Police chief is now free, 01 July 2008

Police chief is now free 24horas   Gonçalo Amaral retired since midnight, to "savour freedom of expression"   Tuesday 01 July 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation   The controversial coordinator, who was removed from the Maddie case, says he "leaves proud" and that he is not "hurt". His last action was delivering the service mobile phone   The PJ's coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, who was removed from the Maddie case over an opinion offence, is, from today onwards, a free man. At midnight, he went into retirement and, according to what he told 24horas yesterday, his first day "is going to be beautiful, with plenty to do and the ability to savour the plenitude of his freedom of expression".   Just enigmatic enough, Gonçalo Amaral, aged 49, had his last day at the PJ yesterday, "a perfectly normal day". He arrived early, finished the operation into the process that lead, over the weekend, to the apprehension of two and a half tons of hashish and the detention of six traffickers, and dispatched a few more cases. Before lunch, which lasted from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m., the controversial coordinator of criminal investigation delivered his duty pistol, his badge and his card at the Faro Directory. At the end of the day, around 5.30 p.m., he delivered his service mobile phone.   In the evening, he hosted an "intimate dinner, with two colleagues that came from Lisbon into the Algarve on purpose".   In the investigation   In a statement to 24horas, Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the future includes "continuing to work in the area of criminal investigation, maybe as a consultant". "But not as a detective", he guaranteed. At the same time, the coordinator who is now retired from the PJ is going to carry out a stay at an Algarvian law office, in order to "maybe exercise [law]" within a year.   Gonçalo Amaral is also going to take advantage of his retirement to "dedicate more time to his wife and children" and assured that, despite everything, he does not leave the PJ with hurt feelings, because the institution and its servants deserve him "the utmost respect". "I leave, proud of having served the PJ and of having worked with very good people, excellent professionals that still remain here".   This, despite him confiding to 24horas, in a reference to the controversial Maddie case, that "many people remained upset" with him in Portimão.   Maddie book "is ready"   Gonçalo Amaral, who spent 28 years at the Polícia Judiciária, which he entered as an agent in 1981, having passed through many different departments, revealed to 24horas that the book about the Maddie case "is ready". It was written during his brief holidays, before he returned to the PJ in May, to leave now into retirement. But the publication depends on the "judicial secrecy" which was not lifted yet. The book promises fabulous sales figures, both in Portugal and abroad, mainly in Great Britain.

Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures in the Maddie case, 01 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures in the Maddie case    RTP Video (Short 'taster' for 30 Minutos programme, Portuguese language)   2008-07-01    Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures in the Maddie case   Former coordinator for the investigation of the Madeleine case said pressures existed around the process of the case for it never to be solved. Gonçalo Amaral says that the presence of the officer Clarence Mitchell is proof of that and argued that neither researchers nor directors should be afraid of working.   30 Minutos programme (Click 'Video WMV' link beside 2008.07.01)

Gonçalo Amaral interviewed by Expresso, 03 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral interview Expresso    "I was removed because of the direction the investigation was heading"   03 July 2008 Thanks to 'debk' for translation, additional text by Joana Morais   The former PJ inspector believes he was removed because he didn't wish to abandon the homicide theory. He maintains that Maddie is dead and the only reason there isn't more evidence is because he wasn't allowed to continue to the end of the investigation.   Amaral: We were doing the last diligences related to a very important witness who was coming to Portugal.   Expresso: And the witness came to Portugal?   Amaral: As far as I know, the witness never came. Expresso: But this was truly an important witness? Amaral: Very important. ==== Expresso: You believe Madeleine is dead? Amaral: I believe it. That is my conviction. Expresso: Do you believe that the parents are involved? Amaral: erm........... Expresso: Hiding a cadaver? Amaral: erm....... I can't say anything about this during the secrecy of justice. We can only talk about this when the secrecy is lifted. * Note: Tomorrow Expresso will publish the full interview. The book is finished. 200 pages. Ready for publishing "immediately" upon the secrecy being lifted. Also notice Mr. Gonçalo Amaral has a good sense of humour, his already grilling some sardines.

