Goncalo Amaral.

[G-Unit]

Then they are both idiots.

I don't think it's idiotic to listen to what people have to say; listening to just one point of view is what's idiotic imo. Neither is Amaral an idiot; it wasn't him who had to pay the costs for a long running defamation trial.

[Eleanor]

I don't think it's idiotic to listen to what people have to say; listening to just one point of view is what's idiotic imo. Neither is Amaral an idiot; it wasn't him who had to pay the costs for a long running defamation trial.

Amaral paid his own costs up front, as is the rule.

[Mr Gray]

I don't think it's idiotic to listen to what people have to say; listening to just one point of view is what's idiotic imo. Neither is Amaral an idiot; it wasn't him who had to pay the costs for a long running defamation trial.

Amaral clearly did not understand the evidence. fact not opinion. The interim report decided the mccanns were guilty.

His poor understanding clearly shows he had no expertise in the case. I can imagine what he told FF...its laughable

[Mr Gray]

I don't think it's idiotic to listen to what people have to say; listening to just one point of view is what's idiotic imo. Neither is Amaral an idiot; it wasn't him who had to pay the costs for a long running defamation trial.

As for the defamation case...it may well be shown the SC was incompetent too

[Wonderfulspam]

If I were Brueckner's lawyer I'd definitely be interested in speaking to Amaral. He was there at the beginning and says there's no evidence that Madeleine was abducted.

Fulscher has nothing to work with.
He has Brueckners partial alibi for the night of 'the abduction' & no evidence Maddie was ever abducted in the first place, apart from because the McCanns said so.
Certainly, SY the PJ & Wolters are yet to reveal any abduction evidence to Fulscher, & can't see themselves doing so any time in the foreseeable future, so maybe there just isn't any.

[G-Unit]

Amaral paid his own costs up front, as is the rule.

Do you think that makes a difference? The McCanns paid theirs up front too, but they wanted Amaral to reimburse them;

To pay the court fees, including the fees of its authorized representatives
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

[Eleanor]

Do you think that makes a difference? The McCanns paid theirs up front too, but they wanted Amaral to reimburse them;

To pay the court fees, including the fees of its authorized representatives
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Someone or two will claim it back when the case is resolved.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't think it's idiotic to listen to what people have to say; listening to just one point of view is what's idiotic imo. Neither is Amaral an idiot; it wasn't him who had to pay the costs for a long running defamation trial.

There is IMO literally nothing Amaral can tell Fulscher to help his client (unless he really has kept a secret ace up his sleeve for the last 15 years or can actually provide his client with a cast iron alibi - v. doubtful indeed!)

[barrier]

As for the defamation case...it may well be shown the SC was incompetent too

You still on about that, its no where near being heard, so keep your powder well and truly dry for years to come, imo

[barrier]

Then they are both idiots.

They speak so highly of you too.

[Wonderfulspam]

There is IMO literally nothing Amaral can tell Fulscher to help his client (unless he really has kept a secret ace up his sleeve for the last 15 years or can actually provide his client with a cast iron alibi - v. doubtful indeed!)

Looks like Fulscher's client doesn't actually need any help, because Wolters won't be charging him any time in the foreseeable future imo.

[barrier]

Fulscher gave Amaral relevance by discussing Brueckner and the case with him in Portugal in 2020. I don't think that's worth ignoring.

Why shouldn't they meet ?

[Rossb]

There is IMO literally nothing Amaral can tell Fulscher to help his client (unless he really has kept a secret ace up his sleeve for the last 15 years or can actually provide his client with a cast iron alibi - v. doubtful indeed!)

Accuse mccann not amswering questions but not bruckner as an arguido lol

[Eleanor]

Accuse mccann not amswering questions but not bruckner as an arguido lol

Short and Sweet.  And entirely to The Point.

[Wonderfulspam]

Accuse mccann not amswering questions but not bruckner as an arguido lol

Doesn't seem to have made any difference does it, Brueckner failing to provide an alibi.