Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[G-Unit]

Then amaral has breached the McCans HR by your argument.
Again the fact that HCW has said this means he must be sure of his facts... Perhaps he's done for precisely  that  reason.  All CB has to do know is sue HCW.  In doing that he may, well need to give evidence in court.. Perhaps this is what HCW, would like him to do

The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.

It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.

[Mr Gray]

The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.

It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.

He hasnt identified CB. I think HCW understands the law far better than you do. Imo it shows he s sure of what he says...ie he has evidence taht shows his suspect killed MM.

I wont bother talking about amaral its totally clear to me he breached the McCanns HR...its up to the ECHR to decide

[Mr Gray]

The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.

It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.

thats your opinion ...and as yous seem to be relying on wiki pedia...not well supported

[Vertigo Swirl]

The McCann's lawyer attempted to argue that point about Amaral, but a) he was retired and b) the thoughts of the investigators was in the public arena anyway.

It doesn't matter whether Wolter's is sure or not, he's not allowed to say things which may influence the outcome of a trial.

Are you suggesting he is breaking the law?

[G-Unit]

thats your opinion ...and as yous seem to be relying on wiki pedia...not well supported

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
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2

[Mr Gray]

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
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2

Wolters hasn't named CB

[G-Unit]

Wolters hasn't named CB

Perhaps it's not him then, despite the media excitement.  Whoever it is he has publicly claimed to have evidence that his suspect killed MM.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps it's not him then, despite the media excitement.  Whoever it is he has publicly claimed to have evidence that his suspect killed MM.

HCW hasn't named his suspect.... Any claim CB has a case is your opinion.. Nothing more

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps it's not him then, despite the media excitement.  Whoever it is he has publicly claimed to have evidence that his suspect killed MM.

HCW has never named the suspect...the media has...so there is no case against HCW imo. I'm sure HCW knows exactly what he is doing imo

[Robittybob1]

HCW has never named the suspect...the media has...so there is no case against HCW imo. I'm sure HCW knows exactly what he is doing imo

Who leaked it to the media then?

[Mr Gray]

Who leaked it to the media then?

The point I'm making is that although gunit is claiming as a fact that CB has a case against HCW... The fact is he may not..
So gunit is posting opinion as fact

[Brietta]

Who leaked it to the media then?

Amaral gave sufficient evidence about the suspect's identity to an Australian podcast broadcast last year to enable journalists to work out who he was.

Snip
Goncalo Amaral, the man who led the initial investigation, confirmed in April last year that 'a German paedophile currently in jail in Germany' - now named as Christian Brueckner - was identified 13 years ago as a potential suspect.

But Amaral, who was sacked after naming Kate and Jerry McCann as suspects in the disappearance and maintains they were responsible, said his detectives 'found nothing to suggest [Brueckner] took Madeleine'.

That is despite revelations today that Brueckner had a lengthy criminal record including burglary and child sex crimes, lived in a property just three miles from where Maddie went missing, and can be placed in the area on the night in question using mobile phone records.
________________________________________________

He was then brought to the attention of Amaral as he investigated Madeleine's disappearance in 2007, but was dismissed as a 'scapegoat'.

Speaking to Australian podcast Maddie in April last year, Amaral predicted that British police 'are probably going to use a German paedophile who is in jail in Germany' as their chief suspect.

He said that the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária, 'investigated him at the time but found nothing to suggest he took Madeleine.'

Amaral suggested that British police had been working up cases against two German paedophiles - one of whom died a few years ago, leaving one suspect to pursue.

In the interview, he accused British detectives of 'wanting it to be' the now-dead paedophile.

German and British police say Brueckner was not on a shortlist of 600 suspects drawn up by Portuguese officers despite his criminal record.

On Wednesday evening, British detectives from Operation Grange - a £12million, eight-year investigation into Madeleine's disappearance - announced Brueckner as their new chief suspect, though without naming him due to privacy laws.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8387585/Did-Portuguese-police-let-Madeleine-McCanns-abductor-escape-justice.html


So back in 2007 it would appear that the judicial police really did think that there was more evidence against the McCanns than there was against Brueckner who they apparently ruled out of the case while upping the ante against Madeleine's parents.

Talk about an inability to see the wood for the trees !

[barrier]

Who leaked it to the media then?

Good question,what chance a fair trial? I expect some one will blame Amaral,he never named any one.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Good question,what chance a fair trial? I expect some one will blame Amaral,he never named any one.

Why would he not get a fair trial?

[Mr Gray]

Good question,what chance a fair trial? I expect some one will blame Amaral,he never named any one.

Neither did HCW