I don't think that The PJ were checking him to see if he was a sexual predator in all those attacks. They had been going on since 2004 after all.
But did check him to see if he was a burglar, due to the phone pings, and knowing he was a convicted burglar. And the check appears to have been done at the time of Madeleine's disappearance anyway, him being in PdL at the right time.
I have no idea why The PJ discarded him.
But unless there was a copycat after his death, which I suppose is always possible, then he can't have been the sexual predator. But he could have been involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
In my opinion, NSY are just going back over the initial evidence gathered by the police in 2007 and looking at it with a fresh eye. I think the new PJ team are doing exactly the same.
Obviously there are going to be local difficulties with two such disparate jurisdictions working the same case. I think these are being exacerbated by people much higher up the chain of command who seem to be dragging their heels in allowing the teams to work in tandem leading to frustrations on both sides.
We only have newspaper reports that the PJ consider Euclides was their man.
They are not stupid and if similar offences were carried out in 2010 after his death, I'm sure they would have made the connection.
I think the recent NSY statements might have been discussed with their counterparts in the PJ who would have been unable to do so under Portuguese law?
I think Eleanor is spot on with the reasons the PJ would find him of enough interest to interview him, but may have been side tracked from that line of inquiry by the concentration of resources on the McCanns.
