Sorry posted wrong link, try this.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/madeleine-foundation-book.doc
Here's the wikileak's file index where I found it.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR1Jpo35xdaFKRJmxQSYmjZdG8OSxaaFV20k0TsZrcMrFbGQA6Ri6Qr2XDg
(scroll down)
I will look at it and may comment. It's a long document. I've just had a skim through it and it seems pretty standard fare for Mr Bennett and friends (I assume he is the author). Lots of conjecture based on assertions about what the McCanns did or didn't do; lots of assumptions about why the McCanns did this or that or didn't do the other; some of the usual armchair psychology; but, thin on the ground when it comes to real evidence - despite claiming otherwise.
If I were a juror in a trial of the parents for homicide, fraud and concealment of the body, I would want to see some hard evidence. Mr Bennett's suspicions and speculations would never reach an English criminal court - or at least, I hope not.
I am not saying there is no evidence. That would be to go too far the other way. There is some evidence that could - could - point to their involvement, and there are some aspects of their behaviour that do bother me.
I think the crux of this case - at least, for the moment - is the assertion from Amaral, Bennett and others that an abduction was "impossible". It is telling that despite all the noise, fire and smoke, we have never got beyond that question. Based on what I know [I admit my case knowledge is limited], I do not believe "material impossibility" has been established, which is one of the reasons I am inclined provisionally to side with the parents. Though to be fair, it needn't be impossibility. Heavy improbability could be enough, but I don't believe that is established either. If it were, then I agree that the McCanns could - again, only could - be convicted by default.
I have my own approach to true crime cases, which is:
(i). Start with agreed facts and common ground and work from there.
(ii). If there are identifiable suspects or a convicted offender protesting his innocence, look for innocent explanations and opportunities to give him/them the benefit of the doubt. This allows the case against him/them to be 'stress-tested'.
(iii). Only 'convict' on solid evidence, certain that the person did it, knowing that any remaining doubt is residual and does not go to the core of the case. A red flag is when a case relies on lots of assumptions about motives, conjectures and 'psychologising' and lots of 'fill in the gaps' arguments. By analogy, we're told that Jeremy is a monster because he had a heavy breakfast and grinned at the funeral, which is well suspicious. And that Hugo Boss suit! In the matter of McCann, Bennett's scarlet memos are full of such things. It could be that he does have something, but in my view he weakens his position with these irrelevancies. Less is more.
Yes, they're an odd pair. Yes, probably they've given a misleading story about their child-minding endeavours. But the question remains: Where's the beef? At the moment, there isn't any.
You'll excuse me, but when it comes to locking people up for years on end, I have high standards.