Unsolved Madeleine McCann * Current Trial of Main Suspect Christian Brueckner

[Kurve]

Testimony about contents of a video aren't accepted as evidence where the videoes aren't also provided. Lack of foundation objection. Then you have the veracity of evidence being from a criminal who has a grudge against CB. No. Not even if he states he saw CB molesting MM on tape

Busching's testimony WAS accepted and Brueckner convicted of rape. He's doing time for it.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Busching's testimony WAS accepted and Brueckner convicted of rape. He's doing time for it.

Is that because of his testimony OR the woman's? If there is direct testimony of the person r*ped who identifies the rapist then there is no need to consider admissibility of his testimony.

In an inquisitorial system I suspect the judge won't immediately say whether evidence is accepted or not......just like here in our judge only trials ( eg Dawson).

So he gave testimony. In the verdict reason for decision it will be stated whether it was accepted. If they had the victim there was no need for him. So why did he? To establish some credibility that at least on that rape he was truthful in the hope it will flow through in support of other testimony he gives in future eg MM

If you want to chase down the reasons for verdict it will either support your thinking or mine.

Addendum:

On my reading a recitation of what happened on a video now lost won't be accepted because of lack of foundation. You need the video otherwise it is same as hearsay

 

[jason_recliner]

If there is direct testimony of the person r*ped who identifies the rapist then there is no need to consider admissibility of his testimony.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

"His" testimony being the person who says he saw a video of it but has lost that video

 

[jason_recliner]

"His" testimony being the person who says he saw a video of it but has lost that video

Yes, but in a lot of rape cases there is "direct testimony of the person r*ped who identifies the rapist" and it isn't enough to gain a conviction i.e. additional testimony is required and admitted.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes, but in a lot of rape cases there is "direct testimony of the person r*ped who identifies the rapist" and it isn't enough to gain a conviction i.e. additional testimony is required and admitted.

As it should be. Like it or not some people can call rape when there is none. So evidence such as forensics, DNA, medical examination needs to bridge the gap to support the testimony.

This is why it's so difficult to get a conviction in date rape without physical force.eg Hayne.

I know it's not admissible but I wonder if lie detector tests could be given mandatory in those he said she said cases to give guidance on who is lying

 

[jason_recliner]

As it should be. Like it or not some people can call rape when there is none. So evidence such as forensics, DNA, medical examination needs to bridge the gap to support the testimony.

This is why it's so difficult to get a conviction in date rape without physical force.eg Hayne.

I know it's not admissible but I wonder if lie detector tests could be given mandatory in those he said she sad cases to give guidance on who is lying

Exactly. So there IS a need to consider the "admissibility of his testimony".

 

[faible]

As it should be. Like it or not some people can call rape when there is none. So evidence such as forensics, DNA, medical examination needs to bridge the gap to support the testimony.

This is why it's so difficult to get a conviction in date rape without physical force.eg Hayne.

I know it's not admissible but I wonder if lie detector tests could be given mandatory in those he said she said cases to give guidance on who is lying

Lie detector tests have huge issues with reliability. They measure ‘emotional arousal’ not ‘lying’ which means massive variability in who they do or don’t work on. Psychopaths for example, bad candidates for a lie detector test revealing anything.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Exactly. So there IS a need to consider the "admissibility of his testimony".

On what I've read his testimony will be struck off as inadmissible because it is his verbal of watching a video he no longer has and isn't produced.......and can't now be proven in like to hearsay

 

[Kurve]

On what I've read his testimony will be struck off as inadmissible because it is his verbal of watching a video he no longer has and isn't produced.......and can't now be proven in like to hearsay

There already is a precedent for Busching's testimony as admissable in a previous criminal trial

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There already is a precedent for Busching's testimony as admissable in a previous criminal trial

Link? .....including discussion of legal principles please

 

[Kurve]

Link? .....including discussion of legal principles please

This was discussed on 60 Minutes.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I'll look into it myself re German Criminal law. MSM are notorious for glossing over legal principles. I'll find a definitive answer. Just because a report in 60 minutes may have referred to use of testimony about a missing video and in German inquisitorial system doesn't satisfy me. For the reason I said it may be listened to but would be excluded by judge in reasons for decision. I think that things are little different in Germany compared to here. Here it is admissibility whereas there I think the principle is instead a process of evaluation of evidence. I need to understand the differences better but in almost all jurisdictions there are safeguards to prevent unsafe testimony such as this

You simply can't have someone saying they SAW a video, won't produce that video, and asking it be accepted their observations are valid. There is no foundation for the evidence. I'll get the answer

