Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #40

[Denis R Tandib]

This is where my differences with your opinion occur, you say you will be shocked if its proved CB didn't do it, no one has to prove CB didn't do it, what ever it is, the onus is to prove he "did".Until such time if ever charges are laid at CBs door in relation to MM then all the words in the world uttered by HCW on behalf of the BKA are just that, words.imo.

Agree entirely.

 

[Consider Dudley]

HCW is entirely responsible for his own media appearances and commentary on the case. Some of his statements are vague, some commitments he has made have fallen through and sometimes he says things which are entirely unnecessary and not becoming of someone in his position. If people ridicule him for this, he should reconsider his media strategy. He gets paid to do a job and be accountable for the comments he makes.

There is nothing sly about my comments. Suspects from the original investigation acted strangely and failed to account for changes in statements and peculiar behaviour. That’s my opinion in clear language.

Except it’s not entirely clear who you are referring to, so sly imo - so as not to upset the mods,right? To be absolutely crystal clear (and without recourse to my mind reading abilities you’re pointing the finger of suspicion at Madeleine’s parents and friends based on little more than your own opinion of “peculiar behaviour” and your belief that they did not explain themselves satisfactorily to LE. This subject is forbidden on here as well you know. We should be discussing CB’s far more “peculiar behaviour” and failure to account for himself exclusively and not constantly trying to drag suspicion away from him and back onto the parents.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Can you tell me which other suspects have been investigated for over six years without a charge? If CB is not found guilty, I sincerely hope the same scrutiny is given to other past and future suspects.

Read my post again. I made no such claim. CB has been investigated for six years and in that time been convicted of rape with 5 other charges about to go to court. A good result so far, with more to come hopefully!

 

[Davieson]

Can you tell me which other suspects have been investigated for over six years without a charge? If CB is not found guilty, I sincerely hope the same scrutiny is given to other past and future suspects.

Somehow I don't think that will happen. To use Rowley's words, this is the last roll of the dice. If prosecutors fail to make a case, or CB is shown innocent, then that's the end of the investigation.
The stage has been set to portray CB as guilty, even if that is never proved and that's how the world will remember it.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Ultimately none of these questions can ever be resolved unless HCW charges.

My personal opinion is none of what has been revealed by HCW is terribly convincing. It merely shows CB is a valid suspect.

Whether they can't charge because the evidence can't be found, or they have the wrong suspect - who can say.

Personally I think we do have to respect the institution of the prosecutors office when charges are brought - until we can evaluate evidence in the trial

I am less thrilled about accusations pre charge

 

[Mex]

Can you tell me which other suspects have been investigated for over six years without a charge? If CB is not found guilty, I sincerely hope the same scrutiny is given to other past and future suspects.

Try this one for size

Snip
There is nothing sly about my comments. Suspects from the original investigation acted strangely and failed to account for changes in statements and peculiar behaviour. That’s my opinion in clear language.

For many years the investigation into MM's case was hampered by that attitude despite the absolute fact there never was one shred of evidence in support.

The false internet dawns perpetuated in chatter and innuendo were officially put to bed in 2008 and a true investigation into MM's case continued by the efforts of her parents.

The publicity engendered publicly and constantly had the desired effect with the result that the name of an individual was given to the then investigating authority. They investigated the information received and found grounds to name CB as suspect in the murder of MM.

There has never been any evidence supporting suspicion against anyone since 2008 and the constant defamation of character by innuendo really should have had its day.

CB is a very credible suspect in the opinion of Portuguese, British and German police who all have the very firm intention of testing the evidence they have at trial. And when I think about it all three investigative authorities have publicly declared on the record no official interest or suspicion of MM's parents. CB is the only suspect in crimes against MM.

 

[Mex]

This is where my differences with your opinion occur, you say you will be shocked if its proved CB didn't do it, no one has to prove CB didn't do it, what ever it is, the onus is to prove he "did".Until such time if ever charges are laid at CBs door in relation to MM then all the words in the world uttered by HCW on behalf of the BKA are just that, words.imo.

