More recent events related to Madeleine McCann's case

[G-Unit]

Twll us something we don’t know.

So if there's no point discussing what someone knows but can't prove why does it keep being discussed?

[Eleanor]

So if there's no point discussing what someone knows but can't prove why does it keep being discussed?

We might as well all pack up and go home then.  But Amaral keeps on trying, so what is the problem?

[Mr Gray]

When the Police were first involved had she paid the money back and did she tell them that or you? Was it money that was stolen? Is it possible she lied to you in the first instance? And you don't actually know she stole from you. You just  believe her when she said she told you she had.ecent events related to

Also this has no bearing on CB and MM. She has not been returned (or found) after a confession. Wolters obviously believes CB is guilty - but it seems that, as fas as we know, Wolters doesn't have enough evidence to substantiate his belief beyond all reasonable doubt.

100 % she stole the money and offered to pay it back

[G-Unit]

100 % she stole the money and offered to pay it back

You know the truth and 'she' knows the truth. Unfortunately there's no evidence with which to convince others, so what you know is useless in a legal sense.

[Mr Gray]

You know the truth and 'she' knows the truth. Unfortunately there's no evidence with which to convince others, so what you know is useless in a legal sense.

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.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You know the truth and 'she' knows the truth. Unfortunately there's no evidence with which to convince others, so what you know is useless in a legal sense.

Exactly that. Though in Dave’s case his 100% certainty is only based on what someone has confessed to doing. He still can’t know with 100% certainty unless he has some other evidence e.g. proof no-one else had access to the money.

[Venturi Swirl]

So if there's no point discussing what someone knows but can't prove why does it keep being discussed?

You tell me, you seem to know everything.

[Eleanor]

You tell me, you seem to know everything.

Why did Amaral keep on discussing it when he couldn't prove anything?

[Mr Gray]

Exactly that. Though in Dave’s case his 100% certainty is only based on what someone has confessed to doing. He still can’t know with 100% certainty unless he has some other evidence e.g. proof no-one else had access to the money.

I have other evidence but the cps said not enough

I know 100%

[G-Unit]

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

[Eleanor]

The double standards being employed are quite breath taking.

[Mr Gray]

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

I disagree... It depends on  what evidence Wolters has.

So its ok for amsral to say he can prove the McCanns are guilty..

[Venturi Swirl]

Exactly that. Though in Dave’s case his 100% certainty is only based on what someone has confessed to doing. He still can’t know with 100% certainty unless he has some other evidence e.g. proof no-one else had access to the money.

The Portuguese Judges appeared quite certain that the Ciprianos murdered Joana - how is that possible in your view?

[G-Unit]

I disagree... It depends on  what evidence Wolters has.

So its ok for amsral to say he can prove the McCanns are guilty..

I don't know, but as he wasn't a public official he wasn't constrained by the above as Wolters is. The first judge argued that Amaral was constrained, but the higher courts disagreed.

[Brietta]

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

What protocols are you accusing Wolters of breaking? 

It was Amaral who pointed the press pack in Brueckner's direction.