Gonçalo Amaral interviewed by Expresso, 04 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral interview Expresso    "Since the day I left I knew the process would be archived"   Carlos Rodrigues and Rui Gustavo Lima 12:30 | Friday, July 4, 2008 Thanks to 'astro' and 'debk' for translation   The former inspector reveals some secrets from the investigation into the Maddie case. He guarantees that the process contains evidence, not personal convictions, and he reveals that Paulo Rebelo, his successor, never contacted him to talk about the case. When asked about what he would say to Gerry and Kate McCann, today, he replied: "I'm worried about the girl, not the parents". Your name and your career will remain connected to the Maddie case forever? I'm not worried about that. I have always worked in a team, with the preoccupation and the goal of reaching the discovery of the truth. No policeman likes to leave a case halfway through. Was that what happened with this investigation? Is it left halfway through? Not according to my will. Have you agreed with the decision of the former director of the PJ, who removed you from the case? No. It's an unfair and dangerous decision. I was not removed from the investigation due to incompetence. I left because of the direction that the investigation was taking. But the strategy was not decided by me only. It was everyone. It involved the English police and other Portuguese policemen. And what was being investigated, was the little girl's death, even an accidental one. After you left, was that course maintained? I don't know. I'm very naïve and I want to believe that my exit from Portimão had the purpose of advancing the investigation, because the person that took over is much more efficient. Do you believe that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd of May? Yes. That is what I and other persons believe in. And this is not because we idealised it that way. Is there evidence to sustain that thesis? I can't enter any details of the process. I will only say this: I am certain that I, and the persons who worked with me, did a good job and I doubt that anyone else could do better. Some day, people will see the process, they may agree or not, but there is nothing in there that questions my professionalism. Was the investigation's direction, homicide, disturbing the political power? This case was more political than a police case. Did any politician pressure you? I was not pressured, I was removed. If there was a homicide, where is the body? That was what we were going to establish next. On the day that I was removed, I was carrying out diligences for a fundamental witness to come to Portugal. It was necessary for the PJ to pay for the trip, to arrange for lodging, and that was being taken care of. But then the important witness never came to Portugal and was never heard. But why? Why was an exception opened? The English police was used by the McCanns to send the PJ information that often was nothing but noise? Yes. And the fact that the couple had a press advisor, is a figure that is not even foreseen in the penal process code. In some way, we were all influenced by the campaign that was built, which said that the child is alive and must be found. I don't say that the English police was being ordered around by the McCanns, but it was influenced, like we all were. The PJ should have found a way to protect the investigators from everything else. That is strange: you say that it was established with the English police that the direction that should be followed was the little girl’s death, that there were enough indices, but there seems to have been an inflexion. Yes. And I was removed. I don't know whether there is a direct connection. I know that colleagues from the investigation have requested the police's directory for a syndication, to see whether the work was badly done. Whether mistakes were made. Do you believe that you reached the truth? I am convinced that we were on the right path and that we might end up knowing everything or not, but a great part. Now, that which we have collected and which we consider to be indices, may not be valued in the same manner. One of the criticisms is that the results from the months when you were leading the investigation are lots of convictions and zero evidence. Do you agree? I was the coordinator of the investigation from 3 May to 2 October. Five months. After me, there came other people that have been there nine months. I am not comparing, but we were professional and I'm not ashamed of anything. And when the process is public you will see if it is true that there is nothing. There are indications and they are in the files. We did hundreds of interviews and searches. Thousands of diligences and from that there are no results? The little girl went up in smoke? Did the theory of the death of the child continue to be followed after your exit? I don't know. I can say that ever since that day I knew the process would be archived. That being so, is there still a death to be resolved? There is. And diligences to be completed. Who made the decision to constitute the McCann’s arguidos? Everyone. And the national director was informed of all the decisions. Alípio Ribeiro agreed with the decision? Exactly. But then he ended up saying that the decision was hasty. Hasty? Four months later? When there were concrete diligences that reinforced some of the indications? While we waited for results of various tests? And beyond that, in our law there exists the principal of no self-incrimination. A person can't continue speaking forever as a witness and providing evidence ("indications"). There is certainly a stigma in the arguido status, but I don't know what is worse. They were made arguidos, this was public, for simulating a crime and hiding a cadaver. Do you think that you made any mistakes? I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things about which I still cannot speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved. After leaving the investigation, did you ever speak with your successor, Paulo Rebelo? No. It is an interesting question to consider. If they removed me for the barbarity of speaking to the press, and not for incompetence, it would be normal to be consulted. But this never happened. If, as all seems to indicate, the case is archived, the public is going to hold the Portuguese police responsible. How will you react? Archival is not a declaration of innocence. A process can be archived and reopened. The archival of this case could be the declaration of some incapacity of the police, or it could have a different meaning. What would you say to Madeleine's parents? I have nothing to say. My overriding preoccupation is with the little girl, not the parents.

