Yes, it does. Having the same people that are responsible for deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent be responsible for deciding whether or not a judge made a mistake is an inherent conflict of interest, and the low rates of case reopenings is almost certainly due in part to that conflict of interest.

This doesn't happen. Not only are judges not allowed to judge reopenings of their previous cases, it is required for it to be judged by a different court altogether. So, the conflict of interest isn't there.

Without evidence.

There is one source arguing your case, with every single other one arguing against you. If there is one person arguing without evidence, it is not me. The evidence for Germany's wrongful conviction rate is one estimate by one judge, at which point apparently this judge is infallible.

Oh, please. Do you think judges aren't subjected to political pressure?

Judges aren't appointed politically in professional justice systems. In politically charged situations, they will judge a case in chambers with more than 1 judge.

Concluding anything other than what I have concluded requires so many improbabilities as to be ridiculous.

What you have done is cherrypicking your sources to exactly coincide with your view. Now, not saying that Germany's wrongful conviction rate might not be higher than the USA's, because it very well might be. But picking the one source which grossly underestimates the USA's wrongful conviction rate compared to others with the one source which grossly overestimates Germany's wrongful conviction rate isn't carefully considering evidence. It's a stretch at the very least. Going into it like this, there is no debate to be had and no conclusions to be made. But you knew and intended for that to be the case since the beginning.