Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #42

[C.greek]

But most telling of all not a mention of an image of MM, if as he's saying the evidence is inadmissible then if any image of MM were there then it would be headlines.

The excitement that the met may take over is all hyperbole, there are missing persons cases in the UK that haven't been solved, Lamplugh, Lawrence, a couple of high profile ones to start, its not going to happen.

Like it or not CB will not face charges because of most importantly of all he cannot be placed in Luz on 3/05/2007 , there is no body.

1. He can be placed in pdl, it cannot be proved BARD that he was there.
2. Since the evidence was deemed inadmissible I court, we just don't know what it contains and also why would they say so since CB has not been charged?
3. The police commissioner has said as much, it's not like we can shut it off and not discuss about it.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Actually, what was heard was NOT from the box factory evidence, but from email accounts of CB he had deleted buy they got a warrant and got access to them. This is what I recall

Neither of us were in court so we don’t know. I am saying categorically that the official press office at the court did not report that the box factory evidence had been ruled inadmissible. I can guarantee you that this has never been confirmed. It was officially confirmed that the defence had made a request to have it excluded and it was also reported that the raid on the box factory was discussed.

I’m open to being wrong but I would like to see or hear a direct quote from someone like HCW or FF stating that the box evidence was thrown out - I don’t think this exists.

I am sure that the box factory evidence adds weight to CB being a pedophile and criminal. But, I do not think it contains a smoking gun piece of evidence showing CB killed MM.

This is not least because German law prioritises the truth over search legalities. Given the nature of the crime - child murder - a photo of a deceased MM found in CB’s belongings would be admissible in court. And, such evidence plus the circumstantial case would be enough for a conviction.

 

[C.greek]

Neither of us were in court so we don’t know. I am saying categorically that the official press office at the court did not report that the box factory evidence had been ruled inadmissible. I can guarantee you that this has never been confirmed. It was officially confirmed that the defence had made a request to have it excluded and it was also reported that the raid on the box factory was discussed.

I’m open to being wrong but I would like to see or hear a direct quote from someone like HCW or FF stating that the box evidence was thrown out - I don’t think this exists.

I am sure that the box factory evidence adds weight to CB being a pedophile and criminal. But, I do not think it contains a smoking gun piece of evidence showing CB killed MM.

This is not least because German law prioritises the truth over search legalities. Given the nature of the crime - child murder - a photo of a deceased MM found in CB’s belongings would be admissible in court. And, such evidence plus the circumstantial case would be enough for a conviction.

The judge did not discuss this evidence at all in her final speech. Doesn't this make you wonder why?

 

[Denis R Tandib]

1. He can be placed in pdl, it cannot be proved BARD that he was there.
2. Since the evidence was deemed inadmissible I court, we just don't know what it contains and also why would they say so since CB has not been charged?
3. The police commissioner has said as much, it's not like we can shut it off and not discuss about it.

Each piece of the logical chain of evidence must proveable BARD.

Re your point above, it can be proven BARD that his phone was in PDL 3/5, not that he was. Therefore the logical chain is broken. HCW wouldn’t have pushed so hard on identifying the caller if not.

I do think that putting CB in PDL BARD 3/5 completes the chain and we would see a charge.

However, I think - like HCW said in the early days - we would the the completion of a puzzle. It will be lots of jigsaw pieces all slotting into place to make him look guilty. It’s not some free standing piece of definitive evidence underpinning their case.

 

[C.greek]

Each piece of the logical chain of evidence must proveable BARD.

Re your point above, it can be proven BARD that his phone was in PDL 3/5, not that he was. Therefore the logical chain is broken. HCW wouldn’t have pushed so hard on identifying the caller if not.

I do think that putting CB in PDL BARD 3/5 completes the chain and we would see a charge.

However, I think - like HCW said in the early days - we would the the completion of a puzzle. It will be lots of jigsaw pieces all slotting into place to make him look guilty. It’s not some free standing piece of definitive evidence underpinning their case.