Gonçalo Amaral interviewed by TVI, 04 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral Former coordinator of the Madeleine McCann Process, interviewed by TVI   "I was Kicked in the Butt"   04 July 2008   Are you convinced that Madeleine McCann is dead?   Gonçalo Amaral - I do have that conviction. It is an interpretation in the light of the Law based in concrete elements, with the knowledge that I have of the inquest and of the diligences done. Yes, I am convinced that she died there.   If the father and the mother were constituted as arguidos it’s because they were suspects?   GM - They were suspects and there were evidences for them to be constituted as arguidos, actually, strong elements relatively to two types of crime: hiding a cadaver [corpse occultation] and simulation of a crime [faking the crime of kidnapping]. That was public and at the time that I left the investigation that was the situation.   And the crime of abandonment, for what reason aren’t the parents accused?   GM – The issue there is to know if the children were safe or not. For me it’s evident, even because the parents talked about kidnapping, that there was no safety.   Don’t you feel frustrated as the case isn’t moving forward?   GM – I do not feel any frustration over the decisions made in courts. I have been around for many years and I do have a great admiration for the magistrates. I understand up to where the work of magistrates can go.   However you don't understand why you had to leave?   GM – No, not that. I respected the decision as a professional. There was an understanding between the Portuguese and British authorities that the girl was dead and that there was a need to solidify the evidences that existed and move forward to try to understand where she could be.   Do you believe that the PJ's reaction had to do with the politicising of the case?   GM – I believe that there was more politics than police [at work]. But on the field we did our best and we never felt any defence [probably meaning defence by the Director of PJ towards the ongoing attacks]. Do you think that it is normal for the case to be archived?   GM – It doesn’t shock me.   *   Gonçalo Amaral and Madeleine's case: "There was more politics than police" Gazeta Digital   04/07/2008 Paulo Reis, Transcription with help from Claudia   The former Polícia Judiciária investigator criticised the PJ director and the Justice minister, in an interview, tonight, with TVI, a Portuguese TV channel. Asked if he believed that Madeleine was dead, Gonçalo Amaral said that he was "convinced" she was dead "based on the evidence collected". When the journalist asked: "Was she killed, there (in the apartment)?", the former PJ inspector said: "She died there". About Madeleine's parents being named as formal suspects, Amaral spoke about "strong evidence" as the base for the decision and referred that "there was a common understanding", between Portuguese and British police officers involved in the investigation, about the fact that Madeleine was dead.   "There was evidence, about two different crimes – which were referred by the defence lawyer, Pinto de Abreu, in a public statement – and it was hiding a body and a criminal simulation. That was the situation, when I left the investigation," Mr. Amaral said. The former PJ inspector, who has a Law Degree from Lisbon University, mentioned the fact that "these kind of cases of disappearance, frequently bring with it other crimes, sometimes fake statements or physical abuse".   Questioned about the fact that the McCann were not accused of negligence or child abandonment, Amaral said that "it was clear they (the McCann children) were not safe", when Madeleine disappeared, but reminded that it's easier, with UK laws, to charge parents in those kind of situations, once the Portuguese Law is more complex, it requires the existence of intention to leave the children in a dangerous situation. Gonçalo Amaral refused to comment any decision from the Public Prosecutor's Office of from the Courts and refused to admit that he was "frustrated" with those decisions. Asked about his removal from the investigation, the former PJ inspector told the journalist that he had no contact with PJ director, on that day, and he only knew the reasons when he had a "private conversation" with Alípio Ribeiro – refusing to give details about it.   Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the "statement" he gave to Diarios de Noticias – and was the reason for his removal, according to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk with a journalist from Faro, "very close to the family, a friend of my wife", who called him to ask about the email sent to the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. "What I said, talking not to a journalist, but with a friend, a personal talk, was that Police should concentrate in what was the common conclusion of British and Portuguese Police: the child was dead and it was necessary to consolidate the existing evidence and move forward, to find where she could be and what happened." At that moment, the kidnapping line of inquiry was "already closed", and "another door was opened", Mr. Amaral said. When asked about the existence of political interference in the investigation, is answer was short and clear: "I think there was more politics than police."   "We did our job, the best we knew and we were the target of a lot critics and insults, from the British newspapers", the former PJ inspector said. When the case of Joana Cipriano was first raised by the British Media, Mr. Amaral contacted the PJ director and called the attention for the risks, because those news about his alleged involvement in the "torture" of the mother of Joana Ciprianio would be, soon, a large campaign against him, and talked about the convenience of taking him out of investigation. "What they told me, later, was that I had all the support and should continue the work."   "Surprised" with his removal from the investigation, Gonçalo Amaral used a popular Portuguese phrase to explain what he felt, when he knew about his removal: "I felt as if I was kicked up in the ass, on October 2." About the influence and importance of the McCann, Mr. Amaral said that "there is a all story to be told, about this case, and I think that the journalists that followed this case, have a great opportunity and responsibility, in helping to understand what happened. This is really, a case that is different from all other cases." Gonçalo Amaral criticized the Justice minister, who said, after his removal, that "it was, now, time to work": "Mr. Justice Minister Alberto Costa, we worked hard." Download the audio from the full TVI report and interview here.

