So what exactly is Wolters sure about?

[John]

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 have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.

[John]

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

Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.

[misty]

Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.

Amaral didn't meet either of the McCanns in person while he was co-ordinator of the PJ investigation. Source - Kate McCann's book.

[Venturi Swirl]

Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.

As far as I’m aware Amaral had zero information on Brückner so how does that give him an advantage over Wolters?

[G-Unit]

As far as I’m aware Amaral had zero information on Brückner so how does that give him an advantage over Wolters?

One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.

[Mr Gray]

One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.

It may well be that the Germans have proof stranger abduction is a proven fact..

[Mr Gray]

Amaral has one huge advantage over Wolters and that is that he was there and looked his suspects in the eye. He has information that Wolters will never have.

Amaral thinks the dogs proved Maddie died in the apartment...that to me is gross ignrance and proves his incompetence. Wolters has a massive advantage over Amaral.. Wolters is intelligent and understands the evidence.. Imo

[Mr Gray]

I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.

I think that post is going to come back to make you look rather foolish

[Mr Gray]

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.

You are stating your opinion  as fact... It isnt

[Venturi Swirl]

One thing to note is that the first investigation examined the evidence and was unable to find any supporting the theory of stranger abduction. Despite that, both Operation Grange and the Germans appear to be proceeding as if a stranger abduction is a proven fact.

No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.

[Venturi Swirl]

I have to agree, he can't give specifics because it is all a sham imo.

I find your position very puzzling.  You claim to believe Madeleine was abducted (albeit after she woke and wandered) yet you appear to believe that the idea that the culprit is Bruckener is laughable and a sham.  So do you believe another hitherto unidentified paedo/rapist type happened to be loitering in the area that night then?

[Wonderfulspam]

No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.

And 15 years & £15 million later there's still no evidence to support it.

[G-Unit]

No, they are proceeding on the basis that it is the only plausible, logical scenario.

Or, in the case of Operation Grange, they have simply followed their remit without bothering to question it. 

[Wonderfulspam]

I find your position very puzzling.  You claim to believe Madeleine was abducted (albeit after she woke and wandered) yet you appear to believe that the idea that the culprit is Bruckener is laughable and a sham.  So do you believe another hitherto unidentified paedo/rapist type happened to be loitering in the area that night then?

The presumption of paedophiles.

Why does it always have to be a paedo that took Maddie, in McCann supporter world?

What evidence is there paedophiles were involved in Maddie's disappearance?

[Venturi Swirl]

Aww, my little Spammy stalker only responds to my posts - deeply flattered...