Ed The Madeleine McCann Case.

[Arcade22]

This really does resemble a looking walking quacking duck.

No it does not. For one thing, this specimen appears to be mammalian while ducks are a form of bird.

 

[Vixen]

Breaking https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12315...ional-arrest-warrant-rape-conviction-illegal/: Christian Brueckner's extradition from Italy to face the rape charge against the 72-year-old US woman is deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice:

MADELEINE McCann suspect Christian WAS illegally extradited for his rape case - putting his conviction at risk, a court in Luxembourg has ruled.

The European warrant for the German, who was found guilty of raping a 72-year-old woman, was illegal according to an EU court adviser, reports news agency Reuters.

Implication? Either Germany just get a slap on the wrist fine or CB walks free when his current sentence is up unless the polic can charge him with something else.

 

[Samson]

Breaking https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12315...ional-arrest-warrant-rape-conviction-illegal/: Christian Brueckner's extradition from Italy to face the rape charge against the 72-year-old US woman is deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice:




Implication? Either Germany just get a slap on the wrist fine or CB walks free when his current sentence is up unless the polic can charge him with something else.

I noted that The Machine on TJMK always regarded the arrest of the true killers, her parents, imminent.
Maybe he was right after all.

 

[Vixen]

I noted that The Machine on TJMK always regarded the arrest of the true killers, her parents, imminent.
Maybe he was right after all.

No, he believes Brueckner did it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Breaking https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12315...ional-arrest-warrant-rape-conviction-illegal/: Christian Brueckner's extradition from Italy to face the rape charge against the 72-year-old US woman is deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice:




Implication? Either Germany just get a slap on the wrist fine or CB walks free when his current sentence is up unless the polic can charge him with something else.

No. This is actually the opposite of what's happened. Firstly, what's been issued today is an advisory rather than a binding judgement. And secondly, the advisory is in fact that Brückner will lose his appeal to the ECJ in respect of his rape conviction. So far from being good news for Brückner, it's the very opposite.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA: From a *ahem* rather more reliable media source than The Sun newspaper.......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53676474

 

[Vixen]

No. This is actually the opposite of what's happened. Firstly, what's been issued today is an advisory rather than a binding judgement. And secondly, the advisory is in fact that Brückner will lose his appeal to the ECJ in respect of his rape conviction. So far from being good news for Brückner, it's the very opposite.

I am afraid it is the media who have got the wrong end of the stick. Today was the expected opinion of the advisors to the ECJ who did advise the lack of a European Arrest Warrant broke EU law (it couldn't advise any differently as it is there to see EU laws are adhered to). The idea in the media that the ECJ was asked to quash CB's rape conviction of a 72-year-old US rape victim is totally misconceived as the ECJ (rather like the ECHR) does not have the jurisdiction to quash any criminal conviction. Only a criminal court of appeal in CB's home district has that jurisdiction. So the German press suddenly going coy and upholding their own privacy laws in not naming him are being less than honest in their claim 'CB has suffered a set back'. In fact, CB's lawyer won the point of appeal that Germany erred in not issuing a European Arrest Warrant for the rape as required by EU law.

I expect CB's lawyer will now move to appeal to the criminal law appeal courts.

The ECJ upholds the advisors' 'opinion' in four case out of five. So all it can do is confirm Germany broke the law when it failed to issue a proper EAW and perhaps advise that this doesn't necessarily annul the conviction.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am afraid it is the media who have got the wrong end of the stick. Today was the expected opinion of the advisors to the ECJ who did advise the lack of a European Arrest Warrant broke EU law (it couldn't advise any differently as it is there to see EU laws are adhered to). The idea in the media that the ECJ was asked to quash CB's rape conviction of a 72-year-old US rape victim is totally misconceived as the ECJ (rather like the ECHR) does not have the jurisdiction to quash any criminal conviction. Only a criminal court of appeal in CB's home district has that jurisdiction. So the German press suddenly going coy and upholding their own privacy laws in not naming him are being less than honest in their claim 'CB has suffered a set back'. In fact, CB's lawyer won the point of appeal that Germany erred in not issuing a European Arrest Warrant for the rape as required by EU law.

I expect CB's lawyer will now move to appeal to the criminal law appeal courts.

The ECJ upholds the advisors' 'opinion' in four case out of five. So all it can do is confirm Germany broke the law when it failed to issue a proper EAW and perhaps advise that this doesn't necessarily annul the conviction.

No again.

Brückner appealed his rape conviction through the German courts, but his grounds for appeal were that he could/should never have been charged with that offence in Germany since the EAW was issued in respect of a totally difference alleged offence.

And it's for the ECJ to rule on the validity (or otherwise) of EAWs - not the German courts.

So the German courts have sought judgement from the ECJ as to whether they (the German courts) had been allowed - under laws pertaining to the EAW - to prosecute Brückner on the rape charge.

