Do you think pointing out what someone saw or said is;
Drawing attention to their evidence or;
Declaring an unshakeable belief in that evidence?
In my opinion you are conflating the two.
Conflating the evidence is precisely what Amaral was paid to do. Unfortunately the ability to combine more than one piece of evidence into component parts of another was not his strong point.
Amaral had the means to have the access to Brueckner's file and according to him he was looked at along with a hundred others at the time.
Amaral didn't bother too much that Brueckner wasn't traced and interviewed at the time (he already had his culprits firmly in his sights, according to him}. A missing paedophile immediately after a child disappears ~ didn't ring alarm bells ???
If he had been traced and interviewed his cell phone number would have been found and matched against the phone dump organised by the British police.
Then Amaral already had the case cracked didn't he ... every ping of the McCann's phones were registered and exhaustively scrutinised by his investigation.
The only problem being they were the wrong phones and since Amaral has emerged as the expert on the vehicle being driven at the time by the known missing from Luz, paedophile Brueckner ... why wasn't he looking for it and its occupants???
A little bit of conflating by Amaral might have gone a very long way back in 2007.