Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

A suspect not having an alibi isn't quite as good as the police having proof, is it?

They have not lifted McCann’s arguido status as far as I am aware, so now they added Bruckner to the plate.

Just because Herr Wolters is not aware of any alibi doesn't mean Brueckner hasn't got one.

I hope he has. He's scum, but so are those who really are involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'.

In English law he doesn't have to reveal his defence for a long time yet.

Disclosure of unused material in criminal investigations

1. Where a criminal investigation began on or after 4 April 2005, disclosure to the defence takes place in the following stages:

• Stage 1: Initial disclosure by the prosecution: This requires the prosecution to disclose any unused material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused.
  
  
• Stage 2: commonly referred to as "Defence disclosure": This is made by a defence statement (sometimes referred to as a "defence case statement"), which is mandatory in Crown Court cases and voluntary in magistrates' court cases. The defence also have to disclose to the prosecutor and the court advance details of any witnesses they intend to call at a trial.
  
  
• Stage 3: Continuing duty of disclosure by the prosecution: The prosecutor must keep under review throughout the criminal proceedings the question of whether there is material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused. This duty specifically arises following receipt of a defence statement and when details of the issues in dispute in a prosecution have been recorded on the effective trial preparation form.
  
  

The disclosure test

2. The initial disclosure test is an objective test. Material must be disclosed if it "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or of assisting the case for the accused".




It is interesting, because anything which causes reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury at any point in the trial will force a finding of Not Guilty, whether it has been disclosed beforehand or not.

CB if charged will probably be tried under German law , no jury .....cases are heard and judged by judges .
,Jury trials are rare in criminal cases in Portugal.but when the crime in question is punishable by a prison sentence with a maximum limit of more than eight years, either the public prosecutor, the victim or the defendant may request a jury trial.

Brueckner will have to be tried in Germany because the Portuguese don't know what crime has been committed.

As far as the Portuguese are concerned, Madeleine is missing and they believe the McCann's are involved in covering up her death, but they don't have enough evidence to prove it.


It's up to the German prosecutor to come up with enough evidence to take it to trial in Germany, although what is has to do with them is a mystery, apart from sharing info with the Portuguese.

If they have concrete evidence Brueckner abducted and killed Madeleine, even if they don't intend to let justice take it's course in Portugal, it's the right thing to do.

Maybe they have and that's why the Portuguese have made him an arguido so they can go and interview him in prison.

Vera Krista @ #722:
 
‘They have not lifted McCann’s arguido status as far as I am aware……’
 
I don’t think we actually know, although the ‘party line’ was of course that they had been cleared.
 
This was from July 2008:
 
The couple's spokesman said yesterday that he expected their "arguido" status to be officially lifted if the case was shelved, but it is not unusual in Portugal for people to remain official suspects for years on the basis that new evidence could still emerge.
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-after-14-months-and-no-charges-is-the-madeleine-mccann-inquiry-over-858287.html?r=37382

The presumption is I feel, that neither Gerry nor Kate McCann have ever been 'officially' cleared of suspicion.  That much emphasized word arguido has been overused and misused over a period of time, evoking misconception that the arguido status is final condemnation .... 'guilty'.  Like the word is the be all and end all.

I'm probably the worst offender for repeating that the McCanns are the prime suspects (arguidos?), always have been always will be unless new evidence comes to light that exonerates their involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine 100%.  Whether or not they carrying the word 'arguido' is really quite irrelevant - fact remains they still walk under a cloud of suspicion, that will never change no matter how many new suspects are thrown in the cauldron.  It's just a manufactured distraction.

Over the past fifteen years new suspects have come and gone - Raymond Hewlett being a prominent character at some point, circumstances akin to the current [prime suspect', Christian Brueckner.  Even he of the German soothsaying factory mentions the paedophile angle in his latest revelation.

We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (...)".

In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17306-the-law-vs-the-mccanns#452558

According to a "Reliable Source" the communication from the PJ to the BKA to declare Brückner "arguido" contained no evidence
and not even a coherent statement of the offence allegedly being investigated.