And today's advisory ruling is that yes, the German courts were allowed to have conducted the rape prosecution.

 

[LondonJohn]

(But the irony of relying on a report in the Murdoch press - The Sun - is highly amusingly noted )

 

[Vixen]

(But the irony of relying on a report in the Murdoch press - The Sun - is highly amusingly noted )

Well of course, the Murdoch Press is desperate for Brueckner to be Madeleine McCann's abductor and killer so it has only reported the prosecutor's side of the story. The ECJ hearing hinged on whether Germany broke EU law by not issuing a proper European Warrant of Arrest regarding the rape case. The ECJ advised that in its opinion it did break the law.

Presenting the prosecutor's case - as all such opinion do (present the arguments from both sides) - it said this would not likely mean the rape conviction was unsafe.

The ECJ has never had the jurisdiction or power to quash a sentence. The GErman prosecution has relied heavily on PR campaigns in the mass media claiming CB is suspected of numerous unsolved murders of children and dug up an old allotment the week before the ECJ opinion claiming it had 'discovered a sealed cellar;, when it knew the cellar was there all along and could ahve dug it up years ago. They investigated Brueckner way back in 2013.

Reading the GUARDIAN is always a joy for their reporter clearly believes CB is a mass murderer and that his bid for freedom was stopped today <fx sigh of relief from GUARDIAN readers>.

However, the point of law the appeal to ECJ was based on was that Germany failed to follow the law in issuing a EWA, and in that respect CB won his case at least at the interim stage, as it still has to be rubber-stamped. It never was the case that he would be 'freed today' as the fake news are now trying to make out.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well of course, the Murdoch Press is desperate for Brueckner to be Madeleine McCann's abductor and killer so it has only reported the prosecutor's side of the story. The ECJ hearing hinged on whether Germany broke EU law by not issuing a proper European Warrant of Arrest regarding the rape case. The ECJ advised that in its opinion it did break the law.

Presenting the prosecutor's case - as all such opinion do (present the arguments from both sides) - it said this would not likely mean the rape conviction was unsafe.

The ECJ has never had the jurisdiction or power to quash a sentence. The GErman prosecution has relied heavily on PR campaigns in the mass media claiming CB is suspected of numerous unsolved murders of children and dug up an old allotment the week before the ECJ opinion claiming it had 'discovered a sealed cellar;, when it knew the cellar was there all along and could ahve dug it up years ago. They investigated Brueckner way back in 2013.

Reading the GUARDIAN is always a joy for their reporter clearly believes CB is a mass murderer and that his bid for freedom was stopped today <fx sigh of relief from GUARDIAN readers>.

However, the point of law the appeal to ECJ was based on was that Germany failed to follow the law in issuing a EWA, and in that respect CB won his case at least at the interim stage, as it still has to be rubber-stamped. It never was the case that he would be 'freed today' as the fake news are now trying to make out.

I'm afraid this demonstrates an ongoing lack of understanding, especially given that the correct* position has now been detailed here twice....


* which is that 1) Brückner appealed through the German courts, and based his appeal on the argument that under the EAW which brought him back to Germany, he couldn't have been prosecuted on the rape charge (which wasn't listed on the EAW); 2) the German courts needed to ask the ECJ for its adjudication on whether or not the EAW for Brückner allowed Germany to prosecute him for the rape; 3) today the ECJ issued an advisory opinion that Germany was allowed to have prosecuted Brückner on the rape charge, given the nature of the EAW and other considerations.


ETA: and I'm afraid it was YOU who chose to use the Murdoch press (in the form of The Sun) as your (incorrect) source. Do you think the Murdoch press is generally a reliable source? Perhaps you'll be using Fox News as a source soon as well.....?

ETA2: You seem to be under the impression that media outlets can (and do) manipulate facts and invent false "facts" in order to support a predermined position. Is that what you think? In any case, the report in the Guardian represents the facts correctly, as did that BBC article I linked to earlier. I suggest that you read one or both of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ises-madeleine-suspect-was-lawfully-tried-for

 

[Vixen]

I'm afraid this demonstrates an ongoing lack of understanding, especially given that the correct* position has now been detailed here twice....


* which is that 1) Brückner appealed through the German courts, and based his appeal on the argument that under the EAW which brought him back to Germany, he couldn't have been prosecuted on the rape charge (which wasn't listed on the EAW); 2) the German courts needed to ask the ECJ for its adjudication on whether or not the EAW for Brückner allowed Germany to prosecute him for the rape; 3) today the ECJ issued an advisory opinion that Germany was allowed to have prosecuted Brückner on the rape charge, given the nature of the EAW and other considerations.