Agreed, his phone was at pdl, that is why again HCW appeals for the person on the line to come forward. And of course we are talking about a case built on circumstantial evidence - that is the trouble. But if there has been a ruling already on the inadmissibility of the box factory evidence, this creates a big problem for the prosecution. And not because CB is not the culprit

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The judge did not discuss this evidence at all in her final speech. Doesn't this make you wonder why?

she did discuss the fantasy writings in her summary but they weren’t concrete evidence of any crimes against the victims - there were part of the box factory evidence. She found the witnesses unreliable. She didn’t like the media involvement in the case. Her view was that there was not enough evidence to charge him - box factory or otherwise.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Agreed, his phone was at pdl, that is why again HCW appeals for the person on the line to come forward. And of course we are talking about a case built on circumstantial evidence - that is the trouble. But if there has been a ruling already on the inadmissibility of the box factory evidence, this creates a big problem for the prosecution. And not because CB is not the culprit

Okay, but a photo is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence which change the status of the case entirely.

 

[roily]

Thanks for this, @roily!! I didn't know about CB's cellphone being deactivated the day after MM disappeared, wowsa!

And welcome here, it's great to have you onboard!!

Please keep weighing in, your voice and knowledge are valuable, and thank you for posting on this case, we're happy to have your input!

I've been following this case from the beginning (years gone by), but not posting regularly, so it helps when new posters have a new perspective or observations they can share, even if it was lost track of!!

Thank you, I maybe won't be posting much, but I do like to read here.

 

[C.greek]

she did discuss the fantasy writings in her summary but they weren’t concrete evidence of any crimes against the victims - there were part of the box factory evidence. She found the witnesses unreliable. She didn’t like the media involvement in the case. Her view was that there was not enough evidence to charge him - box factory or otherwise.

These were excerpts from the emails.

Eta she did not mention anything from the box factory because imo and from what I've read up to now, this evidence was excluded. And perhaps it should also be mentioned that she found some witnesses unreliable because of the media involvement.

 

[C.greek]

Okay, but a photo is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence which change the status of the case entirely.

I am not sure. Perhaps the victim is not identifiable 100%, perhaps his defence will say ownership doesn't mean he committed it, if there are no pics of CB and MM together, everything can be disputed. His defence also disputed that these writings were actually CB's (and not from the box factory, but from the emails). Direct evidence would be a photo or video of a recognisable CB in the act. (And even this could be disputed, if it was manipulated, etc.). I am afraid if they don't place the phone in his hand, and the box factory evidence is admitted because of proportionality, they cannot charge him

 

[Denis R Tandib]

These were excerpts from the emails.

Eta she did not mention anything from the box factory because imo and from what I've read up to now, this evidence was excluded. And perhaps it should also be mentioned that she found some witnesses unreliable because of the media involvement.

And tbh, they were unreliable witnesses.

 

[C.greek]

And tbh, they were unreliable witnesses.

The children were not, HB was not, the German girl was not.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I am not sure. Perhaps the victim is not identifiable 100%, perhaps his defence will say ownership doesn't mean he committed it, if there are no pics of CB and MM together, everything can be disputed. His defence also disputed that these writings were actually CB's (and not from the box factory, but from the emails). Direct evidence would be a photo or video of a recognisable CB in the act. (And even this could be disputed, if it was manipulated, etc.). I am afraid if they don't place the phone in his hand, and the box factory evidence is admitted because of proportionality, they cannot charge him

We know they can’t charge him.

We can try to include a photo into the case file and suggest ways it might not be definitive but is it likely or is what we want to think?

The lawyers are not grandstanding trying to influence a jury, they are presenting evidence to a judge who will asses it against the legal constitution and rule on it.

Based on what we know about CB. His likely location before and after 10pm through phone and GPS records. What he has said to witnesses. Suspicious behaviour and acts around the time of the crime. Plus other stuff we don’t know about. If a photo were added to all this, it meets the threshold for a conviction.

 

[RichardKimble]

1. He can be placed in pdl, it cannot be proved BARD that he was there.
2. Since the evidence was deemed inadmissible I court, we just don't know what it contains and also why would they say so since CB has not been charged?
3. The police commissioner has said as much, it's not like we can shut it off and not discuss about it.

Point one, reliable statement/ witness that categorically places him in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.

 

[C.greek]

We know they can’t charge him.

We can try to include a photo into the case file and suggest ways it might not be definitive but is it likely or is what we want to think?

The lawyers are not grandstanding trying to influence a jury, they are presenting evidence to a judge who will asses it against the legal constitution and rule on it.

Based on what we know about CB. His likely location before and after 10pm through phone and GPS records. What he has said to witnesses. Suspicious behaviour and acts around the time of the crime. Plus other stuff we don’t know about. If a photo were added to all this, it meets the threshold for a conviction.

