He said: “Anyone who has said something must be measured by it.
That may come back to haunt him.
He said: “Anyone who has said something must be measured by it.
Evidently not. Classic tabloids it seems :-(I see all the latest is from the sun, but others are quoting it, some truth in it?
![]()
Case against Madeleine suspect 'crumbling as witness threatens to pull plug'
A key witness in the case against Maddie McCann suspect Christian Brueckner is said to be in danger of withdrawing his testimony in court, putting the case at threat of falling apartwww.mirror.co.uk
![]()
Madeleine McCann prime suspect case ‘on verge of collapsing’
Fears of another blow to the investigation to find out what happened to Madeleine McCannwww.independent.co.uk
![]()
Madeleine McCann case against paedophile suspect 'close to collapsing'
Christian Brueckner, 45, was named last year by prosecutors as the key suspect in the disappearance and murder of the three-year-old in 2007.www.dailymail.co.uk
I see there is no direct quote attributed to HCW.Evidently not. Classic tabloids it seems :-(
The problem with the investigation being dragged on so long is that it allows time & space for the tabloids to do their thing.
I question the motives of some (other) people who appear to celebrate or ‘like’ the idea of the cases being dropped (based on tabloid rumour). I presumed that we all wanted this to be heard in court, regardless of what our opinions are. That seems more rational & sensible.
![]()
Madeleine McCann case against Christian Brueckner ‘is still on’
The German prosecutor investigating the convicted rapist Christian Brueckner for the alleged abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann has strongly denied claimswww.thetimes.co.uk
Wolter told The Times: “He can’t choose whether he appears as a witness and he can’t retract his statements and act as if nothing had happened. That doesn’t work in the legal system in Germany, and he is certainly not the decisive support in the proceedings when it comes to Maddie.”I see there is no direct quote attributed to HCW.
"He can't choose whether he appears as a witness and he can't retract his statements and act as if nothing had happened. That doesn't work in the legal system in Germany, and he is certainly not the decisive support in the proceedings when it comes to Maddie."I see there is no direct quote attributed to HCW.
Wolter told The Times: “He can’t choose whether he appears as a witness and he can’t retract his statements and act as if nothing had happened. That doesn’t work in the legal system in Germany, and he is certainly not the decisive support in the proceedings when it comes to Maddie.”
He added: “I don’t know if the witness is withdrawing his testimony. The fact is that in Germany it’s different from other legal systems.
“In Germany a witness has to appear in court, he has no choice. And if he has already testified, the statements that he has made can of course also be introduced in the trial.
“So if he were to say, ‘I’m not talking to you’ — even if that were the case, and I don’t know if it is — that would not lead to our case collapsing here.”
Wolters added: “At the moment it is not yet clear whether there will be a trial or not because we do not yet know whether what we have is sufficient for an indictment. But among all that we have, Helge B’s statements are certainly not the most decisive.”
I think that sums it up nicely.Thanks for that.
It's pretty much as expected, HCW sticking firmly to his precarious position, saying on the one hand that
(a) HB is bound by the T&Cs of the German legal system so any nonsense he spouts in the public domain is just him talking nonsense and of no importance;
(b) but that anyway, nonsense or no nonsense, HB is not crucial to the investigation; and
(c) that it doesn't really matter one way or the other since there may never be a charge or a trial due to him and his team not having sufficient evidence.
And that's the reality, straight from the horse's mouth.
Absolutely. It dispels any myths that somehow the case is as strong as HB’s testimony or that the case hinges upon said testimony.Thanks for that.
It's pretty much as expected, HCW sticking firmly to his precarious position, saying on the one hand that
(a) HB is bound by the T&Cs of the German legal system so any nonsense he spouts in the public domain is just him talking nonsense;
(b) but that anyway, nonsense or no nonsense, HB is not crucial to the investigation; and
(c) that it doesn't really matter one way or the other since there may never be a charge or a trial due to him and his team not having sufficient evidence against CB to move forward on the MM front.
And that's the no nonsense reality, straight from the horse's mouth.
Wolters added: “At the moment it is not yet clear whether there will be a trial or not because we do not yet know whether what we have is sufficient for an indictment. But among all that we have, Helge B’s statements are certainly not the most decisive.”
It is a huge pity that HCW comments have been hidden behind a paywall in the Times while other journalists have followed on with the sensational comments from an anonymous "source in Germany".![]()
Madeleine McCann police in Germany 'were warned about
Christian Brueckner, 45, was named last year by prosecutors as the key suspect in the disappearance and murder of the three-year-old in 2007.www.dailymail.co.uk
I've said all along IMO it is very unwise, perhaps even wrong, to publicly declare a poi or suspect based upon circumstance and hearsay. You need something objective.
