The known facts and the speculations featuring Brueckner, the prime suspect

[Mr Gray]

Indeed he should , but the success of no body convictions we know is sparse at best, what makes you think this will be any different.

It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it

[barrier]

It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it

Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't  succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.

[Mr Gray]

Encouraging the public to believe someone is guilty before a trial takes place isn't allowed; 

ECtHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995: At a press conference,
the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation
Department, and the Head of the Crime Squad referred to an inquiry that was
underway. The Director of the Paris Criminal Investigation Department notably
said “Mr De Varga, and hisacolyte, Mr de Ribemont, were the instigators of the
murder. The organiser was Detective Sergeant Simonéand the murderer was Mr
Frèche.” The Court held that “some of the highest-ranking officers in the French
police referred to Mr Allenet de Ribemont, without any qualification or
reservation, as one of the instigators of a murder and thus an accomplice in that
murder (see paragraph 11 above). This was clearly a declaration of the applicant’s
guilt which, firstly, encouraged the public to believe him guilty and, secondly,
prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. There
has therefore been a breach of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2).58
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2021/12/FT-Toolkit-on-Presumption-of-Innocence-Directive.pdf

Investigators are “100% sure” sex offender Christian Brueckner murdered Madeleine McCann.

They have the evidence to charge him and hope the probe will conclude next year.

German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said: “We’re confident we have the man who took and killed her.”


He may be right, but he's not allowed to say so.

You need to differentiate between what the papers print and what Wolters actually says

[Vertigo Swirl]

Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't  succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.

Why press charges now if they think there is a realistic chance of getting more evidence, thus improving the chances of a conviction?

[Mr Gray]

Somethings holding him back, when he's says we can charge I think he means they could but know it wouldn't  succeed because of it being only circumstantial along the line of the CPS in this country saying no charges against Canaan in the Lamplugh case after being presented with evidence ,that is why he's says they need stronger evidence , imo that does not exist.

Whats holding him back... And he has said.. Is they want to build the strongest possible case and are in no hurry

[barrier]

Whats holding him back... And he has said.. Is they want to build the strongest possible case and are in no hurry

Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.

[Mr Gray]

Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.

I'm sure you are wrong

[Ms Para glider]

Because the case is not strong enough with just the circumstantial.

I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.

Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.

The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.

[jassi]

I think a lot of people fail to understand what "circumstantial" evidence actually means. They hear the word and think it means it is tenuous, weak or flimsy evidence. Most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, the alternative (direct evidence) is not that common. Direct evidence is something that directly implicates the suspect carried out the crime. So a video recording of the crime for example, or a witness who saw the crime take place would be direct evidence.

Forensics and DNA are usually classed as circumstantial evidence since they don't directly prove the suspect carried out the crime, only that they were there (at some point in time). I know HCW has stated they don't have any scientific (forensic or DNA) evidence either but just pointing out that most evidence used in cases is circumstantial. Even if an eye-witness saw CB bundling MM into his car on that night, it would still only be classified as circumstantial evidence that he murdered her (even though it would be direct evidence he abducted her). Or if they had a photo of them together, this would also be circumstantial since it doesn't directly prove he killed her.

The point is you cannot determine that the evidence is "weak" on the basis that it is "only" circumstantial. People are using the word as if it means something that it doesn't.

Unfortunately, no one even saw that.

[Angelo222]

It will depend on the evidence.. Wolters has said he doesn't need it

Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.

[Ms Para glider]

Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.

I'm sure Wolters will be devastated when news of your opinion reaches him.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Unfortunately, no one even saw that.

How do you know?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Talk is cheap. Wolters has got nothing imo and time will bear this out.

There are many investigations that never result in a prosecution.  It doesn’t mean investigators have nothing, just not enough to satisfy the CPS and secure a possible conviction.  Not having enough evidence to secure a conviction also does not mean the suspect didn’t actually commit the crime, so let’s not be too gleeful if it turns out CB never gets charged, eh?

[faithlilly]

There are many investigations that never result in a prosecution.  It doesn’t mean investigators have nothing, just not enough to satisfy the CPS and secure a possible conviction.  Not having enough evidence to secure a conviction also does not mean the suspect didn’t actually commit the crime, so let’s not be too gleeful if it turns out CB never gets charged, eh?

Like the parents?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Like the parents?

Wait, are you talking to me?