Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[Consider Dudley]

That's the reality. HCW can continue to do all the rather inept damage control he's been doing, jumping in whenever and wherever there's public doubt, but the message he's trying to send out - 'all is well, keep calm and carry on' - is really not the message he's delivering.

I think that very much depends on the attitude of those receiving / interpreting the message.

 

[Mex]

That's the reality. HCW can continue to do all the rather inept damage control he's been doing, jumping in whenever and wherever there's public doubt, but the message he's trying to send out - 'all is well, keep calm and carry on' - is really not the message he's delivering.

Is it possible for a German prosecutor to allow him or herself to be swayed by public opinion given a system which follows strict protocols about absolutely every legal process.
Snip
Prosecuting attorneys in West Germany are required, except in certain situations specified in the codes and statutes, to prosecute all charges for which there is sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. The German prosecutor is not without discretion; the scope of his discretion has increased steadily and is still growing. Unlike the American situation, however, the discretion of the prosecutor in this system is strictly limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure; it is guided by statutory standards and, to a certain extent, is controlled by the courts.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3803&context=uclrev

HCW delivers no message on his own behalf. He is not a free agent. He operates strictly within the German Code of Criminal Procedure. The system is in place but is poorly understood by those unfamiliar with its strictures.

My opinion

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for that.

It's pretty much as expected, HCW sticking firmly to his precarious position, saying on the one hand that

(a) HB is bound by the T&Cs of the German legal system so any nonsense he spouts in the public domain is just him talking nonsense;
(b) but that anyway, nonsense or no nonsense, HB is not crucial to the investigation; and
(c) that it doesn't really matter one way or the other since there may never be a charge or a trial due to him and his team not having sufficient evidence against CB to move forward on the MM front.

And that's the no nonsense reality, straight from the horse's mouth.

I'm kind of surprised HCW has commented on this 'story'.

 

[RichardKimble]

I'm kind of surprised HCW has commented on this 'story'.

Yes, a simple we will not comment on an on going investigation would suffice.

 

[investikater]

Yes, a simple we will not comment on an on going investigation would suffice.

Yes it would! I have long found his frequent media appearances odd, unbecoming, and suspicious - JUST MY OPINION.

 

[investikater]

Is it possible for a German prosecutor to allow him or herself to be swayed by public opinion given a system which follows strict protocols about absolutely every legal process.
Snip
Prosecuting attorneys in West Germany are required, except in certain situations specified in the codes and statutes, to prosecute all charges for which there is sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. The German prosecutor is not without discretion; the scope of his discretion has increased steadily and is still growing. Unlike the American situation, however, the discretion of the prosecutor in this system is strictly limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure; it is guided by statutory standards and, to a certain extent, is controlled by the courts.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3803&context=uclrev

HCW delivers no message on his own behalf. He is not a free agent. He operates strictly within the German Code of Criminal Procedure. The system is in place but is poorly understood by those unfamiliar with its strictures.

My opinion

Isn't this even more indicative that they probably don't have anything, or at least not enough to have declared that probably MM is dead and that CB did it they way they did? Doesnt it mean that if they did have proof of that, they would have had no choice but to prosecute a long time ago?

 

[investikater]

Until this 'evidence' becomes public knowledge, we wont be able to determine if it has any value worth talking about.

Are you able to name another live investigation where the evidence has been or is expected to be publicised prior to an indictment being served.

It just does not happen; so you are perfectly correct in thinking we will just have to wait for it.
My opinion

Obviously. However that day never seems to come, does it?

And I can also think of very few cases where LE have declared what they believe happened, and then not immediately handed it over to prosecutors. When that has happened in other cases, it hasn't been as long as this - this is the longest gap I know of.

I'm interested if anyone has seen this before? Or know of any other cases where the gap between declaration and prosecution has been longer?

 

[RichardKimble]

Obviously. However that day never seems to come, does it?

And I can also think of very few cases where LE have declared what they believe happened, and then not immediately handed it over to prosecutors. When that has happened in other cases, it hasn't been as long as this - this is the longest gap I know of.

I'm interested if anyone has seen this before? Or know of any other cases where the gap between declaration and prosecution has been longer?

In 2002 John Cannan was named as the suspect in the Suzi Lamplugh case after the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to charge him after having a file presented by the police.

One of the reasons was because of the publicity it was felt JC wouldn't get a fair trial.Theres a thread on WS in regards to it.

UK - UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

She left Sturgis Estate Agents at 12.40 for an appointment with Mr Kipper Suzy Lamplugh case 'still active' 35 years on In the Footsteps of Killers release date: Emilia Fox to present Channel 4 documentary Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4

www.websleuths.com

 

[investikater]

In 2002 John Cannan was named as the suspect in the Suzi Lamplugh case after the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to charge him after having a file presented by the police.

One of the reasons was because of the publicity it was felt JC wouldn't get a fair trial.Theres a thread on WS in regards to it.

UK - UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

She left Sturgis Estate Agents at 12.40 for an appointment with Mr Kipper Suzy Lamplugh case 'still active' 35 years on In the Footsteps of Killers release date: Emilia Fox to present Channel 4 documentary Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4

www.websleuths.com

Thank you.
What was the reasoning supposed to be behind naming him?

 

[RichardKimble]

Thank you.
What was the reasoning supposed to be behind naming him?

I guess they thought the evidence doesn't point to any one else and or hoping the naming would bring the smoking gun, much like in the MM case.

 

[RichardKimble]

It is a huge pity that HCW comments have been hidden behind a paywall in the Times while other journalists have followed on with the sensational comments from an anonymous "source in Germany".

HCW did make the comment you have paraphrased.

