I never said it wasn't... But we have established its possible to know someone is guilty without being able to prove it.
If Wolters is in the same position with CB then it is significant. We need to wsit until we know what his evidence is.
Nothing is significant without proof. Wolters may have breached his suspect's rights under Article 6 of the ECHR too;
"429. The Court has emphasised the increased vigilance to be shown by public officials in exercising
their right to freedom of expression in the context of on-going investigations, especially where those
officials are themselves responsible for conducting investigations involving information covered by
an official secrecy clause designed to ensure the proper administration of justice (Poyraz v. Turkey,
§§ 76-78).
430. With regard to statements by the authorities concerning criminal investigations in progress,
the Court has reiterated that Article 6 § 2 cannot prevent the authorities from informing the public
about such investigations; however, it requires that they do so with all the discretion and
circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (Fatullayev
v. Azerbaijan, §§ 159-162; Garycki v. Poland, § 69; Lavents v. Latvia, §§ 126-127; Slavov and Others
v. Bulgaria, §§ 128-130).
431. The Court has stressed the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their
statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence
(Daktaras v. Lithuania, § 41; see also, in the context of interviews to the national press, Butkevičius
v. Lithuania, § 50; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, §§ 197 and 202-203).
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_10_eng.pdf