Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[RichardKimble]

I took note of that when I spoke of it in the past tense; however I'm sure most people will be hoping that all will be reinstated in the fullness of time when the jurisdiction question is resolved. The evidence against CB which allowed him to be charged with the crimes didn't vanish with that, it still exists.

Hope doesn't enter into it, no one has come up with a precedent on changing jurisdiction and if it impacts on a case.Thoughts are and rightly so it shouldn't impact on it but no one is au fait with the German system to give a definitive answer.

 

[mrjitty]

True, but only if he is charged with abduction.

Even if he is not charged with abduction

The defence will be 'someone else did it" - therefore the existence of other suspects provides a prepack defence. This is IMO, one of HCWs main problems. His evidence needs to be so good, such theories don't hold up.

 

[mrjitty]

This is why we've surmised if the BKA go for murder then 5a is unlikely to figure, although I'm sure FF may well think otherwise.

It will be central to the defence case as there are at least 3 alternate theories

If the defence can establish an evidential foundation for them - then the prosecution has to show they are not reasonably possible. Presumably the only way to do that is to have very strong evidence typing CB to murder

 

[RichardKimble]

It will be central to the defence case as there are at least 3 alternate theories

If the defence can establish an evidential foundation for them - then the prosecution has to show they are not reasonably possible. Presumably the only way to do that is to have very strong evidence typing CB to murder

Imo it'll certainly be a conundrum for the BKA to over come.

 

[Tekno]

Thing is though, JT had watched one of these guys playing tennis earlier on.

Julian Totman and Gerry McCann. JT did not recognise Totman as the man carrying a girl.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Even if he is not charged with abduction

The defence will be 'someone else did it" - therefore the existence of other suspects provides a prepack defence. This is IMO, one of HCWs main problems. His evidence needs to be so good, such theories don't hold up.

The existence of Tannerman does not help CB. He was identified as Dr Totman so can be dismissed. IMO

 

[Mex]

It will be central to the defence case as there are at least 3 alternate theories

If the defence can establish an evidential foundation for them - then the prosecution has to show they are not reasonably possible. Presumably the only way to do that is to have very strong evidence typing CB to murder

Quite frankly I think the defence will have their work cut out making any sort of case to defend CB which is why they went down the procedural route. I think they were probably as surprised as anyone when it seemed to work out for them.

Let us see; you have suggested three theories.

Theory v Evidence,

My money goes on Evidence every time. The current defence strategy would seem to indicate they concur with that.

 

[Mex]

Hope doesn't enter into it, no one has come up with a precedent on changing jurisdiction and if it impacts on a case.Thoughts are and rightly so it shouldn't impact on it but no one is au fait with the German system to give a definitive answer.

There is evidence against CB which allowed five charges to be filed against him. I am confident that evidence will in due time be heard in a federal German court.

I don't know when and I don't know where and it doesn't really matter, as long as Justice has it's day and is heard in due process.

 

[Mex]

Imo it'll certainly be a conundrum for the BKA to over come.

I think the nub of mrj's post to which you have responded, is evidence. While CB enjoys the presumption of innocence he doesn't need any. The onus is not on him or his defence to prove anything. That is the prosecution's job.

To date the prosecution have not found anything that absolves CB from the five habitual crimes of a sexual nature for which he has been indicted. They are tasked with that duty too which makes it as much their job to look for exoneration as it is to look for crime.
They have found nothing which exonerates CB.

 

[RichardKimble]

Quite frankly I think the defence will have their work cut out making any sort of case to defend CB which is why they went down the procedural route. I think they were probably as surprised as anyone when it seemed to work out for them.

Let us see; you have suggested three theories.

Theory v Evidence,

My money goes on Evidence every time. The current defence strategy would seem to indicate they concur with that.

Yet here we are with out charges being laid in respect of the MM case.

 

[RichardKimble]

I think the nub of mrj's post to which you have responded, is evidence. While CB enjoys the presumption of innocence he doesn't need any. The onus is not on him or his defence to prove anything. That is the prosecution's job.

To date the prosecution have not found anything that absolves CB from the five habitual crimes of a sexual nature for which he has been indicted. They are tasked with that duty too which makes it as much their job to look for exoneration as it is to look for crime.
They have found nothing which exonerates CB.

We were discussing the alleged murder of MM, and if 5a were to figure in it, despite all the rhetoric HCW has never said he has evidence that CB entered 5a.

 

[mrjitty]

The existence of Tannerman does not help CB. He was identified as Dr Totman so can be dismissed. IMO

The details of trial/evidential procedure matter here.

The Met say he was identified as Dr T. But that would have to be established in Court. The say so of the Met is not conclusive.

The reason it can work for the defence, is that they can easily call PJ witnesses and public records to establish "tannerman" as the prime suspect. They can presumably call PJ witnesses who were there when JT was asked to identify RM. This raises an evidential plank that an alternate prime suspect existed.

Evidential burden would then fall on the prosecution to show it is not a reasonable possibility. Having to call Dr T, Met detectives, JT etc to prove that "Tannerman" was ruled out is likely problematic.

