Goncalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

In April 2019 Amaral said that a German paedophile who was in prison in Germany would be accused over Madeleine's disappearance. He also said that the man was actually a scapegoat.

I don't think Amaral was likely to have learned anything from Operation Grange or the BKA, so, imo, someone in the PJ let him know what was going on. Someone who wasn't convinced that the German paedophile was guilty.

You make exactly the same error Amaral made in 2007 and throughout all the intervening years since.

It is not for Amaral to decide guilt or innocence.

It is not for the dregs of Amaral's cohorts still operating as law enforcement officers to decide guilt or innocence.  Nor is it the place of serving officers new or old to give out details of an active police investigation to civilians.

In fact - interference in an active police investigation is a flagrant breach of Portuguese law by a man who obviously does not believe the rule of law is applicable to him.

The evidence is the benchmark here and only if and when that evidence results in proof will the decision on guilt or innocence of the suspect be decided.

[Mr Gray]

In April 2019 Amaral said that a German paedophile who was in prison in Germany would be accused over Madeleine's disappearance. He also said that the man was actually a scapegoat.

I don't think Amaral was likely to have learned anything from Operation Grange or the BKA, so, imo, someone in the PJ let him know what was going on. Someone who wasn't convinced that the German paedophile was guilty.

You are making a massive assumption.. That the person who told amaral about CB thought he was a patsy.
The PJ knew CB was being investigated... This was leaked and it was Amaral who came up with the ide of a patsy... Is far more likely imo. I think the idea of the Germans supplying a patsy is daft.. I don't see any reason they would do this

[Eleanor]

Amaral has been abusing Portuguese Law for much longer than fifteen years and sadly getting away with it imo.

Fortunately, Germany is now involved.

[The General]

You are making a massive assumption.. That the person who told amaral about CB thought he was a patsy.
The PJ knew CB was being investigated... This was leaked and it was Amaral who came up with the ide of a patsy... Is far more likely imo. I think the idea of the Germans supplying a patsy is daft.. I don't see any reason they would do this

I think the term is being used out of context. This 'patsy' is actually just not the nonce you are looking for (because he doesn't exist). Not a patsy in the sense of the word as we know it, someone just to pin the blame on, but Amaral had the other part right; convenient. In the wide vicinity of the right place at the right time. Nonce, yes, thief, yes, actually did it, no, that's pretty obvious now.
Circumstantial evidence is dependent upon cogency on the unlikelihood of coincidence. Clearly HCW's evidence does not meet their own legal thresholds to even force an arrest - and it never will.
So I suppose a convenient patsy isn't a bad description after all, Snr Dr.

[jassi]

I think the term is being used out of context. This 'patsy' is actually just not the nonce you are looking for (because he doesn't exist). Not a patsy in the sense of the word as we know it, someone just to pin the blame on, but Amaral had the other part right; convenient. In the wide vicinity of the right place at the right time. Nonce, yes, thief, yes, actually did it, no, that's pretty obvious now.
Circumstantial evidence is dependent upon cogency on the unlikelihood of coincidence. Clearly HCW's evidence does not meet their own legal thresholds to even force an arrest - and it never will.
So I suppose a convenient patsy isn't a bad description after all, Snr Dr.

Yup. even when eventually released from prison, uncharged, he'll  still be known as  the 'one that did it'

[Venturi Swirl]

Once more you are changing the discussion by asking your bolded question. I said;

"Someone who wasn't convinced that the German paedophile was guilty."

As to your second comment the whistleblower (if there was one) did what s/he did because a) they had doubts and b) they were bound by judicial secrecy. Amaral wasn't.

On what basis would a police officer in the PJ know enough of the evidence against CB to decide it was unlikely he was guilty and a mere patsy instead?  Why would "having doubts" be a good enough reason to attempt to scupper the German investigation by divulging such information to Dr Blabbermouth himself?  That's seriously unprofessional, and I sincerely hope (but also completely doubt) that the PJ have mounted an internal investigation to find out the identity of this mole in their midst.  Seeing as how speculation is no longer anathema to you, perhaps you would like to have a go at speculating why the PJ appear not to be investigating the parents and seem to be assisting the Germans with their investigation into CB...?

