Goncalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

There is no record that he didn't wear his hair in a dreadlock style either and since Amaral had access to most of the information about Bruckner at the time of Maddie's disappearance he was best placed to know what hairstyle the new prime suspect had at that time and not now 15 years on.

I see no reason why Amaral has to fabricate anything. Every court in Portugal and the ECHR has vindicated him.

I don't know if Amaral had information about Brueckner's appearance at any time during his residency in the Algarve and elsewhere.

Nor do I know what information regarding Brueckner if any, Amaral was privy to.  Although I do find it pretty alarming when you post the suggestion that Amaral

• knew about Brueckner at the time of Madeleine's disappearance
• to the extent of Amaral knowing what Brueckner looked like
• but did absolutely nothing about conducting a process of investigating known paedophiles for elimination purposes - preferring instead to investigate the mother of the missing child in the midst of a propaganda war fomented by Amaral

According to a translation supplied by Textusa an interviewer did ask the pertinent question and got short shrift when Amaral's response rather suggests he wasn't really bothered ~

JAC: You know also... anyway, I would like to... that is, what I would like to understand is if he was investigated and if... why did the interest in him disappear, or if he was never taken seriously, with the information that was there at the time?

GA: You know... the, the information there was about paedophiles was only that they were paedophiles and people who were close to the village and as José Alberto said, they are in the hundreds and it is not possible to investigate each one in detail. Going further, I remember that, for example, we reached Albufeira… Albufeira [60Km East of PdL] and Tavira [120 km East of PdL] and so on, and investigations cannot be done that way…

Interesting that.

In the midst of a missing child case a senior investigating officer dismisses investigating paedophiles and years later gives misleading information about a suspect already convicted and serving time for child abuse amongst other offences.

I think that information requires to be given some very serious contemplation indeed.

[Wonderfulspam]

I don't know if Amaral had information about Brueckner's appearance at any time during his residency in the Algarve and elsewhere.

Nor do I know what information regarding Brueckner if any, Amaral was privy to.  Although I do find it pretty alarming when you post the suggestion that Amaral

• knew about Brueckner at the time of Madeleine's disappearance
• to the extent of Amaral knowing what Brueckner looked like
• but did absolutely nothing about conducting a process of investigating known paedophiles for elimination purposes - preferring instead to investigate the mother of the missing child in the midst of a propaganda war fomented by Amaral

According to a translation supplied by Textusa an interviewer did ask the pertinent question and got short shrift when Amaral's response rather suggests he wasn't really bothered ~

JAC: You know also... anyway, I would like to... that is, what I would like to understand is if he was investigated and if... why did the interest in him disappear, or if he was never taken seriously, with the information that was there at the time?

GA: You know... the, the information there was about paedophiles was only that they were paedophiles and people who were close to the village and as José Alberto said, they are in the hundreds and it is not possible to investigate each one in detail. Going further, I remember that, for example, we reached Albufeira… Albufeira [60Km East of PdL] and Tavira [120 km East of PdL] and so on, and investigations cannot be done that way…

Interesting that.

In the midst of a missing child case a senior investigating officer dismisses investigating paedophiles and years later gives misleading information about a suspect already convicted and serving time for child abuse amongst other offences.

I think that information requires to be given some very serious contemplation indeed.

Sigh.   You know there's quite a difference between being a paedophile (having a decades old conviction for child molestation) & being a child abductor. Right?

Were the PJ supposed to be kicking down the doors of everyone who'd ever touched a child, been to prison, served their sentence then never offended again, just on the off chance the might have found their way to the Ocean Club on May 3rd?   

The impression I get here is that the answer would be 'YES', & as Amaral explains, investigations can't be conducted that way.

Probable cause is needed.

But no, of course, Brueckner touched a couple of girls in his native Germany ten years prior, so obviously the police should have been tracking him down & kneeling on his neck the very moment Maddie disappeared. Even though there was absolutely nothing to suggest that he in particular, could be responsible for her disappearance.

[Wonderfulspam]

"did absolutely nothing about conducting a process of investigating known paedophiles for elimination purposes"

You're the PJ.

You go to a known sex offenders house, (even though there's absolutely nothing to suggest he in particular abducted Maddie) you knock on his door, he exercises his right to remain silent & won't let officers search his home.

You can't force the man to talk, & can't search his home without a warrant.

What's your next move?

[Wonderfulspam]

You mean this one?  Clearly a photoshopped image but not fabricated.

Do you know, in some of his photos he's not the worst looking guy in the world.
He'd probably wear a nice tan in that Algarve sun every summer.
Tall, blonde, tanned & handsome.
Can see why the ladies liked him. 
(Well, some of them anyway. Not the ones he was raping obviously)

[G-Unit]

Sigh.   You know there's quite a difference between being a paedophile (having a decades old conviction for child molestation) & being a child abductor. Right?

