Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #38

[Mex]

I’m not sure but what possible reason could be given for them not to testify?

Sounds like a job for Clarence Mitchell!

I think it would cause lots of problems for witnesses who claim to want to resolve the case if they didn’t act as witnesses.

I think anyone who is called as a witness will be obliged to testify or be in contempt.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

The issue I see is to prove that CB murdered MM, is that there needs to be no other reasonable explanation for her death/disappearance that could exist.

Snip
HCW, who is investigating the case, told Portuguese broadcaster CMTV on Tuesday that investigators had found “new evidence” that connects CB, who is a convicted rapist and child sex abuser, to the child’s disappearance. CB is yet to be charged.
“The investigation is still going, and I think we found some new facts, some new evidence, not forensic evidences, but some evidence,” HCW told the broadcaster.

“We are sure he is the murderer of MM,” he said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/05/europe/new-evidence-madeleine-mccann-intl-gbr/index.html

Speaking on behalf of the German investigation the prosecutor is clear that they believe they have evidence that justifies CB's status as prime suspect in the murder of a child,

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Evidence is required to charge a person before being able to bring him/her to trial.
If there was evidence to bring another to trial s/he would already be standing beside CB in the dock.

CB is the only suspect in crime against MM.

It’s all hypothetical, CB is not in the dock because there is not enough evidence to charge him for any crime in relation to MM.

If he is charged and the prosecution only have circumstantial evidence against him, other witnesses will need to be questioned under oath. For anyone wanting to see a conclusion to this case, that can only be a good thing.

I think anyone who is called as a witness will be obliged to testify or be in contempt.
My opinion

Genuine question, is this a fact? Could all members of the Tapas 7, for example, be forced to testify?

 

[Consider Dudley]

IMO if the only evidence the Germans have against CB wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny when heard against testimony from the McCanns and their friends then obviously it will never come to court. <modsnip: rude>

 

[mrjitty]

IMO if the only evidence the Germans have against CB wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny when heard against testimony from the McCanns and their friends then obviously it will never come to court.

RSBM

I agree with this. Hence we haven't seen any charges.

Finding the body is likely to diffuse many of these evidential issues.

 

[mrjitty]

Could all members of the Tapas 7, for example, be forced to testify?

RSBM

it's likely some will have to in a trial without body IMO

e.g it will probably be necessary to establish the victim was in 5a, and was then missing. Generally these things have to be established from the primary sources. i.e. testimony.

Unless HCWs case won't require to prove that. To give a trivial example, say the victim was found buried on the accused property in germany with forensics that linked him to it, then the prosecution need only prove the victims burial, that the accused buried her there, and by inference/forensics a murder - it would not matter how she came to be there.

FF has himself indicated taking foundational approach, calling into question feasibility of abduction based on timeline and the Tapas contamination of their evidence around Tannerman potentially helps. Whether this actually happens can't be known because we don't know what evidence HCW has, but clearly FF has considered it.

02c

 

[Denis R Tandib]

IMO if the only evidence the Germans have against CB wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny when heard against testimony from the McCanns and their friends then obviously it will never come to court. <modsnip: rude>

<modsnip: quoted post was snipped>

First, HCW has stated that he has no forensic or DNA evidence and that the BKA case is entirely circumstantial. As the below link confirms, they have enough evidence to charge CB with MM’s murder. Therefore, we should expect charges to be laid based on only circumstantial evidence. This will inevitably involve witness statements and counter arguments from the defence.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

Further, we know that one part of FF’s strategy is focused on the implausibility of CB being the offender based on the timeline provided by witnesses.

Mr Fuelscher said: “If the witness statements are correct, there was a time window of one minute and 30 seconds in which the child could have been abducted.”

The witness statements are primarily from the McCanns and the Tapas 7. These statements were not deemed credible by the PJ in its initial investigation and have never been tested under oath.

If these statements can clear his client, we can be certain FF will call them as witnesses.

This is relevant to the discussion and what I was alluding to.

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

Prosecutor '100% convinced' suspect abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann prosecutors say they have no body and no DNA but other evidence leads to only one conclusion - jailed rapist Christian Brueckner is guilty and could be charged next year

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Denis R Tandib]

RSBM

it's likely some will have to in a trial without body IMO

e.g it will probably be necessary to establish the victim was in 5a, and was then missing. Generally these things have to be established from the primary sources. i.e. testimony.

Unless HCWs case won't require to prove that. To give a trivial example, say the victim was found buried on the accused property in germany with forensics that linked him to it, then the prosecution need only prove the victims burial, that the accused buried her there, and by inference/forensics a murder - it would not matter how she came to be there.

FF has himself indicated taking foundational approach, calling into question feasibility of abduction based on timeline and the Tapas contamination of their evidence around Tannerman potentially helps. Whether this actually happens can't be known because we don't know what evidence HCW has, but clearly FF has considered it.

02c

Thanks for this.