It would incidentally also put Brückner on notice that he didn't have to answer any of the German questions either, even if they were pretending he was nothing more than a witness at this stage, and had not cautioned him

as far as i could find it out, and it would be very much apreaciated peter, if you can ask that from the reliable source.

arguido in itself is not equal to suspect as we use it, but a status used to serve a person you have to question the right to a lawyer, but also some obligations, like the obligation to keep yourself available to an investigation. 

under most mainland law systems a witness has the obligation by law to only answer with the truth. but there is always a chance a witness could incriminate itself, not only in the case he is a witness too, but also to other criminal acts. i do know we have a duty of care, to see to it we not asking that from any person, that could lead to assist in any way of matter in their own conviction. our caution is only  you have no obligation to answer. in case of a suspect. 

if we go back to the time operation grange wanted to hear some people living in portigal, portugal had given all of them the arguido status, but did not deliver a declaration of being suspect. and legally none of those men were suspected of a crime at the time in portugal.
murat asked to be made arguido.
that possibility to active ask to get that status by a person looks to tell, there is in portugal no need for the same burden of suspicion as we have.

we have only witnesses and suspects in an investigation, and we have situations, we can only get beyond our duty of care (for the human rights of a person) to make someone in to a suspect, only that could give the right to a lawyer.

like in this situation, you are as a free person driving on a motorway, and got into an accident with a wrong way driver, in this accident the wrong way driver get himself killed. when you get at the place of accident, you usually end up with someone who is clearly a victim, is very emotional and talks just rubbish, but that rubbish could be words like what have i done, so the protocol in use is, you have to arrest them, even hold them trough the usual hold up channels, process them, and the prosecution officer has to say they could go or not. 
this is not a nice solution. my understanding from what i could get from what is to read in translated law opinions, in portugal you just could reach out, and give that same victim arguido status, and with that there is a declaration why that status is served to you. 

so that would mean arguido in itself is only a status by law, that translates more into the not legal term person of interest, but it fills also the gap between a witness with risk of incrimination, and a victim the legal assistance that is needed sometimes.

it would also fit with the arguido status of cb, without evidence of defined criminal act it is usually impossible to make someone into a legal suspect as meant in the law. 

so my understanding is always been, arguido is a status, but has no declaration of the role you have, but together with the giving of the arguido status, there is a declaration, why you get that status, and only there we start to see suspect, 'protected' witness, and even the difficult situations like i already painted, or just because another government want to ask you questions. 

we do not have what you more often see under a british based common law system, a witness under oath, or that what you say can be used in court as evidence. 
most mainland law, or continental law, based on roman law, with some french, spanish, german and other historical governments in it, give usually a very strict working to , that right to not incriminating yourself. 

for us it means, a confession is not a solution, in a police investigation, it helps very much, but we can use it as just all other information to finding out what must have happened. suspects can choose to tell porkies, retract what they said, keep their mouth shut. 

i would welcome a status as arguido looks to be, because it could solve a lot of nasty situations. you need a lower burden of suspicion and sometimes maybe not even that. 

i don't think i could make a decision under law, and do not even have a ground for making someone into a suspect without that burden of suspicion from facts and circumstances. joint investigations are not that unique, but i do not see how i could use the law, as it meant to be and could find the competences i needed for it, because germans say i have to make someone a suspect under dutch law. it is no choice in wanting to see the burden of suspicion, it is a must. our first article of law in both books of punishment the procedural and the criminal acts is nothing is punishable if not named as punishable by law. so without information, their would be no authority to act from that same law. 

and from what i do know about the still pretty recent history of portuguese goverments, they have pretty strict rules of law, they do not concur with playing them down.

but as i am correct and the arguido status is an separate entity, that just gores together with the role or title you get in or from a case, it means, you always have to go back to the declaration why that status is given, and that means you can not translate it into suspect. but it could be arguido plus suspect, arguido plus witness with protection. or maybe even for a vulnerable witness. 

arguido would than only be a set of rules for protection of your rights, and obligations to an investigation. 

the press communication from the portuguese sounds also in this case as if it are just different things, with the mccanns, it was said as they are know arguido's and why. so arguido is not the finger, but a status from that. 

the portuguese did have a word for suspect; suspeito

and it would nicely tell why the mccanns could make a habit of their own translations of arguido. 

we only have very recent the possibility to get a lawyer in advisory role when taking a witness statement, and not even as a overall rule. before it was for the the officer to decide if a lawyer could be present, but silent and out of sight if the witness, but the spray of diehard criminals made that to change, sometimes. 

again it is not easy to get a full understanding of your own laws and legal procedures, in other countries, in a languague you have to little knowledge of it is almost impossible to be really shure you did get the full understanding.  but in case of the term arguido in this case it would help if we get that one clear for ever. 

when you put arguido through deepl in the languages you understand you get very different translation back, all except what usually is used as suspect. even the old dutch word verweerder is showing up, and that had no conclusion in it that stands for guilt. in english defendant, accused, all i see is more as used before the courts, not a meaning during a investigation.

Q&A: Suspects and Portuguese law

Madeleine McCann's parents have been named official suspects by Portuguese police investigating their daughter's disappearance.

Previously, a 33-year-old British man - Robert Murat - was also declared "arguido" by detectives.

People given arguido/a status are officially treated as a suspect in a crime.

None of the three have been arrested or charged.

