Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect, #35

[Malleux]

It's all well and good arguing his defence case for him. Probably best to leave that to Fulscher... and Schwenn... and Marquot... and whomever else he's got waiting in the wings to argue reasonable doubt over the Prosecutors case though.

How about bringing it back to basics and just giving a personal opinion based on what we know. Yes, none of us "know" whether CB is guilty. Yes, none of us "know" if CB has an alibi for the 3rd May 2007 between 9 and 10 pm. But based on all the things that we do "know", we all must have formed some "opinion". Whether we lean towards CB being guilty or innocent and (independently of that) whether we believe CB does or doesn't have an alibi for the quoted time period.

I know plenty of people "believe" CB is innocent and they would 100% put their name to that, but who here actually "believes" CB has a verifiable alibi for that time period (that he's just holding back until he gets charged)? Anyone...? Nobody...? Thought so.

 

[C.greek]

It's possible he was just being stupid and didn't follow counsel's advice

But also this is a reasonable strategy which has been seen in other cases. Give carefully curated content to a 3rd party on your behalf to create a public version which either can't be used against you at trial, or if you make admissible statements, be careful what they are.

We've seen before that MWT is an access merchant who will carry water for the defence

The thing that makes less sense to me here is there are no jurors to try to influence

Why though wouldn't a letter by the suspect be used against him at trial? Isn't that considered evidence? (Not that this letter says anything...)

 

[Consider Dudley]

It's possible he was just being stupid and didn't follow counsel's advice

But also this is a reasonable strategy which has been seen in other cases. Give carefully curated content to a 3rd party on your behalf to create a public version which either can't be used against you at trial, or if you make admissible statements, be careful what they are.

We've seen before that MWT is an access merchant who will carry water for the defence

The thing that makes less sense to me here is there are no jurors to try to influence

Why would a suspect deliberately give details of a cast iron alibi to the media if there was a chance it wouldn’t be admissable in court as a crucial part of his defence?
It’s overwhelmingly obvious CB does not have a cast iron alibi isn’t it?

 

[Mex]

Where did the claims about 2-3 bodies come from then?

Did the jounro just make that up?

CB has been questioned regarding other cases none of which is as a result of MM case. The tally is quite extraordinary covering many years and many jurisdictions.
One really wonders why so many law enforcement officers have homed in on CB on so many cases with a wide variety of victims.

Other cases CB has been linked to​

CB has also been linked to other disappearances of children, including a boy, six, in Portugal in 2000, a five-year-old girl in Germany in 2015 and a number of others.

In 2020, he was being investigated over the rape and murder of Tristan Brübach, a 15-year-old boy from Germany.

Belgian authorities have also linked him to the murder of teenager Carola Titze, 16. She went missing while on holiday in De Haan, Belgium on July 5, 1996 and her body was discovered among sand dunes severely mutilated on July 11.

Other cases believed to be linked to CB include that of Inga Gehrike who went missing from Saxony-Anhalt in Germany on May 2, 2015, René Hasee, six, who vanished while on a family holiday in Aljezur, Portugal on June 21, 1996 and Jair Soares who disappeared in August 1995.

Peggy Knobloch’s case has also been linked to CB after she went missing in May 2001.

All we know about Madeleine McCann suspect Brueckner and the accusations against him

German prisoner Christian Brueckner has been identified as a suspect in Madeleine’s case

www.independent.co.uk

 

[enquirer6]

It's possible he was just being stupid and didn't follow counsel's advice

But also this is a reasonable strategy which has been seen in other cases. Give carefully curated content to a 3rd party on your behalf to create a public version which either can't be used against you at trial, or if you make admissible statements, be careful what they are.

We've seen before that MWT is an access merchant who will carry water for the defence

The thing that makes less sense to me here is there are no jurors to try to influence

What do you mean by access merchant?

 

[C.greek]

Do you have an example of a suspect who provided a cast iron alibi for a crime which was later used against them in court? My understanding of the term “cast iron” is that it is indisputable and proof positive of innocence of involvement of the crime the suspect stands accused of.