Irishman was already discarded, 07 July 2008

Irishman was already discarded 24horas   Gonçalo Amaral placed a strong bet on this witness   Text: Carlos Tomas July 07, 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation   When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie Case was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don't give him credibility   The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.   During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as "Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when Maddie disappeared.   "He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England, failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory", a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed to 24horas.   The same source specified: "First he said that he saw Maddie's father leaving the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child. He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible in court and they do not deserve credibility".   It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analysing the process, to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns.

McCann case police defended, 21 July 2008

McCann case police defended BBC News video   Page last updated at 14:39 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 15:39 UK   The former lead detective on the Madeliene McCann case Goncalo Amaral has defended making her parents official suspects.   Mr Amaral was removed from his post in October 2007 after reportedly criticising his British counterparts. (00:01:44)   *   Transcript:   Gonçalo Amaral: In this case, it wasn't purely and simply a decision taken by police officers - Portuguese and British police - there were others involved; Public prosecutors, the National Directorate of the Portugese police - they all knew there was a necessity to put everything on the table, in light of the advances we had made, the combinations of leads we had. There were no persecutions, the police do not want to persecute anyone, just to investigate what happened in a given case.   Steve Kingstone: According to the McCann's then spokeswoman, it was put to Kate McCann in her police interview blood had been found in the car and we now know that that evidence was not conclusive, there will be people who say that the police bluffed in that inteview. GA: I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all, and when all the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth. SK: Do you think it's possible that Madeleine McCann is still alive? GA: The evidence that we had gathered by the time I left the case pointed to the girl being dead and having died inside the apartment. I don't know what happened next, I can't say, we'll have to wait for the case files to be made public. SK: You know what people are going to say, back in Britain, they will say that this was a total failure by the Portuguese police. GA: Let's wait and the people will see the Portuguese Police and the British Police did a good job because various British agencies were involved. We tried and we worked hard, so we can't be accused of incompetence, or failure.

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold, 24 July 2008

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã    24 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation   Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept in the cold Gonçalo Amaral regrets that a 'fact-finding inquiry (sindicância) to the investigation was done". In the first interview where he talks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched today in Lisbon and promises to re-launch controversy. Interview with Gonçalo Amaral in Correio da Manhã today "The investigation was syndicated" Gonçalo Amaral laments that "the investigation was syndicated". In the first interview during which he speaks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched in Lisbon today and promises to launch the controversy again Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator, what is your thesis? Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved. What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes? It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened. How was it proved? Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat. Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory. In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window. Does that undo the abduction theory?   There lies the solution. To be closed or not, is a strong indicium for simulation. And why does one simulate abduction, rather than simply saying that the child has disappeared? She could have opened the door and left… Do Kate's fingerprints reinforce the simulation theory? They are the only fingerprints on the window. And in a position of opening the window. Did Kate have suspicious attitudes? She goes out for dinner and supposedly leaves three children asleep. She returns, one is missing, she goes out, leaving the window wide open with the twins asleep. And the night, according to what she says, was very cold… What about Maddie's bed? It carries no signs that anyone was in it. Nor does the chair or the bed under the window. And there are no imprints from strangers. The reconstruction is missing. It was not carried out 10 or 15 days after the facts, because the resort was full of tourists. We trusted that it could be carried out at a later date. It couldn't. Did you request data about the group? At 8 a.m. on the 4th, the request was made to the English liaison officer, but [the data] never arrived. What did you want to know? Who the people are, their antecedents. And the child, whether or not there are complaints against the parents or others. How she behaved in school, to find out if she was the target of abuse. How important is the Irish witness within the case? He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child. That was back in May. When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family. What did you do? On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach. