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

[Mr Gray]

Then he has presumably breached Bruckner's human rights and Bruckner's solicitor should be mounting a case to prosecute the German State in the ECHR.

Makes you wonder why he isn't.. Doesn't it

[Mr Gray]

It may well be Wolters can say anything he likes if it's part of the investigation.. And is protected by privelige

[Eleanor]

I don't know if Brueckner is Guilty or not.  But I doubt that he has a reputation to trash, or any Human Rights worth defending.

[Robittybob1]

I think a lot depends on whether HCW has this evidence and all this is part of the reason I think he does.
If he does and CB is found guilty what can CB do. He must go through all German court appeals first and then go to the ECHR. They can't overturn the conviction..

He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial.  This could also be raised in the first trial.  It would be what I'd do in a situation like this.

I don't know if Brueckner is Guilty or not.  But I doubt that he has a reputation to trash, or any Human Rights worth defending.

Shocking, shocking, shocking.

[Robittybob1]

Makes you wonder why he isn't.. Doesn't it

He doesn't have to play that card until he is charged or found guilty. Then raise it as on appeal.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial.  This could also be raised in the first trial.  It would be what I'd do in a situation like this.
Shocking, shocking, shocking.

This presupposes that German judges are unduly influenced by what they read in the papers rather than concentrating on the evidence presented before them in court.  Is that a thing I wonder?

[Mr Gray]

He would presumably appeal any guilty conviction on the basis of a mistrial due to the publication of HCW presumption of guilt prior to the trial.  This could also be raised in the first trial.  It would be what I'd do in a situation like this.
Shocking, shocking, shocking.

But if the evidence is overwhelming it would probably be ruled the publicity had no effect on the verdict

[Robittybob1]

This presupposes that German judges are unduly influenced by what they read in the papers rather than concentrating on the evidence presented before them in court.  Is that a thing I wonder?

Good point.   But what about the expectation of the populace?

[faithlilly]

It may well be Wolters can say anything he likes if it's part of the investigation.. And is protected by privelige

Isn’t that exactly what you argued against a few weeks ago?

Wasn’t one of the reasons you thought Wolter wouldn’t have said what he did if it wasn’t true, because he could face a prison sentence?

And the libel trial transcript...do you now accept that you were wrong in your reason for not accepting its veracity? That you were comparing the transcript from two different trials.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Good point.   But what about the expectation of the populace?

What have they got to do with it?

[G-Unit]

I don't know if Brueckner is Guilty or not.  But I doubt that he has a reputation to trash, or any Human Rights worth defending.

Brueckner's reputation doesn't include the word "murderer". He has never been tried or convicted of murder, and is entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. Wolters seems to be working on a presumption of guilt.

[Mr Gray]

Brueckner's reputation doesn't include the word "murderer". He has never been tried or convicted of murder, and is entitled to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence. Wolters seems to be working on a presumption of guilt.

Perhaps if we had seen the evidence he has we might agree with him

[Robittybob1]

What have they got to do with it?

If the judges found him innocent where the populace strongly thought he was guilty there could be riots.  (like what happened in the USA.)

Perhaps if we had seen the evidence he has we might agree with him

That is the purpose of a trial in a court where the evidence can be examined.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps if we had seen the evidence he has we might agree with him

The PJ certainly didn’t.

[Mr Gray]

If the judges found him innocent where the populace strongly thought he was guilty there could be riots.  (like what happened in the USA.)
That is the purpose of a trial in a court where the evidence can be examined.

Wolters is free to say what he wants if he feels it will help the investigation.. As I understand that is the law