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

For those of you wishing to further analyse herewith detailed article

Very early but comment in first couple of paragraphs that judge in inquisitorial system excludes that which is usually inadmissible in the process of judgement. So they hear everything but evaluate it's worth and exclude generally inadmissible types of evidence as I had thought must happen. I'll read further

 

[faible]

The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective

German criminal procedure law places great emphasis upon judgements made pursuant to the “substantive truth.” Therefore, exclusion of evidence tends to be an anomaly as it compels the trial court to disregard certain evidence, which implies that the court...

link.springer.com

For those of you wishing to further analyse herewith detailed article

Very early but comment in first couple of paragraphs that judge in inquisitorial system excludes that which is usually inadmissible in the process of judgement. So they hear everything but evaluate it's worth and exclude generally inadmissible types of evidence as I had thought must happen. I'll read further

The same thing happens here AFAIK. Pretty sure in the case of Greg Lynn the judge decided in advance what evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

This is hard starting from scratch. The German system has a few restrictions around admissibility but the vast majority of evidence is accepted on the premise of searching for 'substantive truth'. Evidence will be evaluated at the discretion of the judge to that purpose. So whereas our system eliminates or excludes evidence to create a body of protocols designed to that same end the German system abandons those rules in favour of broad discretion to achieve the same. Whereas our system might for instance have outcomes based on technicalities the German system would be more inclined to abandon these technicalities in the search of the substantive truth.

What does that mean in practice..I suspect it means testimony will be heard but if that testimony is about hearsay content of a now missing video, the judge will be more guarded and dismissive of the evidence as precautionary operation of discretion and may exclude it as lacking persuasion in judgement. Each seek to achieve same result substantive truth but in different ways. The outcomes shouldn't be that different meaning things excluded here will be viewed as precautionary exercise of discretion there. The judge will say in his own mind I can't give too much credence because the source remains unverified eg recitation of a video content not provided

 

[johnymac1]

Gerry Mccann has made a plea to the new Labour government to continue with part two of Leveson enquiry.
Claiming he was a victim of the UK press. Some of us maintain the McCanns have received favourable press since they returned from Portugal.

 

[jason_recliner]

Gerry Mccann has made a plea to the new Labour government to continue with part two of Leveson enquiry.

The Prime Suspect certainly is pushing the government hard to solve the case. Talk about playing with fire!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Gerry Mccann has made a plea to the new Labour government to continue with part two of Leveson enquiry.
Claiming he was a victim of the UK press. Some of us maintain the McCanns have received favourable press since they returned from Portugal.

lol
The Prime Suspect certainly is pushing the government hard to solve the case. Talk about playing with fire!

lol

Some may say it's quite hypocritical to be advocating someone else to act with 'integrity and courage' when you yourself used a fund established and funded by the public to search for Maddie, to instead pay some personal mortgage instalments. Take a tip Gerry, don't virtue signal when your own virtue doesn't compare

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What are the stages of death and their implications for time of death of Maddie?

Rigor Mortis: Overview, Causes, 6 Stages, Duration, Death

Rigor mortis is the third stage after death, in which the muscles harden and become stiff. Learn about its causes, stages, and more.

www.medicinenet.com

Cadaver scent is detectable to humans between 24 and 48 hours (previous post). It takes about 90 minutes post death for a cadaver dog to be able to detect scent. Coincidentally rigor mortis dissipates after 24-36 hours having set in about 8 hours after death and the muscles again become flexible.

Assuming Smithman was carrying Maddie the death can't have been 3rd because insufficient tine for cadaver scent for dogs.

Smithman carried a body which may have been MM at 10 pm on 3rd. No cadaver scent was detectable and there wasn't any detectable stiffness associated with rigor mortis it having not yet occurred or having already passed.


Conclusions:

* It can't have been after going to dinner on 3rd at 8.30pm because cadaver scent wouldn't exceed 90 minutes and we know the dogs did detect it later

* It could have occurred after 2 pm 3rd but before they went to dinner at 8.30 to allow scent for dogs but not humans yet still no rigor mortis.

* It could have occurred any time after 1st evening through 2nd without human detection by Smith family and with the muscles having again become flexible after rigor mortis. 1st is the outer limit of no detection by humans.

GM in a Portuguese interview had a Freudian slip saying "not as bad as the night we found her" which hasn't been explained

Most likely time is either night of 1st or night of 2nd. Mrs Fenn gave a statement purporting to have heard MM crying on the night of 1st from unit 5A. So most likely is 2nd at night which coincides with Freudian slip

 

[johnymac1]

The Case is no longer about a missing Girl

Its Instead become many things. All counterproductive in solving the case


None of us are close in guessing what happened.