Were the PJ supposed to be kicking down the doors of everyone who'd ever touched a child, been to prison, served their sentence then never offended again, just on the off chance the might have found their way to the Ocean Club on May 3rd?   

The impression I get here is that the answer would be 'YES', & as Amaral explains, investigations can't be conducted that way.

Probable cause is needed.

But no, of course, Brueckner touched a couple of girls in his native Germany ten years prior, so obviously the police should have been tracking him down & kneeling on his neck the very moment Maddie disappeared. Even though there was absolutely nothing to suggest that he in particular, could be responsible for her disappearance.

Ah but now we know someone phoned him on 3rd. If Amaral had done his job he would have noticed that phone call, identified who the phone belonged to and pounced! On the other hand, I think even the marvellous Met might have missed that too.

[Wonderfulspam]

Ah but now we know someone phoned him on 3rd. If Amaral had done his job he would have noticed that phone call, identified who the phone belonged to and pounced! On the other hand, I think even the marvellous Met might have missed that too.

If there had been a flurry of phone activity, between two or more mobiles, around 8pm (when the McCanns were getting ready to leave for the tapas) & 10pm, that could raise eyebrows & require closer attention, perhaps. But one half hour phone call between 7:30pm & 8pm doesn't exactly leap of the page & scream 'child abductor' does it?! If you're honest & objective about the matter.

[Brietta]

Ah but now we know someone phoned him on 3rd. If Amaral had done his job he would have noticed that phone call, identified who the phone belonged to and pounced! On the other hand, I think even the marvellous Met might have missed that too.

The "marvellous Met" did spot anomalies in the phone analysis when they took Madeleine's case on.

Don't tell me that is something else you don't know!

[Wonderfulspam]

The "marvellous Met" did spot anomalies in the phone analysis when they took Madeleine's case on.

Don't tell me that is something else you don't know!

...and all they found were a couple of petty thieves who had absolutely no connection at all to Madeleine's disappearance. imo

[Wonderfulspam]

...and all they found were a couple of petty thieves who had absolutely no connection at all to Madeleine's disappearance. imo

No....Brietta, not IMO.

The burglars have long since been ruled out.

[Wonderfulspam]

Everyone is still a potential suspect in Brietta's world, 

[sadie]

There is no record that he didn't wear his hair in a dreadlock style either and since Amaral had access to most of the information about Bruckner at the time of Maddie's disappearance he was best placed to know what hairstyle the new prime suspect had at that time and not now 15 years on.

I see no reason why Amaral has to fabricate anything. Every court in Portugal and the ECHR has vindicated him.

Do you have any comprehension of how long it would take for his hair to gow that long Angelo?

I have just grown mine and imo it would take well over a year.



It didn't happen in a couple of months or so.   Various websites give various growth rates and aparantly it depends upon a number of factors.   But the overal impression given is that it is a slow job, not a fast one.   

Given that we have the video showing him shortly before Madeleines abduction picturing him with short hair, he can't possibly have had long hair on May 3rd, 2007.

As usual, Brietta is right.

[G-Unit]

Do you have any comprehension of how long it would take for his hair to gow that long Angelo?

I have just grown mine and imo it would take well over a year.



It didn't happen in a couple of months or so.   Various websites give various growth rates and aparantly it depends upon a number of factors.   But the overal impression given is that it is a slow job, not a fast one.   

Given that we have the video showing him shortly before Madeleines abduction picturing him with short hair, he can't possibly have had long hair on May 3rd, 2007.

As usual, Brietta is right.

Dreadlocks can be attached to short hair in a few hours.

[G-Unit]

Just in case anyone is unaware, the attacks on Amaral began in 2009, with efforts to use an injunction to stop him from airing his opinions on the Madeleine McCann disappearance. They continued unabated until the decision by the ECHR in September 2022 that he was always entitled to give his opinions. Thirteen years of effort and goodness knows how much in legal fees and costs wasted imo.

[Brietta]

Just in case anyone is unaware, the attacks on Amaral began in 2009, with efforts to use an injunction to stop him from airing his opinions on the Madeleine McCann disappearance. They continued unabated until the decision by the ECHR in September 2022 that he was always entitled to give his opinions. Thirteen years of effort and goodness knows how much in legal fees and costs wasted imo.

Hmmm ... is that your definition of "the attacks on Amaral".

I would think you've actually got that entirely arse for elbow unless you think it unreasonable to defend oneself from the lie that one has killed one's child and secreted her body in a place never to be found.

Then you do, don't you.

[G-Unit]

Hmmm ... is that your definition of "the attacks on Amaral".

I would think you've actually got that entirely arse for elbow unless you think it unreasonable to defend oneself from the lie that one has killed one's child and secreted her body in a place never to be found.

Then you do, don't you.

When and where did Amaral accuse the McCanns of killing their child? Not in his much maligned and misquoted book;

The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila
da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their
daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
TOTL final page.