Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[Consider Dudley]

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

I disagree. In both cases the police did not name (or fully name) the suspects, the media did - well in advance of any charges. That’s the relevance, imo.

 

[Anxala]

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.

Yes it would! I have long found his frequent media appearances odd, unbecoming, and suspicious

A confident prosecutor, one secure in his investigation, would imo have no truck whatsoever with this type of media nonsense, let alone engage with it. And would only engage proactively (rather than reactively as HCW does) via official channels when he has something of worth/significance to say about the progress of the investigation.

HCW imo is in a hole he's dug for himself. He over-engaged from the off and is now paying the price for that, hence his very defensive and increasingly perplexing media stance. It was probably well-meaning as a strategy back in 2020 but I'm sure he now knows exactly why he and the MM investigation are being side-eyed and perceived in the way they are, 3+ years after 'bombshell' claims that have not just come to nothing but show no signs of ever coming to anything.

He really should stop digging.

 

[Davieson]

I disagree. In both cases the police did not name (or fully name) the suspects, the media did - well in advance of any charges. That’s the relevance, imo.

I doubt Letby got much publicity before she actually came to trial as on the surface she was squeaky clean and not good media material whereas CB was already a career criminal, an ideal candidate for media exposure.
IMO

 

[Anxala]

I disagree. In both cases the police did not name (or fully name) the suspects, the media did - well in advance of any charges. That’s the relevance, imo.

I'm not disagreeing on that front, more the idea that, in the LL case, it could ever be used as fodder for grounds for an appeal. Nothing in her past impacted the evidence put forward by the prosecution in her trial.

I'm leaving it there.

 

[Consider Dudley]

I doubt Letby got much publicity before she actually came to trial as on the surface she was squeaky clean and not good media material whereas CB was already a career criminal, an ideal candidate for media exposure.
IMO

Actually I remember seeing it reported on the news at the time back in 2018 and thinking it was a bit “off” to show her and name her as a suspect. In fact I may be mistaken but I think she was arrested twice and both times this was reported on the BBC prior to charges being laid. The difference of course is that unlike in CB’s case, her victims were not household names, nor had been involved in one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st Century.

 

[Consider Dudley]

A confident prosecutor, one secure in his investigation, would imo have no truck whatsoever with this type of media nonsense, let alone engage with it. And would only engage proactively (rather than reactively as HCW does) via official channels when he has something of worth/significance to say about the progress of the investigation.

HCW imo is in a hole he's dug for himself. He over-engaged from the off and is now paying the price for that, hence his very defensive and increasingly perplexing media stance. It was probably well-meaning as a strategy back in 2020 but I'm sure he now knows exactly why he and the MM investigation are being side-eyed and perceived in the way they are, 3+ years after 'bombshell' claims that have not just come to nothing but show no signs of ever coming to anything.

He really should stop digging.

I doubt he makes any media appearances without the full approval and backing of the office he represents. He always strikes me as supremely calm and confident too.

 

[Mex]

A confident prosecutor, one secure in his investigation, would imo have no truck whatsoever with this type of media nonsense, let alone engage with it. And would only engage proactively (rather than reactively as HCW does) via official channels when he has something of worth/significance to say about the progress of the investigation.

HCW imo is in a hole he's dug for himself. He over-engaged from the off and is now paying the price for that, hence his very defensive and increasingly perplexing media stance. It was probably well-meaning as a strategy back in 2020 but I'm sure he now knows exactly why he and the MM investigation are being side-eyed and perceived in the way they are, 3+ years after 'bombshell' claims that have not just come to nothing but show no signs of ever coming to anything.

He really should stop digging.

HCW is the Press Spokesperson for the Braunschweig Public Prosecutors' Office.

Article information
Compiled on:
15.12.2021

Contact:
First Public Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters

Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office
Press Spokesperson
Turnierstraße 1
38100 Braunschweig
Tel: 0531 488-1178

Email contact address

Pressekontakte | Staatsanwaltschaft Braunschweig

Strafverfahren gegen ehemalige Leitung der Landesaufnahmebehörde | Staatsanwaltschaft Braunschweig

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Sure - sometimes the media will name the arrested person even though the police do not.

The matter is governed by the Police College Guidance

Respecting suspects’ rights to privacy​

Suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge, except where justified by clear circumstances, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or a matter of public interest and confidence.

Media relations | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

 

[mrjitty]

I disagree. In both cases the police did not name (or fully name) the suspects, the media did - well in advance of any charges. That’s the relevance, imo.

