Mark Williams-Thomas making new three part crime series for Ch5.

[barrier]

He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof

He hasn't said a lot of things, its what he says is which we are debating, he says no video or photo graphic evidence of CB with Madeleine, couldn't be plainer.

[Mr Gray]

Its you are confused in other statement's which I've posted allegedly coming from Wolters is that :If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn’t have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.”

The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine

[faithlilly]

He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof

A photo of Brueckner with Madeleine would be a slam dunk.

There’s absolutely no evidence that he does.

[The General]

The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine

The evidential value of this 'evidence' is being whittled down each time you post.
A picture of a dead body is one notch up from a picture of a toaster, I'll grant you that.

[barrier]

The photo he has implied he has would only be circumstantial evidence as it does not identify CB.. Only Madeleine

He hasn't said he doesn't have photographic evidence.. Several things he's said suggests he has.
A photo of MM dead with CB in camera would be proof

Make your mind up.

[Mr Gray]

Make your mind up.

My posts are consistent

[barrier]

My posts are consistent

There's no doubting that.

[Mr Gray]

This evidential value of this 'evidence' is being whittled down each time you post.
A picture of a dead body is one notch up from a picture of a toaster, I'll grant you that.

The evidential value varies depending on the evidence.. I would have thought you understood that.  ...

[Mr Gray]

A photo of Brueckner with Madeleine would be a slam dunk.

There’s absolutely no evidence that he does.

There's evidence.. More likely proof.. He doesn't

[The General]

The evidential value varies depending on the evidence.. I would have thought you understood that.  ...

You thought correct.

[Wonderfulspam]

I haven't seen a picture of a dead girl, but because someone may have said there may or may not be one, I'm certain there is.

Rational position isn't it.

[Eleanor]

Could Breuckner have taken a photograph of Madeleine asleep in her bed in 5a for reasons of identification which was later found somewhere on one of his derelict properties?  This at least would suggest that he abducted her.

[The General]

There's evidence.. More likely proof.. He doesn't

He has one or more image of a dead girl who he believes he's ID'd as MM.
He may have stumbled across the image on one of CB's hard drives, buried under someone's dog, while building a nonce case against him (a case that he probably won't pursue now as it's small fry).
So he's been trying to tie him to the scene of 5a ever since and all he seems to have garnered is a couple of jailhouse snitches willing to provide a anything for a packet of snout.
Now it would appear that strategy is knackered.

[Mr Gray]

You thought correct.

I usually am

[The General]

Could Breuckner have taken a photograph of Madeleine asleep in her bed in 5a for reasons of identification which was later found somewhere on one of his derelict properties?  This at least would suggest that he abducted her.

Good point.
But HCW reckons he has a picture of a dead body, not a live one.