Some believe the McCanns and some don't, including Amaral. Some are happy to ignore the inconsistencies in the statements and some aren't, including Amaral. For me, I don't know why people believe the McCanns, but I can see the inconsistencies for myself.
Given that a new prime suspect has emerged into the public domain thirteen years after Madeleine vanished and Amaral was put in charge of her case, reading what he says now, clarifies the personal limitations which resulted in Madeleine’s case going in fast circles to nowhere.
InterviewerSo, in your opinion, does the German pedophile being investigated now appear?
AmaralExactly, as the couple says that he has been a paedophile since the first hour, a paedophile has to appear.InterviewerBut was he really at Praia da Luz at the time of the facts?
AmaralHe and a hundred more.
It was not the only case.
That is why I consider this suspect to be a scapegoat and this has happened over the years.
I say the same thing again, first prove that there was a kidnapping there and you can only prove it if that couple and their friends speak the truth. You look for one thing without proving another.
Interviewer Is that why you say this suspect is almost perfect?
AmaralIt has a pedophile profile.
This disclosure was about to move forward last year ...
InterviewerBut facts have been released now, like the van, his image ...
AmaralThe German police were to disclose the two forms of the van, what it would look like without the paintings and how it was now transported to Germany with figures. That is how we would be serious.
The other issue concerns the image of the suspect himself.
There is an image that is being published, but you cannot show someone's image after a few years.
Showing images at 43 is not the same thing as showing at 30.
In 2006, which is the closest year to the event, he ( Christian Brückner ) had another image, with a little short hair. In 2007, there are people who claim that he looked like a hippie with hair behind his back.
And here we come back to the question of hair and testimonies following the disappearance in which the couple's friend says she saw a man with short hair.
What is asked is why robot images and portraits are allowed that go against a certain profile of someone who is similar to what was said in that statement.InterviewerWhat does this German citizen know today, what was known in 2007?
AmaralNo. If we knew what is known today, we would have to find out.
InterviewerDid this name appear at the time?
AmaralThey told me that it will have appeared on a list with more than a hundred names. InterviewerToday, with all that is known, what should be done?
AmaralBack to the point of the investigation where she was in September 2007.
Being aware of the information about Brueckner now in the public domain ... Amaral can see no further than back in 2007 the parents of a missing child were horrified that she might have been abducted by a paedophile.
Brueckner is their 'scapegoat' in Amaral's opinion.
Thirteen years on with all that has come to pass Amaral thinks that only a return to the Amaral version of investigation of 2007 before he was sacked from it will achieve results.
I think that is mindbogglingly incredible and I seriously think this guy has issues which a normal personality would know not to air on a public platform lest people start to put a name to whatever it is his issues may be.
