Does Wolters have photographic evidence?

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Holly, I suggest you stay in touch and familiarise yourself with the current discourse. You seem to deliberately catapult yourself into the Forum whenever it suits you.

Hi Anthro, please answer the question preferably with a cite.  Thank you. 

[Eleanor]

Hi Anthro, please answer the question preferably with a cite.  Thank you.

Members are not expected to give Cites that have already been given.

[jassi]

Members are not expected to give Cites that have already been given.

In this case it was a cite that did not show or support what was claimed.

[Eleanor]

In this case it was a cite that did not show or support what was claimed.

There are far too many unnecessary Cites being demanded that have already been supplied.

There is a perfectly adequate Search Facility.  Use it.

[jassi]

There are far too many unnecessary Cites being demanded that have already been supplied.

There is a perfectly adequate Search Facility.  Use it.

That is a totally inappropriate response from a 'senior' moderator.  IMO

[jassi]

There are far too many unnecessary Cites being demanded that have already been supplied.

There is a perfectly adequate Search Facility.  Use it.

I disagree with your stance and have reported it

[G-Unit]

There are far too many unnecessary Cites being demanded that have already been supplied.

There is a perfectly adequate Search Facility.  Use it.

If someone claims that "It is a well known fact that German officials discovered something related to Madeleine during their search of Inga at the abandoned factory owned by Brückner." that needs a cite to support it, because I have never seen anything to support that "fact". All we have seen is a cite that does not support it.

[John]

If someone claims that "It is a well known fact that German officials discovered something related to Madeleine during their search of Inga at the abandoned factory owned by Brückner." that needs a cite to support it, because I have never seen anything to support that "fact". All we have seen is a cite that does not support it.

I agree

[Brietta]

I am a great believer that members should provide cites whether asked for or not (and I am usually roundly derided for doing so).  But not all cites are accurate. 
For example "the bloody footprint" in the McCann apartment springs to mind ~

"Blood

There is also the evidence of a "partial footwear mark" found just outside Madeleine's bedroom which had traces of blood in it visible to the naked eye, according to a forensics report.

Laboratory tests in Birmingham were inconclusive but found there was a "moderate" chance the blood was the youngster's. There were also specks of blood said to be on the walls of the bedroom, but forensic results have been inconclusive." https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id21.htm

Which is of course absolute nonsense while being a valid cite.

As far as the evidence Wolter's has regarding Brueckner's association with Madeleine's case which seems to have prompted him to believe that Brueckner is guilty of murdering her ... it had to come from somewhere.

As far as is known, while searching for evidence regarding Inge's disappearance some of Brueckner's pornographic collection was uncovered.

We know nothing was found to connect this material with Inge.  But there is a supposition that some of it may relate to Madeleine and I believe there has been a bit of internet discussion to that effect ~ which I would have supposed anyone with interest in the case might be up to speed with.

That Wolter's information may spring from the source indicated in Anthro's post is a fair notion I think.  Particularly as I am sure we may have already discussed it on the forum.

But one thing for certain sure is that "the bloody shoe" cite from Pamalam is so outdated it has spiders webs hanging from it but no accompanying health warning as to its inaccuracy ~ Anthro is dealing with current information which is generally 100% accurate.
Which generally beats the circa 2007 info still in vogue for some - it isn't often that Anthro slips up but I'm sure she will rest easy now in the full knowledge that she has a fan club dedicated to keeping her on her toes - I know I take the greatest solace from having the same one myself 😁

[jassi]

Of what relevance is this to Wolters' photographic evidence, the subject of this thread ?

[Eleanor]

I have decided that I think Brueckner was employed by someone else to abduct Madeleine and then to pass her on.  And possibly Joanna Cipriano as well.  Nothing much different from my original Theory, excepting that I didn't have anyone in particular in mind as The Abductor.

If in fact it was Brueckner then he might have been required to take a photo of Madeleine, before, during or after the abduction to confirm that he had the right child.  Wolters might have found this.

[jassi]

I have decided that I think Brueckner was employed by someone else to abduct Madeleine and then to pass her on.  And possibly Joanna Cipriano as well.  Nothing much different from my original Theory, excepting that I didn't have anyone in particular in mind as The Abductor.

If in fact it was Brueckner then he might have been required to take a photo of Madeleine, before, during or after the abduction to confirm that he had the right child.  Wolters might have found this.

How would you square this idea with Wolters' claim that Brueckner murdered Madeleine?
If he was commissioned to take her, then he's unlikely to have killed her  IMO

[barrier]

There are far too many unnecessary Cites being demanded that have already been supplied.

There is a perfectly adequate Search Facility.  Use it.

All very well but the search will not find that which is not there.

[Eleanor]

How would you square this idea with Wolters' claim that Brueckner murdered Madeleine?
If he was commissioned to take her, then he's unlikely to have killed her  IMO

I don't have to square it.  Until they find a body or get a confession I am not going to believe Madeleine is dead.
And possibly not even then.

[Brietta]

I have decided that I think Brueckner was employed by someone else to abduct Madeleine and then to pass her on.  And possibly Joanna Cipriano as well.  Nothing much different from my original Theory, excepting that I didn't have anyone in particular in mind as The Abductor.

If in fact it was Brueckner then he might have been required to take a photo of Madeleine, before, during or after the abduction to confirm that he had the right child.  Wolters might have found this.

There has always been talk along those lines of photographs being taken of children.  It was a line of inquiry for the Judicial Police https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/A14_5/14_volume_XIV_apenso_V_3033-90.jpg which the McCann detectives followed as did Scotland Yard when they came on board.

It is perfectly possible that Brueckner was a link in the chain.