Why is it necessary to have a theory? I don't know what happened on 3rd May 2007 and in my opinion the legal summary was correct to say it wasn't possible, based on the evidence in the PJ files, to identify the crime. There was enough evidence, however, to say that the T9's stories were contradictory and that their timeline needed to be examined more closely. That's why I can't subscribe to their theory of stranger abduction, because it relies solely on their opinions and testimony.
Wolters seems sure he's found not just an abductor but a murderer, but he needs to prove it and he hasn't even been able to place CB in PdL on 3rd May as yet imo.
You presume what didn't happen to Madeleine but remain unable to articulate what might have, despite the fact that all the investigators since 2013 have been investigating stranger abduction finally settling on a prime suspect in 2017. Fair enough.
You really haven't a clue about what evidential leads Wolters et al have been working on. Because since Amaral's unfortunate revelations in 2019 and 2020 to the media which led to Brueckner's introduction to the world stage investigators have been running a very tight ship.
No one has been saying a word and that says to me some very sensitive investigations are in progress