I doubt these circumstantial evidence would meet the threshold in Germany. We saw what happened in the previous trial where the evidence met the threshold to go to court.. HB mentioned the scar, there were pictures of him showing a scar from the box factory, this evidence was thrown out and therefore insufficient evidence to convict him for HB's rape, even though the judge accepted HB was a reliable witness.
Jmo

 

[C.greek]

Point one, reliable statement/ witness that categorically places him in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007.

Yes that is missing. That is what the prosecution is after.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

The children were not, HB was not, the German girl was not.

Interesting you mention HaB because her evidence was covered in the judge’s summary of the case. She described it as an account of a horrible offence from a credible witness but with nothing concrete tying it to CB.

The kid’s mum from the playground had sold the story to Bild - not ideal.

I agree the girl from Salema Beach was probably good but there was nothing concrete tying CB to the crime.

These are critical points in a circumstantial case. Things like phone data more easily meet the BARD standard than witness accounts because there is inherently doubt with a 16 year old memory whereas phone or EXIF data are concrete.

 

[Hexe]

HB mentioned the scar, there were pictures of him showing a scar from the box factory, this evidence was thrown out and therefore insufficient evidence to convict him for HB's rape, even though the judge accepted HB was a reliable witness.

Don't know where that came from, but it cannot be true. He was convicted for the sexual crimes before. Forensic medical examination of a suspect is a standard in such cases, so all the prosecution needed to do in order to prove he had that tat/scar/birthmark on his thigh was to check the old files. They did not need to dig through the factory stash.

 

[C.greek]

Interesting you mention HaB because her evidence was covered in the judge’s summary of the case. She described it as an account of a horrible offence from a credible witness but with nothing concrete tying it to CB.

The kid’s mum from the playground had sold the story to Bild - not ideal.

I agree the girl from Salema Beach was probably good but there was nothing concrete tying CB to the crime.

These are critical points in a circumstantial case. Things like phone data more easily meet the BARD standard than witness accounts because there is inherently doubt with a 16 year old memory whereas phone or EXIF data are concrete.

Regarding HB, the judge also accepted the motion by the defence not to show and admit as evidence the photos from the medical record of CB showing he had a scar

Christian B. will Fotos aus Gesundheitsakte nicht zeigen

Der Hauptverdächtige im Fall Maddie steht wegen der Vergewaltigung an der Irin Hazel Behan vor Gericht.

www.20min.ch

Holiday rep who accused Christian B of rape reveals horror about evidence

A VICTIM who could hold the key to keeping Christian Brueckner behind bars has told of her tears over vanished Madeleine McCann. Hazel Behan was raped and tortured in 2004, in Praia da Rocha, Portu…

www.thesun.co.uk

I don't know but to me because the crime is truly abhorrent of violently raping a woman for 5 hours, the judge should have accepted this evidence to be taken into consideration and not having it thrown out as well... so, I don't really believe anymore that proportionality really counts in German courts...

This goes as a response to your previous comment Denis about the German court certainly taking into consideration the Box factory evidence because of the murder crime charge. I really doubt it

So all in all this tells me that the prosecution knows very well how difficult a job they will have with a cold case without a body or any other forensic evidence. That is perhaps why the police commissioner said the Germans have done everything they can within the limits of their legal system jmo

Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said: “They’ve got to a particular point in their inquiry where the prosecutor doesn’t feel they’re able to prosecute. We’re now at a stage where he remains a suspect for us. We’re taking stock... The Germans have done everything they possibly can do within their law. He has a track record for very serious offences. He remains a suspect in our investigation into Madeleine McCann being missing.”

UK to explore extraditing Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brückner

Met chief Mark Rowley says many questions remain and detectives are liaising with German and Portuguese police

www.theguardian.com

 

[C.greek]

Don't know where that came from, but it cannot be true. He was convicted for the sexual crimes before. Forensic medical examination of a suspect is a standard in such cases, so all the prosecution needed to do in order to prove he had that tat/scar/birthmark on his thigh was to check the old files. They did not need to dig through the factory stash.

Christian B. will Fotos aus Gesundheitsakte nicht zeigen

Der Hauptverdächtige im Fall Maddie steht wegen der Vergewaltigung an der Irin Hazel Behan vor Gericht.

www.20min.ch