Re your point 1
I agree and don't find it surprising to assume she is dead - it is actually logical given everything we know. Especially if LE believe based on some withheld evidence, that CB is guilty then the theory of the case will be she is dead. Like 99.99%
This is why we don't need to assume they have a picture - the inference flows from his suspected guilt.
Re your point 2
Do you think if the German police found hard forensic evidence of MMs death, let's say a blood trace that somehow could not be tied to CB, that they would conceal this?
If not, why would it be different for a photo?
I believe they would immediately announce any such breakthrough which proved abduction and 99.99% death - if only because there is no way in hell German police will leave the parents believing she might be alive for years when they can prove otherwise.
This is why I think there is no photo - rather there is a piece of evidence that makes police believe he is guilty - say more likely guilty then not but not BARD. And if he is guilty, the only logical inference is she is dead.
I always think Police officers and prosecutors are very careful and measured in their public statements regardless of what they believe privately.
For point 1 I imagine that most police forces fear the very worse when a child has been missing for more than 24 hours because the stats are grim. Most have died between 3 and 6 hours after abduction. And yet most police forces will continue to publicly state it as missing person enquiry, with a 'fears for safety' sometimes tagged on.
UK LE - who are not party to whatever Germany has but will be able to check CB for themselves - stated that for them it remained a missing persons case.
Very accurate inferences of death may flow from any evidence of his involvement, such as finding her clothing, but personally I don't think it would lead to such categorical public statements before a charge Especially if they hoped to use it in a court of law. We've already seen how good his lawyers are.
So from what they're saying, IMOO, they must have something beyond just knowing that if CB is involved the poor child won't have survived.
They clearly do not have forensic evidence she is dead because only a body provides that. Nothing else.
But they do claim to have very good evidence not only that she is but also that she died reasonably shortly after being abducted. They didn't say fears she was dead and they gave a time limit. They also seem to imply they know how but that's my opinion. But that I find telling
So my opinion is they have some evidence, beyond inference, of what happened to her tho not necessarily of HIS guilt BARD.
The only thing I can think of, given his MO and what we know they've found, is images where he cannot be identified BARD. But if you have other ideas I'd be interested to hear them.
I'd add to that - the fact they've released poor quality pictures of rooms in his house which is odd. And that they've said they believe other person's have knowledge of what happened.
Why? Maybe they believe someone might have purchased recordings of something happening in that room from him. If they come forward they have another link. MOO
They may not have said they have images but when asked directly they did not deny it which speaks volumes.
There are some pictures you cannot show the world Nor would you want to show parents until you had to. But they have left her parents in no doubt that they think she's dead.
The only other thing I can think of is that they have a belief such images exist elsewhere and they are trying to smoke out others
Lastly her parents are Drs - they are even more than aware than a non scientist of what 99% sure she's dead means. They are not being given false hope
Still trying to find the post with the dented VW from the 30th though 
