If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...

[Brietta]

I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.

The public appeals by the British and German police were productive if one takes the volume of contacts into consideration.

I think however, it may be counter productive to presume exactly what the information was that they sought:  for example would it have been profitable to check out on a burner phone?

While everyone is looking one way they may very well have continued to look in the direction they already were until so rudely interrupted by Amaral's attempt to disrupt the German investigation.

[Brietta]

What are you talking about? I'm discussing the legal implications of HCW's decision to ask the public for help.

How do you interpret "discussing"?  Is it a game of follow my leader as seems to be the norm elsewhere?

[Uncle Jr]

  Did he say that?  Not being sarcastic, I just don't recall him saying that it all hinged on identifying that person.  "Still not enough evidence" does not mean the appeal yielded nothing useful at all.  It may well have done, but still lacking the final piece of the jigsaw that would ensure a slam dunk result.  Let's also not forget that this isn't just about Madeleine McCann - he's being investigated for a number of other crimes and has been for years.  I find it very hard to believe that the Germans would jeopardise these investigations all for a case that didn't even happen in their country and against a foreign national.  It just doesn't make sense to me.

I believe they put the pieces together while investigating something else, perhaps a paedophile ring, and his name was caught in the net along with many others - hence the time delay.
As I said, I doubt they took the decision lightly and was discussed way above HCW's pay grade.
The 'gamble', even if we got all the way down the line to a conviction, then he got off on a technicality in the ECHR 8 years later, would still be a result - he's been proven to be the culprit and now everyone knows it, he's just got off. Job done really, what have you lost? Reputation, prestige? I'm sure Germany will cope.

[Uncle Jr]

The public appeals by the British and German police were productive if one takes the volume of contacts into consideration.

I think however, it may be counter productive to presume exactly what the information was that they sought:  for example would it have been profitable to check out on a burner phone?

While everyone is looking one way they may very well have continued to look in the direction they already were until so rudely interrupted by Amaral's attempt to disrupt the German investigation.

IIRC, he even gave us the number. Of course it was a burner, otherwise they'd pop a RFI in to the network provider.
Again, from memory, as it was a long time ago, he specified exactly who he was looking for. No presumption required, he wanted to know who called CB on his number for approx 30 minutes around the time MM went missing. The appeal was clearly unsuccessful in its intended outcome, but did, by it's necessity, ensure a certain element of future legal peril (which they were happy to take).

[Venturi Swirl]

I believe they put the pieces together while investigating something else, perhaps a paedophile ring, and his name was caught in the net along with many others - hence the time delay.
As I said, I doubt they took the decision lightly and was discussed way above HCW's pay grade.
The 'gamble', even if we got all the way down the line to a conviction, then he got off on a technicality in the ECHR 8 years later, would still be a result - he's been proven to be the culprit and now everyone knows it, he's just got off. Job done really, what have you lost? Reputation, prestige? I'm sure Germany will cope.

If Burckner got off on a technicality that would be absolutely devastating for the child's family, for those who have spent years building a case against him and for justice really, it's worse than no result at all IMO, and it would seem a completely futile pursuit if that is indeed what the Germans are playing at.  The Germans would look utterly incompetent though I'm sure they would cope (they've coped with worst in the past) but really what's in it for them?  I'm sorry, it still doesn't make any sense.

[Brietta]

IIRC, he even gave us the number. Of course it was a burner, otherwise they'd pop a RFI in to the network provider.
Again, from memory, as it was a long time ago, he specified exactly who he was looking for. No presumption required, he wanted to know who called CB on his number for approx 30 minutes around the time MM went missing. The appeal was clearly unsuccessful in its intended outcome, but did, by it's necessity, ensure a certain element of future legal peril (which they were happy to take).

If the phone was a burner - why waste time on it? or even - why waste time looking for it and perhaps for the user they already knew about.
I think you are ignoring that a certain subterfuge might well have been employed to protect aspects of the investigation which had maintained its confidentiality from 2017 until prematurely put in the public domain by Amaral initially via podcast in 2019 and when the subtlety of that failed spelled out to the media in 2020.

If you think the German investigators' strategy was "clearly unsuccessful" I think that might be a tad naive and an underestimation of the German and British.  Investigators must have had contingency plans to protect their direction of inquiry which had been a jealously guarded secret since 2017 to cope with the eventuality of a leak which did in fact occur.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.

Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.

I prefer his skit about the paedophile Braveheart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHA1ufmLZQY

[Uncle Jr]

If the phone was a burner - why waste time on it? or even - why waste time looking for it and perhaps for the user they already knew about.
I think you are ignoring that a certain subterfuge might well have been employed to protect aspects of the investigation which had maintained its confidentiality from 2017 until prematurely put in the public domain by Amaral initially via podcast in 2019 and when the subtlety of that failed spelled out to the media in 2020.

If you think the German investigators' strategy was "clearly unsuccessful" I think that might be a tad naive and an underestimation of the German and British.  Investigators must have had contingency plans to protect their direction of inquiry which had been a jealously guarded secret since 2017 to cope with the eventuality of a leak which did in fact occur.

He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.

[Brietta]

He released the number, if it was registered they would know who it belonged to, ergo, it was a burner - and he was looking for the person it belonged to. It was a hail Mary play that didn't pay off. That's why we're another 18 months down the line.
Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?
'Clearly unsuccessful' pertains to the 'clearly unsuccessful' appeal for the caller. Quite why you expanded that to encompass the entirety of the British and German investigations only you know.

Evidently you really do not have a clue about the information and evidence held against Brueckner and sprinkling your posts with goads isn't going to alter that situation one little bit.

[Uncle Jr]

Evidently you really do not have a clue about the information and evidence held against Brueckner and sprinkling your posts with goads isn't going to alter that situation one little bit.

Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.

[barrier]

Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.

Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.

[Venturi Swirl]

Is 'a tad naive' goading? Yes.
Is anything I posted goading? No.

What about this?

“Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?”

A teensy bit maybe?

[Eleanor]

Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.

And sometimes it is.

[Eleanor]

What about this?

“Is this the way of things round here, cherry pick, mangle and reply to your manufactured point?”

A teensy bit maybe?

A bit more than "Teensy" but it is a question and consequentially debatable.  However, Brietta is more than capable of defending herself against spurious accusations.

[Uncle Jr]

Difference of opinion is goading in some quarters.

This is the first forum I've been on where goading is even registered. If there's a rule, and that's odd in itself, what's the definition? Or is it just when a moderator decides it is?
The term goading is so ambiguous and subjective that it's impossible to define. Just keep it as 'abuse' or not and leave it there, otherwise 90% of posts could be flagged as goading. Including this one.