Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[jassi]

Well they apparently have proof that he used that phone. And the excuse of losing the phone only works if he's confident they have no proof he used that phone again after that date. So yes, onus is still on him to give the Judge a convincing story.

No it isn't.

The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor.

IMO

[Ms Para glider]

No it isn't.

The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor.

IMO

Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.

[Eleanor]

No it isn't.

The onus of proof is always on the prosecutor.

IMO

Then The Judges could very well decide that it was Brueckner using that phone on the available evidence.  Why would he refuse to say if it wasn't him?

The onus of proof isn"t always absolute.

[barrier]

Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.

If CB claims some one else was using the phone, CB's acquaintances seem as dodgy as him ,who to believe ? June 2020 Wolters declared he had concrete evidence CB took and killed Madeleine, you still believe him ?

[jassi]

Then The Judges could very well decide that it was Brueckner using that phone on the available evidence.  Why would he refuse to say if it wasn't him?

The onus of proof isn"t always absolute.

I agree the judges might decide that, in which care the prosecutor will have proved that point.
Equally the judge might decide that the point has not been proved.
This is why we have lawyers and judges.


I can't comment on Brueckner's response to this.

[jassi]

Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.

Unless Wolters has got sworn testimony from the person originating the call, it might prove difficult to prove Brueckner was the recipient of the call.

We shall see in the fullness of time - maybe.

[G-Unit]

Mobile phone data is proof. In fact it's one of the most compelling pieces of evidences used in court cases to convict people. The onus always falls on the owner of the phone to prove they didn't have it on them if they want to claim to have been elsewhere. Judges aren't stupid.

The reason why they wanted the person who phoned that number to come forward was to tell them who he or she was talking to. That means they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone belonged to Brueckner.

Even if it was Brueckner's phone the data they have places it within the area covered by the Vodaphone mast in PdL between 7.30 and 8pm. It doesn't place him near apartment 5A. It doesn't place him in the vicinity when Madeleine McCann disappeared, whatever time that happened.

I think you are placing more importance on the phone data in this case than it actually has.

[Venturi Swirl]

The reason why they wanted the person who phoned that number to come forward was to tell them who he or she was talking to. That means they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone belonged to Brueckner.

Even if it was Brueckner's phone the data they have places it within the area covered by the Vodaphone mast in PdL between 7.30 and 8pm. It doesn't place him near apartment 5A. It doesn't place him in the vicinity when Madeleine McCann disappeared, whatever time that happened.

I think you are placing more importance on the phone data in this case than it actually has.

Define "vicinity".

[Ms Para glider]

The reason why they wanted the person who phoned that number to come forward was to tell them who he or she was talking to. That means they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone belonged to Brueckner.

Even if it was Brueckner's phone the data they have places it within the area covered by the Vodaphone mast in PdL between 7.30 and 8pm. It doesn't place him near apartment 5A. It doesn't place him in the vicinity when Madeleine McCann disappeared, whatever time that happened.

I think you are placing more importance on the phone data in this case than it actually has.

I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.

But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.

But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.

Exactly.  If CB offers no alternative explanation then it would be reasonable for a court of law to assume that he was indeed in possession of his phone at the time. 

[Eleanor]

I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.

But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.

Again, Absolutely.

[jassi]

We shall see - maybe.

[jassi]

All this about the phone is hypothetical anyway .
 As far as I know, Brueckner hasn't made any comment about the phone, indeed he hasn't even been questioned  about it.

Perhaps when he is, he will give an answer.

[barrier]

I don't disagree that finding the other caller could allow BKA to elimate any doubt that he was the person taking the call. It's a very obvious move that the Prosecutor would take in order to strengthen their case.

But the discussion was about where the onus of proof lies in relation to phone data. In a court of law, mobile phone data is seen as compelling evidence. Because it is obvious that 99% of the time, the person using a phone is the person who owns the phone. So, my point remains. If BKA can prove the phone belongs to him, and CB wants to claim he wasn't in PDL, the onus will still fall on CB to give the Judge a credible reason for his phone being there without him, else the court will assume the phone was indeed with him.

Not to sure of that, I remember commenting at the time, one of the true crimes following police investigations, 24 hrs in Police custody if memory serves, the police said the data meant nothing if the owner claimed his brother who also lived in the area in question said he used the phone, its not cut and dried by a long shot which to his chagrin Wolters is finding no doubt.

[Mr Gray]

The phone call viewed in isolation is nothing but its the sum of all the evidence that's important