Goncalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

Apart from the fact that it's contemporaneous, first hand, eye witness, collectively corroborated, taken seriously, transcribed in to an official statement / witness testimony, impartial, pertinent to the investigation, robustly upheld by the witnesses and thoroughly investigated.

I now see where your skewed view of evidence originates, if you think an eye witness statement is of the same or less evidential value as a tin foil hat armchair (or dentist chair) detective's ramblings.

No more reliable..

[The General]

No more reliable..

Which is the same as ≤

[faithlilly]

I'm not sure why you're referring to November 2011.

- The case was archived on 21 July, 2008.

- Amaral's book came out on 24 July, 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#cite_note-204

- The CD of the files was apparently released during the first week of August 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/05/madeleinemccann.portugal

I don't particularly feel like wading through the entire Netflix series again, but I believe Sandra said she'd gone through the files (particularly the DNA) in October , I presume in 2008. I'm happy to stand corrected, if anyone else feels like checking.

The "ask-the-dogs" interview took place in London on 3 November 2009 and was shown on RTP on 5 Nov .
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-november-2009-t5162.html

- And, as I said earlier, she was interviewed on the Plaça de Alegria chat show on 11 Nov, 2009.

Numerous disapproving comments by Amaral's supporters were posted on that thread concerning that interview, which - helpfully - offered the gist.

Apologies I got the 11 and 9 mixed up.

So are you still maintaining that SF didn’t know that she’d allegedly been lied until after the ‘ask the dogs’ interview?

[Mr Gray]

Which is the same as ≤

all are relatively unreliable

[Wonderfulspam]

You do it.  The choice is yours.

I'm not the one claiming there's evidence against him.

[Eleanor]

I'm not the one claiming there's evidence against him.

Then shut up about it.

[Venturi Swirl]

Apart from the fact that it's contemporaneous, first hand, eye witness, collectively corroborated, taken seriously, transcribed in to an official statement / witness testimony, impartial, pertinent to the investigation, robustly upheld by the witnesses and thoroughly investigated.

I now see where your skewed view of evidence originates, if you think an eye witness statement is of the same or less evidential value as a tin foil hat armchair (or dentist chair) detective's ramblings.

The Germans say have eye witness testimony that Bruckner was bragging in a bar that he knew what happened to Madeleine McCann.  First hand eyewitnesses, collectively collaborated, taken seriously, transcribed into an official statement, pertinent to the investigation and thoroughly investigated.  I trust you accept this IS evidence against Bruckner? 

[Wonderfulspam]

Then shut up about it.

No, you shut up.

[Eleanor]

No, you shut up.

I haven't said anything against this man.  I believe that he is innocent until proven guilty.

[Brietta]

I'm not sure why you're referring to November 2011.

- The case was archived on 21 July, 2008.

- Amaral's book came out on 24 July, 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#cite_note-204

- The CD of the files was apparently released during the first week of August 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/05/madeleinemccann.portugal

I don't particularly feel like wading through the entire Netflix series again, but I believe Sandra said she'd gone through the files (particularly the DNA) in October , I presume in 2008. I'm happy to stand corrected, if anyone else feels like checking.

The "ask-the-dogs" interview took place in London on 3 November 2009 and was shown on RTP on 5 Nov .
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-november-2009-t5162.html

- And, as I said earlier, she was interviewed on the Plaça de Alegria chat show on 11 Nov, 2009.

Numerous disapproving comments by Amaral's supporters were posted on that thread concerning that interview, which - helpfully - offered the gist.

Hi all, I'll upload Sandra Felgueiras appearance at the RTP show 'Praça da Alegria' as soon as possible. [you won't like it though...]  Morais  Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:06:00 pm

I knew about and remembered the badly publicised link you were looking for initially, Carana. and I believe we had the same sort of discussion about it on the forum some time ago.

From the posts generated by Morais Portuguese followers it can be seen that they have already viewed the interview in which Sandra Felgueiras had complained about Amaral's misrepresentation of the DNA results and they didn't like it at all.
Which is why she warned her English speakers they "won't like it" either.

Probably the reason Sandra Fergueilas wasn't evicted from the gallery years before she fell from grace was the suppression of the truth.  But just because Morais denialism didn't allow the promised translation to be added to her collection of transcripts didn't mean it didn't happen.
It very obviously did.

But at a time of the ostriches sticking their heads into the sand about Amaral's prior knowledge of Brueckner etc. what an eminently ridiculous thing for sceptics to pounce on as a diversion.
I don't think the Brueckner saga is going to go away because Morais chooses to ignore it.

[Carana]

Apologies I got the 11 and 9 mixed up.

So are you still maintaining that SF didn’t know that she’d allegedly been lied until after the ‘ask the dogs’ interview?

Can you refer to where I've ever said she didn't know until after the "dogs" interview?

[Robittybob1]

I have seen no evidence of Amaral being constrained by fear of the courts. Is that your wishful thinking? There may be more evidence than the Germans are sharing, but at the moment there's less than the PJ had against the McCanns. It was possible to prove that they entered 5A, for a start.

That can't be evidence.  If they live there, of course they will be within the residence.

[Robittybob1]

I would say theres more against Breukner. pedro da Carmo said there is no evidence aginst the McCanns . what evidence do you think there is...i dont see any real evidence.

He said no evidence at the moment.  Things have changed since then.

[faithlilly]

Can you refer to where I've ever said she didn't know until after the "dogs" interview?

So you think that she did know before the interview but gave the parents a thoroughly hard time because.... ?

Further if she knew that Amaral was lying to her about the forensics ie the cellular matter taken from the apartment...why ask about the dog’s alerts ?

[Eleanor]

That can't be evidence.  If they live there, of course they will be within the residence.

How very clever of you to have spotted that.  I missed it.  No really, I did.  But then it is pretty obvious.