UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Brazil.  Brazilian couple who were looking for a child to adopt. A couple who lived on a boat that disappeared from The Marina on the night Madeline disappeared.  There is more to it but I can't be bothered to elaborate.

OK.  Well I asked Chat GPT and it didn?t dismiss the idea completely.

There is a kernel of a real theory behind parts of this, but I would distinguish very sharply between ?this was investigated as a possibility? and ?there is evidence that this is what happened.?

1. The ?abducted to order? part isn?t completely invented

There were reports in 2008 that investigators were looking at a theory involving a Belgian-based paedophile network that had supposedly placed an order for a young girl. The reported version was particularly elaborate: Madeleine may have been photographed beforehand so that the intended recipient could approve her before the abduction.

But this is important: there is no established evidence that such an order actually existed, and nothing demonstrating that Madeleine was specifically targeted in advance.

So I wouldn?t describe ?abduction to order? as an evidenced fact. It was a line of speculation/investigation that never produced a substantiated chain of evidence.

2. Brazil is different ? there really were multiple reports

Brazil wasn?t simply invented by internet theorists afterwards. Portuguese and British authorities received several reports of possible sightings in Brazil.

For example, a May 2007 report from Rio de Janeiro described a girl resembling Madeleine allegedly being seen with a foreign-looking couple and two other children. The PJ records show that this was passed through the Brazilian authorities/Interpol channels.

There were subsequently further Brazilian reports, including one involving an alleged sighting in Salvador. The PJ files explicitly document Interpol correspondence concerning the investigation of that report.

And contemporary summaries record six reported sightings in Brazil, including one claim that Madeleine had been seen on a plane travelling to S?o Paulo. These reports were investigated, but none produced an identification of Madeleine.

So there genuinely was a Brazilian strand to the enormous international sighting investigation.

3. But the ?boat from Praia da Luz to Brazil? part is where the evidence becomes extremely thin

This is the crucial distinction.

There is no known evidence establishing that Madeleine was put aboard a boat at Praia da Luz and transported to Brazil.

There were various theories involving boats and the sea, but the more commonly reported maritime theory was that she might have been taken to Lagos marina and transported towards Morocco, rather than across the Atlantic to Brazil.

A direct Praia da Luz → Brazil voyage would also require a fairly substantial logistical chain:

abduction → concealment/transport to boat → departure from Algarve → Atlantic crossing → arrival in Brazil → transfer to intended couple → establishment of a new identity.

There is currently no documented evidence for that chain.

For all we know Madeleine could be alive and living in a backwater somewhere, believing that The McCanns got rid of her for adoption because they didn't want her anymore.

If that was the case why would she not want the world to know that she is alive and well?  She would also presumably have access to the internet and soon be able to discover the efforts her parents went to try and find her.   If true, the backwater she is now living in would have to be somewhere like Central Papua New Guinea, the Amazon rainforest or the Mongolian steppes.  Personally I don?t think that?s very likely

Chat GPT again:

if the photographs had genuinely been discovered on Br?ckner?s property without a search warrant, there could be a greater reason for the German authorities to be cautious about publicly discussing them, but I wouldn?t go as far as saying they would necessarily keep them secret because of the lack of a warrant.

The key distinction is how they were obtained.

* German law allows evidence to be secured/seized, and a formal seizure normally has judicial safeguards; in urgent circumstances the prosecutor or investigators can order it, with provisions for subsequent judicial review.
* Whether evidence obtained unlawfully can ultimately be used isn?t a simple ?no warrant = inadmissible? rule. German evidence law is more nuanced than that.
* Separately, prosecutors have a strong reason to protect evidence and investigative methods while an investigation is continuing. German procedure explicitly allows access to evidence/files to be restricted where disclosure could jeopardise the purpose of the investigation.

So imagine the alleged scenario

Suppose someone legitimately came across a USB stick on Br?ckner?s land, without the police having conducted a search, and discovered photographs that appeared to show Madeleine dead.

I think there are two quite separate questions:

1. Would the Germans necessarily tell the McCanns?

No. Not necessarily. The existence of extremely sensitive evidence wouldn?t create an automatic obligation to immediately disclose it to the family, particularly while its authenticity, provenance and evidential significance were being investigated.

2. Would the Germans have a reason to keep quiet about it?

Absolutely. Potentially a very strong one.

They would first need to establish:

* Is the photograph genuine?
* When was it created?
* Who created it?
* Does it actually depict Madeleine?
* How did it get onto the device?
* Who possessed the device?
* When did Br?ckner possess it?
* How was it discovered?
* Can its provenance be established?
* Can it legally be used as evidence?

And if the circumstances of discovery were legally problematic, publicly revealing the existence and provenance of the material could potentially complicate the prosecution?s position.

Joe, I asked Chat GPT the question and this is what it said:

Not necessarily. German prosecutors would not automatically be obliged to show or hand the McCanns photographs simply because they allegedly possessed them.

Under German criminal procedure, the position is more nuanced:

* The prosecution has a duty to investigate both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances.
* A victim/injured party has rights to receive certain information about the status and outcome of proceedings under ?406d StPO, but that does not amount to an automatic right to be told about every item of evidence during an ongoing investigation.
* Victims can, under certain conditions, obtain access to case files/evidence through ?406e, generally via a lawyer, but access can be restricted where it would prejudice the investigation or other protected interests.
* More generally, German procedure permits withholding information where disclosure could jeopardise the purpose of an investigation.

So, regarding the alleged photographs

If prosecutors really possessed photographs depicting Madeleine dead, I would not regard the fact that the McCanns hadn?t been shown them as evidence that the photographs didn?t exist.

They could potentially have been kept confidential because:

1. The investigation was ongoing.
2. The images might constitute extremely sensitive evidence.
3. Revealing them could compromise investigative strategies or witnesses.
4. There could be privacy/victim-protection considerations.
5. Prosecutors might not yet have established their authenticity or provenance.

OK, thanks, Vertigo, that clarifies things, if such photos exist of course!

Interesting, Vertigo, but wouldn't the McCanns have a right to know about the existence of such photos?

I?m really not sure.  Morally maybe, but legally?  I don?t know.