Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

i know it as you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. 

but i mean by it, can portugal try him, and germany also, both on a murder charge. i never have seen the possibility under portuguese law, but germany has an escape route to try the same suspect twice, as long as their is enough new evidence. it became the result of a case with suspect declared as not guilty, and by know they made some changes, so even if the first round become nil or not guilty, they could try him again in this case based on new incoming evidence.

but there is also the international rule in the eu, where you can only be tried once for the same charges, so by that one it would not make a difference, only one country can try you for that same charge. 

but in the real world, this case has a very high chance to end up first before the echr court, before it reach a national court in portugal or germany. 

the eu can not do very much inside one of the countries, but can dictate some rules when it is over more than one eu member state. 

double yeopardy is the usual translation of the ne bis in idem, it is not bound to murdercases, it works for all cases, acquittal is not an obligatory verdict, but is the reason it was used between different jurisdictions. most do not mind a guilty verdict, so it will most been used to get a freed man behind bars in a second round of court cases.  

but when two countries, what are two very separate jurisdiction start a case against you on the same charges in the same case, double yeopardy is already started. for that there is the rule the first who step a minute step into an conviction is the one who can start the court case. 

those rules are there with good reasons, otherwise it would to easy to just start court shopping, a term deriving from the police verb cop shopping, and stands for looking around which party is the most willing and wanting to bring someone behind bars. and actually that was already almost happening, it was last minute that portugal decided to make cb also their suspect, and in itself that was enough to break the sol.
but also because of that court shopping did just not happened. 

but it will hardly possible escaping the echr. based on a not active used address of residency in germany germany became able to start this case, and this can play ball with the schengen agreement. and there are many more fine lines germany tries to paint black.

Although German law protects the accused from being repeatedly prosecuted or subjected to double jeopardy, the prosecution as well as the defense may appeal a court judgment, and such an appeal by the prosecution is not considered double jeopardy. Notification for appeal must be submitted within one week after the oral announcement of the court’s judgment. A brief supporting the appeal must be submitted within 30 days.


Source:
https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html


A recent decision by the European Court of Justice (Case C-505/19 from 12th May 2021) ruled that a person arrested within the European Union (EU) on the basis of an Interpol Red Notice may not be extradited from the EU if a final court decision has already been issued in an EU Member State in relation to the offence on which the Red Notice was based. In the background of this decision is theprohibition of double jeopardy applicable in the Schengen area (Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), Art. 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).


Source:
https://se-legal.de/prohibition-of-double-jeopardy-and-the-interpol-red-notice-ecj-judgment/?lang=en

at verdi, 

for you, i can give a lot of links, you have to use your own translating app of choice, of course, together they are far to large to copy them over. 

by the society of lawyers in portugal, a nice summing up what is available in the law of portugal, with the article numbers with is, and a quite simple explanation.

https://www.fms-advogados.com/pt/noticias/Crimes-e-Prazos-de-Prescricao-do-Procedimento-Criminal/105/

all you can want to know about sol's in european law systems, including the portuguese, differences and specifics,most recent i can find. this one is in english, not an easy read. and looks into history of sols, and how they are in use in all kinds of european law systems. 

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ndr-2017-005_synthese_en_neutralisee_finale.pdf

with a portuguese explanation of the arguido status; 

https://gddc.ministeriopublico.pt/pagina/notes-portuguese-legal-terms

unofficial translation of the penal code; 

https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/PORTUGAL_Criminal%20Code.pdf

and another translation;

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/4288/file/Portugal_CC_2006_en.pdf

https://www.legislationline.org/countries/country/9 

all 3 are in english and i often use more then just one to check against each other, these work usually the most easiest.

those give mostly only the law in its pure forms, you will miss out on jurisprudence, but those are usually only usable for a fee. 

there is not often a case that reach its sol without good reasons. and in countries without sols in this matter it does not mean cases are endlessly reviewed, or bring culprits before courts of law. 

in portugal you have a sol on almost all criminal cases because all that ranks per sentence under serious crime  acts had a sol. 

so it means, the most serious crime possible in any case will dictating the sol. that is how a case gets a sol. 
but as soon as an arguido status, and in that piece from the portuguese government itself is a very good piece about that, is served on someone, there will start a separate sol only for that arguido, and this has even more angles because it has also need of reflection on the arguido status against the open investigation. 

