If The Germans Have It Almost In The Bag...

[Holly Goodhead]

Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?

Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.

Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”

Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:

“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”

HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, it's extremely unusual for a suspect to be declared guilty prior to conviction, or trial, or arrest even.

Here in the UK we have a nurse on remand, suspected of murdering new borns in a hospital ward.

She's been on remand for over a year now (so the evidence against her presumably is convincing), & yet, I haven't seen any prosecutors or detectives declare her guilty. There's even a media injunction (presumably so as to secure a fair trial).

[Venturi Swirl]

HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.

It's a moot point as far as the thrust of Uncle's post is concerned.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes, it's extremely unusual for a suspect to be declared guilty prior to conviction, or trial, or arrest even.

Here in the UK we have a nurse on remand, suspected of murdering new borns in a hospital ward.

She's been on remand for over a year now (so the evidence against her presumably is convincing), & yet, I haven't seen any prosecutors or detectives declare her guilty. There's even a media injunction (presumably so as to secure a fair trial).

We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.

[Wonderfulspam]

We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.

It doesn't matter what they 'believe'.

John Canaan is innocent.

[Holly Goodhead]

It's a moot point as far as the thrust of Uncle's post is concerned.

Shall we just do away with defence counsel then?

[Holly Goodhead]

Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?

Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.

Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”

Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:

“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”

Have you got anything from BKA?

[Holly Goodhead]

We also have the case of Suzy Lamplugh in which the police have made it quite clear that they believe John Canaan abducted and murdered her.

The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.

If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?

[Holly Goodhead]

Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?

Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.

Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”

Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:

“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”

Hear what CB's defence counsel has to say in response to the prosecutor's claims:

https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8757067/amp/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-lawyer-says-evidence-clears-client.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16349877233050&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-8757067%2FMadeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckners-lawyer-says-evidence-clears-client.html

[Mr Gray]

Believe what you want, but you can't support it with facts because Wolters has given you none.

I think based on the facts we have it's highly likely that Wolters has the evidence.. What do you think

[Wonderfulspam]

I think based on the facts we have it's highly likely that Wolters has the evidence.. What do you think

I see no reason to doubt Friedrich Fulscher myself.

[Mr Gray]

HCW is a prosecutor not a detective as you claim.

Wolters is spokesman for the investigation

[Mr Gray]

Have you got anything from BKA?

Wolters is speaking for the whole investigation

[Mr Gray]

The police made it quite clear they thought Colin Stagg was guilty.

If the police believe John Canaan is responsible why don't they charge?

In neither of case did the police police claim concrete evidence

[Mr Gray]

Does a statement from a senior detective get any more definitive than this?
Can anyone find one similar, made with such conviction (no pun intended) in an active unsolved case?

Wolter explained that the team has sufficient evidence to charge Brueckner but are hoping to “strengthen their position” before doing so. Brueckner is a convicted pedophile.

Wolter, who is in charge of the case, told the Mirror “It is now possible that we could charge. We have that evidence now.

“But it’s not just about charging him – we want to charge him with the best body of evidence possible. When we still have questions, it would be nonsense to charge rather than wait for the answers that could strengthen our position. That’s why we said we’ll investigate as long as there are leads or information for us to pursue.”

Wolter clarified that they have not recovered McCann’s body, cannot prove that she has died, and have no forensic evidence that connects Brueckner to her suspected murder. But the investigators have very strong circumstantial evidence:

“I personally think a conclusion will be reached next year. We have no body and no DNA but we have other evidence. Based on the evidence we have, it leads to no other conclusion.”

My thoughts exactly