We are back to the obvious options:

1. Trial based on circumstantial evidence which will be very messy for the prosecution and lead to witnesses from 3 May 2007 being question under oath by judges, prosecution and defence lawyers;

2. Trial based on irrefutable forensic or DNA evidence which doesn’t exist;

3. No trial and another shelved investigation.

Odds for number 1 - 100 to one, for number two - 1000 to one, and number three - the bookies won’t take the bet because it’s almost certainly going to happen.

All MO.

 

[Anxala]

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.

I hope so too. From a 'sleuthing' perspective, it's the only way we'll ever get to know what the evidence against CB is and that's always been our primary stumbling block. No charge, no trial, and it reverts to the cold case it's been for the past 16 years which would be incredibly frustrating for everyone involved, not least those of us who've filled 38 threads trying to make sense of things! If ever a case needed resolution, this one does.

Let's hope for a charge and a trial.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

IMO FF is left alone to this poor exercise of trying to make "counter-maths" on hypothetic "accurate" time windows given by others...Useless if charge does not come. Useless if charge comes since it will have to be strong enough. And if for murder, 5A may be "insignificant'.

 

[RichardKimble]

IMO FF is left alone to this poor exercise of trying to make "counter-maths" on hypothetic "accurate" time windows given by others...Useless if charge does not come. Useless if charge comes since it will have to be strong enough. And if for murder, 5A may be "insignificant'.

Not sure on that, the German appeal on page one of the first thread talks of asking for information regarding the whereabouts of the suspect at the time of the offence between 9pm and 10pm.

 

[Okapi]

AFAIU, it is the court, not the defence counsel or the prosecutor, which decides which witnesses to call. The judges will be leading the examination of witnesses.

The court will have the evidence in the case files submitted before the trial.
Certainly it will prioritise witness testimony over prior statements. But it won’t necessarily summon the star witnesses proffered by FF or HCW. It all comes down to the evidence which will be in the court’s possession by that stage. Jmo.

 

[Mex]

RSBM

it's likely some will have to in a trial without body IMO

e.g it will probably be necessary to establish the victim was in 5a, and was then missing. Generally these things have to be established from the primary sources. i.e. testimony.

Unless HCWs case won't require to prove that. To give a trivial example, say the victim was found buried on the accused property in germany with forensics that linked him to it, then the prosecution need only prove the victims burial, that the accused buried her there, and by inference/forensics a murder - it would not matter how she came to be there.

FF has himself indicated taking foundational approach, calling into question feasibility of abduction based on timeline and the Tapas contamination of their evidence around Tannerman potentially helps. Whether this actually happens can't be known because we don't know what evidence HCW has, but clearly FF has considered it.

02c

Didn't FF tell us we were all going to fall off our chairs

RSBM

it's likely some will have to in a trial without body IMO

e.g it will probably be necessary to establish the victim was in 5a, and was then missing. Generally these things have to be established from the primary sources. i.e. testimony.

Unless HCWs case won't require to prove that. To give a trivial example, say the victim was found buried on the accused property in germany with forensics that linked him to it, then the prosecution need only prove the victims burial, that the accused buried her there, and by inference/forensics a murder - it would not matter how she came to be there.

FF has himself indicated taking foundational approach, calling into question feasibility of abduction based on timeline and the Tapas contamination of their evidence around Tannerman potentially helps. Whether this actually happens can't be known because we don't know what evidence HCW has, but clearly FF has considered it.

02c

MM prime suspect CBr's lawyer says Britons will 'fall off their chair' when he reveals the evidence he says he found that clears his client​

• FF says when he reveals information 'you will fall off your chair'
• Convicted paedophile CB, 43, was accused of kidnap this year
• German prosecutor isn't expecting any new developments until next year

By ISABELLA NIKOLIC FOR MAILONLINE
21 September 2020

Madeleine McCann suspect's lawyer 'has evidence that clears client'

Friedrich Fulscher, the lawyer of convicted paedophile Christian Brueckner, 43, insists his client is innocent and didn't kidnap Madeleine McCann from a hotel room in Portugal in 2007.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Things seem to have altered since 2020. Rather than FF causing alarm for Brits at risk of falling off their chairs he has changed tack completely to keep CB out of court to answer five cases to which prosecutors think he has the answers.

Don't think I have heard of anyone falling off a chair in the MM case either.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Not sure on that, the German appeal on page one of the first thread talks of asking for information regarding the whereabouts of the suspect at the time of the offence between 9pm and 10pm.

BKA wants to collect as much info as possible on him that night (e.g. how close he was, the van nearby?) but l'm not seeing BKA brings a charge which could be easily and immediately challenged by eventual micro-timing actions within that time window. Would they expose to that?! If charge comes, it has to be above and beyond that weak exercise.

 

[Dave55]

How would you see that working exactly? Would you be expecting witnesses to incriminate themselves in front of a German judge?

as far as i know a witness cannot be asked a question that would incriminate them

 

[Mex]

I hope so too. From a 'sleuthing' perspective, it's the only way we'll ever get to know what the evidence against CB is and that's always been our primary stumbling block. No charge, no trial, and it reverts to the cold case it's been for the past 16 years which would be incredibly frustrating for everyone involved, not least those of us who've filled 38 threads trying to make sense of things! If ever a case needed resolution, this one does.

Let's hope for a charge and a trial.

