Goncalo Amaral.

[G-Unit]

So, you misrepresented what Brietta wrote, at least you admit it. 
Believing your child was abducted by persons unknown and promoting that theory = not libellous
Believing a child was killed and  her body disposed of by her parents and promoting that theory = libellous. 
Do you see the difference now?

What about writing a book explaining how and why a police investigation reached the conclusion that a child wasn't abducted, but that she died and her parents decided not to surrender her body?

[Mr Gray]

What about writing a book explaining how and why a police investigation reached the conclusion that a child wasn't abducted, but that she died and her parents decided not to surrender her body?

If your  evidence wasnt sound ...as amarals wasnt..it would be libellous. If you quoted parts of the files but failed to give a true overall picture.as amaral did  ..that too would be libellous

[Venturi Swirl]

What about writing a book explaining how and why a police investigation reached the conclusion that a child wasn't abducted, but that she died and her parents decided not to surrender her body?

What about it?What if HCW jacked it all in tomorrow and wrote a book about how CB abducted and murdered Madeleine would that not be libellous in your view?

[G-Unit]

If your  evidence wasnt sound ...as amarals wasnt..it would be libellous. If you quoted parts of the files but failed to give a true overall picture.as amaral did  ..that too would be libellous

Whatever your opinion is, at the moment Amaral has not been found guilty of libel.

[Mr Gray]

Whatever your opinion is, at the moment Amaral has not been found guilty of libel.

I didnt say he had...but what he has stated is libel per se

[G-Unit]

I didnt say he had...but what he has stated is libel per se

In your opinion.

[Mr Gray]

In your opinion.

No its not opinion...its fact. You obviously dont understand what libel per se means...try google

[Brietta]

It seems as though Barrier is under the impression that Bruckner may have got himself some rasta hair extensions and a new paint job for the van in the few weeks between the video showing him with short hair and the 3rd May 2007.

Thanks for your interpretation SV - I don't know what Barrier's post meant - but I don't think that can be the answer.

To make what he says true would require Amaral to have prior knowledge of

• Brueckner's identity circa 2007
• his cartooned vehicle circa 2007
• his physical appearance 2007

which had he known and investigated would have appeared somewhere in the files if not the internet ones we have seen but the real police files accessible to police investigators.

It just doesn't explain how Amaral was able to make the assertions he did.

[Brietta]

What about writing a book explaining how and why a police investigation reached the conclusion that a child wasn't abducted, but that she died and her parents decided not to surrender her body?

Isn't that precisely what Amaral did.

[barrier]

Thanks for your interpretation SV - I don't know what Barrier's post meant - but I don't think that can be the answer.

To make what he says true would require Amaral to have prior knowledge of

• Brueckner's identity circa 2007
• his cartooned vehicle circa 2007
• his physical appearance 2007

which had he known and investigated would have appeared somewhere in the files if not the internet ones we have seen but the real police files accessible to police investigators.

It just doesn't explain how Amaral was able to make the assertions he did.

Was CB a known sex offender at the time, if the answer is yes then his name could well be in the unreleased files, which Amaral might well have known of.

[Lace]

Or that he was a bit skint and was being paid for his appearance and the information he said he had. Not everything’s a conspiracy?

It can be called a conspiracy if someone purposely tries to derail an investigation with made up information.   Can you come up with any plausible explanation for Amaral's actions?

[jassi]

It can be called a conspiracy if someone purposely tries to derail an investigation with made up information.   Can you come up with any plausible explanation for Amaral's actions?

You can't have a conspiracy of one. You need at least two. 

[Brietta]

Was CB a known sex offender at the time, if the answer is yes then his name could well be in the unreleased files, which Amaral might well have known of.

My post covers that eventuality.  "... the real police files accessible to police investigators."  Armchair detectives like us had no access to them - but the police investigators always did.

Therefore if Amaral had known of Brueckner from those official files - so would every other investigative officer.

Apparently Brueckner's name didn't come into it until Scotland Yard sought information about him from the BKA in 2013 when they checked the phone data.

Which raises the very pertinent question I asked regarding Amaral and Brueckner and from where Amaral got the information about Brueckner's van and Brueckner's appearance which enabled him to appear on TV with the mocked up images he had.

[Brietta]

It can be called a conspiracy if someone purposely tries to derail an investigation with made up information.   Can you come up with any plausible explanation for Amaral's actions?

In my book Amaral's actions rank as interfering with an active police investigation.

[Lace]

You can't have a conspiracy of one. You need at least two. 

Who give him the photo's?