Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[Consider Dudley]

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

If it really did need to be established in court all they would need to do is wheel in Dr Totman and ask him if he was in the vicinity carrying a child at the time of JT's sighting and for him to say yes. Everyone is well aware that eye witness accounts vary greatly in their reliability and as JT is adamant she never id'ed RM and there is no record of her doing so in the files I don't think that angle is a goer either.

 

[mrjitty]

If it really did need to be established in court all they would need to do is wheel in Dr Totman and ask him if he was in the vicinity carrying a child at the time of JT's sighting and for him to say yes. Everyone is well aware that eye witness accounts vary greatly in their reliability and as JT is adamant she never id'ed RM and there is no record of her doing so in the files I don't think that angle is a goer either.

Right but then you straight away get into questions of what time was it, what direction was he walking etc

As far as we know, Dr T would have been walking in the opposite direction as JT claimed. What if PJ detective's say JT did identify RM? What if JT says it wasn't Dr T, who she had seen that day etc etc

This all favours the defence and a german court could not be expected to resolve it IMO

This is why I believe HCW requires a proof positive that cannot be called into doubt via this methodology.

e.g the victims DNA in CBs car could not be called into question by invoking Tannerman

 

[onemoremiletogo]

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

...proof he is innocent...LOL.
FF in Luz...searching for "avenues", micro-details, "volatile" options...I think this can say a lot about how "strong" it is CB-FF cooperation and how "strong" will be their defense...LOL

 

[Consider Dudley]

Right but then you straight away get into questions of what time was it, what direction was he walking etc

As far as we know, Dr T would have been walking in the opposite direction as JT claimed. What if PJ detective's say JT did identify RM? What if JT says it wasn't Dr T, who she had seen that day etc etc

This all favours the defence and a german court could not be expected to resolve it IMO

This is why I believe HCW requires a proof positive that cannot be called into doubt via this methodology.

e.g the victims DNA in CBs car could not be called into question by invoking Tannerman

Like I say - courts understand human memory is fallible and questions of inconsistencies in specific detail can be explained by that. What isn't excusable however is the complete absence in the files of any record of JT naming RM as the key suspect if that is what she actually did. How would the PJ defend such an oversight in the face of JT's denial that she ever named him?

 

[Davieson]

Like I say - courts understand human memory is fallible and questions of inconsistencies in specific detail can be explained by that. What isn't excusable however is the complete absence in the files of any record of JT naming RM as the key suspect if that is what she actually did. How would the PJ defend such an oversight in the face of JT's denial that she ever named him?

As we have been told so often in the past, the PJ files are not to be trusted.

 

[Consider Dudley]

As we have been told so often in the past, the PJ files are not to be trusted.

Then any defence that puts forward the idea that JT said it was RM she saw carrying away a child from the apartment is doomed to failure as it isn't backed up by anything resembling a verifiable fact.

 

[Davieson]

Then any defence that puts forward the idea that JT said it was RM she saw carrying away a child from the apartment is doomed to failure as it isn't backed up by anything resembling a verifiable fact.

There seems a lot in this case that cannot be supported by verifiable facts. IMO

 

[Consider Dudley]

There seems a lot in this case that cannot be supported by verifiable facts. IMO

That's why I don't think evidence of other men carrying children through town that night would ever be use by the defence - it's incredibly weak evidence which would not let CB off the hook IMO.

 

[Anxala]

There seems a lot in this case that cannot be supported by verifiable facts. IMO

I'd welcome a charge against CB if it meant a trial necessitated a return to and an in-depth examination of the alleged events of the evening of the 3rd May 2007. That would be a genuinely welcome outcome of this investigation and one that would satisfy - surely? - everyone who's followed this case from the off.

We all want to see all the loose ends tied up, don't we?

 

[Davieson]

I'd welcome a charge against CB if it meant a trial necessitated a return to and an in-depth examination of the alleged events of the evening of the 3rd May 2007. That would be a genuinely welcome outcome of this investigation and one that would satisfy - surely? - everyone who's followed this case from the off.

We all want to see all the loose ends tied up, don't we?

Yes, but I feel that close scrutiny of that night's activities in a court of law is the last thing that some would like

 

[Consider Dudley]

I may be completely wrong but I think a court case in which CB is the defendant will focus purely on the evidence that puts him in the frame. If the evidence mounted by the prosecution is weak a successful defence lawyer will be able to demonstrate that, not by deflecting and pointing at other evidence such as alleged sightings on the night but by undemining the actual evidence being put forward against their defendant, eg by supplying an alibi, or by challenging any witness statements, or scientific or phone evidence entered against CB . The defence is not going to call Martin Smith or Jane Tanner, of that I am 99.9% certain.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Yes, but I feel that close scrutiny of that night's activities in a court of law is the last thing that some would like

Yes, but I feel that close scrutiny of that night's activities in a court of law is the last thing that some would like

A trial of CB is not going to become a proxy trial of the McCanns if that’s what you’re thinking.