you have to read the sol of a case, as the hardest and most serious crime a defendant can be prosecuted will dictate the duration of the sol, and that is a maximum of 15 years. and that is from murder.

the nice thing is, the mccanns are still not safe, they would hardly be in sight for the crime of murder, but they could be found guilty of an criminal act that is still going on, or that exact crime must have a sol on its very own in the penal code. look in the first link, and start dreaming on for these possibles. i would not dare to take a look in that, and i think there must be a lot of jurisprudence about what is legally ongoing

but that part i would love to hear an expert in portuguese criminal law commenting. 

so for a murder conviction , gives us only cb as possibility based on the old starting date of the supposed criminal case of may 3 2007, his arguido status broke the sol. and if an investigation can find out such a person did not murder on 3 may, but any much later date, the sol of the original case can be set on the exact date of that criminal act. if a person had kept the victim alive for 10 years that case with that suspect will also get the sol on that much later date, and it will mean because the original date makes a flight forward, others could be also become arguido. because the result of that forward flight means there is no sol reached. 

i am the last who would say law is easy, but actually it gets a lot easier if you get used to it. and i still loving the working with it. criminal law is often pretty straight forward, the proceedings are far more complicated, but still more strict to follow then a field of family law, i once had my roots. 
and sure from time to time you feel quite warped because no one actually remembers why that is there in the big books. 

and not un important, even if you can get the understanding of the plain written law, even know what the spirit of that part of law is about, every case that is heard in a court of law can give other meaning on exactly those same written words. when i started all jurisprudence was still in books, folders or even on micro film, there already where syllabus, so you could search on crimes, but it were hours of reading work, and even an investigation in itself to find that verdict you needed. today you got databases, mostly online, and that makes it so much easier.

silent scope that is not what i mean, all appeals are just to be seen as one trial.

what i'm looking for is retrial, and that must be in this article of the german law;  § 373a StPO


i already have the german text but it would be nice to have a good english translation, you can not just put a piece of law into a translation app. 



(1) Die Wiederaufnahme eines durch rechtskräftigen Strafbefehl abgeschlossenen Verfahrens zuungunsten des Verurteilten ist auch zulässig, wenn neue Tatsachen oder Beweismittel beigebracht sind, die allein oder in Verbindung mit den früheren Beweisen geeignet sind, die Verurteilung wegen eines Verbrechens zu begründen.
(2) Im übrigen gelten für die Wiederaufnahme eines durch rechtskräftigen Strafbefehl abgeschlossenen Verfahrens die §§ 359 bis 373 entsprechend.

so if you have a good english translation of that book of law, with the full article,  could you send me the link, please? 


in how i understand it, it was a result of a also missing persons case, a young woman/girl, and her father must live through the experience that the culprit could not be retried, and the german law had gotten a change in that part , about 1 a 2 years ago. in german this artikel tells yes, there can be a retrial when there is new evidence and even together with the already used evidence from the earlier trial together be used. 


if i remember it well, retrial was already possible in germany when the culprit made a confession, after the trial was done. 


i think retrial not in favor of a defendant after a confession not a bad form of law, i like it. i never liked boosting defendant that i could not get them, and you could only say, see you next time in. even if 50 people only can see something is black, some judges still are seeing grey. the only solution is just doiing your jib better next time. 


the result from the european courts is one usable against extraditing someone to a non member state, after a definitive and final verdict. but it also looks to have some implication that eu member states has to respect each others court decisions. reading the full article that would be the natural result of such a declaration. 


but in that same database (not in that link) of all eu law, and the one with echr law there are many articles that will have influence on this case, the ruling in the link not, because germany and portugal are already both a eu member. but as soon as someone had a final verdict in a full trial, it is no longer possible to extradite him on the same case to the uk, because the uk is no longer part of the eu. 


it is between eu members already a lot easier to exchange things like evidence, but there is somewhere in that region of laws and decisions also one, that tells the eu member that starts the first step into conviction. is the one that can proceed the case. that is different from the usual rules and principles of law, that regulates jurisdiction. 


all eu databases are horrible to work, and at least half the year i use parts daily. and i still hate it. so most times i end up by just try my luck with google, and hope i find the exact numbers and names, that will give at least some short cuts to find what i did need. 


and i must say, i find the case law parts much more fun, than all those cb this, cb that, stories. the aces are not in the quality of the witnesses. 