ETA: and I'm afraid it was YOU who chose to use the Murdoch press (in the form of The Sun) as your (incorrect) source. Do you think the Murdoch press is generally a reliable source? Perhaps you'll be using Fox News as a source soon as well.....?

ETA2: You seem to be under the impression that media outlets can (and do) manipulate facts and invent false "facts" in order to support a predermined position. Is that what you think? In any case, the report in the Guardian represents the facts correctly, as did that BBC article I linked to earlier. I suggest that you read one or both of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ises-madeleine-suspect-was-lawfully-tried-for

The GUARDIAN unfortunately fails to even mention that Brueckner won his appeal that the Gerrman authorities broke EU law when it failed to issue a European Warrant of Arrest.

Law, unfortunately, is not based on ‘sense’, it is based on carefully worded rules, as passed by the governing law makers, in this case the EU. The EU states repealed the previous 1957 extradition acts (ECE) and replaced it by a framework drawn up 2003/2004. In other words, instead of EU member states each having their own extradition rules, there is one law, the European Arrest Warrant. In other words, it is no longer true that ‘Germany will not extradite a German citizen’.

A key part of the EAW is:

‘While the manner in which the arrest of a person the subject of an EAW is not specified in the Framework Decision, once arrested, he or she has the right to be informed of the warrant, its contents, and the person’s right to consent to his or her surrender to the member state that issued the warrant. The Framework Decision also provides that the requested person have the right to the assistance of legal counsel and to an interpreter “in accordance with the national law of the executing Member State”.

https://tinyurl.com/j44kmly

Bearing in mind, it is the EU Parliament that passes EU laws and directives. The European Court of Justice - not to be confused with the human rights court! - is there to ensure the laws are interpreted according to the letter.

It is all very well for prosecution counsel Felix Halabi to argue it is ‘devoid of sense’ [to have to particularise an EAW] when “it is obvious the man is a degenerate” is the undertone. He also argues that being in the Schengen zone should not mean criminals can just go around ‘violently robbing people’ [he actually argued].

However, none of these appeals to the emotion or ‘common sense’, or even what the law should be in his view, the judges only have the jurisdiction to decide whether the EAW has been interpreted correctly. Of course, in law, the odd typo or spelling mistake will not cancel out a prosecutor’s issuing of an EAW. The error has to be a material one for it to be ruled the law was not carried out correctly.

Brueckner’s lawyyer, Fuelscher, argued that under Brueckner’s probation terms and conditions, he was to report to the probation office once a month. There was no stipulation he was not to leave Germany.

Fuschler cleverly argues that Brueckner ‘was just on holiday’.

I say ‘cleverly’ because in a case law precedent, which the ECJ concluded as follows:

At the other extreme, the EAW has failed in some cases. The Irish Supreme Court refused to extradite an Irish citizen to Hungary who was alleged to have killed two children through negligent driving. While the Irish Court never questioned the facts of the case or the fairness or outcome of the Hungarian trial, it decided that the person did not technically “flee” from Hungary, only “failed to return”, having left the country with the consent of the Hungarian authorities; therefore, the legal requirements for extradition under an EAW had not been established.” [ibid]

So Brueckner’s counsel is arguing that ‘Brueckner did not flee’.

The panel of judges were to give their opinion by 6 August 2020, followed by their decision, which can take months. The opinion has now been issued. That opinion is that Germany did break EU law in respect to the European Warrant of Arrest.

At no time did the ECJ have any authority to 'quash' the rape sentence. The media originally published the correct story that the ECJ opinion was that Germany was outside of its remit. It quickly changed to 'MADDIE SUSPECT SET BACK! FAILS IN HIS BID FOR FREEDOM'.

The fact of the matter is it was never going to be the case his sentence was immediately quashed because the ECJ does not have the jurisdiction to do so. It could have offered the opinion the conviction was unsafe. Instead, it said this was unlikely. It would now be for the Criminal Appeal Court in Germany to decide whether the sentence is unsafe, given the police failed to follow correct procedure.

IMV it was always a tall order that CB could get his conviction overturned on that basis so the claim he lost and the German police won is wholly inaccurate as the ECJ court was solely looking at whether the Germans broke EU law in respect of the EAW. It also offered the opinion it was just worthy of a slap on the wrist.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

ETA2: You seem to be under the impression that media outlets can (and do) manipulate facts and invent false "facts" in order to support a predermined position. Is that what you think? In any case, the report in the Guardian represents the facts correctly, as did that BBC article I linked to earlier. I suggest that you read one or both of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ises-madeleine-suspect-was-lawfully-tried-for

The media certainly has invented facts. It linked Brueckner for example to the Inga Gehricke case and as you know it has been splashed all over the media. However, he has been ruled out of that case but there is no mention of this in the press. Then there was a little boy called X Hasee who disappeared on a beach in Portugal with his clothes found in a pile. There was mass press exposure that CB was linked to this disappearance. CB has been ruled out of this case. Have you seen anything in the press correcting this misinformation?

