Does Wolters have photographic evidence?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

Apart from the fact that there's no evidence Brueckner abducted Maddie.
No evidence Joana was abducted.
No evidence of any organised child abduction gangs Iin Portugal and no evidence Maddie was abducted or photographed, apart from all that I agree completely.

[Eleanor]

Seems there are quite a few who have been "misled" by this particular pattern and I may be one of them, because the I find the sequence of events compelling in their logic.

2017 seems to have been the year when Christian Brueckner became a person of interest for SY and the BKA.  We do know that the BKA had photographic evidence connected to Brueckner so we can surmise everyone was working away diligently and silently ("The Metropolitan Police seem to have been quietly working on this behind the scenes for some time and to me that is welcome.
"Hopefully we will see that persistence can pay off https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-police-chief-always-suspected-22136267) gathering evidence in the hope finding enough to progress Madeleine's case.   

Nobody knew what they were at.

Then a huge big wrecking ball smashed their cover;  Goncalo Amaral brazenly told all to an Australian podcast.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8387585/Did-Portuguese-police-let-Madeleine-McCanns-abductor-escape-justice.html


Snip

Police investigated Brueckner for weeks in 2016 over Inga's disappearance, which was compared to Maddie's
___________________________________________________________________________

More than 100 officers descended on the old box factory in February 2016, digging holes looking for Inga's body.

The little girl wasn't found but Brueckner's USB stash of child sex abuse images was found on a USB stick hidden under 'animal bones' with police now set to return, according to German tabloid Bild.
___________________________________________________________________________

The Daily Mail can reveal that Brueckner emerged as a 'person of interest' for British police early on in a major Scotland Yard review of the case that started in 2011.
___________________________________________________________________________

Last night, a source said that Brueckner's name cropped up after Met detectives began probing the case but there was no firm evidence then linking him to Madeleine's disappearance.

'He was an itinerant whose exact whereabouts on the night could not be established,' the source added. 'This is why he was not treated as a suspect at that stage.' It was only in 2017 that Brueckner emerged as a potential key suspect, after German police were tipped off about his possible involvement.

According to German law enforcement officials, Brueckner lived almost permanently in the Algarve between 1995 and 2007.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391315/Police-link-jailed-paedophile-abduction-girl-aged-five-2015.html

Oh My.  And we all assumed that The Animal Bones were Brueckner's Dead Dog.  Perhaps they weren't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It sounds like it was speculation which was repeated on various platforms enough times to be seen as 'a well known fact'. It wasn't propaganda, it wasn't deliberate, it was just an example of how a non-fact can become seen as a fact through repetition, which propagandists use. Another prime example imo is how a disappearance became an abduction.

So why did you feel the need to invoke Godwin's Law?  It was OTT, as I said before.

[G-Unit]

So why did you feel the need to invoke Godwin's Law?  It was OTT, as I said before.

As an example/explanation of how people accept something as a fact if it's repeated often enough.

[jassi]

As an example/explanation of how people accept something as a fact if it's repeated often enough.

So many falsehoods abound, that one needs to check source material to see where things originate.

[Mr Gray]

So many falsehoods abound, that one needs to check source material to see where things originate.

I couldn't agree more... I'm afraid Amaral is a prime example of not doing this

[G-Unit]

I couldn't agree more... I'm afraid Amaral is a prime example of not doing this

Our very own version of Godwin's Law, imo, in which "Amaral" replaces "Nazi's or Hitler" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin's%20law%2C%20short%20for%20Godwin's,or%20Hitler%20becomes%20more%20likely.

[Mr Gray]

Our very own version of Godwin's Law, imo, in which "Amaral" replaces "Nazi's or Hitler" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin's%20law%2C%20short%20for%20Godwin's,or%20Hitler%20becomes%20more%20likely.

I think you are dreaming... I'm pointing out Amaral needed to check his sources... Nothing to do with Nazis

[G-Unit]

I think you are dreaming... I'm pointing out Amaral needed to check his sources... Nothing to do with Nazis

Godwin's Law is "an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler becomes more likely."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

On this board we have our own version imo; "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Amaral becomes more likely."

[Mr Gray]

Godwin's Law is "an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler becomes more likely."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

On this board we have our own version imo; "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Amaral becomes more likely."

As he's central to the accusations against the McCanns does that surprise you.  You seem to look at every topic with sceptic eyes.
I see many posts gravitating to leaving the children alone.. Is that another godwins law example

[G-Unit]

As he's central to the accusations against the McCanns does that surprise you.  You seem to look at every topic with sceptic eyes.
I see many posts gravitating to leaving the children alone.. Is that another godwins law example

Amaral is only central in the opinions of the McCanns and their supporters. Those who have doubts about the McCanns don't rely on his accusations quite as much imo.

Leaving the children alone is an admitted fact which is relevant. Godwin's Law has no bearing on it.

[Lace]

Apart from the fact that there's no evidence Brueckner abducted Maddie.
No evidence Joana was abducted.
No evidence of any organised child abduction gangs Iin Portugal and no evidence Maddie was abducted or photographed, apart from all that I agree completely.

Why did Brueckner tell his girlfriend he had a horrible job to do the next day,  the next day being May 3rd,  why did he tell her she wouldn't see him for a while.   As it turned out he left Portugal not long after Madeleine went missing.

[Lace]

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.

Why would Brueckner say he had a horrible JOB to do tomorrow,   IMO that means he was doing a job for someone else.

[Wonderfulspam]

Why would Brueckner say he had a horrible JOB to do tomorrow,   IMO that means he was doing a job for someone else.

I briefly had a job in a meat processing plant when I was about 16, hosing blood & guts down the drains all day.
I can't say I enjoyed it.

[Eleanor]

Why would Brueckner say he had a horrible JOB to do tomorrow,   IMO that means he was doing a job for someone else.

I hadn't actually considered that, but thanks.

Brueckner was a know criminal around The Algarve and good at breaking into buildings.  Who better able?