New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[Brietta]

I would love to know which is considered "non-forensic evidence" in Germany.
May anyone here clarify?
Thanks.

I know nothing at all about German procedures, sorry.

[misty]

https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/

Photos/videos are classed as demonstrative evidence i.e they directly demonstrate a fact.

[Heriberto Janosch]

https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/

Photos/videos are classed as demonstrative evidence i.e they directly demonstrate a fact.

Thank you. But my question was "what do the German consider NON-forensic evidence?"

Nevertheless, we can begin with the definition you sent, misty, although it seems to be not a German definition,

"Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court."

So HCW has not scientific evidence, and cannot provide proof. My question is: if you do not have scientific evidence on CB involvement, how are you sure CB killed MM?

[misty]

Thank you. But my question was "what do the German consider NON-forensic evidence?"

Nevertheless, we can begin with the definition you sent, misty, although it seems to be not a German definition,

"Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court."

So HCW has not scientific evidence, and cannot provide proof. My question is: if you do not have scientific evidence on CB involvement, how are you sure CB killed MM?

Without scientific evidence that Madeleine is dead, how can anyone be proven to have killed her? BKA must have acquired different forms of evidence which, when added together, may prove their suspect killed her. I have just read that Germany also accept hearsay evidence under their Civil Procedure code, which explains why Busching's testimony was instrumental in convicting Brueckner in the 2005 rape case.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Without scientific evidence that Madeleine is dead, how can anyone be proven to have killed her? BKA must have acquired different forms of evidence which, when added together, may prove their suspect killed her. I have just read that Germany also accept hearsay evidence under their Civil Procedure code, which explains why Busching's testimony was instrumental in convicting Brueckner in the 2005 rape case.

Thanks misty.

Try "nicht forensische Beweise" (non-forensic evidence) in Google ... Not many entries, i think.

 

[Heriberto Janosch]

It seems HCW said MM is dead, based only in statistics of previous cases ...

https://www.rnd.de/panorama/fall-maddie-staatsanwaltschaft-hat-keinen-beweis-dass-sie-tot-ist-SJOOVHTJWZBXNG3MZG7GDHOYT4.html

[Mr Gray]

It seems HCW said MM is dead, based only in statistics of previous cases ...

https://www.rnd.de/panorama/fall-maddie-staatsanwaltschaft-hat-keinen-beweis-dass-sie-tot-ist-SJOOVHTJWZBXNG3MZG7GDHOYT4.html

I do wonder how closely you have followed what HCW has said. Have you watched all the interviews and docs with HCW.
You are quoting an article from a year ago which I remember well. You ar3 also relying on newspaper article to draw your conclusions.

Have you heard of the Rui Pedro case where a video of abuse was found. Although.this was not proof of death it was unlikely Rui would have survived the assault. From what Wolters has said this may well be what he has

[Mr Gray]

Thank you. But my question was "what do the German consider NON-forensic evidence?"

Nevertheless, we can begin with the definition you sent, misty, although it seems to be not a German definition,

"Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court."

So HCW has not scientific evidence, and cannot provide proof. My question is: if you do not have scientific evidence on CB involvement, how are you sure CB killed MM?

Are you aware that Wolters has said the evidence may be photos or videos... Thats an example of concrete but not forensic evidence

[Mr Gray]

I would love to know which is considered "non-forensic evidence" in Germany.
May anyone here clarify?
Thanks.

Photographs... Videos.. As wolters has said.... As in the Rui Pedro case

[Mr Gray]

Thank you. But my question was "what do the German consider NON-forensic evidence?"




So HCW has not scientific evidence, and cannot provide proof. My question is: if you do not have scientific evidence on CB involvement, how are you sure CB killed ?

Are you aware how many people are found guilty of murder without forensic evidence...

[jassi]

https://i-sight.com/resources/15-types-of-evidence-and-how-to-use-them-in-investigation/

Photos/videos are classed as demonstrative evidence i.e they directly demonstrate a fact.

I wonder how that applies in the age of digital manipulation - eg Photoshop ?

[Brietta]

I wonder how that applies in the age of digital manipulation - eg Photoshop ?

Good point.
I typed in "how can I tell if a digital image has been photoshopped" which hit on quite a lot of information.  There is a lot of information there about techniques and software to enable checks to be made.  Given the volume of information available to investigators and the number of successful prosecutions which have occurred world wide I don't think manipulation is as much of a problem as it might appear it could be.

[Heriberto Janosch]

Photographs... Videos.. As wolters has said.... As in the Rui Pedro case

Thanks Davel. Do you have the link of HCW talking about photographs and videos?

[Mr Gray]

Thanks Davel. Do you have the link of HCW talking about photographs and videos?

Its on episode one of the Discovery documentary... About 5 mins in as I recall. Theres a thread a little further down from this one titled does wolters hsve photographic evidence

[G-Unit]

I do wonder how closely you have followed what HCW has said. Have you watched all the interviews and docs with HCW.
You are quoting an article from a year ago which I remember well. You ar3 also relying on newspaper article to draw your conclusions.

Have you heard of the Rui Pedro case where a video of abuse was found. Although.this was not proof of death it was unlikely Rui would have survived the assault. From what Wolters has said this may well be what he has

I know that the investigation into the Wonderland Club found 750,000 images and videos depicting 1,263 different children. Only 16 children were identified, one of whom was Rui Pedro Teixeira Mendonça. I cannot, however find anything which says he was identified from a video.