Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #39

[Denis R Tandib]

They didn’t actually do that though. HCW expressed the belief based on years of investigation, he did not state guilt as an incontrovertible fact, and indeed affirmed the need for more evidence before CB could be brought to trial.

"We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,"

"It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now,"

I’m sure using some form of linguistic gymnastics it’s possible to deny that he publicly stated CB is guilty of murdering MM. But, in every practical sense and IMO his communication from two years ago is clear - CB murdered MM and there is enough evidence to charge him with this crime.

Any other inference from these statements is disingenuous.

'It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now'

www.9news.com.au

 

[Consider Dudley]

"We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,"

"It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now,"

I’m sure using some form of linguistic gymnastics it’s possible to deny that he publicly stated CB is guilty of murdering MM. But, in every practical sense and IMO his communication from two years ago is clear - CB murdered MM and there is enough evidence to charge him with this crime.

Any other inference from these statements is disingenuous.

'It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now'

www.9news.com.au

No linguistic gymnastics necessary to see that from the statements you have posted they were expressing opinion (“we’re confident… “). He did not state as fact that CB is guilty. Only a court can do that.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

No linguistic gymnastics necessary to see that from the statements you have posted they were expressing opinion (“we’re confident… “). He did not state as fact that CB is guilty. Only a court can do that.

I stick with the three interesting subsequent citations.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

No linguistic gymnastics necessary to see that from the statements you have posted they were expressing an opinion (“we’re confident… “). He did not state as fact that CB is guilty. Only a court can do that.

We have very different views if you think that is a responsible way for a prosecutor to express his opinion.

IMO, for someone working in the legal profession, it's an egregious error of judgement. Saying this two years ago and still not charging him is indefensible.

 

[Mex]

"We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,"

"It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now,"

I’m sure using some form of linguistic gymnastics it’s possible to deny that he publicly stated CB is guilty of murdering MM. But, in every practical sense and IMO his communication from two years ago is clear - CB murdered MM and there is enough evidence to charge him with this crime.

Any other inference from these statements is disingenuous.

'It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now'

www.9news.com.au

I think any prosecution of CB for crimes against MM is going to be a long drawn out affair.

The contrast with the discrete investigation of CB with regard to the crimes committed against DM are quite startling.

• no-one knew that such an investigation was in progress
• no-one knew that a serious crime had been committed and was under investigation
• that the suspect was already in police custody having gone through extradition from Italy to where he had fled to avoid facing charges for another crime
• most important of all was that no-one leaked any of that information to the public domain
• no-one knew that CB was already a suspect under investigation with regard to MM
• the result being that CB was apprehended; did a short stint in Italian prison fighting extradition; was charged with aggravated rape etc; was tried > convicted > given a custodial sentence
• all done without publicity and unobserved while the MM case trundled along in the background with CB's identity unknown

The procedure carried out was probably the norm and does not reflect what is happening now that CB's identity was given publicity on the internet and his notoriety as MM suspect became established.

Without that publicity it is questionable if we or more importantly HB would know about CB until investigators were ready to indict him in MM's case.
The precedent for that assumption is the DM case for which there was no previous internet intervention.

My opinion

 

[Mex]

We have very different views if you think that is a responsible way for a prosecutor to express his opinion.

IMO, for someone working in the legal profession, it's an egregious error of judgement. Saying this two years ago and still not charging him is indefensible.

What is mystifying for me is the fact that CB's very competent legal teams are making no comment let alone official complaints along those lines.

If HCW overstepped a legal line over two years ago why on earth haven't CB's lawyers done something about it by now?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Couldn't agree more! That said, miscarriages of justice usually only happen AFTER evidence has been tested in court.

It may well be happening BEFORE in this case given the guilty verdict widely publicised in the media.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

What is mystifying for me is the fact that CB's very competent legal teams are making no comment let alone official complaints along those lines.

If HCW overstepped a legal line over two years ago why on earth haven't CB's lawyers done something about it by now?

You know that JS and FF are very dissatisfied with HCW’s media commentary.

Let’s see what happens if the charges against CB are dropped or if he faces trial - guilty or innocent verdict. I think you will find complaints and perhaps further legal action coming from CB’s legal team.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think any prosecution of CB for crimes against MM is going to be a long drawn out affair.

The contrast with the discrete investigation of CB with regard to the crimes committed against DM are quite startling.