 

[Anxala]

Yes, but I feel that close scrutiny of that night's activities in a court of law is the last thing that some would like

That may be so but it's of no significance or importance.

This is an entirely new investigation, based on entirely new evidence, coming from an entirely new police force that has no obligations to anyone involved in the original investigation and/or any subsequent ones over the years.

If, as HCW and his team say, CB is responsible for / party to the abduction and murder of MM, and proving that involves returning to the scene of the crime, then every effort I'm sure will be made to ensure that happens. As it should.

No one who wants the truth here would want to stand in the way of that.

 

[Anxala]

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

^ She'd probably say a lot of 'erm, it was erm dark and erm you know erm well it looked like erm well but it's hard to say and erm...'

And then add a few more 'erms' for good chaos measure.

 

[mrjitty]

Like I say - courts understand human memory is fallible and questions of inconsistencies in specific detail can be explained by that. What isn't excusable however is the complete absence in the files of any record of JT naming RM as the key suspect if that is what she actually did. How would the PJ defend such an oversight in the face of JT's denial that she ever named him?

IMO it doesn't matter to the defence what PJ can and can't justify.

They can point to a publication where the lead detective claims a positive ID. Presumably they can call that witness. Of course JT may now claim she made a mistake under pressure, or never gave the positive ID.

But if your point is to muddy the waters, such confusion is perfect. It is surely hard for the court to discount a possibility that JT saw the abductor.

Personally I don't think she did see the abductor, but I don't feel I can rule it out based on what I know.

 

[mrjitty]

I may be completely wrong but I think a court case in which CB is the defendant will focus purely on the evidence that puts him in the frame. If the evidence mounted by the prosecution is weak a successful defence lawyer will be able to demonstrate that, not by deflecting and pointing at other evidence such as alleged sightings on the night but by undemining the actual evidence being put forward against their defendant, eg by supplying an alibi, or by challenging any witness statements, or scientific or phone evidence entered against CB . The defence is not going to call Martin Smith or Jane Tanner, of that I am 99.9% certain.

IMO they will do both things.

A key trial strategy for the defence is to discredit the positive evidence in any way possible. 100% agree.

But also in many trials, the defence will try to stand up evidence of an alternate offender.

See for example the McStay trial, where the defence suggested interalia, a business partner was the real killer OR an unknown gang. They had some evidence suggestive of both theories. Fortunately the jury did not buy into either idea.

But this SODDI strategy is common because from the defence point of view, they need someone else to be guilty, and this trial comes with alternate suspects out of the box

 

[mrjitty]

^ She'd probably say a lot of 'erm, it was erm dark and erm you know erm well it looked like erm well but it's hard to say and erm...'

And then add a few more 'erms' for good chaos measure.

And chaos is what any defence lawyer loves.

I really hope we get a trial to finally resolve some of these issues. But I suspect they need a body.

 

[Consider Dudley]

IMO it doesn't matter to the defence what PJ can and can't justify.

They can point to a publication where the lead detective claims a positive ID. Presumably they can call that witness. Of course JT may now claim she made a mistake under pressure, or never gave the positive ID.

But if your point is to muddy the waters, such confusion is perfect. It is surely hard for the court to discount a possibility that JT saw the abductor.

Personally I don't think she did see the abductor, but I don't feel I can rule it out based on what I know.

OK. Pointless continuing the discussion imo. We will have to agree to disagree on this. Only time will tell what strategy the defence pursues if and when a trial evenuates.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I read the below in an article about the Kevin Spacey acquittal:

In a statement, a spokesman said: "The function of the CPS is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges."

It is completely at odds with what we have seen from HCW. Either the role of prosecutors in the German system is completely different to the one in the British system or HCW’s media comments show a lack of integrity.

It will be interesting to see how CB’s legal team handle the prosecutors post appeal communication strategy if he is not charged in the MM case.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

That's why I don't think evidence of other men carrying children through town that night would ever be use by the defence - it's incredibly weak evidence which would not let CB off the hook IMO.

It depends how strong the evidence is against him.

HCW needs a knock-out blow of DNA evidence otherwise, I don’t see how the BKA’s theory of what happened to MM is any stronger than the other theories.

They can’t produce this evidence so IMO, this is why we will never see a trial of CB for MM’s murder. I don’t think HCW can even prove BARD that MM is dead and, just as one example of doubt, there are 4,000 sightings that suggest otherwise.