Jmo but I seriously doubt CB has a cast-iron alibi for the 3rd or 4th of May.. seemingly he had told NF he was travelling to Tomar and back on the 3rd of May - seemingly she could not say whether he arrived late that night and just slept in his van- seemingly it appears NF has been helping BKA with their enquiries and there is a possibility she gave the mobile number he was using during that period which pinged in PdL that day (so couldn't have been at Tomar...). Then he decided to muddy the waters a bit by telling MWT about his fling with that girl but also gave a second possible alibi just in case the first one was a week or so off ... I know CB was moving around with no settled abode but he has been trying hard to find or construct an alibi even if he hasn't been asked for one yet. If he had a cast-iron alibi, he would have definitely presented it at least to his penpals... but he is enjoying the notoriety, so go figure...
Jmo

 

[Mex]

One very important reason is frequently an innocent defendant may want to invoke his/her right to silence at trial, which can be undone by having made pre-trial statements

In the US for instance, it is highly recommended not to volunteer an interview even if innocent. Especially because investigators are allowed to lie, mislead and bluff the accused, and innocent people are know to be untruthful in attempting to explain away embarrassing or potentially incriminating facts.

In the UK, such interview has to include disclosure of the underlying evidence in order to be used at trial - as a procedural protection.

At the end of the day, there are extremely good reasons not to run to the media or the police to give volunteer info that could be used against you at trial.

Do you have any indication that in Germany CB will be subject to the claims you make for elsewhere when you say, "Especially because investigators are allowed to lie, mislead and bluff the accused, and innocent people are known to be untruthful in attempting to explain away embarrassing or potentially incriminating facts."

 

[Mex]

Yes - but for instance in the UK where alibi evidence is subject to special rules meaning you have to disclose it early, the suspect will give the alibi in an interview under caution, at which the basis of suspicion must be outlined against him.

In this case it really is HCW who is controlling the timing, by not interrogating his main suspect - who is in jail anyway, so has no incentives to avoid arrest

I an bemused that the suspect who you think has no incentive to avoid arrest because he is already in jail, is showing herculean effort in avoiding his court date for the crimes for which he is already indicted.

 

[Mex]

He can only take advantage of the system when formally interrogated.

The very nature of the system is intended that the accused respond to questions based on the incriminating evidence. As is the case in UK, which has similar protections, it would be completely kafka if suspects were forced to give alibis without even knowing what they were accused of or why.

In the present proceedings, if CB were to be formally interrogated and gave a good enough alibi such that it caused the prosecution case to be put into question, either he would not be charged, or at the next step the Court could decide that the case does not proceed.

So basically the thing you are suggesting would in fact happen - it is just the timing in this is set by the prosecutor and not by the defendant.

The system in Britain is adversarial so I don't know if comparison with Germany is valid.

 

[onemoremiletogo]

I have no idea ! But they must know something to have presented in order to officially proclaim him an arguido? I have really no idea how the system works and what evidence they need to support making someone an arguido in Portugal. Maybe our Portuguese sleuths could help out?

I'm not aware of the details but, here, in Portugal, it is easy to be arguido, suspected of a crime and theoretically under investigation.
In criminal proceedings, at limit, it is enough that there has been a complaint of facts, real or falsified, that may constitute a crime, and that there is an investigative diligence directly from the Public Prosecution or from a criminal investigation body, seeking to ascertain the reality of this alleged fact.

So, not sure if PJ really knows about the evidence BKA has.
And I guess CB was made an arguido to make sure there’s no impediment to the possibility of a possible prosecution in Portugal (15-year limit).

 

[Malleux]

One very important reason is frequently an innocent defendant may want to invoke his/her right to silence at trial, which can be undone by having made pre-trial statements

True. But CB has made a number of pre-trial statements through his letters to the press (and other random people) about the case, which could still be used in court against him, so it kind of undercuts that argument.

In the US for instance, it is highly recommended not to volunteer an interview even if innocent. Especially because investigators are allowed to lie, mislead and bluff the accused, and innocent people are know to be untruthful in attempting to explain away embarrassing or potentially incriminating facts

Irrelevant. It's not the US. The German prosecutors aren't allowed to do this. In fact, they are obliged to investigate anything that might exonerate the suspect if he volunteers that information. It doesn’t even need to be during an interview, he only needs to make a request for them to look into it.

In the UK, such interview has to include disclosure of the underlying evidence in order to be used at trial - as a procedural protection.