• no-one knew that such an investigation was in progress
• no-one knew that a serious crime had been committed and was under investigation
• that the suspect was already in police custody having gone through extradition from Italy to where he had fled to avoid facing charges for another crime
• most important of all was that no-one leaked any of that information to the public domain
• no-one knew that CB was already a suspect under investigation with regard to MM
• the result being that CB was apprehended; did a short stint in Italian prison fighting extradition; was charged with aggravated rape etc; was tried > convicted > given a custodial sentence
• all done without publicity and unobserved while the MM case trundled along in the background with CB's identity unknown

The procedure carried out was probably the norm and does not reflect what is happening now that CB's identity was given publicity on the internet and his notoriety as MM suspect became established.

Without that publicity it is questionable if we or more importantly HB would know about CB until investigators were ready to indict him in MM's case.
The precedent for that assumption is the DM case for which there was no previous internet intervention.

My opinion

BIB - it looks like that is the objective - mission accomplished.

 

[misty48]

What is mystifying for me is the fact that CB's very competent legal teams are making no comment let alone official complaints along those lines.

If HCW overstepped a legal line over two years ago why on earth haven't CB's lawyers done something about it by now?

IMO I think CB's various defence lawyers are quite happy to allow any questioning of CB in relation to Madeleine's disappearance to be delayed for as long as possible because of information he may divulge. I also think the situation will alter dramatically if CB is convicted of the other 5 charges and faces life in prison with no chance of parole.

 

[Consider Dudley]

We have very different views if you think that is a responsible way for a prosecutor to express his opinion.

IMO, for someone working in the legal profession, it's an egregious error of judgement. Saying this two years ago and still not charging him is indefensible.

I passed no judgement on the prosecutor, I merely highlighted that he was expressing the investigation’s opinion. If he has broken the law then let him be sued - or tried, or whatever the appropriate term is.

 

[Davieson]

IMO I think CB's various defence lawyers are quite happy to allow any questioning of CB in relation to Madeleine's disappearance to be delayed for as long as possible because of information he may divulge. I also think the situation will alter dramatically if CB is convicted of the other 5 charges and faces life in prison with no chance of parole.

Do you not think the questioning timetable is entirely under the control of the prosecutors rather than the defence ?

 

[RichardKimble]

Do you not think the questioning timetable is entirely under the control of the prosecutors rather than the defence ?

It never seems clear if questioning takes place prior to indicment, at the indictment stage that's it for the investigation, it's then down to the legal arguments.Without going to far off target, the indictment doesn't necessarily mean it progresses to trial.

 

[RichardKimble]

"We're confident we have the man who took and killed her,"

"It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now,"

I’m sure using some form of linguistic gymnastics it’s possible to deny that he publicly stated CB is guilty of murdering MM. But, in every practical sense and IMO his communication from two years ago is clear - CB murdered MM and there is enough evidence to charge him with this crime.

Any other inference from these statements is disingenuous.

'It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now'

www.9news.com.au

HCW was quoted way back in saying MM is dead and their suspect killed her.

We have concrete evidence that our suspect has killed Madeleine and this means she is dead. The parents have been told the German police have evidence that she is dead but we have not told them the details.'

Madeleine McCann's parents told by German prosecutors that she is dead

German prosecutors have written to Madeleine McCann's parents to tell them she is dead, refusing to discuss how they knew as any information could affect the inquiry into Christian Brueckner.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Consider Dudley]

HCW was quoted way back in saying MM is dead and their suspect killed her.

We have concrete evidence that our suspect has killed Madeleine and this means she is dead. The parents have been told the German police have evidence that she is dead but we have not told them the details.'

Madeleine McCann's parents told by German prosecutors that she is dead

German prosecutors have written to Madeleine McCann's parents to tell them she is dead, refusing to discuss how they knew as any information could affect the inquiry into Christian Brueckner.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If anyone has just cause to be angry and disgusted with the German investigation it is the McCanns imo (if the above is true and they still haven’t been put out of their misery by now).

 

[Anxala]

It never seems clear if questioning takes place prior to indicment, at the indictment stage that's it for the investigation, it's then down to the legal arguments.Without going to far off target, the indictment doesn't necessarily mean it progresses to trial.

There's some clarity on that here regarding German criminal procedure -

"For an indictment to be filed by the public prosecutor`s office, the suspicion of a criminal offence must first have been sufficiently substantiated in the corresponding preliminary investigation.

