: The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany | In Custodia Legis

This FALQ post looks at universal jurisdiction in Germany and surveys recent court cases.

blogs.loc.gov

Universal jurisdiction provides a state with the authority to prosecute individuals for atrocities, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and torture, based on the idea of the responsibility to protect the international community. It allows for prosecution without any reference to the place of perpetration, the nationality of the suspect or the victim, or any other basis to exercise jurisdiction – potentially opening the door to lawsuits from all over the world, which is why the exercise of universal jurisdiction has been quite controversial in some instances.​

Criminal proceedings against Jennifer W. on suspicion of membership in a terrorist organization abroad, etc.​

In the above-mentioned proceedings, the 8th Criminal Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Munich pronounced the verdict today on the 77th day of the trial. The Senate sentenced the defendant to a total prison sentence of 10 years for membership in a terrorist organization abroad, for aiding and abetting attempted murder by omission and for a crime against humanity resulting in death.

Pressemitteilung 30/2021 - Bayerisches Staatsministerium der Justiz

www.justiz.bayern.de

The crime for which she was convicted had resulted in the death of a five year old little girl killed in another country. Jurisdiction didn't come into the equation. She got off very lightly with ten years for the death of a child.

 

[enquirer6]

There seems to be an implicit assumption, in certain quarters, that where Herr Fulscher knows what he's about, Herr Wolters doesn't.

I'm not sure that assumption is safe at all.

Or maybe, partially safe.

The first part right.

The second part wrong.

 

[Mex]

Universal Jurisdiction in German law does not depend on where the crime was committed and it seems that it really doesn’t make much of a difference where in Germany it is prosecuted just so long as it has its day in court.

Included in Crimes Against Humanity is rape.

If CB had been officially designated as a terrorist it is clear that the charges against him for that crime would have been prosecuted at the beginning of 2023 in whatever court in Germany the prosecutors chose.

What is important when it comes to the deterrence of that zero tolerance unfortunately has not been exercised as far as HB is concerned in the long wait to have her case heard.

Snip

7. Why is Germany Exercising Universal Jurisdiction?

“[t]he message is clear: those who commit atrocities cannot feel safe. They will eventually be held accountable. There is no safe haven for perpetrators of international crimes against criminal prosecution in Germany.” The trials in Germany have symbolic power and the “pioneering work” of the judiciary might set an example for other states all over the world.

FALQs: The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany | In Custodia Legis (loc.gov)

 

[Davieson]

Universal Jurisdiction in German law does not depend on where the crime was committed and it seems that it really doesn’t make much of a difference where in Germany it is prosecuted just so long as it has its day in court.

Included in Crimes Against Humanity is rape.

If CB had been officially designated as a terrorist it is clear that the charges against him for that crime would have been prosecuted at the beginning of 2023 in whatever court in Germany the prosecutors chose.

What is important when it comes to the deterrence of that zero tolerance unfortunately has not been exercised as far as HB is concerned in the long wait to have her case heard.

Snip

7. Why is Germany Exercising Universal Jurisdiction?

“[t]he message is clear: those who commit atrocities cannot feel safe. They will eventually be held accountable. There is no safe haven for perpetrators of international crimes against criminal prosecution in Germany.” The trials in Germany have symbolic power and the “pioneering work” of the judiciary might set an example for other states all over the world.

FALQs: The Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany | In Custodia Legis (loc.gov)

That nicely explains the international jurisdiction. Would the accused need to be German for this to apply (obviously is in this case ?) I can't see why else the Germans would involve themselves.

 

[enquirer6]

That nicely explains the international jurisdiction. Would the accused need to be German for this to apply (obviously is in this case ?) I can't see why else the Germans would involve themselves.

The Germans would not play a role in investigating Madeleine's disappearance, from somewhere not Germany, if no one of German nationality was suspected of the crime.

That is true.

 

[Mex]

That nicely explains the international jurisdiction. Would the accused need to be German for this to apply (obviously is in this case ?) I can't see why else the Germans would involve themselves.

Justice?

A little five year old girl was subjected to such vile treatment that she died from it.

Only her mother could speak for her and it seems only the German State and its laws gave her a voice and remembered her. There must have been many, many children used and abused as she was and who have no voice.

Germany has shown how to redress the balance on that a little and has demonstrated to the world of sadists that it is possible to catch them.

 

[mrjitty]

This act is for genocide and crimes against humanity. Not relevant in this case.

Germany already has jurisdiction over CB. The discussion is about which particular court has jurisdiction. No one disputes the general jurisdiction.

 

[Mex]

This act is for genocide and crimes against humanity. Not relevant in this case.

Germany already has jurisdiction over CB. The discussion is about which particular court has jurisdiction. No one disputes the general jurisdiction.

The act doesn’t allow criminals to pick and choose which is their preferred court – they’ve just got to take pot luck I think, as long as the proceedings are in Germany.

The issues covered by crimes against humanity such as rape, other crimes of a sexual nature and torture are also features of indictments enacted against CB at the beginning of October 2022.

Everyone concurs I think with the fact that Germany has jurisdiction over CB just as they have jurisdiction over any German national who commits offences either at home or abroad.

Where that accord is on rocky ground is puzzlement as to the way in which jurisdiction within Germany is dictating the terms of due process as the October anniversary of the five indictments against CB looms ever nearer.

My opinion