How is arguido status given and what does it mean?

Under Portuguese law either the police or a person being questioned can request that they be formally named as a suspect, a process called arguido.

Artur Rego, a Portuguese lawyer, told BBC News: "Arguido is the person who has been accused of being the perpetrator.

"This is just an accusation made exactly at the end of the investigation."

A person can ask for arguido status if they feel the line of questioning is implying that they are a suspect. This gives them more rights than a witness would have.

What rights does an arguido have?

Arguido status gives a range of legal protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer during questioning.

Mr Rego said: "Sometimes when they [the police] suspect someone, they call that person in as a witness.

"They don't constitute him as arguido and they extract as much information from him as they can, because as a witness he cannot refuse to collaborate with the police.

"Now the moment he is constituted as arguido, as the defendant, then he can not only refuse to answer questions because they can incriminate him, but also he has the right to be accompanied in the questionings by his own solicitor."

Once someone is an arguido they can be arrested, but only if there is sufficient evidence.

What action can the courts take against an arguido?

The police can use their powers to bring the suspect before a judge to ask for restrictions to be imposed on their movements.

If they do, they could be banned from leaving their house or the area, or held in custody while the case continues.

In this case, the suspect is not subject to a judge's order, but has signed an identity and residence statement.

It prevents the person moving house or leaving the country. If they stay anywhere other than their given place of residence for more than five days they have to notify police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm

Ever decreasing circles..

So it was an advantage to the McCann's to be made arguido's.

But was it at their own request?  I don't remember how it was reported.

crusader wrote:So it was an advantage to the McCann's to be made arguidos.

Very much so.  It is a status they could have demanded.
It allowed them to have a lawyer present at all interviews and to refuse to answer questions.
Both of which they did.

And it had the desired effect.

So Kate McCann's refusal to answer 48 questions was legally acceptable. Ridiculous.

@CaKeLoveR wrote
But was it at their own request?  I don't remember how it was reported.




I doubt the McCann's would have knowledge of Portuguese law, I would guess it was the McCann's solicitor who requested it after consulting and advising the McCann's of the advantaged of being made arguido's.

CaKeLoveR wrote:So Kate McCann's refusal to answer 48 questions was legally acceptable. Ridiculous.

Legally, but not morally.

As it is in the UK when you are "under caution"
or in the US where you are protected by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and the Miranda warning
and in most other civilised jurisdictions across the world.
It is VERY frustrating for the police, I can tell you, but it has been the case since Coke started to reform the law after
the excesses of the Star Chamber

It doesn't seem to matter where in the world you are, the law leans in favour of the suspect. They have the 'rights' to do this and that.

I hope it's readily available, I read everything I can Madeleine related,   

The  Foreign Detective has read our forum, I think!

@CaKeLoveR wrote
The  Foreign Detective has read our forum, I think!




You could well be right, PeterMack's E book is a mine of information.

Yes Crusader, I think this chap has copied a lot from Petermac, who did his own research in PDL. Jill pays for the forum, and we all know what Tony has had to contend with. Yet not one of them has asked for anything in return, and this makes me suspicious of The Foreign Detective touting his book.

CaKeLoveR wrote:It doesn't seem to matter where in the world you are, the law leans in favour of the suspect. They have the 'rights' to do this and that.

Have you ever known a Human rights Lawyer, or Organisation stand up for the rights of victims ?
Victim Support is a Charity which used to be run largely by retired Police Officers
https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/

Legal Aid is government funded = YOUR MONEY, and is dished out even to the most notorious and egregious villains.
One of my friends from University is now a silk and in 2015 was in the Top ten Legal Aid Lawyers, by the amount he took from the pot.
That year he earned over 1 million from Legal Aid alone.
He gets involved in high-profile drugs importation cases.

CaKeLoveR wrote:Yes Crusader, I think this chap has copied a lot from Petermac, who did his own research in PDL. Jill pays for the forum, and we all know what Tony has had to contend with. Yet not one of them has asked for anything in return, and this makes me suspicious of The Foreign Detective touting his book.

So long as the truth comes out it matters little where he got the information.

Pity there is no title, date of publication, Publisher, sales information or anything very much else.

I think we had all already worked out that the timeline was wrong, that Madeleine died earlier, that there was no abduction,
that 8 of the group must therefore have lied or prevaricated, that they were all 'bullied' by GM, that she didn't disappear . . .
and that no one besides the deceivers actually KNOWS what happened, even though many may be fairly sure where the evidence points.
It will be interesting to see what he makes of the Pool Photo information and the weather reports of a cold, calm and still night

So I wait in hope that there will be something else.

The Foreign Detective will no doubt want to know how his announcement was received on the forum. I look forward to another teaser from him.