so it was dear jon c after all on fiber gate. did he got the message of der hansel it was all blödsinn. such a beautiful word, and when germans use it they never use it in a nice way, so to translate it with utter nonsense is doing it short. far too short. 

it was not nice to tell us first it was just a sandra scoop, lucky for us we already did understand it was you at the helm. a well at least that ship already sailed. 

well let me think, dear jon c. i think we can use a nice story about egg man and how much cb looks on that e fit, after his surgery. or what do you think of a full series of the jensen sisters, they can get you at least 11 hours, they did it before, and you do not need a photographer, the mail, the sun and the mirror would have them already in stock. 
maybe you can get even a full book out of those two.  

and would it not become time again for some orphanage collectors, or just even one of those nice strangers, you know stories have to be a bit inclusive for today's readers. 

o, and maybe you can write cb into bandage man, you know the one from redwood 2013!

and some russians maybe, they could have need of some pocket money know their accounts are frozen, they have for now the reason to be polite to you even. 

and as your next scoop some nice creepy former criminals on a camping in what is it called again t...something? 

and you have to do at least something with dragon festivals. 

we know you will read with us, so no need to send it per olive branches of course, cheers at the dripp dear jon c.

Jon got it all from Sandra F on Sexta às 9 from 18 Sep 20 and Credits her in the Article. All the Information was on her Program.

https://issuu.com/theolivepress/docs/final_dbf8e6346a642e

@ Onehand 

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.pdf

AUB At your service.

Oooh-ha!!!

Such passion and feigned knowledge.

Without expertise in law, all this is nothing but assumed verbiage.

Leave the expertise to the experts.

Anything can be sourced to prove a point but it needs to be taken in context.  Without that context it's nothing but ignorance.

For example, you can take a sentence or paragraph from any official (or unofficial) source but without due consideration of the law in it's entirety, such extracts are stand alone and mean nothing.

In short, the legal profession requires years of study and qualification, it's not something that can be acquired through google.

Christian Brueckner has been introduced into the case of missing Madeleine McCann for a reason - and it sure ain't anyway connected with justice, at least not justice for little Madeleine McCann.

The prolongation of media and press attention to the name and his alleged history in the world of crime is evidence in itself. Incidentally alleged crimes that have no connection whatsoever with the case of Madeleine McCann.

There are key players promoting the name Brueckner and an apparent string of cohorts aiding propagation - making damn sure the allegations against Brueckner are kept alive. Scratching around for any old piece of information to either strengthen the false accusations made against him or just to keep the story circulating. Circulated by the UK tabloid press, featuring the same old gang of 'journalists' and international equivalents.

Curiously, all open supporters of the McCann faction!

This covert operation benefits only two people .... Gerry and Kate McCann. Notice how quiet they are, no studio appearances or photo-shoots to negate press reports. They happily go along with the story because it's to their advantage to have a named 'prime suspect' in the headlines.

In my view Christian Brueckner will never appear before a court of law for any crime connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. You can't rely on snatches of statements made on camera by officialdom and used to promote 'documentaries' and or 'investigative journalism', they are heavily edited and much like that seen time and time again across the broad spectrum of media - taken out of context!

Take by way of example Sandra Felgueiras, her productions appear to include face-on interviews, although there is no evidence to confirm. For the purpose of these interviews she speaks in the English language - pigeon English, she is ostensibly interviewing a German man. Said German, for the most part, answers using the German language but occasionally casually slips into English. So just one interview switches between Portuguese, German and English - why would that be if not an act of deception?

So what's left by way of evidence against Christian Brueckner? A telephone ping from a mast close to the Ocean Club that covers a range of x kilometres and the chief German prosecutor 'thinks' connected to Brueckner and the words of their chief witness, the felon Manfred Seyferth and his network of criminals !?!

That aside, all this stuff being propagated comes to us by way of the press and media. There is no documented evidence available to support the allegations, if Christian Brueckner exists in the form of a master criminal, if he exists at all, he is in prison, he is being exploited over and above reason - a crime in itself. This debacle has been going on now for two years, it hasn't advanced by way of new evidence, it's been going around in circles - around an alleged phone ping, shady witnesses and video footage of sexual deviance that has never been seen by anyone other than two of those shady witnesses.

If the case ever reaches a court of law my ghast will be flabbered.

onehand wrote:i already have the german text but it would be nice to have a good english translation, you can not just put a piece of law into a translation app.