[Venturi Swirl]

You are making a massive assumption.. That the person who told amaral about CB thought he was a patsy.
The PJ knew CB was being investigated... This was leaked and it was Amaral who came up with the ide of a patsy... Is far more likely imo. I think the idea of the Germans supplying a patsy is daft.. I don't see any reason they would do this

Exactly, I made the same observation earlier but it was ignored.

[Brietta]

Once more you are changing the discussion by asking your bolded question. I said;

"Someone who wasn't convinced that the German paedophile was guilty."

As to your second comment the whistleblower (if there was one) did what s/he did because a) they had doubts and b) they were bound by judicial secrecy. Amaral wasn't.

Amaral never let the issue of judicial secrecy stand in the way of a good story did he - although he did pay lip service to it when it suited him.

Which is why he must have been really desperate to break his cover to get the lie of the physical appearance of the prime suspect into the public domain.

I really don't think I will be alone in thinking that very odd indeed nor do I think it will be as easily airbrushed out of history as it is from sceptic lore.

It is a really big deal to purposely release and promote misleading descriptive information about a suspect when the real police are in the process of collecting as much evidence about him as they can.

[Eleanor]

Yup. even when eventually released from prison, uncharged, he'll  still be known as  the 'one that did it'

That will be forever applied to The McCanns if your prediction is correct.

I can only hope that The Germans keep tabs on him.  Guilty or not, Brueckner is a dangerous man.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'd like to know how smartarse sceptics know for a fact that CB didn't do it.  What is the clinching evidence upon which they can base such confidence in his innocence.  Surely even the lowest intelligence sceptic must realise that an absence of evidence does not clear the man of possible involvement - in fact they MUST know this as it's what they've been telling us about the McCanns for years!

[The General]

Amaral never let the issue of judicial secrecy stand in the way of a good story did he - although he did pay lip service to it when it suited him.

Which is why he must have been really desperate to break his cover to get the lie of the physical appearance of the prime suspect into the public domain.

I really don't think I will be alone in thinking that very odd indeed nor do I think it will be as easily airbrushed out of history as it is from sceptic lore.

It is a really big deal to purposely release and promote misleading descriptive information about a suspect when the real police are in the process of collecting as much evidence about him as they can.

The libel just keeps coming....Libelapalooza.

[Eleanor]

That's great.
The whole post is libelous.
And so is yours. It's a libelfest. We should rename the thread - Mod and Ex Mod Libelfest

Report it then.  Although you don't appear to understand Libel either.

[The General]

That will be forever applied to The McCanns if your prediction is correct.

I can only hope that The Germans keep tabs on him.  Guilty or not, Brueckner is a dangerous man.

You're enabling him by propagating the online myth that will make him millions, that will provide him the resources to do whatever he wants.

[The General]

Report it then.  Although you don't appear to understand Libel either.

Crack on. You're in a fortunate position that you would fall in to the category of 'online troll', so will probably be under the radar of libel action, with bigger fish for his legal team to fry.

[The General]

I'd like to know how smartarse sceptics know for a fact that CB didn't do it.  What is the clinching evidence upon which they can base such confidence in his innocence.  Surely even the lowest intelligence sceptic must realise that an absence of evidence does not clear the man of possible involvement - in fact they MUST know this as it's what they've been telling us about the McCanns for years!

There's only one smart arsed sceptic here, but you're not reading my posts, but reading them anyway.
I know he didn't do it. 'It' didn't happen, never mind him doing 'it'. I also know they can't even cobble together the evidence to arrest and question - that's a reeeeaaalllyyy low bar by the way, you only need reasonable suspicion, HECK, they could've even questione dhim as a witness, but they blew that too. This crap about 'showing zee handz' is just a giggle really.