How did I come up with that search term? It wasn't particularly difficult, it includes the child's name, the accused name, and the name of the friend that she was said to have told.
As to the rest, I find it interesting that when people are losing the argument, they attack the person. I believe that is called an ad hominem attack.
I'm not here to attack anyone, and I'm all for debate about an issue which is very important to the deceased, her family, the accused, his family, and most importantly, the children...some day, they will deal with these issues on their own terms.
But picking that search term, with unique and chosen information which would require more than the recent observer status you represent (I followed this case from the beginning, while you seem to have come on the scene recently), while at the same time purporting to know little about the information Madeleine is posting, really looks odd. Its like you are watching distantly, not knowing lots of things about the case, and then suddenly you demonstrate this deep knowledge--- and so specific on the issue.
You don't have to explain the above, and please do continue to argue Brad's innocence. But you do have a tendency to discard things which were mentioned in court (Brad configuring the router from work, technical and precise... only one example), and then emphasize the purported words of a young child, which were not actually in court (unless you count third hand testimony, and while those words contradict the accused's own testimony).
The list of exculpatory evidence is weak. If there is more, please post about it. I think Madeleine's point about that evidence, not to get into a debate of definitions is, its not really exculpatory if its easily explained and still consistent with the guilt of the accused. The most key evidence pointing at Brad can not be explained away unless you resort to great leaps of conspiracy theories.