At the end of the day, there are extremely good reasons not to run to the media or the police to give volunteer info that could be used against you at trial.

True. But in your experience, what percentage of the time are those "extremely good reasons" because the suspect is in fact, guilty?

 

[frank-cole]

Of course CB doesn't need an alibi.

Its up to prosecutor to demonstrate that he was in 5A in order to abduct MM

The point I made was regarding this idea that the defence would withhold an alibi. If an alibi existed it would be senseless to withhold it.

They can convict for murder without needing to prove abduction. IMO the BKA & prosecutors are working 3 steps ahead. The purpose of their appeals was to target specific information to close down any potential future counter arguments. IMO they seemingly aren’t too motivated with finding the caller anymore, likely because they’ve now got that irrefutable evidence that he was at the scene. IMO it’s likely a tourist photo or video with him in the background. I think it’ll be a straightforward case for the prosecution, it’ll just be a bumpy technicality paved road to get there. Regardless of what he tries, Fulscher will inevitably have to face this in court

 

[Mex]

I have no idea ! But they must know something to have presented in order to officially proclaim him an arguido? I have really no idea how the system works and what evidence they need to support making someone an arguido in Portugal. Maybe our Portuguese sleuths could help out?

• Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
  
  "On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
  
  "Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
  
  "Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
  
  His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
  
  "At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao. Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'

The changes to the Portuguese penal code in 2007 mean that evidence is now definitely required before a person can be constituted arguido.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

• Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
  
  "On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
  
  "Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.
  
  "Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.
  
  His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
  
  "At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao. Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'

The changes to the Portuguese penal code in 2007 mean that evidence is now definitely required before a person can be constituted arguido.

We know there is ‘evidence’ against CB like the phone call and the Jag registration. It looks like a fairly easy box to tick.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

Why though wouldn't a letter by the suspect be used against him at trial? Isn't that considered evidence? (Not that this letter says anything...)

What conditions were given to MWT that allowed him access to the letter?

We can say he wasn’t allowed to publish any of it because he hasn’t. Perhaps other conditions prevent him from ever releasing the letter.

The relationship between LE, legal teams and the media is very murky. IMO, they are all sharing information in all directions to gain an advantage, e.g. HCW is giving exclusive info to JC, who in return is publishing it in favourable terms to support the investigation, and he is also providing information to the BKA to get preferential treatment on new developments down the track.

Nothing is as it seems; strategy and spin between the above parties are constantly at play.

 

[Mex]

We know there is ‘evidence’ against CB like the phone call and the Jag registration. It looks like a fairly easy box to tick.

I don't think there are any easy boxes to tick regarding this case. But one which has been ticked is the one which ensured the statute of limitations has been put on hold. I think that is a very big thing to do because Portugal has never named anyone as an arguido since acknowledging the mistakes made in 2007 when archiving MM's case in 2008.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I don't think there are any easy boxes to tick regarding this case. But one which has been ticked is the one which ensured the statute of limitations has been put on hold. I think that is a very big thing to do because Portugal has never named anyone as an arguido since acknowledging the mistakes made in 2007 when archiving MM's case in 2008.

That's my point: if the PJ wanted to get around the statute of limitations (which they did), it's fairly straightforward for them to obtain evidence - there is 'evidence' in the public domain.

 

[Mex]

That's my point: if the PJ wanted to get around the statute of limitations (which they did), it's fairly straightforward for them to obtain evidence - there is 'evidence' in the public domain.

I think there is a sea change in attitude signified by making CB an arguido. Nor do I think it was as a result of evidence available in the public domain. I think it perfectly possible they may have had sight of the evidence which caused the Germans to make CB their prime suspect in the murder of a child.

 

[Denis R Tandib]

I think there is a sea change in attitude signified by making CB an arguido. Nor do I think it was as a result of evidence available in the public domain. I think it perfectly possible they may have had sight of the evidence which caused the Germans to make CB their prime suspect in the murder of a child.

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[Lyall0814]

I think there is a sea change in attitude signified by making CB an arguido. Nor do I think it was as a result of evidence available in the public domain. I think it perfectly possible they may have had sight of the evidence which caused the Germans to make CB their prime suspect in the murder of a child.

We all had sight of it, in various TV progs shown in June or July 2020. That was obviously part of the prosecutor office's strategy.