Actually enshrined in the constitution is the obligation to check out all the evidence both for and against a suspect which really makes personal animus against an individual prosecutor a bit of a nonsense. The prosecutor tells it as it is according to the evidence,

​

Remaining impartial​

Unlike in the USA, where the defence is responsible for presenting all relevant evidence and the prosecutor is seen more as an opponent of the defendant, the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant. The public prosecutor’s office is both an investigation and prosecution authority that definitely goes to work when there are any signs of a criminal offence. Here, within the framework of what is known as the right of instruction, it has a duty to report to and take instructions from the respective justice minister. This point is sometimes controversial – for example, compared with other EU countries, such as Italy, where public prosecutors are formally independent.

How public prosecutors work in Germany

Impartially working for the good of the community: five facts about the job of public prosecutor.

www.deutschland.de

 

[Davieson]

Actually enshrined in the constitution is the obligation to check out all the evidence both for and against a suspect which really makes personal animus against an individual prosecutor a bit of a nonsense. The prosecutor tells it as it is according to the evidence,

​

Remaining impartial​

Unlike in the USA, where the defence is responsible for presenting all relevant evidence and the prosecutor is seen more as an opponent of the defendant, the public prosecutor in Germany must always act impartially – in other words, also take into account facts that could exonerate a defendant. The public prosecutor’s office is both an investigation and prosecution authority that definitely goes to work when there are any signs of a criminal offence. Here, within the framework of what is known as the right of instruction, it has a duty to report to and take instructions from the respective justice minister. This point is sometimes controversial – for example, compared with other EU countries, such as Italy, where public prosecutors are formally independent.

How public prosecutors work in Germany

Impartially working for the good of the community: five facts about the job of public prosecutor.

www.deutschland.de

I would say the prosecutor tells it according how he perceives the evidence.
The defence will view it quite differently.
A judges will decide who is correct

 

[Mex]

Or strong forensic evidence. Neither are coming which is why I can’t see a charge at any point in the future. But, I could be wrong. I would really love to see a pure circumstantial case go to trial but I think it’s way too risky for the prosecution.

Circumstantial evidence is not an inferior type of evidence. It is evidence which is sometimes powerful enough to secure convictions for murder without a body

 

[Davieson]

Circumstantial evidence is not an inferior type of evidence. It is evidence which is sometimes powerful enough to secure convictions for murder without a body

Maybe, but I think there would need to be evidence that CB had come into actual physical contact with MM. There is usually evidence that the victim was known to the suspect.- something to link them.
As things stand, there is no evidence, that we are aware of, that he even knew of her existence before the event.

 

[Mex]

I would say the prosecutor tells it according how he perceives the evidence.
The defence will view it quite differently.
A judges will decide who is correct

In Germany the defence will have access to all the evidence the prosecution has; that is the law.

I'm not sure you have grasped the difference between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial one such as that in force in Germany.

• In an adversarial system the role of lawyers is active.
• In an inquisitorial system the role of lawyers is passive.

• In an adversarial system all parties determine what witnesses they call and the nature of the evidence they give. The court overseeing the process by which evidence is given.
• In an inquisitorial system the conduct of the trial is in the hands of the court. The trial judge determines what witnesses to call & order in which they are to be heard.

• In an adversarial system the rule of the judges are merely passive in nature.
• In an inquisitorial system the rule of the judges is very active

• In an adversarial system all references are presented by the respective lawyers of both the parties.
• In an inquisitorial system references also presented by the judge & they play’s an active rule.

You are understanding a court system and painting a picture of it as we might know it; but it is not the system under which CB will be tried should that take place.
That lack of understanding makes the combative role portrayed and the constant criticism of the prosecutors' office risible.
My opinion
_____________________________________________

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fmoodle.pmaclism.catholic.edu.au%2Fpluginfile.php%2F18971%2Fmod_resource%2Fcontent%2F1%2FDifference%2520between%2520adversarial%2520and%2520inquisitorial%2520system.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

 

[Mex]

Maybe, but I think there would need to be evidence that CB had come into actual physical contact with MM. There is usually evidence that the victim was known to the suspect.- something to link them.
As things stand, there is no evidence, that we are aware of, that he even knew of her existence before the event.

