The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[G-Unit]

I think some people's speculations are better.

Wolters has never used the word guilty.
I dont think he would have said what he has said unless he has the evidence to support it.
He's explained why he hasnt given the parents the evidence he has and I don't think he would say Maddie was dead unless he was sure.
He's also explained why it's taking longer than expected
I see the Germans as being totally credible and have seen nothing to contradict that

Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Time to heed what you write then.

I always heed what I write, perhaps you should too because what I write makes perfect sense.  IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's not about reputation, it's about disregarding the restrictions imposed on the authorities by Article 6 of the ECHR.

Which is there to protect individuals from harm is it not?  Not physical harm, but....what sort of harm?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why you believe Spam has got it right and Para has got it all wrong, point by point, rather than taking the easy option of attacking Davel's posts.

[Mr Gray]

It's not about reputation, it's about disregarding the restrictions imposed on the authorities by Article 6 of the ECHR.

That is enforced and judged ultimately by the ECHR. The problem for CB is he has to exhaust all domestic remedies first and if he's guilty he will not want to appear in court. I think Wolters is playing a very clever game

[Mr Gray]

Of course you do - you prefer the ones you agree with.

The ones based on evidence... Your reading if the situation is pure speculation. Wolters says he has concrete evidence that if he divulged we would agree with him. He's the spokesman for the entire investigation. Not one word of dissent from anyone involved... That's supporting evidence

[barrier]

The ones based on evidence... Your reading if the situation is pure speculation. Wolters says he has concrete evidence that if he divulged we would agree with him. He's the spokesman for the entire investigation. Not one word of dissent from anyone involved... That's supporting evidence

Well some ones not so sure, it would have seem a court by now.

[G-Unit]

Which is there to protect individuals from harm is it not?  Not physical harm, but....what sort of harm?

Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed; 

ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf

Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.

They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”


He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed; 

ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf

Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.

They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”


He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.

He's just expressing an opinion, what's your problem?

[G-Unit]

He's just expressing an opinion, what's your problem?

Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.

All prosecutors believe that in their opinion a prime suspect is guilty otherwise they wouldn't be doing their damnedest to press charges on them them would they?  Legally of course all defendants should enjoy the presumption of innocence in court, I fully understand that thank you, however putting someone in the dock means that in the prosecutor's opinion they did the crime.  If I am wrong and HCW has broken the law (repeatedly by your estimation) then it begs the question a) why he has not been charged himself and/or sacked and b) why CB's team have not taken the case to the ECHR. 

[Ms Para glider]

All prosecutors believe that in their opinion a prime suspect is guilty otherwise they wouldn't be doing their damnedest to press charges on them them would they?  Legally of course all defendants should enjoy the presumption of innocence in court, I fully understand that thank you, however putting someone in the dock means that in the prosecutor's opinion they did the crime.  If I am wrong and HCW has broken the law (repeatedly by your estimation) then it begs the question a) why he has not been charged himself and/or sacked and b) why CB's team have not taken the case to the ECHR.

And c) why would HCW risk his job if all the BKA have to back up their claims is "flimsy" evidence.

[misty]

Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed; 

ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf

Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.

They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”


He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.

Wolters has never referred to Christian B by his full name. Do you see the difference between that & the French case?

[Mr Gray]

Why can't you understand that prosecutors aren't allowed to express their opinion if that opinion is that a suspect is guilty? No-one is guilty until a properly appointed court has tried and convicted them. It's called 'the presumption of innocence'.

Yet CB hasn't made a complaint. Wolters can do what he likes but is subject to the law.. Perhaps. Wolters wants him to. If Wolters has the evidence he claims then imo his actions ate justified and if it leads to a  successful prosecution surely he should be congratulated

[barrier]

Yet CB hasn't made a complaint. Wolters can do what he likes but is subject to the law.. Perhaps. Wolters wants him to. If Wolters has the evidence he claims then imo his actions are justified and if it leads to a  successful prosecution surely he should be congratulated

Indeed he should , but the success of no body convictions we know is sparse at best, what makes you think this will be any different.