You might find this easier to follow for reference purposes..

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html#p2261

Thank you Verdi, for the usual voice of reason. I guess that when everything quietens down and CB is left to get in with his life and Operation Grange is publicly shamed for producing zero results, we'll be back with the original suspect. By which time, so much water would have been squirted under the bridge, the original suspects may never be brought to justice. Justice for little Maddie who deserved so much more from our British Law Enforcement agencies.

bevcoffee wrote:Thank you Verdi, for the usual voice of reason. I guess that when everything quietens down and CB is left to get in with his life and Operation Grange is publicly shamed for producing zero results, we'll be back with the original suspect. By which time, so much water would have been squirted under the bridge, the original suspects may never be brought to justice. Justice for little Maddie who deserved so much more from our British Law Enforcement agencies.

And deserved even more from her parents and family.

No, the true prime suspects will never be brought to justice. That ship sailed on the night of 3rd May 2007 - the rest as they say is history.

The press and media focus has always been to publicly disgrace the Portuguese police, in particular Gonçalo Amaral. To this day, fifteen years down the line, the campaign continues.

It's all there in black and white, if you just read between the lines.

Madeleine who?

onehand wrote:to verdi, i preferred the full text, not only a simple article itself, but it is always built on other parts of law, and it is still common practice to take notice of all in that book of law. the definition on what is what , and who is who are usually in the first chapters of these law books.

It's all there, only more neatly formatted for easier subject reference.  You only need open the table of contents under each section, you can run through the list looking for your subject of interest.  

Direct reference is preferable to being distracted by irrelevancies when searching for specific subject matter.  Still, your choice of course.

Then of course there is legalese to consider, not a language that can be easily interpreted/understood by the layman.  I'm English and confess I don't understand even a fraction of legal text but I can easily see how subject matter is misinterpreted when particular text is lifted from a comprehensive document and presented elsewhere as stand alone citation.

I recall something being presented here on CMOMM yonks ago.  Turned out, rather than the subject matter under discussion, the particular text related to something entirely different.  Problem here, as witnessed over the past fifteen years following Madeleine McCann's disappearance, people believe what they read or hear without bothering to check out the detail cited and/or presented for discussion.,  It doesn't take long before matters are catapulted into the land of make-believe, along with Kate McCann's autobiographical novel entitled .... 'madeleine'!  Yes, even there some people are even compelled to believe what they read.

The case has attracted so many anonymities who feign expertise in just about every subject in existence - and even subjects that don't exist.  Classic case of what you don't know - invent!

Snipped from Verdis post:
"Take by way of example Sandra Felgueiras, her productions appear to include face-on interviews, although there is no evidence to confirm. For the purpose of these interviews she speaks in the English language - pigeon English, she is ostensibly interviewing a German man. Said German, for the most part, answers using the German language but occasionally casually slips into English. So just one interview switches between Portuguese, German and English - why would that be if not an act of deception?"


As a German, this has always been a painful thing to witness: Why on earth does HC Wolters use the English language at all when he clearly doesn't speak English well? 
Was there really no skilled interpreter speaking Portuguese and German to be entrusted with the difficult task of interpreting? I, for one, would feel much more comfortable using my own language, especially in a situation like this where HC Wolters is supposed to answer sensitive questions about a live investigation - I mean, given the whole story about CB was legitimate at all. This may point to deception, but I'm more inclined to think that Herr Wolters simply overestimates his proficiency in that language, which is something of a epidemic here in Germany. The same goes for Sandra F. imo, she appears to think very highly of herself (hence the constant self-praise), I'm sure she thinks her English is just fine when it actually isn't. To me, it amounts to overinflated egos more than a calculated act of deception.

PS: I know that my English isn't flawless as well, and I do feel limited when I try to express myself in English.

Amen  !

Sandra Felgueiras' platform is Portuguese, why is she presenting shows partly in pigeon English if not to influence a specific market.

I've said a million times in the past, there is no easy, direct, translation/interpretation between two languages.  That's why professional translators/interpreters are assigned for any work of importance.  

I've used google translate on a number of occasions as an exercise, sometimes the results are hilarious, google totally discombobulates words, grammar and more importantly - meaning.

Years ago I ventured out looking for horseradish.  At the time being ignorant of the correct word I asked for 'radish of the horse' - a direct translation created by me.  Naturally the bloke in the market looked at me as though I was stark raving bonkers - he directed me to the nearby abattoir!