There is evidence there to make CB the only suspect of three national police forces in the murder of MM.
I am sure the police investigators know exactly what to do with the evidence chain when the time comes for action; quite simply - we don't have the right to know anything about it at this stage of proceedings.

 

[Davieson]

In Germany the defence will have access to all the evidence the prosecution has; that is the law.

I'm not sure you have grasped the difference between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial one such as that in force in Germany.

• In an adversarial system the role of lawyers is active.
• In an inquisitorial system the role of lawyers is passive.

• In an adversarial system all parties determine what witnesses they call and the nature of the evidence they give. The court overseeing the process by which evidence is given.
• In an inquisitorial system the conduct of the trial is in the hands of the court. The trial judge determines what witnesses to call & order in which they are to be heard.

• In an adversarial system the rule of the judges are merely passive in nature.
• In an inquisitorial system the rule of the judges is very active

• In an adversarial system all references are presented by the respective lawyers of both the parties.
• In an inquisitorial system references also presented by the judge & they play’s an active rule.

You are understanding a court system and painting a picture of it as we might know it; but it is not the system under which CB will be tried should that take place.
That lack of understanding makes the combative role portrayed and the constant criticism of the prosecutors' office risible.
My opinion
_____________________________________________

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fmoodle.pmaclism.catholic.edu.au%2Fpluginfile.php%2F18971%2Fmod_resource%2Fcontent%2F1%2FDifference%2520between%2520adversarial%2520and%2520inquisitorial%2520system.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

Thank you, I do understand all that and that the judge asks the questions . However, Defence counsel must have a role to play , otherwise there wouldn't be a need for one.

 

[Mex]

Thank you, I do understand all that and that the judge asks the questions . However, Defence counsel must have a role to play , otherwise there wouldn't be a need for one.

There certainly is a role for defence and prosecutors; the fact that neither of us can state with any authority what exactly they do to fulfil it demonstrates our ignorance.

But we know enough to realise that the role of prosecution and defence is very different from our adversarial system. The German system concentrates on the judge getting to the truth by investigation and analysis of all the evidence.

Quite some task when one thinks about it and really foreign to us.

That is why it is so unfair to single out a victim for opprobrium when we don't understand the system.

• The prosecutors can be understood to be operating well within legal parameters
• and if they are not either checks and balances will be called into place or the defence will raise complaint. Since neither of these procedures has occurred it has to be assumed that personal criticism of the individual is unwarranted.

 

[RichardKimble]

There certainly is a role for defence and prosecutors; the fact that neither of us can state with any authority what exactly they do to fulfil it demonstrates our ignorance.

But we know enough to realise that the role of prosecution and defence is very different from our adversarial system. The German system concentrates on the judge getting to the truth by investigation and analysis of all the evidence.

Quite some task when one thinks about it and really foreign to us.

That is why it is so unfair to single out a victim for opprobrium when we don't understand the system.

• The prosecutors can be understood to be operating well within legal parameters
• and if they are not either checks and balances will be called into place or the defence will raise complaint. Since neither of these procedures has occurred it has to be assumed that personal criticism of the individual is unwarranted.

BIB, shouldn't CB be included in that?

 

[Mex]

BIB, shouldn't CB be included in that?

No-one would have a clue who CB actually is had the system been followed as it should have been.

The writ of German law does not run to foreigners spilling their guts on the internet to divulge information they should have known nothing about though.

CB is referred to throughout under German law, as Christian B and as long as that anonymity is observed there is nothing that can be done on his behalf to stuff the genie back into its bottle.

So yes CB's anonymity ought to have been observed but it wasn't and that is nothing to do with German law.

