More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[Mr Gray]

Define semantics.

This is fact;

"We are making progress and have the same number of investigators working on the case, but we don't yet have enough to charge the suspect."
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-have-been-investigating-prime-suspect-in-case-for-four-years-12324624

Which has been interpreted as;

snip/

"Wolters may well have enough to charge..but wants more."

That is wishful thinking imo.

My opinions are based on evidence.
I realise things may be different in Germany but..

Michael Stone was convicted with it seems the only evidence being his confession to another inmate.

Colin Stagg was arrested and tried based on basically no evidence.
Wolters imo.. From his statements.. Has more than there was against either of those but not enough to guarantee s conviction
Thats my opinion and you cannot prove it wrong... Therefore saying he doesnt have enough evidence to charge is not a fact

[G-Unit]

"Define semantics" 
I find it interesting that you are now ascribing the word "fact" to describe everything that HCW says.  So, when he says (words to the effect of) "if you knew what the evidence was you would accept that CB was responsible for taking Madeleine" you accept that is a fact do you?   Somehow I doubt it.

Difficult to define isn't it?

It's a fact that Wolters has said certain things. It's not a fact that eveything he says is factual. As Brueckner has not been charged it's reasonable to believe that the prosecutor is telling the truth when he says he doesn't have enough evidence to lay charges.

When Wolters says;

 "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

He's speculating, because he can't possibly predict what others will think.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Difficult to define isn't it?

It's a fact that Wolters has said certain things. It's not a fact that eveything he says is factual. As Brueckner has not been charged it's reasonable to believe that the prosecutor is telling the truth when he says he doesn't have enough evidence to lay charges.

When Wolters says;

 "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

He's speculating, because he can't possibly predict what others will think.

Do you accept that he has information that is not in the public domain that (jn his opinion and presumably that of his department) strengthens his case against Bruckner or not?

[Mr Gray]

Difficult to define isn't it?

It's a fact that Wolters has said certain things. It's not a fact that eveything he says is factual. As Brueckner has not been charged it's reasonable to believe that the prosecutor is telling the truth when he says he doesn't have enough evidence to lay charges.

When Wolters says;

 "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

He's speculating, because he can't possibly predict what others will think.

It would depend on what evidence he has.... He can predict what others will think depending on the evidencee he has.. So you are speculating.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It would depend on what evidence he has.... He can predict what others will think depending on the evidencee he has.. So you are speculating.

I can predict that if and when this evidence is revealed (no matter how compelling) that certain individuals will not accept it as evidence that Bruckner committed the crime. 

I wonder if the evidence is a cadaver dog alert to his property - now that would be interesting.  It would be a bit like witnessing the flipping of the magnetic poles.

[Mr Gray]

Difficult to define isn't it?

It's a fact that Wolters has said certain things. It's not a fact that eveything he says is factual. As Brueckner has not been charged it's reasonable to believe that the prosecutor is telling the truth when he says he doesn't have enough evidence to lay charges.

When Wolters says;

 "If you knew the evidence we had you would come to the same conclusion as I do..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

He's speculating, because he can't possibly predict what others will think.

The CPS told me in my case.. Not enough evidence to charge but I know as a fact the suspect is guilty and if you knew the evidence I had you would agree

[G-Unit]

Do you accept that he has information that is not in the public domain that (jn his opinion and presumably that of his department) strengthens his case against Bruckner or not?

Wolters certainly seems convinced, by the evidence he claims to have, of his suspect's guilt. That's not enough, however. His job is to prove to a court of law that he's correct. Only time will tell if he can do that.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Wolters certainly seems convinced, by the evidence he claims to have, of his suspect's guilt. That's not enough, however. His job is to prove to a court of law that he's correct. Only time will tell if he can do that.

You didn't answer my question directly (as per usual).

[Mr Gray]

Wolters certainly seems convinced, by the evidence he claims to have, of his suspect's guilt. That's not enough, however. His job is to prove to a court of law that he's correct. Only time will tell if he can do that.

Amaral claimed he could prove MM died in the apartment.. He told us the evidence he had... Which proved nothing.
I have seen nothing to suggest Wolters is so incompetent

[Wonderfulspam]

Amaral claimed he could prove MM died in the apartment.. Je told us the evidence he had... Which proved nothing.
I have seen nothing to suggest Wolters is so incompetent

Why?

What evidence does Wolters have?

[G-Unit]

You didn't answer my question directly (as per usual).

Afaik I'm under no obligation to answer your many questions.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Afaik I'm under no obligation to answer your many questions.

You did answer it - only you didn't give a straight answer as per usual, which to me tells me all I need to know, thanks. 

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps just wait until Wolters reveals his evidence rather than this constant speculation

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps just wait until Wolters reveals his evidence rather than this constant speculation

well exactly.

[Brietta]

‘I’m persecuted’ – Suspect in Madeleine McCann case writes statement from prison cell
June 15 2021 02:30
The German suspect in the disappearance of English toddler Madeleine McCann has released a statement from prison protesting his innocence.

In his first public comment on the case, Christian Bruckner said German prosecutors had failed to bring charges and accused them of persecuting him.

“Charging someone with a crime is one thing. It is something completely different, namely an unbelievable scandal, when a public prosecutor starts a public prejudicial campaign before proceedings are even opened,” the 44-year-old convicted paedophile and rapist said in a handwritten statement issued from his prison cell.

“You have proved worldwide, through arbitrary convictions in the past and through scandalous prejudicial campaigns in the present, that you are unsuitable for the office of an ‘advocate for the honest and German people who trust in justice’, and that you bring shame to the German legal system.”

Bruckner was named as a suspect in the toddler’s disappearance a year ago.

German prosecutors claim they have evidence he killed the child but have yet to bring any charges against him in connection with the case.

Scotland Yard has said it is yet to see any evidence Madeleine is dead or was murdered, and it is still treating her case as a missing person inquiry.

Bruckner is serving a seven-year sentence for the 2005 rape of a 72-year-old woman in the same area of Portugal where Madeleine went missing. A year after Bruckner was named as a suspect, despite extensive searches and public appeals for information, no charges have been brought.

Bruckner called on the two German prosecutors in charge of the case, Hans Christian Wolters and Ute Lindemann, to resign. His statement was accompanied by a crude childish drawing, apparently by Bruckner, of the two prosecutors in a restaurant ordering a “fillet of forensic” – a reference to comments by the prosecutors that they do not have “forensic evidence” linking him to the disappearance.

The statement, dated May 8, has only now been released to the media.

It is signed with Bruckner’s full name, apparently waiving his right to anonymity under German privacy laws.

Madeleine was three when she went missing from a Praia da Luz holiday villa in 2007.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/im-persecuted-suspect-in-madeleine-mccann-case-writes-statement-from-prison-cell-40540010.html


I don't think Brueckner's legal team would have had any role to play in Brueckner's rather rattled communication with the press.
I don't think they would have allowed him to make that elementary error if they had anything to do with it.

Seems the pressure is getting to him anyway, whatever the advice from his lawyers might have been.