New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[barrier]

Was it the inconclusive DNA results from the hire car would add to the level of reasonable doubt that CB is guilty.

Exactly, a half decent defence would pick up on it. It has to be ruled out imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He also has a variety of convictions that point to him being a thoroughly  bad lot, but do not support his involvement in this case.
IMO

I think his convictions point to a predeliction for entering people’s homes with a view to theft and / or committing sexual crime plus an interest in young girls.  They do support the view that he may be involved in the abduction of a young girl from her bed, IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Exactly, a half decent defence would pick up on it. It has to be ruled out imo.

I very much doubt that it would be allowed to be entered as evidence for the defence, as imo it’s entirely inconclusive and irrelevant.

[barrier]

I think his convictions point to a predeliction for entering people’s homes with a view to theft and / or committing sexual crime plus an interest in young girls.  They do support the view that he may be involved in the abduction of a young girl from her bed, IMO.

It does? Wolters doesn't say this.

[Robittybob1]

He also has a variety of convictions that point to him being a thoroughly  bad lot, but do not support his involvement in this case.
IMO

Each conviction has to be judged separately.   In NZ, and probably the UK, past convictions aren't raised in the case being judged.   The police will be well aware of the previous convictions but the evidence against him has to be specific to the McCann case.

[barrier]

I very much doubt that it would be allowed to be entered as evidence for the defence, as imo it’s entirely inconclusive and irrelevant.

Therefore reasonable doubt exist's. Seven months ago the BKA told the world it had concrete evidence they had a suspect who murdered Madeleine McCann, they still have not even questioned him despite appealing for help, something is holding them back, as you have just shown in another thread forensics is the key, the slightest suggestion of the girls DNA in the scenic has to be cleared up imo.Remember the onus is always on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, ergo they can't in this case.

[barrier]

Each conviction has to be judged separately.   In NZ, and probably the UK, past convictions aren't raised in the case being judged.   The police will be well aware of the previous convictions but the evidence against him has to be specific to the McCann case.

IMO they can only be taken into consideration once a guilty verdict be delivered.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Therefore reasonable doubt exist's. Seven months ago the BKA told the world it had concrete evidence they had a suspect who murdered Madeleine McCann, they still have not even questioned him despite appealing for help, something is holding them back, as you have just shown in another thread forensics is the key, the slightest suggestion of the girls DNA in the scenic has to be cleared up imo.Remember the onus is always on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, ergo they can't in this case.

I agree there is not enough evidence against CB currently but I don’t think a speck of Madeleine’s DNA in the hire car would let him off the hook, after all it could easily be argued it got there through transferrence. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

It does? Wolters doesn't say this.

Did I say he did?  If they were irrelevant in his view though why would they have been mentioned at all?

[Robittybob1]

It does? Wolters doesn't say this.

It would be a mistrial if he ever did IMO. 

Did I say he did?  If they were irrelevant in his view though why would they have been mentioned at all?

He was appealing the conviction for rape.  I think that is why it came to our attention.

[barrier]

It would be a mistrial if he ever did IMO. 

In what way Rob?

[barrier]

He was appealing the conviction for rape.  I think that is why it came to our attention.

Wasn't it the press who raised it?

[Robittybob1]

In what way Rob?

The case would be appealed on the basis the jury was persuaded prior to the case.   I'm NOT a lawyer, but there has to be some reason why previous convictions are not discussed prior to the court case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The case would be appealed on the basis the jury was persuaded prior to the case.   I'm NOT a lawyer, but there has to be some reason why previous convictions are not discussed prior to the court case.

CB would not be tried in front of a jury.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Wasn't it the press who raised it?

From the opening post of this thread

“And his criminal record, disclosed by the German police, is a disturbing guide as to what his motivations might have been”.