Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[John]

I'm allowed to say that in my opinion the McCann's human rights have not been breached, but Brueckner's have. That in no way means that I'm casting slurs on the McCanns or defending Brueckner. I am, in fact, airing my opinion on the actions of Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, and German prosecutor Wolters.

You are indeed.

[Brietta]

You are indeed.

Heaven forefend that there should be any doubt as to what Gunit’s preferences are when it comes to breaching the McCann’s human rights or defending Brueckner’s ~ it will be interesting to see if the ECHR concur with Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges and Gunit 😁

[misty]

From American law but I think this also applies in EU..

https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/personal-injury-and-accidents/false-accusations/

"Also, if your reputation is already damaged by your own previous actions, for example, if you have a public history of crime, and someone accuses you of a crime you did not commit, you cannot argue that you were defamed because your character was already compromised."

[G-Unit]

From American law but I think this also applies in EU..

https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/personal-injury-and-accidents/false-accusations/

"Also, if your reputation is already damaged by your own previous actions, for example, if you have a public history of crime, and someone accuses you of a crime you did not commit, you cannot argue that you were defamed because your character was already compromised."

The discussion was about breaching human rights, not about defaming someone.

[Mr Gray]

You are indeed.

No one would dispute that but gunit claimed it as a fact which it isnt. Shes entitled to hold any opinion she wishes.... However silly it may be

[Brietta]

When one ponders her posting history here it is all about Gunits "opinion" and views from her particular perspective which can exhibit a somewhat dogged indefatigability in perpetuating the damaging and ill thought out slurs accepted as gospel by a very dedicated negatively inclined cult of like minded individuals.
All very narcissistic in promoting unfounded opinion as paramount over decency and reality - take the dogs for just one example of that 😁
That is my opinion.

[G-Unit]

No one would dispute that but gunit claimed it as a fact which it isnt. Shes entitled to hold any opinion she wishes.... However silly it may be

It's a fact that the ECHR takes a dim view of public officials making prejudicial comments about a suspect's involvement in the commision of an offence.

The Court has held in this context that there may be a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of prejudicial comments relating to a suspect’s involvement in the commission of an offence made by public officials at a time when judicial investigations were pending against the suspect but before he had been formally charged with the offence in issue
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141197%22]} number 41

Wolters told 60 Minutes;

"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her," Wolters told 60 Minutes.

"We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann."
https://9now.nine.com.au/60-minutes/german-prosecutors-believe-madeleine-mccann-is-dead-60-minutes/c12305de-2465-4751-98ae-e0ba468d8fa3

In my opinion the above statement clearly breaches Article 6:2 of the ECHR.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's a fact that the ECHR takes a dim view of public officials making prejudicial comments about a suspect's involvement in the commision of an offence.

The Court has held in this context that there may be a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of prejudicial comments relating to a suspect’s involvement in the commission of an offence made by public officials at a time when judicial investigations were pending against the suspect but before he had been formally charged with the offence in issue
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141197%22]} number 41

Wolters told 60 Minutes;

"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her," Wolters told 60 Minutes.

"We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann."
https://9now.nine.com.au/60-minutes/german-prosecutors-believe-madeleine-mccann-is-dead-60-minutes/c12305de-2465-4751-98ae-e0ba468d8fa3

In my opinion the above statement clearly breaches Article 6:2 of the ECHR.

He doesn't name anyone in that statement.  Also, saying "we have reason to believe Person X has  committed the crime" is not unusual for police is it?  What's Crimewatch all about when for example they show pictures of named criminals and say this is Joe Bloggs, he is wanted on suspicion of rape, public should not approach him as he is armed and dangerous"?

[G-Unit]

He doesn't name anyone in that statement.  Also, saying "we have reason to believe Person X has  committed the crime" is not unusual for police is it?  What's Crimewatch all about when for example they show pictures of named criminals and say this is Joe Bloggs, he is wanted on suspicion of rape, public should not approach him as he is armed and dangerous"?

He is saying he has enough evidence to say his suspect killed Madeleine McCann. Not that he is suspected of killing her, he killed her.

[Venturi Swirl]

He is saying he has enough evidence to say his suspect killed Madeleine McCann. Not that he is suspected of killing her, he killed her.

Sorry, what does the word "suspect" mean in that sentence?  Also, the meaning of "evidence" please.

[Mr Gray]

He is saying he has enough evidence to say his suspect killed Madeleine McCann. Not that he is suspected of killing her, he killed her.

I can only see a problem with that statement if he doesnt have the evidence.... Thats one of the reasons why I  think he does

[G-Unit]

I can only see a problem with that statement if he doesnt have the evidence.... Thats one of the reasons why I  think he does

He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.

[Mr Gray]

He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.

Depends what his evidence is surely.. Do you object the Greeks statements thst day the husband murderef his wife and dog

[Venturi Swirl]

He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.

No, what he actually said was:
 "we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann" which would be a pretty daft thing to say AFTER a trial in which he is found guilty.  Would your worries be assuaged if he had said  "we have enough evidence to say IN OUR OPINION our suspect killed Madeleine McCann."  Which is what he's saying basically but without adhering strictly to this forum's stringent IMO rules.

[Angelo222]

No, what he actually said was:
 "we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann" which would be a pretty daft thing to say AFTER a trial in which he is found guilty.  Would your worries be assuaged if he had said  "we have enough evidence to say IN OUR OPINION our suspect killed Madeleine McCann."  Which is what he's saying basically but without adhering strictly to this forum's stringent IMO rules.

If that was true then it could be tested in a trial. The fact that he is delaying such a trial is indicative that his so-called evidence isn't as strong as he would like it to be. In addition, it is protocol to inform the parents of the death and how it occurred, this has not happened because if Wolters is wrong, as I suspect, then he will look really stupid with a large splattering of egg on his face