Initiation and conduct of preliminary proceedings​

Preliminary proceedings are initiated when a criminal prosecution authority suspects based on existing facts that a criminal offence has already been committed or is still ongoing. Accordingly, it is assumed that the police or the public prosecutor`s office, for example, has obtained knowledge of facts that, in turn, give rise to suspicion, e.g., by filing a criminal complaint. After receiving such knowledge, the public prosecutor´s office is obliged to investigate the facts (cf. Section 152 (2) and Section 160 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)).

If the investigations of the prosecution authorities are directed against a particular person, this person becomes the accused. During the investigation, the accused is questioned. The accused then has the right to know what they are accused of and, as a result, to comment on the existing suspicion."

Indictment Received: What to do?

If you have received an indictment in Germany, it is essential to respond appropriately. Schlun & Elseven. German criminal defence lawyers.

se-legal.de

 

[Mex]

There's some clarity on that here regarding German criminal procedure -

"For an indictment to be filed by the public prosecutor`s office, the suspicion of a criminal offence must first have been sufficiently substantiated in the corresponding preliminary investigation.

Initiation and conduct of preliminary proceedings​

Preliminary proceedings are initiated when a criminal prosecution authority suspects based on existing facts that a criminal offence has already been committed or is still ongoing. Accordingly, it is assumed that the police or the public prosecutor`s office, for example, has obtained knowledge of facts that, in turn, give rise to suspicion, e.g., by filing a criminal complaint. After receiving such knowledge, the public prosecutor´s office is obliged to investigate the facts (cf. Section 152 (2) and Section 160 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)).

If the investigations of the prosecution authorities are directed against a particular person, this person becomes the accused. During the investigation, the accused is questioned. The accused then has the right to know what they are accused of and, as a result, to comment on the existing suspicion."

Indictment Received: What to do?

If you have received an indictment in Germany, it is essential to respond appropriately. Schlun & Elseven. German criminal defence lawyers.

se-legal.de

Thank you Anxala, that clarifies matters as far as the duties are laid out for the prosecutors' office.

We are obviously still at the preliminary stages in the MM investigation and just as obviously have gone past those stages in other criminal matters concerning CB.
The process has been completed in one with others pending.

Snip
Madeleine McCann is "assumed" to be dead, say German prosecutors, who are investigating the disappearance of the British girl in 2007.
The UK's Metropolitan Police said it had received more than 270 calls and emails since a new appeal for information was launched on Wednesday.
HCW, from the Braunschweig Public Prosecutor's Office in Germany, said in an update on Thursday: "We are assuming that the girl is dead.
"With the suspect, we are talking about a sexual predator who has already been convicted of crimes against little girls and he's already serving a long sentence."
He said the suspect was regularly living in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007 and had jobs in the area, including in catering, but also committed burglaries in hotels and dealt drugs.

Madeleine McCann 'assumed dead' by German prosecutors

A German man, 43, is being investigated on suspicion of murder over the British girl’s disappearance.

www.bbc.co.uk

What I find particularly ironic is the fact that any censure there is regarding this unimaginable breakthrough of events is falling on the head of the senior prosecutor. And could only happen for advances made in a missing child case when that child is MM.
My opinion

 

[Mex]

If anyone has just cause to be angry and disgusted with the German investigation it is the McCanns imo (if the above is true and they still haven’t been put out of their misery by now).

Very, very sadly MM's parents have had to live with this probability for many years. As far as I can see they have no complaints about police investigators or the handling of the investigation.

Snip
In a statement, the McCs, from Rothley in Leicestershire, welcomed the appeal: "We would like to thank the police forces involved for their continued efforts in the search for MM.
"All we have ever wanted is to find her, uncover the truth and bring those responsible to justice.
"We will never give up hope of finding Madeleine alive, but whatever the outcome may be, we need to know as we need to find peace."

Madeleine McCann 'assumed dead' by German prosecutors

A German man, 43, is being investigated on suspicion of murder over the British girl’s disappearance.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[RichardKimble]

There's some clarity on that here regarding German criminal procedure -

"For an indictment to be filed by the public prosecutor`s office, the suspicion of a criminal offence must first have been sufficiently substantiated in the corresponding preliminary investigation.

Initiation and conduct of preliminary proceedings​

Preliminary proceedings are initiated when a criminal prosecution authority suspects based on existing facts that a criminal offence has already been committed or is still ongoing. Accordingly, it is assumed that the police or the public prosecutor`s office, for example, has obtained knowledge of facts that, in turn, give rise to suspicion, e.g., by filing a criminal complaint. After receiving such knowledge, the public prosecutor´s office is obliged to investigate the facts (cf. Section 152 (2) and Section 160 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)).