Paywall so quoting others:![]()
Madeleine McCann case against Christian Brueckner ‘is still on’
The German prosecutor investigating the convicted rapist Christian Brueckner for the alleged abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann has strongly denied claimswww.thetimes.co.uk
And there W goes again with his, for all we know (IN MY OPINION) mythical 'evidence'.
We are never allowed to see it, but W promises it's there.
Yet he's not sure if it's good enough for an indictment. Yet he never finds out?
But he's sure she is dead and that CB probably did it.
Just trust him.
**facepalm**
The logical contradiction here seems very simple to me:
They either; have proof she's dead and he did it or they don't.
If they have proof she's dead and he did it then they would have indicted already.
If they don't have enough proof for an indictment then by definition they don't have proof!
And if they don't have proof then by definition they don't know!
But they believe it?
ALL MY OWN OPINION!
Beautiful!That may come back to haunt him.
Yes it is extremely annoying. You could post more of it but I know that can be tricky with copyright.It is a huge pity that HCW comments have been hidden behind a paywall in the Times while other journalists have followed on with the sensational comments from an anonymous "source in Germany".
As I clearly said in my post I was quoting others here who were quoting the article. I can't access the article behind the paywall. I'm not the one who 'paraphrased' it. And I'm unsure if you're using that word correctly? Because I suspected the quote I copied was probably just copied directly from the article without changes. Was it not?HCW did make the comment you have paraphrased.
I read the bits you mention that were copied here.But he also made a statement which consisted of five paragraphs in which he
Not my opinion but my synopsis of the Times article which you selectively quote from and minus the huge chunk of information HCW imparted during the five paragraphs of his interview with the Times journalist.
- Gave a very clear synopsis of the actual circumstances should the witness attempt to crumble as the tabloids suggest
- The case would not collapse even if the rumours had any substance as reported in the press
- The particular statements made by the allegedly wobbly witness certainly will not disrupt or outweigh all the hundreds of statement already on file in the MM case should indictments be made and a trial scheduled
will not disrupt or outweigh all the hundreds of statement already on file
What information?! It was a masterclass in how to talk for a long time without actually saying any information!minus the huge chunk of information HCW imparted during the five paragraphs of his interview with the Times journalist
![]()
Madeleine McCann case against Christian Brueckner ‘is still on’
The German prosecutor investigating the convicted rapist Christian Brueckner for the alleged abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann has strongly denied claimswww.thetimes.co.uk
Balanced against the sum of the total of witness statements HB's witness statement is surely infinitesimal.HCW is obviously right but it depends on how critical HeB’s testimony is. If it’s important for the case against CB and the key witness is shaky, it makes it less likely the case will ho to court, IMO.
Yes it is extremely annoying. You could post more of it but I know that can be tricky with copyright.
As I clearly said in my post I was quoting others here who were quoting the article. I can't access the article behind the paywall. I'm not the one who 'paraphrased' it. And I'm unsure if you're using that word correctly? Because I suspected the quote I copied was probably just copied directly from the article without changes. Was it not?
I read the bits you mention that were copied here.
I didn't selectively leave them out, I left them out for brevity because they are covered by what I was saying anyway.
So this witness will be forced to testify or his previous statements will be used.
So?
That means bupkis if he is a fantasist who is full of #&$% like other LE mentioned in the articles, already know is quite possibly the case. ACCORDING TO THE REPORTING
And they have lots of other witness statements.
Well that's great news. Are they and their testimony as high quality as the star witness?
Witness statements. Whoopdedoo. 'Witness statements' could be a pile of people saying 'I didn't see anything', or 'I saw a blue fairy.' Thats still a witness statement, even though it accomplishes very little.
What information?! It was a masterclass in how to talk for a long time without actually saying any information!
Not a mention of anything objective or concrete.
And more of his usual 'we're not sure if we have enough to indict'. THEN WHY DOESNT HE ASK SOMEONE?! Like a prosecutor perhaps? Then he would know! And could stop telling us he's not sure!
Why are you linking again to an article we can't read? Maybe you can copy more of the article? I'm not sure how much is allowed?
ALL MY OWN OPINION!
Until this 'evidence' becomes public knowledge, we wont be able to determine if it has any value worth talking about.
Sorry - I made the assumption you were replying to my post because I did mention evidence and so did you.Until this 'evidence' becomes public knowledge, we wont be able to determine if it has any value worth talking about.
Until this 'evidence' becomes public knowledge, we wont be able to determine if it has any value worth talking about.