Letby was arrested whereas CB was not, so that is one significant difference.

It's not as if CPS came out and said 'Lucy L' was suspected of a serious crime pre-arrest

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not disagreeing on that front, more the idea that, in the LL case, it could ever be used as fodder for grounds for an appeal. Nothing in her past impacted the evidence put forward by the prosecution in her trial.

I'm leaving it there.

The reason for media not naming arrested suspects in the UK often has to do with exposure for libel if the suspect is not ultimately charged.

So for example, someone is arrested and the media broadcasts it widely, but then they are cleared later and never charged - in the meantime they might have suffered significant reputational harm.

My guess is in this case, because HCW as good as named him, the UK media lawyers felt safe because it is generally a defence if you report info from official sources.

 

[Consider Dudley]

The reason for media not naming arrested suspects in the UK often has to do with exposure for libel if the suspect is not ultimately charged.

So for example, someone is arrested and the media broadcasts it widely, but then they are cleared later and never charged - in the meantime they might have suffered significant reputational harm.

My guess is in this case, because HCW as good as named him, the UK media lawyers felt safe because it is generally a defence if you report info from official sources.

The UK media had no way of knowing whether or not Lucy Letby would be charged when they widely reported her multiple arrests and named her and plastered her photos everywhere so I don’t think that’s quite right. My guess is that in this country in this instance the police tipped off the media to get people to come forward with evidence against their suspect rather than hold press conferences like HCW did.

 

[mrjitty]

The UK media had no way of knowing whether or not Lucy Letby would be charged when they widely reported her multiple arrests and named her and plastered her photos everywhere so I don’t think that’s quite right. My guess is that in this country in this instance the police tipped off the media to get people to come forward with evidence against their suspect rather than hold press conferences like HCW did.

As i've said, sometimes the media will risk naming the suspect, even though the police have not.

Examples include Jefferies, a suspect in the Yeates case where damages subsequently had to be paid. You tend to see it with big stories and celebrity stories where they will take the risk.

I am not familiar with why the decision to publish was made in Letby - perhaps a public interest argument.

By contrast, there has been a recent rape arrest involving a premiership footballer where his name is not published for these reasons. IMO the main difference here is that HCW effectively named / identified the suspect already in a public presser. Even if HCW's case later collapses, a libel action might struggle, because media can claim the suspect was mostly identified by a government official.

 

[mrjitty]

A confident prosecutor, one secure in his investigation, would imo have no truck whatsoever with this type of media nonsense, let alone engage with it. And would only engage proactively (rather than reactively as HCW does) via official channels when he has something of worth/significance to say about the progress of the investigation.

HCW imo is in a hole he's dug for himself. He over-engaged from the off and is now paying the price for that, hence his very defensive and increasingly perplexing media stance. It was probably well-meaning as a strategy back in 2020 but I'm sure he now knows exactly why he and the MM investigation are being side-eyed and perceived in the way they are, 3+ years after 'bombshell' claims that have not just come to nothing but show no signs of ever coming to anything.

He really should stop digging.

It's interesting that media have gone to HCW for comment and that he has felt the need to give on the record quotes - that would tend to indicate IMO that this is not the normal made up tabloid speculation. It is interesting to me that he now says he may not have a strong enough case to charge, which seems less bullish than in the past.

I would love to know what changed the assessment

It's also odd to me that the key witness sold his story. His whole interview was bizarre. And what does his supposed reluctance even mean now? I really hope they didn't need him too much.

 

[mrjitty]

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

It's interesting that the new guidelines on all this were created post-Levenson in 2013, so it's possible that they would not have named him under the current guidelines, unless one of the exceptions could be seen to apply.

 

[Dave55]

The reason for media not naming arrested suspects in the UK often has to do with exposure for libel if the suspect is not ultimately charged.

So for example, someone is arrested and the media broadcasts it widely, but then they are cleared later and never charged - in the meantime they might have suffered significant reputational harm.

My guess is in this case, because HCW as good as named him, the UK media lawyers felt safe because it is generally a defence if you report info from official sources.

The reason for media not naming arrested suspects in the UK often has to do with exposure for libel if the suspect is not ultimately charged.

So for example, someone is arrested and the media broadcasts it widely, but then they are cleared later and never charged - in the meantime they might have suffered significant reputational harm.

My guess is in this case, because HCW as good as named him, the UK media lawyers felt safe because it is generally a defence if you report info from official sources.