 

[Anxala]

IMO, our thoughts are in accordance with the rule of law. There are contributors to this forum who are certain CB is responsible. Even the history of this case shows that way of thinking could turn out incorrect!

Well quite.

That certainty seems to be coming from a place of hope rather than fact, since no one knows the BKA facts. That's a fact. That position is not based on anything solid and really should not be used to try and browbeat others with different views into surrendering to what is a mindless 'guilty' mindset, as seems to be increasingly what's happening on here.

If we ever get to hear the evidence against CB and it's compelling and convincing, then I'll personally have no problem accepting that the BKA has the right man. And the reservations I currently have won't be an issue because I'll accept that what they have will be both compelling enough for me to put any niggling doubts aside and render any lingering reservations null and void. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Until then, I remain with you and others on the 'innocent until proven otherwise' fence.

 

[Consider Dudley]

Well quite.

That certainty seems to be coming from a place of hope rather than fact, since no one knows the BKA facts. That's a fact. That position is not based on anything solid and really should not be used to try and browbeat others with different views into surrendering to what is a mindless 'guilty' mindset, as seems to be increasingly what's happening on here.

If we ever get to hear the evidence against CB, and it's compelling and convincing, then I'll personally have no problem accepting that the BKA has the right man. And the reservations I currently have will no longer be an issue for me because what they have will be compelling enough for me to put any niggling doubts aside. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Until then, I remain with you and others on the 'innocent until proven otherwise' fence.

IMO it is a misrepresentation of the facts to claim that anyone here is browbeating anyone else into surrendering to a mindless guilty verdict. Personally I think it’s very likely he did it but if you prefer to think someone else did it, I really don’t care (so long as innocent people who have already been cleared of involvement aren’t subjected to repeated sly insinuation). All that matters is what the investigation thinks and does and I am reasonably confident that they are on the right track.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

This is where my differences with your opinion occur, you say you will be shocked if its proved CB didn't do it, no one has to prove CB didn't do it, what ever it is, the onus is to prove he "did".Until such time if ever charges are laid at CBs door in relation to MM then all the words in the world uttered by HCW on behalf of the BKA are just that, words.imo.

You do not believe in BKA's words and work. It's a professional police force with years of investigation on CB, reputation and career, certainly scrutinized, that came to the world say he did it. After 3 years and they are not questioned about being unconstitutional?! Again, three polices forces in Arade last May...
IMO you take this and the "mere coincidences" on CB as they were nothing and on the same basis of any other potential suspect. It doesn't exist.
Obviously no one has to prove CB didn't do it...with his "curriculum" it's just wait and see (silently) without too much noise, trying to get out at the end of current sentence...But if he was really innocent, I suppose, at least, a different "voice" instead of the entertainment of mocking cartoons and strange letters. He was naive. Again.

In case of a trial, if he is acquitted, we could eventually assume he must not have done it. But I do not believe BKA will take the risk of charging him with insufficient evidence. Honestly, I would even prefer, at a trial, any counter-proof or alibi clearly negating his involvement. To finally "solve" him from the case. But it is very unlikely this way.
I think they will only go when they are certain they will "win". I see it very difficult but maybe not impossible.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Except it’s not entirely clear who you are referring to, so sly imo - so as not to upset the mods,right? To be absolutely crystal clear (and without recourse to my mind reading abilities you’re pointing the finger of suspicion at Madeleine’s parents and friends based on little more than your own opinion of “peculiar behaviour” and your belief that they did not explain themselves satisfactorily to LE. This subject is forbidden on here as well you know. We should be discussing CB’s far more “peculiar behaviour” and failure to account for himself exclusively and not constantly trying to drag suspicion away from him and back onto the parents.

there were many anomalies in the statements from the original investigation and several suspects. I don’t see why you have to misrepresent my words to make it an attack on the parents, just so that you can passionately defend them. My motive for being on this forum is to discuss the case with an open mind and try to understand if CB is the right suspect. Yours appears to be to defend the McCanns at all costs - it’s evangelical and I can’t understand why.