Does Wolters have photographic evidence?

[Brietta]

I've been thinking.  Yer yer, I know.  But, supposing Wolters has found a photo on a Porn Site.  It is not impossible to take a photo of a small child with her face in evidence and still alive while not quite clear.

It seems to me that some of you are desperate to discredit Wolters when if The McCanns were in the frame you would all be in there supporting him.

What is intriguing me at the moment is the total lack of information emanating from any source.  Total lockdown! from the police and Brueckner's defence.
Even the media have been restrained for the moment.

There must be a lot of information to be gone through.  International paedophile rings have been exposed and many locations associated with Brueckner have been probed.

I don't think the lack of comment is because interest in Madeleine's case is flagging ~ we know that is not the case.

[Mr Gray]

Surely if a photo is not quite clear, then any identification will be not quite clear either.

I think it must be clear for Wolters to be so definite

[Eleanor]

Surely if a photo is not quite clear, then any identification will be not quite clear either.

I don't know.  I am just speculating.  But with all of the hideous photos of Madeleine put up by CMoMM there could be a match.

[Brietta]

It may have a close up of Maddies face. The fact that Wolters wants information re the inside of any dwelling used by CB is a major clue. Many thing point to a photo being the evidence he has.... All my opinion but based on evidence

I agree that it has to be photographic evidence which I think Wolters has had in his possession for quite some time, probably from prior investigation of Brueckner's possible involvement in other crimes.

[Eleanor]

What is intriguing me at the moment is the total lack of information emanating from any source.  Total lockdown! from the police and Brueckner's defence.
Even the media have been restrained for the moment.

There must be a lot of information to be gone through.  International paedophile rings have been exposed and many locations associated with Brueckner have been probed.

I don't think the lack of comment is because interest in Madeleine's case is flagging ~ we know that is not the case.

Was Breuckner not himself on a Porn Site?  Who knows what Wolters has found?  Or what other charges are pending?

This ought to be a laugh a minute with concerted efforts to defend Breuckner while vilifying The McCanns.  But it isn't.  It is actually quite outrageous.

[John]

What is intriguing me at the moment is the total lack of information emanating from any source.  Total lockdown! from the police and Brueckner's defence.
Even the media have been restrained for the moment.

There must be a lot of information to be gone through.  International paedophile rings have been exposed and many locations associated with Brueckner have been probed.

I don't think the lack of comment is because interest in Madeleine's case is flagging ~ we know that is not the case.

IMO, if Wolters had anything of significance we would have seen more movement by now to charge Christian Brückner. The other very telling fact pointed out a while back is that Wolters refuses to divulge his concrete evidence to the child's parents.  That in itself is both unprofessional and immoral.

[jassi]

IMO, if Wolters had anything of significance we would have seen more movement by now to charge Christian Brückner. The other very telling fact pointed out a while back is that Wolters refuses to divulge his concrete evidence to the child's parents.  That in itself is both unprofessional and immoral.

Is it normal practice for police to divulge evidence in an ongoing case to other than colleagues ?

[Brietta]

Was Breuckner not himself on a Porn Site?  Who knows what Wolters has found?  Or what other charges are pending?

This ought to be a laugh a minute with concerted efforts to defend Breuckner while vilifying The McCanns.  But it isn't.  It is actually quite outrageous.

Even from the little we know of Brueckner he was definitely no angel and the words attributed to him from on line paedophile discussion make my blood run cold.
The thought of this man having the time and the opportunity to do just that is unthinkable.  But her parents must be thinking about it even if consciously trying not to.  I wouldn't be in their shoes for all the tea in China.

Words fail me for a description to cover those who have gone out of their way for years to do as much damage as they possibly can to everything McCann, particularly their search for Madeleine.  All my prejudices condemning them have been fortified by all that has happened between Amaral's gift of Brueckner to the media and the continued opprobrium directed at the McCann family.
It should be unbelievable that people see fit to behave like that, unfortunately it is evidently very true and very sad.

[Mr Gray]

IMO, if Wolters had anything of significance we would have seen more movement by now to charge Christian Brückner. The other very telling fact pointed out a while back is that Wolters refuses to divulge his concrete evidence to the child's parents.  That in itself is both unprofessional and immoral.

IMO and for the reasons I've given I think it's a near certainty he has photographic evidence of death. He can't charge CB because he doesn't have enough linking him to the crime. It's   very significant he wants details of the interior of any dwelling associated with CB.

What other reason could there be for Wolters to ask for anyone with knowledge of the interior of properties associated with CB

[Mr Gray]

Is it normal practice for police to divulge evidence in an ongoing case to other than colleagues ?

Wolters has explained the reasons why he is keeping his evidence under wraps

[Brietta]

IMO, if Wolters had anything of significance we would have seen more movement by now to charge Christian Brückner. The other very telling fact pointed out a while back is that Wolters refuses to divulge his concrete evidence to the child's parents.  That in itself is both unprofessional and immoral.

I think this case involves much more than Madeleine.  Why risk jeopardising it by precipitately laying charges he doesn't need to.  Brueckner isn't going anywhere for a few years yet.

I think the McCanns will have been kept informed.  If ever there was a need for an FLO I think it may be now.

[John]

Is it normal practice for police to divulge evidence in an ongoing case to other than colleagues ?

Yes certainly if it involves a child's disappearenc.

[Carana]

IMO, if Wolters had anything of significance we would have seen more movement by now to charge Christian Brückner. The other very telling fact pointed out a while back is that Wolters refuses to divulge his concrete evidence to the child's parents.  That in itself is both unprofessional and immoral.

That situation may have changed over the course of time, though.

[Carana]

IMO and for the reasons I've given I think it's a near certainty he has photographic evidence of death. He can't charge CB because he doesn't have enough linking him to the crime. It's   very significant he wants details of the interior of any dwelling associated with CB.

What other reason could there be for Wolters to ask for anyone with knowledge of the interior of properties associated with CB

There could be several possibilities:

- He COULD be playing King Kong to draw attention to himself, but in fact has nothing more than what he's already said. Possible (others have certainly done so in other cases), but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that.

- Bluffing in a genuine attempt to obtain info?

- There COULD be photographic evidence of her (possibly simply taken at some point during the week, but... coupled with other photographic evidence of others / criminal history, could lead him to reasoned assumptions, but without proof.

- Photographic evidence of her in a dire situation (heaven forbid), but with no irrefutable link to CB for the moment.

- No directly-related photographic evidence, but something else?

[kizzy]

IMO and for the reasons I've given I think it's a near certainty he has photographic evidence of death. He can't charge CB because he doesn't have enough linking him to the crime. It's   very significant he wants details of the interior of any dwelling associated with CB.

What other reason could there be for Wolters to ask for anyone with knowledge of the interior of properties associated with CB

If you think wolt has a photo it could be no more than a picture of CB in some place with a prominent back ground.

He may want to know where he was at the time maybe to search the area. or solve something else.

As you say he has nothing linking CB to the crime regardless of all the publicity for nearon a year now.

I do think you are overthinking all this - your opinion based on evidence. ..what evidence.