@Verdi, I agree, she probably also seeks to influence the English-speaking public and gain fame across borders (I'm speaking of Sandra Felgueiras, of course), and yes, google translate may be useful to get the gist of a text written in a foreign language but can obviously never be as accurate as the work of a well-trained translator - in fact, it is a subject at German universities, I once dreamt of becoming a translator or interpreter myself but after I had done an internship at a translators department of a law firm I realized what a painstaking task it is, which has nothing to do with the cosmopolitan and glamorous ideas I had developed about this field; actually, I didn't understand even a fraction of those texts that I had been given to read in German, let alone translate them into English *LOL*. In this regard, even Kate McCanns complaint about things having gotten lost in translation has some justification. And people like Herr Wolters who seemed to be compelled to demonstrate their poor English - well, as it showed, it creates unnecessary misunderstandings and is also excruciating to listen to

Andema83 wrote:Snipped from Verdis post:
"Take by way of example Sandra Felgueiras, her productions appear to include face-on interviews, although there is no evidence to confirm. For the purpose of these interviews she speaks in the English language - pigeon English, she is ostensibly interviewing a German man. Said German, for the most part, answers using the German language but occasionally casually slips into English. So just one interview switches between Portuguese, German and English - why would that be if not an act of deception?"


As a German, this has always been a painful thing to witness: Why on earth does HC Wolters use the English language at all when he clearly doesn't speak English well? 
Was there really no skilled interpreter speaking Portuguese and German to be entrusted with the difficult task of interpreting? I, for one, would feel much more comfortable using my own language, especially in a situation like this where HC Wolters is supposed to answer sensitive questions about a live investigation - I mean, given the whole story about CB was legitimate at all. This may point to deception, but I'm more inclined to think that Herr Wolters simply overestimates his proficiency in that language, which is something of a epidemic here in Germany. The same goes for Sandra F. imo, she appears to think very highly of herself (hence the constant self-praise), I'm sure she thinks her English is just fine when it actually isn't. To me, it amounts to overinflated egos more than a calculated act of deception.

PS: I know that my English isn't flawless as well, and I do feel limited when I try to express myself in English.

There are 2 tests when speaking a foreign language.
a. you need to translate into your first language, then when you have got a reply, you need to translate back into your first language.
b. you can think in your second language, so translating back and forth is not required.
 
Sandra F can obviously think in English.  In Portugal, that is common, because of an educational system which requires children to study English for at least 8 years.  She does not speak English with a pigeon accent, she speaks English with a Portuguese accent. 

All of the Germans I have met out in my time in the Algarve, speak perfectly decent, understandable English, with a German accent. 

As to HCW, he sounds like he thinks in German, so he struggles in English.  Amaral avoids it. 

Here's a very small, relevant quiz question.  The most successful car ever in history was the VW T1.  By what better name is it known?

ShiningInLuz wrote:Sandra F can obviously think in English.  In Portugal, that is common, because of an educational system which requires children to study English for at least 8 years.  She does not speak English with a pigeon accent, she speaks English with a Portuguese accent.

I think you've missed the point!

I think we shouldn't judge ppl for not speaking English well - although I think as a German I am entitled to address the issues that my compatriots have with the English language -, but the problem that @Verdi addressed was that there were misinterpretations that arose from an interview where both participants spoke to each other in a language they didn't know well, which was something that was totally avoidable imo.

Interesting on the Subject of Translation that since the ‘Prime Patsy’ CB was unveiled to the World not one Edition of the PJ FILES has been translated into the German language.

Herr Fülscher made enough effort to go to Portugal, and knows enough English to understand them fully.

StA Wolters and the BKA make no comparable comments. 

Helge B said that Brückner ‘knows all about what happened to Maddie’.

He probably does if he has read the PJ Files in English.

No one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann, aside from those directly involved in her fate.

The Portuguese investigation was seriously derailed when the case coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, was removed from the investigation - as can be seen quite clearly when reading the PJ files.

I don't personally know any of the characters currently under the spotlight, I haven't a clue about their linguistic skills, I can only judge by what I see and hear. However, as I've repeatedly said, unless bi/multi-lingual to a very high standard, an accurate translation/interpretation between one language and another is impossible.

Still, who cares - just as long as Brueckner is kept at the top of the pile - and it is, day after day after day .