If the investigations of the prosecution authorities are directed against a particular person, this person becomes the accused. During the investigation, the accused is questioned. The accused then has the right to know what they are accused of and, as a result, to comment on the existing suspicion."

Indictment Received: What to do?

If you have received an indictment in Germany, it is essential to respond appropriately. Schlun & Elseven. German criminal defence lawyers.

se-legal.de

Thanks for that, it seems inconceivable that the BKA haven't attempted to question CB, although he has and no doubt been advised to stay silent.

. WHY SHOULD I REMAIN SILENT AS AN ACCUSED OF A CRIME?​

Many mistakes made at the beginning of proceedings are difficult or even impossible to rectify later on. This also includes, and especially, hasty statements by the accused. Those who remain silent do not make themselves suspicious and have nothing to hide. Those who remain silent do not obstruct the investigations and do not prolong the proceedings. Those who remain silent simply know their rights and make use of them.

The defendant in a preliminary investigation has the right to remain silent. No one is obliged to incriminate themselves by testifying.

The principle that nobody is obliged to incriminate himself is not explicitly regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is expressed in several passages and forms the basis of the law. The principle is so fundamental that it is also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Lawyers call this principle the nemo-tenetur principle; this stands for the Latin phrase nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare – nobody is obliged to accuse himself.

The citizen not only has the freedom in relation to the state not to have to burden himself, he does not even have to actively participate in the clarification of the facts.

Almost always a statement on the matter has negative effects on the subsequent development of the case, even if the accused himself does not attach great importance to his statement – or thinks he can exonerate himself.

Why should I remain silent as an accused of a crime? - Criminal Law Germany

criminal-law-germany.lawyer

 

[Mex]

Thanks for that, it seems inconceivable that the BKA haven't attempted to question CB, although he has and no doubt been advised to stay silent.

. WHY SHOULD I REMAIN SILENT AS AN ACCUSED OF A CRIME?​

Many mistakes made at the beginning of proceedings are difficult or even impossible to rectify later on. This also includes, and especially, hasty statements by the accused. Those who remain silent do not make themselves suspicious and have nothing to hide. Those who remain silent do not obstruct the investigations and do not prolong the proceedings. Those who remain silent simply know their rights and make use of them.

The defendant in a preliminary investigation has the right to remain silent. No one is obliged to incriminate themselves by testifying.

The principle that nobody is obliged to incriminate himself is not explicitly regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is expressed in several passages and forms the basis of the law. The principle is so fundamental that it is also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Lawyers call this principle the nemo-tenetur principle; this stands for the Latin phrase nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare – nobody is obliged to accuse himself.

The citizen not only has the freedom in relation to the state not to have to burden himself, he does not even have to actively participate in the clarification of the facts.

Almost always a statement on the matter has negative effects on the subsequent development of the case, even if the accused himself does not attach great importance to his statement – or thinks he can exonerate himself.

Why should I remain silent as an accused of a crime? - Criminal Law Germany

criminal-law-germany.lawyer

CB has refused to co-operate with German police as is his right by German law.

Nor would he answer questions for the Portuguese police when he was made an arguido - or formal suspect - in their investigation two years later.
As is also his right under Portuguese law.

Snip
CB's lawyer FF was quoted by The Times as saying: "Mr B is remaining silent on the allegation at this time on the advice of his defence counsel. This is quite common in criminal proceedings.

German Madeleine McCann murder suspect Christian Bruckner 'won't answer questions'

Lawyers for the man suspected of murdering Madeleine McCann say he will refuse to answer questions because ...

www.9news.com.au

Snip
German paedophile CB was handed a document in prison informing him he was being made an arguido over the British youngster’s May 3 2007 disappearance from her Algarve holiday apartment before being quizzed for the first time about it.
He was asked “where were you the night MM disappeared?” during a barrage of questions fired at him in prison after Portuguese prosecutors made him a formal suspect over the unsolved crime.
______________________________
Sources close to the case in Portugal also revealed on Friday that CB answered none of the questions put to him during his jail interrogation, retaining the right to silence afforded him by his new ‘arguido’ status.
It is the first time CB has faced a formal quiz over MM’s disappearance.

Madeleine McCann’s parents welcome that Brueckner made ‘arguido’

Kate and Gerry McCann say they ‘have not given up hope that Madeleine is still alive’ as German paedophile is quizzed in prison by Portuguese prosecutors

www.standard.co.uk