Fact is, Hans Christian Wolters has been craftily manipulating the media to (a) try to influence the outcome of the ECJ case and (b) submit CB to a trial by public opinion to plant firmly in the public mind that this man is a mass murderer and kidnapper of children, responsible for about half a dozen unsolved murders and abductions, including that of Madeleine McCann.

AFAICS he is an exceptionally sex-obsessed degenerate, probably similar to Jimmy Savile, not exactly a paedophile but the other type of '- phile' that will have sex with almost anything that moves. However, there is zero evidence he has ever kidnapped or murdered anybody. Once the German autgorities arrest and charge him, then I will take it more seriously. In the meantime I am sceptical because they already investigated him in 2013.

 

[catsmate]

The GUARDIAN unfortunately fails to even mention that Brueckner won his appeal that the Gerrman authorities broke EU law

That'd probably because, unlike you, The Guardian is a reliable source of information.

Brueckner was extradited from Portugal (for sexually abusing a minor) in JUN2017. He then travelled to the Netherlands and Italy whilst still on probation after his release.
He was extradited to Germany from Italy in OCT2018 on warrant (for drug trafficking) before being tried and convicted of rape and extortion in DEC2019.

Brueckner’s challenge centred on whether the German authorities needed Portugal’s consent to bring rape proceedings because of the 2017 extradition. (Italy had agreed Brueckner could be tried for rape in Germany)

The (preliminary) opinion by Advocate General (which does not bind the ECJ) declared that the consent of only the Italian authorities was needed for the Germans to carry out their proceedings legally.

The final decision of the ECJ will be given in the future.

 

[Vixen]

That'd probably because, unlike you, The Guardian is a reliable source of information.

Brueckner was extradited from Portugal (for sexually abusing a minor) in JUN2017. He then travelled to the Netherlands and Italy whilst still on probation after his release.
He was extradited to Germany from Italy in OCT2018 on warrant (for drug trafficking) before being tried and convicted of rape and extortion in DEC2019.

Brueckner’s challenge centred on whether the German authorities needed Portugal’s consent to bring rape proceedings because of the 2017 extradition. (Italy had agreed Brueckner could be tried for rape in Germany)

The (preliminary) opinion by Advocate General (which does not bind the ECJ) declared that the consent of only the Italian authorities was needed for the Germans to carry out their proceedings legally.

The final decision of the ECJ will be given in the future.

It also gave the opinion around which the point of law on which the hearing hinged that Germany broke EU law in not correctly applying the European Warrant for Arrest. It might have qulaified its comments by saying this didn't matter anyway because of other circumstances but the fact is, the GUARDIAN failed to mention it. Its sole theme was 'BRUECKNER FAILS IN HIS BID FOR FREEDOM' which IMV is totally misleading as there was no way the ECJ has the remit to quash a conviction of a member state judiciary.

 

[Arcade22]

The GUARDIAN unfortunately fails to even mention that Brueckner won his appeal that the Gerrman authorities broke EU law when it failed to issue a European Warrant of Arrest.

Actually they did issue a EAW to Italy for his extradition on suspicion of drug crimes and the Italians subsequently consented to his prosecution for rape. There was no reason to file another EAW.

 

[Vixen]

Don't believe you are manipulated by the mass media? Compare and contrast the two following headlines.

Attached is the original one and then click to see that it was quickly amended to fit in with the manufactured theme that 'CB is the Maddie kidnapper/killer so who cares'.

BTW any headline with 'could' in it can be safely disregarded as non-news and mere conjecture.

 

[Vixen]

Actually they did issue a EAW to Italy for his extradition on suspicion of drug crimes and the Italians subsequently consented to his prosecution for rape. There was no reason to file another EAW.

Wrong! EU states are obliged by law to particularise via a European Warrant for Arrest. Look it up on wiki.

Simply claiming the suspect concerned is a mass murderer, doesn't make it OK to ignore EU law.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't believe you are manipulated by the mass media? Compare and contrast the two following headlines.

Attached is the original one and then click to see that it was quickly amended to fit in with the manufactured theme that 'CB is the Maddie kidnapper/killer so who cares'.

BTW any headline with 'could' in it can be safely disregarded as non-news and mere conjecture.

1) If you choose an unreliable source via a google search, simply because it fits your agenda, then you get what you (don't) pay for.

2) You STILL appear unable to understand what came out of the ECJ yesterday, and what its implications are for Brückner and the German State.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong! EU states are obliged by law to particularise via a European Warrant for Arrest. Look it up on wiki.

Simply claiming the suspect concerned is a mass murderer, doesn't make it OK to ignore EU law.

Which is why Germany didn't ignore EU law in this case, as the advisory judgement points out.......