New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[faithlilly]

You are quoting your opinion as fact.
Wolters has never used the word proof or proved
It's a fact that the justice system errs on the sude of getting the guilty go free.
Wolters is looking for more evidence.. Perhaps even the body. There is absolutely no rush.
I think Wolters action do bear scrutiny

It is not my opinion…just look at any case that ever comes to court. The police collect the evidence that suggest guilt. The prosecutor decides whether the evidence will convince a jury and if they decide it does then charges are laid. The investigation then looks for further evidence to solidify their case.

Wolter’s opinion is that a solid case can be made for Brueckner’s guilt…so why doesn’t he charge him?

[G-Unit]

Read it again.. Wolters is saying   ..for us... He's quoting opinion not stating an absolute fact

i think he has offered his opinion too often. Most unprofessional.

[Vertigo Swirl]

i think he has offered his opinion too often. Most unprofessional.

Is that a fact or is it merely your opinion?

[faithlilly]

i think he has offered his opinion too often. Most unprofessional.

And possibly prejudicial to a fair trial.

[Mr Gray]

i think he has offered his opinion too often. Most unprofessional.

I find him far more professional than grime.. We will see.  It's not just his opinion.. He's, speaking for the investigattion

[Mr Gray]

And possibly prejudicial to a fair trial.

Jes, already answered that point... It depends how strong the evidence is... It seems he feels he can make it watertight

[jassi]

And possibly prejudicial to a fair trial.

That might be the name of the game.
Not enough evidence to convict, but  putting his name into the public domain ensures a fair trial cannot take place.
Everyone then 'believes' he's guilty but got off on a technicality.

Case solved.
OG off the hook and can close down to cold case that goes nowhere.
McCann can continue to claims she's still alive and hang on to the loot - until she's old enough to draw a pension no doubt.
Germans can claim they got their man  and will no doubt  get him for something else .

Just an idea

[faithlilly]

Jes, already answered that point... It depends how strong the evidence is... It seems he feels he can make it watertight

It doesn’t matter how strong the evidence is.

[Mr Gray]

It doesn’t matter how strong the evidence is.

Yes it does... Do you want an example and a lesson in law

[G-Unit]

I find him far more professional than grime.. We will see.  It's not just his opinion.. He's, speaking for the investigattion

Grime didn't court publicity or accuse anyone publicly, the two aren't comparable. Wolters is speculating about something that he can't prove.

[G-Unit]

That might be the name of the game.
Not enough evidence to convict, but  putting his name into the public domain ensures a fair trial cannot take place.
Everyone then 'believes' he's guilty but got off on a technicality.

Case solved.
OG off the hook and can close down to cold case that goes nowhere.
McCann can continue to claims she's still alive and hang on to the loot - until she's old enough to draw a pension no doubt.
Germans can claim they got their man  and will no doubt  get him for something else .

Just an idea

So no-one will ever know for sure, but the whole question can go away.

[Mr Gray]

Grime didn't court publicity or accuse anyone publicly, the two aren't comparable. Wolters is speculating about something that he can't prove.

You don't know that Wolters cant prove it.. But that doesn't stop you breaking forum rules.. Opinion as fact
Its also your opinion that Wolters courts publicity.
Grime stated that the only alerts were to things McCann.. He had no need to say that

He had no need to say that in his opinion thevdigs behaviour changed as soon as he entered 5a..

He also made a, veiled reference to the mccanns in his white paper.. A paper that could be seen as self promotion.

[Mr Gray]

So no-one will ever know for sure, but the whole question can go away.

I for one certainly won't accept his guilt without evidence.
Do you once again see yourself and sceptics as being in some way superior.. I don't.  Imo. It's sceptics who are willing to believe without a trial

[faithlilly]

Yes it does... Do you want an example and a lesson in law

That would be interesting.

[Mr Gray]

That would be interesting.

Look at the Greek helicopter pilot who police say is guilty and has confessed.. Any complaints..
If he retracts his confession can he get a fair trial. It depends on the evidence.