IMO HCW won't want to go down that route at all. He will want to say Tannerman remains a mystery, but we don't need to delve into that night at all, because he has other evidence that so strongly connects CB to murder, that it must be him and we don't need to get into the whole Tapas timeline

my 02c

 

[mrjitty]

Posters should consider the defence does have a mountain of evidence as to alternate theories, and the witnesses to call, in the form of the PJ investigations, e.g. initially into Tannerman. The lead of the Met inquiry also went on an TV appeal to promote Smithman.

The prosecution has the burden to refute these as reasonable possibilities.

 

[mrjitty]

A large curveball that potentially exists for the defence is none of us know what JT would say if called as a witness.

My bet, is that the Met would not go on TV and say Tannerman was Dr T unless they had interviewed JT and she now agrees. But nevertheless, we know there are difficulties with Dr T being Tannerman - e.g. his direction of travel.

JT could well provide a chaos witness for the defence in that she creates the very first hot suspect, but how can her evidence really be explained?

I've believed since the start that HCW needs something to short-circuit all of this. e.g if you can find DNA in CBs campervan, then none of the JT saga matters. But if your case is more nebulous, I think the defence will have the opportunity to unpack years of case history that the judges would struggle to resolve.

 

[RichardKimble]

The MET never mentioned anyone by name who the holiday maker returning from the creche was.

 

[RichardKimble]

The details of trial/evidential procedure matter here.

The Met say he was identified as Dr T. But that would have to be established in Court. The say so of the Met is not conclusive.

The reason it can work for the defence, is that they can easily call PJ witnesses and public records to establish "tannerman" as the prime suspect. They can presumably call PJ witnesses who were there when JT was asked to identify RM. This raises an evidential plank that an alternate prime suspect existed.

Evidential burden would then fall on the prosecution to show it is not a reasonable possibility. Having to call Dr T, Met detectives, JT etc to prove that "Tannerman" was ruled out is likely problematic.

IMO HCW won't want to go down that route at all. He will want to say Tannerman remains a mystery, but we don't need to delve into that night at all, because he has other evidence that so strongly connects CB to murder, that it must be him and we don't need to get into the whole Tapas timeline

my 02c

BIB, HCW is or had gone down the route of the night in question by asking for the caller to CB to come forward.

 

[mrjitty]

BIB, HCW is or had gone down the route of the night in question by asking for the caller to CB to come forward.

Let me put it another way.

The defence will want to open the entire history of the case and all the suspects, throw their arms in the air and say how can these suspects all be positively eliminated one by one?

HCW will want to eliminate all those suspects via pieces of evidence against CB that are so strong, the other suspects must logically be ruled out, without having to examine evidence into each theory.

To use reductio ad absurdum - if HCW were now to find the victim buried at the box factory, then logically all other theories don't matter on the murder charge. You don't have to even consider them. No process of elimination is needed.

But as you step through evidential scenarios against CB that are less strong, all the theories can start to come back.

For instance, say the only evidence against CB is his confession(s), the phone call, and the Jag, Tannerman would be useful to the defence IMO.

 

[RichardKimble]

Let me put it another way.

The defence will want to open the entire history of the case and all the suspects, throw their arms in the air and say how can these suspects all be positively eliminated one by one?

HCW will want to eliminate all those suspects via pieces of evidence against CB that are so strong, the other suspects must logically be ruled out, without having to examine evidence into each theory.

To use reductio ad absurdum - if HCW were now to find the victim buried at the box factory, then logically all other theories don't matter on the murder charge. You don't have to even consider them. No process of elimination is needed.

But as you step through evidential scenarios against CB that are less strong, all the theories can start to come back.

For instance, say the only evidence against CB is his confession(s), the phone call, and the Jag, Tannerman would be useful to the defence IMO.

It's likely FF has explored these avenues having visited Luz.

Lawyer for Madeleine McCann prime suspect says he's found proof he is innocent

EXCLUSIVE Friedrich Fuelscher said he has examined the areas around the flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine McCann went missing and he now has proof Christian Brueckner is innocent

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[mrjitty]

It's likely FF has explored these avenues having visited Luz.

Lawyer for Madeleine McCann prime suspect says he's found proof he is innocent

EXCLUSIVE Friedrich Fuelscher said he has examined the areas around the flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine McCann went missing and he now has proof Christian Brueckner is innocent

www.mirror.co.uk

Yea. It's a gift horse basically.

 

[Davieson]

It's likely FF has explored these avenues having visited Luz.

Lawyer for Madeleine McCann prime suspect says he's found proof he is innocent

EXCLUSIVE Friedrich Fuelscher said he has examined the areas around the flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine McCann went missing and he now has proof Christian Brueckner is innocent

www.mirror.co.uk

As the prosecutors are supposed to seek out information which could exonerate a suspect, they presumably are party to this information that FF has, but have chosen to discount its validity
It would seem that interpretation is all when sifting evidence