But he also made a statement which consisted of five paragraphs in which he

• Gave a very clear synopsis of the actual circumstances should the witness attempt to crumble as the tabloids suggest
• The case would not collapse even if the rumours had any substance as reported in the press
• The particular statements made by the allegedly wobbly witness certainly will not disrupt or outweigh all the hundreds of statement already on file in the MM case should indictments be made and a trial scheduled

Not my opinion but my synopsis of the Times article which you selectively quote from and minus the huge chunk of information HCW imparted during the five paragraphs of his interview with the Times journalist.

Madeleine McCann case against Christian Brueckner ‘is still on’

The German prosecutor investigating the convicted rapist Christian Brueckner for the alleged abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann has strongly denied claims

www.thetimes.co.uk

The Sun and Times are both owned by Murdoch's News corp, just because one is behind a paywall doesn't make the other less pertinent.

 

[Consider Dudley]

When the German police first identified that they had a suspect in the MM case I don’t believe they actually named him, at least not fully. The media filled in the blanks for us. Same as in the Lucy Letby case, the BBC first named her as a suspect in the deaths of numerous babies back in 2018, way before charges were brought or the police naming her as a suspect.

 

[Davieson]

When the German police first identified that they had a suspect in the MM case I don’t believe they actually named him, at least not fully. The media filled in the blanks for us. Same as in the Lucy Letby case, the BBC first named her as a suspect in the deaths of numerous babies back in 2018, way before charges were brought or the police naming her as a suspect.

That's right, he was named only as Christian B, though it only took a short time for media to fully identify and then publish his details and criminal history

 

[Consider Dudley]

That's right, he was named only as Christian B, though it only took a short time for media to fully identify and then publish his details and criminal history

That’s on the media, same as how Lucy Letby had her name published nationwide (if not further afield) even before charges were laid. I know there is a “Free Lucy Letby” movement growing even as we speak, I wonder if a key argument in their case is that she was denied a fair trial? Sorry if this is deemed off topic but we were asked for comparisons.

 

[mrjitty]

When the German police first identified that they had a suspect in the MM case I don’t believe they actually named him, at least not fully. The media filled in the blanks for us. Same as in the Lucy Letby case, the BBC first named her as a suspect in the deaths of numerous babies back in 2018, way before charges were brought or the police naming her as a suspect.

In the UK there are quite specific rules and practices around this. IIRC we discussed this in some detail before so I won't rehash. In short, the police/CPS do not name suspects (though often the person can be identified from the details they do give). The media typically do not name the suspect before charge, especially because it could result in libel action.

Generally the media have a defence where the person is already named e.g. by a public official. My understanding in this case is the UK media felt safe to name CB as he had already been effectively identified by a public official.

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you.
What was the reasoning supposed to be behind naming him?

e.g to identify the witness who was talking to him on the phone that night

 

[Mex]

The Sun and Times are both owned by Murdoch's News corp, just because one is behind a paywall doesn't make the other less pertinent.

The Sun and the Times are aimed at different target audiences. Never has it been more apparent than this single example of the reporting of the MM case. The Sun opted for sensationalising a witness who is actually very small beer in the sphere of things. The Times prioritised an interview with the German prosecutor who put things into proper perspective regarding the actualities of German Law and in effect contradicting the Sun's headline grabbing nonsense at a stroke.

Whatever action the witness HB chooses to take will have absolutely no effect on the MM case. The Sun has misinterpreted German Law. The Times printed the German prosecutor's Legal explanation of the law regarding witnesses. That is the difference.

My opinion

 

[Consider Dudley]

In the UK there are quite specific rules and practices around this. IIRC we discussed this in some detail before so I won't rehash. In short, the police/CPS do not name suspects (though often the person can be identified from the details they do give). The media typically do not name the suspect before charge, especially because it could result in libel action.

Generally the media have a defence where the person is already named e.g. by a public official. My understanding in this case is the UK media felt safe to name CB as he had already been effectively identified by a public official.

As I mentioned in my post in this country Lucy Letby was named as a suspect by the BBC in 2018, two years before charges were brought.

 

[Mex]

Obviously. However that day never seems to come, does it?

And I can also think of very few cases where LE have declared what they believe happened, and then not immediately handed it over to prosecutors. When that has happened in other cases, it hasn't been as long as this - this is the longest gap I know of.

I'm interested if anyone has seen this before? Or know of any other cases where the gap between declaration and prosecution has been longer?

The MM case has been under investigation since 2007 when she disappeared without trace. The man who is the prime suspect in crimes against her did not become known to investigators until 2017 and information regarding him was not publicly asked for until 2020.

So in effect we have only known about him for three years and MM investigators slightly longer than that.

They just didn't know who he was throughout the years they were looking for him.

But they do now.

Indeed it has been a long haul and is likely to be an even longer one given the years the suspect has had to cover his tracks.

He didn't manage it when the BKA investigated information received which led to CB's prosecution and conviction for the aggravated rape of DM in 2005.

He left enough evidence behind him to allow charges to be made for offences on two counts against minors and three counts of rape.

If BKA investigators think it worthwhile to keep investigating CB until the information stops coming in my opinion is "more power to their elbow" because finding out what happened to that little girl has been a long time coming.

 

[Anxala]

That’s on the media, same as how Lucy Letby had her name published nationwide (if not further afield) even before charges were laid. I know there is a “Free Lucy Letby” movement growing even as we speak, I wonder if a key argument in their case is that she was denied a fair trial? Sorry if this is deemed off topic but we were asked for comparisons.

I don't think this is a relevant comparison for countless reasons but they're too off topic to go into on this thread.