Author Topic: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?  (Read 3865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Eleanor

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #135 on: June 19, 2021, 06:54:58 PM »
It may well be a fact that Maddie is dead... Thats how it appears to me... But lots of evidence but no proof CB is the perp.

You think CB has acase re the ECHR.... So you must accept the McCanns do

Absolutely.  But apparently not for G Unit.

Offline G-Unit

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #136 on: June 19, 2021, 09:02:07 PM »
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;

Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
England - good effort

Offline Brietta

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #137 on: June 19, 2021, 09:15:02 PM »
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;

Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353
We have confirmation that Amaral leaked damaging stories to the media throughout his tenure until he was sacked having been caught in the act.

Wolters has not sneakily 'leaked' anything to anyone's detriment as Amaral did.  In his search for information he has been honest and above board.  The complete antithesis of Amaral and his antics 😁
The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ...  "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)"

Offline Davel

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #138 on: June 19, 2021, 09:30:08 PM »
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;

Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353

I remember a quite lengthy exchange with ICHTT whereby law enforcement are free to release information if it forms a necessary part of a criminal investigation. Wolters neefed info from the public re CB. Has Wolters said anything that is untrue. Wolters was asked the question... Do his statements prejudice CB right to a fair trial...... His reply was he expects the Judge not to be influenced.

So if CB is convicted on overwhelming evidence can he claim although obviously guilty as sin... He didnt get a fair trial... I cant really see thst happening.

Offline G-Unit

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #139 on: June 19, 2021, 09:35:34 PM »
We have confirmation that Amaral leaked damaging stories to the media throughout his tenure until he was sacked having been caught in the act.

Wolters has not sneakily 'leaked' anything to anyone's detriment as Amaral did.  In his search for information he has been honest and above board.  The complete antithesis of Amaral and his antics 😁

It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.

What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
England - good effort

Online Eleanor

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #140 on: June 19, 2021, 09:41:21 PM »
There is a difference between Amaral and Wolters which seems to have escaped some people's notice. Amaral was not restricted by being a public official, but Wolters is;

Accordingly the decision in Karaman process vs Germany claims that the Court has previously held in this context that Article 6 § 2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC].
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239353#msg239353

What?  Are you crackers?

Offline Davel

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #141 on: June 19, 2021, 09:53:10 PM »
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.

What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.

I dont think its as plain and simple as you believe. The Greek authorities have made statemrnts re the guilt of the helicopter pilot re his wifes death...can he now claim he cannot get a fair trial

Online Eleanor

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #142 on: June 19, 2021, 09:53:34 PM »
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.

What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.

And Amaral never did that.  Okay.  I don't personally care.  But Amaral is a Convicted Liar.  And will always be a Liar.  He presented himself to a Portuguese Court and then Lied.  Meanwhile you support this man and then suggest that Wolters is somehow wanting.

Offline Anthro

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #143 on: June 19, 2021, 10:00:52 PM »
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.

What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
Yet, Mr Wolters has not named Brückner as per German judicial practice. He’s been approached by different media entities to give his insight and progression of and on the case. He is not liable/responsible for public opinion re. Brückner. My opinion.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #144 on: June 19, 2021, 10:24:55 PM »
It's not about leaks; they are immaterial.

What Wolters has done is made statements "which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority". Plain, simple breach of Article 6:2.
Does that mean anyone who is named and pictured as a wanted person in any crime by the police has had their human rights breached?  Will all these people be able to take their cases to the ECHR when caught?
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/these-are-the-uks-most-wanted-fugitives-as-brit-added-to-interpol-list-180725
« Last Edit: June 19, 2021, 10:28:43 PM by Vertigo Swirl »

Online Eleanor

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #145 on: June 19, 2021, 10:32:11 PM »
Yet, Mr Wolters has not named Brückner as per German judicial practice. He’s been approached by different media entities to give his insight and progression of and on the case. He is not liable/responsible for public opinion re. Brückner. My opinion.

This of course is debatable.  German Law can sort this one.  I don't really care about how they do this.  But I  am having some difficulty in understanding how Germany can indict someone who might have committed  a crime in Portugal, beyond the fact that Brueckner is German.

Is this legally possible?  Can another country do this just because he is a national?       

Offline Davel

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #146 on: June 19, 2021, 10:35:20 PM »
This of course is debatable.  German Law can sort this one.  I don't really care about how they do this.  But I  am having some difficulty in understanding how Germany can indict someone who might have committed  a crime in Portugal, beyond the fact that Brueckner is German.

Is this legally possible?  Can another country do this just because he is a national?     

Its the fact that the crime is Murder and CB is german.


Offline G-Unit

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #147 on: June 19, 2021, 10:38:11 PM »
Does that mean anyone who is named and pictured as a wanted person in any crime by the police has had their human rights breached?  Will all these people be able to take their cases to the ECHR when caught?
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/these-are-the-uks-most-wanted-fugitives-as-brit-added-to-interpol-list-180725

No.
England - good effort

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #148 on: June 19, 2021, 10:50:22 PM »

Offline Davel

Re: So what exactly is Wolters sure about?
« Reply #149 on: June 19, 2021, 10:52:50 PM »
privilege”.

Absolute privilege is effectively a public policy defence which is designed to protect defamatory allegations made in certain situations, for example, statements made in court during or as part of legal proceedings; fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of such proceedings by the press and statements made, and documents created, in the course of a police criminal investigation.