Perhaps Wolters is happy for CB to sue him. His defence could be it's true and the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps Wolters is happy for CB to sue him. His defence could be it's true and the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

Generally the prosecutor/law enforcement cannot be sued in this way.

 

[RichardKimble]

Perhaps Wolters is happy for CB to sue him. His defence could be it's true and the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

If the case were to be dropped imo there's no comeback in HCW, he's doing his job, now if stories in the MSM we're found not to be true then CB might well have a case, much like Murat and the McCanns despite being suspects it was the press their argument was with.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

It's interesting that media have gone to HCW for comment and that he has felt the need to give on the record quotes - that would tend to indicate IMO that this is not the normal made up tabloid speculation. It is interesting to me that he now says he may not have a strong enough case to charge, which seems less bullish than in the past.

I would love to know what changed the assessment

It's also odd to me that the key witness sold his story. His whole interview was bizarre. And what does his supposed reluctance even mean now? I really hope they didn't need him too much.

I noticed that HCW is winding back his conviction on the case too. Let’s not forget that he has stated that they had enough evidence to charge - IIRC in Oct 2021. Almost two years later and he doesn’t know if they will charge. Either he was bluffing or he now doubts the evidence he relied upon to make the statement. I think the former. It was a weak ploy, easily read by CB. Made much easier if he is innocent in relation to MM.

I’ve said it for a while now that HCW, as the mouthpiece of the prosecutors office, has seriously over played his hand. The case was built around HeB’s statement. They were further convinced by the DM case stacking up with forensics, and the potential coincidences of the Jag and phone call - both possibly red herrings. The star witness may have made statements but given his new position, he might not be that convincing in front of a judge.

For me, there is little reason to continue to believe there a case against CB for anything to do with MM. Whatever mirage there was has more or less disappeared.

If the MM case against CB is dropped, it would be good to see how the Portuguese and OG respond.

 

[RichardKimble]

I noticed that HCW is winding back his conviction on the case too. Let’s not forget that he has stated that they had enough evidence to charge - IIRC in Oct 2021. Almost two years later and he doesn’t know if they will charge. Either he was bluffing or he now doubts the evidence he relied upon to make the statement. I think the former. It was a weak ploy, easily read by CB. Made much easier if he is innocent in relation to MM.

I’ve said it for a while now that HCW, as the mouthpiece of the prosecutors office, has seriously over played his hand. The case was built around HeB’s statement. They were further convinced by the DM case stacking up with forensics, and the potential coincidences of the Jag and phone call - both possibly red herrings. The star witness may have made statements but given his new position, he might not be that convincing in front of a judge.

For me, there is little reason to continue to believe there a case against CB for anything to do with MM. Whatever mirage there was has more or less disappeared.

If the MM case against CB is dropped, it would be good to see how the Portuguese and OG respond.

HeB it seems is not reliable, the recent digs were supposed to have come from intelligence, without any thing found that was flawed, like so say what HCW seemingly relied upon is anything but reliable imo.

 

[Mex]

One wonders what response CB will get to his letters to former friends from Jail
Snip
A man suspected of murdering MM has pleaded with his friends to support him in court.

"He was asking them to speak in his defence, about what a good guy he was. He said the German police and prosecutors have it in for him, that they are saying he is a monster.

"It’s outrageous for Chris to ask for help because now we all know about his past. Back when we were hanging with him in the early 2000s it was all a secret.

"We didn’t know he was a paedophile. But now he doesn’t stand a chance of anybody speaking up for him in court."

Madeleine McCann suspect 'begs friends to support him in court' over child sex charges | LBC

A man suspected of murdering Madeleine McCann has pleaded with his friends to support him in court.

www.lbc.co.uk

One who actually does have CB's corner is his lawyer FF.

Snip
FF told The Sun newspaper:
___________________________

Last week, FF admitted he wouldn't trust his client to ever be around his children.
He told the Daily Mirror if he had a daughter, he would never let him "babysit" her.
Despite CB claiming his innocence in the MM case, FF told the Mirror "I'd let him look after my dogs but I wouldn't let him look after my children or my daughter - if I had them.

"He could be my dog sitter, yes, but because of his record I would not let him look after my own daughter."

'Vital information': Why lawyer says Maddie suspect is innocent

"When I reveal it you will fall off your chair."

www.nzherald.co.nz

If there is any desperation being shown in the criminal V prosecutor social media and MSM argument it emanates from the guy soliciting help from the friends who have discovered they never really knew him. Much as CP who at the time didn't but has since given witness statements to the police.