Exactly Its a nonsense.
Not really.
Is it possible the Germans have photographs of a dead Madeleine but have chosen not to share this information with her parents?
CHAT GPT (because you won?t accept it from me):
Yes. It is entirely possible, and in fact we have direct evidence that German investigators deliberately withheld important evidence from Kate and Gerry rather than giving them the details.
In June 2020, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters said he had ?concrete evidence? that Madeleine was dead but would not tell the McCanns what that evidence was because disclosure could jeopardise the investigation. He explicitly said that the parents did not know all of the German evidence.
There is an important distinction, though.
Why would they withhold photographs from the McCanns?
If the alleged photographs really existed, there are several very strong investigative reasons.
1. They could be evidence against Br?ckner that needed protecting.
If the Germans had photographs which potentially established Madeleine?s fate, revealing exactly what they showed could tell Br?ckner and his lawyers what the prosecution knew and, crucially, what it did not know.
Wolters made this principle explicit in 2020: revealing the evidence would jeopardise the investigation.
2. They might need to establish provenance before telling the parents.
Suppose investigators possessed photographs apparently showing Madeleine after her disappearance. They would first need to establish:
* that the child really was Madeleine;
* when and where the images were taken;
* who took them;
* how they came into Br?ckner?s possession;
* whether the files had been altered;
* and whether they could ultimately be used in court.
Until that was established, telling the McCanns ?we have photographs of Madeleine dead? could be premature and potentially devastating.
3. They may have wanted to protect witnesses or the source.
This becomes particularly interesting in light of Stellander?s account. If the information came from someone connected with Br?ckner or his circle, disclosing the precise evidence could potentially identify the source.
4. They may have needed the evidence to remain unknown to Br?ckner.
This is probably the most obvious reason.
If police tell a suspect:
We have photographs showing Madeleine dead.
the suspect immediately knows exactly what the prosecution needs to explain.
Whereas if they simply say:
We have evidence which makes us believe Madeleine is dead,
the suspect has no idea whether that evidence is photographs, witness testimony, telephone records, digital material, forensic evidence, or something else.
⸻
And there is actually a remarkable piece of evidence supporting this principle
In 2021, CBS asked Wolters directly whether his evidence included photographs or video of Madeleine.
His answer was essentially: you can speculate, but he wasn?t allowed to say whether that was correct.
That?s quite revealing.
It doesn?t prove they had photographs. But it demonstrates that photographs/video were precisely the sort of evidential detail Wolters was deliberately refusing to disclose.
And in the same interview he said the German authorities were convinced Br?ckner murdered Madeleine because of the evidence they possessed, while acknowledging that they still needed more evidence to charge him.
