Goncalo Amaral.

[Rossb]

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

Well their is no alibi. Am sure ff advised him to say no comment, purely because he had no real alibi. In terms of kate she already answered questions once or twice as a witness on what happened and an estimated timeline. None of the questions were aimed at finding madeleine you must be 4 years old to think those questions were aimed 'really' at that.

[Wonderfulspam]

Well their is no alibi. Am sure ff advised him to say no comment, purely because he had no real alibi. In terms of kate she already answered questions once or twice as a witness on what happened and an estimated timeline. None of the questions were aimed at finding madeleine you must be 4 years old to think those questions were aimed 'really' at that.

No alibi for an abduction no one can prove actually happened.

[Brietta]

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.

He wasn't there quite at the beginning though was he.

His criticisms of the forensic team are on record starting with no photographs taken of witnesses and ending with the dusting of the outside shutter.  What isn't on record are the the samples taken at the scene which were corrupted and lost as a result.

What isn't on record either are the bagged bedclothes from Madeleine's bed.  Removed and washed by the cleaners allowed into the apartment.

There is little evidence that Madeleine was abducted because what evidence there was was lost much of it though incompetence and contamination.  Dog hair - first responder fingerprints (therefore no gloves) - cigarette ash dropped by the police (therefore no ashtrays).
Not forgetting the cigarette ends totally ignored ~ must have known the Irish teen of legend who saw everything apparently, had left them behind.

[Wonderfulspam]

He wasn't there quite at the beginning though was he.

His criticisms of the forensic team are on record starting with no photographs taken of witnesses and ending with the dusting of the outside shutter.  What isn't on record are the the samples taken at the scene which were corrupted and lost as a result.

What isn't on record either are the bagged bedclothes from Madeleine's bed.  Removed and washed by the cleaners allowed into the apartment.

There is little evidence that Madeleine was abducted because what evidence there was was lost much of it though incompetence and contamination.  Dog hair - first responder fingerprints (therefore no gloves) - cigarette ash dropped by the police (therefore no ashtrays).
Not forgetting the cigarette ends totally ignored ~ must have known the Irish teen of legend who saw everything apparently, had left them behind.

Or maybe she just wasn't abducted.

[Brietta]

Then they are both idiots.

I honestly don't think they are.

The lawyer intrigues me.  Was he the 'duty solicitor?'  Is he appointed by the State?  Does his firm do a lot of pro bono work?  If none of these, who is paying him?

[Wonderfulspam]

I honestly don't think they are.

The lawyer intrigues me.  Was he the 'duty solicitor?'  Is he appointed by the State?  Does his firm do a lot of pro bono work?  If none of these, who is paying him?

Whoever it is, it isn't costing them much at the moment
 since Brueckner isn't being charged anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Eleanor]

I honestly don't think they are.

The lawyer intrigues me.  Was he the 'duty solicitor?'  Is he appointed by the State?  Does his firm do a lot of pro bono work?  If none of these, who is paying him?

Fame and Inglory will pay him I expect.

[Brietta]

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.

By your argument advocating what constitutes 'idiocy'.

It would be pertinent to bear in mind that all costs had to be paid by Amaral as a result of losing his defamation action raised against Marcos Aragão Correia and António Pedro Dores

[faithlilly]

Well their is no alibi. Am sure ff advised him to say no comment, purely because he had no real alibi. In terms of kate she already answered questions once or twice as a witness on what happened and an estimated timeline. None of the questions were aimed at finding madeleine you must be 4 years old to think those questions were aimed 'really' at that.

Of course they weren’t aimed at finding Madeleine, why would they be? The questions put to Brueckner won’t be about finding Madeleine either. The McCanns were suspects in their child’s disappearance as Brueckner is now. Suspects do not decide which questions they want to be asked to feed their chosen narrative.

[G-Unit]

Well their is no alibi. Am sure ff advised him to say no comment, purely because he had no real alibi. In terms of kate she already answered questions once or twice as a witness on what happened and an estimated timeline. None of the questions were aimed at finding madeleine you must be 4 years old to think those questions were aimed 'really' at that.

Kate McCann was interviewed as a witness by the PJ on 4th May and 6th September 2007. She was also interviewed off the record, she says, by Neves and Encarnacao on 8th August, where they tried to get her to confess to something. Imo she was left in no doubt that their questions were not aimed at finding Madeleine.

[barrier]

Well their is no alibi. Am sure ff advised him to say no comment, purely because he had no real alibi. In terms of kate she already answered questions once or twice as a witness on what happened and an estimated timeline. None of the questions were aimed at finding madeleine you must be 4 years old to think those questions were aimed 'really' at that.

The BKA aren't looking for Madeleine, they are looking for her remains, not sure where though, but Wolters admits to not knowing where, when and how his suspect killed Madeleine. So all in all starting with Amaral, through to Wolters via Redwood, Wall and all in between no one knows the whereabouts of her remains.

[barrier]

Nothing to talk about regarding Brueckner, Wolters has hit a total dead end there, so supporters might as well retreat to the safety haven of Amaral bashing I suppose.

You're not seeing it, its Amarals fault they can't find the evidence.

[Brietta]

Kate McCann was interviewed as a witness by the PJ on 4th May and 6th September 2007. She was also interviewed off the record, she says, by Neves and Encarnacao on 8th August, where they tried to get her to confess to something. Imo she was left in no doubt that their questions were not aimed at finding Madeleine.

Kate was under no illusion - as you rightly point out - that the Portuguese police and their case coordinator Amaral were no longer asking questions aimed to finding Madeleine or at the least what had happened to her.

That had not been their objective for quite some time - if it ever was.

Amaral's theory pointed the finger of accusation at Madeleine's parents.  Prosecuting them was the be all and end all of "proving" Amaral's theory.

A tried and tested investigative technique is following the evidence which indicates the path leading to a conclusion.

It doesn't work if investigators invent a theory then try to fit evidence to suit particularly if there was no evidence or radically misinterpreted evidence to be had in the first instance.                       

Amaral doesn't know that.  But everyone else does.

[Venturi Swirl]

They speak so highly of you too.

Quite rightly too!

[Venturi Swirl]

Kate McCann was interviewed as a witness by the PJ on 4th May and 6th September 2007. She was also interviewed off the record, she says, by Neves and Encarnacao on 8th August, where they tried to get her to confess to something. Imo she was left in no doubt that their questions were not aimed at finding Madeleine.

And your point is?