Ricardo Afonso, deputy lawyer for the McCanns.
Ricardo Afonso spent almost two hours talking about numbers, comparing the Gonçalo Amaral book with selected bits of the case files and trying to discredit the author, the PJ and the dogs, while insisting that the British police didn't agree with the PJ's conclusions that led to the McCanns being made arguidos.
One example of his reasoning: the book starts with a mention of hunters hunting rabbits, which allegedly is out of season. So if the reference to the rabbit hunting season is wrong, everything else in the book is wrong, too.
He tried to dispute the dogs, the DNA tests, Mark Harrison's report which he said was only focused on the death possibility. The PJ, he alleged, was hell bent on accusing the McCanns and made the evidence fit the accusations.
In short, he was reviewing material which was never subject to previous discussion; large parts of his allegations were focused on discussing the investigation and the McCanns' arguido status, with several references to Alipio Ribeiro and his "precipitation" quote.
He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but that the coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns.
The defendant, he said, just wanted to "sell blood, sweat and tears".
He added that the investigation deviated from any objectivity and that the British police, Martin Grime and Mark Harrison realised this and feared that the McCanns were going to be subject to an impulsive, unfounded making of arguidos.
He also recalled that Stuart Prior was "very worried" when he met with the PJ on the 4th September, just days before the McCanns were made arguidos. And that he was worried because he knew it was wrong to accuse them of anything because there was no evidence and the DNA reports were being misread, for the PJ's convenience.
Little if any reference was made addressing his own witnesses' testimonies.
In the end he was interrupted by the judge as he had surpassed his allotted 90 minutes.