The absence of evidence in Murat's house or cars doesn't indeed prove his innocence but neither proves his guilt.
It proves simply one thing: there was no evidence.
Does the fact that there isn’t evidence prove that a person hasn’t done something? No it doesn't.
If I steal a cookie from a jar and am careful enough not to leave any evidence that I did it, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t do it, it just means, in this case as I did do it, that I was really careful in doing it without getting caught.
However other evidence, put together, may prove that it was me who stole the cookie, which indeed I did.
Please do be careful with the use of the word “stupid” because then I’m stupid enough to think that Murat’s house was exactly the place where Maddie’s body was first moved.
It was far enough not to be involved in the first searches as the nearby apartments, but close enough to be got to and be moved to a safer place when things subsided.
Also I’m stupid enough to think they would involve “so openly and so strongly a guy that is largely known in the place and has good connections with all expat and local communnity”. As you say “if he was totally innocent, was too risky” as he wasn’t, there was no risk at all, which explains his “silence” and fits your description of “somebody knowing well the location, the properties and the communnity. Could not be a tourist or a local Portuguese”.
I also disagree with you when you say “Who enter the flat and took the girl from there, use to easily access the flat and was known by the childs. Was not a stranger”, as nobody entered the apartment to get Maddie’s body. The body exited the apartment with someone inside the house very much familiar with the children: their father. However, when the body was taken out of the apartment only another child was there, and it wasn’t any of Maddie’s siblings, but rather a “Maddie lookalike” (already explained in the blog) that was to be taken on a stroll around town.
The rest of your comment raises very valid points. Thank you