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

[Venturi Swirl]

I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.

Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.

If that's a fact then what the hell do you think the Germans are playing at?

[Uncle Jr]

If that's a fact then what the hell do you think the Germans are playing at?

Is sarcasm your default position?
It's my opinion. I don't know what they're doing. They must have tested their evidence officially or unofficially with the judiciary. Perhaps they've been told they don't meet the exacting German threshold to press ahead, hence why HCW has recently stated that they're continuing to bolster the case.
They've got something, but not enough in my opinion. But as I mentioned, presenting the evidence is one thing, assuring a fair trial is quite another.

[Mr Gray]

I think there's more to merely 'collecting additional evidence' at work here with HCW.
He clearly thinks he has some compelling circumstantial evidence, but yet he waits.

Two issues spring to mind - what was the term of his latest conviction, 7 years? In Germany it's likely he'll do a third of that, due to their stance on rehabilitation. He's done at least a year, maybe more. I'm not saying he'll be released, just that his eligibility for parole is a milestone that's pending.
Then there's the issue of a fair trial, i.e. he won't get one. There must be high level machinations going on trying to square the circle HCW has created with his continued, public proclamations of CB's guilt.
I'm not legal expert (...cue the Stewart Lee bit about the Loch Ness monster "I don't know anything about zoology, biology, geology, geography, marine biology, cryptozoology, evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, meteorology, limnology, history, herpetology, palaeontology or archaeology but I think; what if a dinosaur had got in the lake").....but I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial. A trial will never happen.

Wolters has already answered the fair trial question... It a depends on the quality of the evidence.... The only reason there wouldn't be a trial is if the evidence does not stack up

[Venturi Swirl]

Is sarcasm your default position?
It's my opinion. I don't know what they're doing. They must have tested their evidence officially or unofficially with the judiciary. Perhaps they've been told they don't meet the exacting German threshold to press ahead, hence why HCW has recently stated that they're continuing to bolster the case.
They've got something, but not enough in my opinion. But as I mentioned, presenting the evidence is one thing, assuring a fair trial is quite another.

There was literally nothing sarcastic about my question, it was a perfectly reasonable one to ask in the circumstances (in my opinion).  If by going public with their own opinion on CB and naming him they know that there is no chance of him receiving a fair trial then it would seem entirely counterproductive, in fact it would be sheer lunacy to have spent all that time and money investigating him in secret to then deliberately sabotage the investigation by going public and thus damaging any prospect of a positive result.

[Uncle Jr]

Wolters has already answered the fair trial question... It a depends on the quality of the evidence.... The only reason there wouldn't be a trial is if the evidence does not stack up

Article 6 of Guide to ECHR - 9. Prejudicial publicity
265. The Court has held that a virulent press campaign can adversely affect the fairness of a trial by
influencing public opinion and, consequently, the jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused
(Akay v. Turkey (dec.); Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 98; Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 123). In this
way, a virulent press campaign risks having an impact on the impartiality of the court under Article 6
§ 1 as well as the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark
(dec.); Anguelov v. Bulgaria (dec.)).9

[Uncle Jr]

There was literally nothing sarcastic about my question, it was a perfectly reasonable one to ask in the circumstances (in my opinion).  If by going public with their own opinion on CB and naming him they know that there is no chance of him receiving a fair trial then it would seem entirely counterproductive, in fact it would be sheer lunacy to have spent all that time and money investigating him in secret to then deliberately sabotage the investigation by going public and thus damaging any prospect of a positive result.

Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.

[Brietta]

Article 6 of Guide to ECHR - 9. Prejudicial publicity
265. The Court has held that a virulent press campaign can adversely affect the fairness of a trial by
influencing public opinion and, consequently, the jurors called upon to decide the guilt of an accused
(Akay v. Turkey (dec.); Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), § 98; Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 123). In this
way, a virulent press campaign risks having an impact on the impartiality of the court under Article 6
§ 1 as well as the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark
(dec.); Anguelov v. Bulgaria (dec.)).9

I don't think anyone has abrogated Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence.

I wish it was possible to say the same about Kate and Gerry McCann and the recognition of their right to the same.

[Uncle Jr]

I don't think anyone has abrogated Brueckner's right to the presumption of innocence.

I wish it was possible to say the same about Kate and Gerry McCann and the recognition of their right to the same.

Presumption of innocence is a totally separate legal concept to the right to a fair trial.

[Venturi Swirl]

Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.

Firstly, we don't know what dividends the "gamble" paid out precisely, and secondly without being an expert in German law (which I'm not, and presume you are not either) it's not possible to say that HCW's actions to date have harmed Bruckner's chances of a fair trial.  He would not be facing a jury after all, but professional judges who would determine his innocence or guilt.

[Brietta]

Well here's the rub, HCW had not alternative but to go public, he was trying to trace a very specific caller to CB, with a view to placing him at the scene. This tactic was a calculated gamble, no doubt taken with great consideration and with the advice of legal specialists. If a trial occurs and he's convicted, it's only then that the fairness of the trial will be tested - maybe that's a gamble worth taking, given that it would take years to come to fruition.
Short term, however, the gamble did not pay dividends.

Without Goncalo Amaral's early intervention to ensure the press pack identified Brueckner it is my opinion that we would still be scratching our heads wondering what on earth the police were doing with some still continuing to vociferously lobby the Home Office complaining about expenditure on Madeleine's case.

[Uncle Jr]

Firstly, we don't know what dividends the "gamble" paid out precisely, and secondly without being an expert in German law (which I'm not, and presume you are not either) it's not possible to say that HCW's actions to date have harmed Bruckner's chances of a fair trial.  He would not be facing a jury after all, but professional judges who would determine his innocence or guilt.

I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.

[Brietta]

Presumption of innocence is a totally separate legal concept to the right to a fair trial.

What allows you the presumption that Kate and or Gerry McCann would have received a fair trial in Portugal?

[Uncle Jr]

Without Goncalo Amaral's early intervention to ensure the press pack identified Brueckner it is my opinion that we would still be scratching our heads wondering what on earth the police were doing with some still continuing to vociferously lobby the Home Office complaining about expenditure on Madeleine's case.

Amaral, Bild, The Rothley Gazette, Reddit, Infowars, CB's mate Klaus - it matters not a jot who publicised the ID of CB, HCW let the genie out of the bottle. In fact that was his express purpose; to publicise his appeal globally, so without identified him he identified him.
So, as I stated earlier, nobody cares who or how, the tactic was a gamble and was indicative of almost a last resort.

[Uncle Jr]

What allows you the presumption that Kate and or Gerry McCann would have received a fair trial in Portugal?

What are you talking about? I'm discussing the legal implications of HCW's decision to ask the public for help.

[Venturi Swirl]

I did state that the fairness of the trial will be determined in the future, I'm simply pointing out the legal peril.
Your first point - I think we can safely assume that the appeal for the caller did not bear fruit, given that he has recently stated that he still doesn't have enough evidence and the identity of the caller was fundamental to his case.

  Did he say that?  Not being sarcastic, I just don't recall him saying that it all hinged on identifying that person.  "Still not enough evidence" does not mean the appeal yielded nothing useful at all.  It may well have done, but still lacking the final piece of the jigsaw that would ensure a slam dunk result.  Let's also not forget that this isn't just about Madeleine McCann - he's being investigated for a number of other crimes and has been for years.  I find it very hard to believe that the Germans would jeopardise these investigations all for a case that didn't even happen in their country and against a foreign national.  It just doesn't make sense to me.