Couldn't agree more.
Universally the cruellest thing about missing person cases is that their families sometimes never find out what happened to their loves one.
Even proof of death must be a release for them however painful.

There was always evidence in MM's case. Just there was no key to unlocking it but over the years a great deal of the groundwork had been carried out.

Investigators did not pick CB's name out of a hat. There was a surfeit of names to choose from had they wanted a patsy. At their review stage both Scotland Yard and the Oporto PJ independently concluded MM had been abducted by a stranger; they had different individuals in mind, but the same profiles.
It transpired one was dead. So had they wished to clear the decks that could have been "job done".
After questioning the other persons of interest were eliminated from the inquiry. The police needed evidence which they did not find.

It might have ended there. When the Germans were given the key which turned in the lock once again a suspect was looked at.
The difference was that he was not eliminated from the inquiry when he was investigated. They did find evidence which indicated further scrutiny was required. This resulted in CB becoming the prime suspect in MM's disappearance and ultimately the prime suspect in her murder.

 

[Anxala]

BKA wants to collect as much info as possible on him that night (e.g. how close he was, the van nearby?) but l'm not seeing BKA brings a charge which could be easily and immediately challenged by eventual micro-timing actions within that time window. Would they expose to that?! If charge comes, it has to be above and beyond that weak exercise.

Agree. A charge based on a bank of evidence that left itself open to contradiction based on the timings of the alleged comings and goings of the tapas 9 would not imo pass the credibility threshold required for the judge to give the case the go-ahead. <modsnip: not victim friendly>

But, nevertheless, what I find interesting is the emphasis and the ongoing requests for info HCW has put on placing CB in the vicinity of 5A on the evening of 3rd May. It clearly must have significance for his case against CB, otherwise why pursue it? And if it has significance, then it has to be related to him believing that CB abducted MM from 5A since HCW has said, variously, over the years, that he believes CB acted alone and that he (HCW) is not looking at anyone else in connection with either the abduction or murder of MM.

In order for the above to be the case, timings then must play some part here...

I've always understood, from what HCW has publicly said, that the conclusive evidence he has that CB murdered MM relates to a post-3rd May time - ie. that how MM came to be in CB's possession was not a concern for his investigation, that no proof of abduction or CB's presence in 5A was required, that 5A was in fact of no particular interest to him or the investigation because the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to her murder, post-abduction.

But then, why the ongoing need to place CB in PdL on the evening of 3rd May 2007?

It's all very confusing. We need a charge and a trial. Pronto!

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Agree. A charge based on a bank of evidence that left itself open to contradiction based on the timings of the alleged comings and goings of the tapas 9 would not imo pass the credibility threshold required for the judge to give the case the go-ahead. <modsnip>

But, nevertheless, what I find interesting is the emphasis and the ongoing requests for info HCW has put on placing CB in the vicinity of 5A on the evening of 3rd May. It clearly must have significance for his case against CB, otherwise why pursue it? And if it has significance, then it has to be related to him believing that CB abducted MM from 5A since HCW has said, variously, over the years, that he believes CB acted alone and that he (HCW) is not looking at anyone else in connection with either the abduction or murder of MM.

In order for the above to be the case, timings then must play some part here...

I've always understood, from what HCW has publicly said, that the conclusive evidence he has that CB murdered MM relates to a post-3rd May time - ie. that how MM came to be in CB's possession was not a concern for his investigation, that no proof of abduction or CB's presence in 5A was required, that 5A was in fact of no particular interest to him or the investigation because the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to her murder, post-abduction.

But then, why the ongoing need to place CB in PdL on the evening of 3rd May 2007?

It's all very confusing. We need a charge and a trial. Pronto!

BMM, my thoughts too.
HCW confirmed they have material evidence MM is dead. IMO he only uses the proof of death at CB's hands as a way to reinforce the probability of CB being there on the 3rd. But, the evidence itself gives no accurate indication of when the death had occurred. So for example, if the evidence they have is a post-mortem (post-torture) photo of MM, obtained from a source attributable to CB, then would that fit? It suggests them CB is responsible and most likely was there in PDL on the 3rd.

 

[RichardKimble]

Back to an alleged image again, HCW last May.

He told the Channel 5 programme: “We have no forensic evidence that Madeleine is dead, we have no other results.

“I don’t know where the body is right now. If we knew, we would have found it.”

Investigators ‘have no forensic evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead

GERMAN investigators examining the disappearance of Madeleine McCann "have no forensic evidence" to suggest she is dead, despite believing that she has been killed.

www.express.co.uk

 

[onemoremiletogo]

Back to an alleged image again, HCW last May.

He told the Channel 5 programme: “We have no forensic evidence that Madeleine is dead, we have no other results.

“I don’t know where the body is right now. If we knew, we would have found it.”

Investigators ‘have no forensic evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead

GERMAN investigators examining the disappearance of Madeleine McCann "have no forensic evidence" to suggest she is dead, despite believing that she has been killed.

www.express.co.uk

I'm not finding it available to watch. Always better to hear from his mouth and understand the real context (other as "nothing" more or as no additional in relation to what they said they have - material evidence?).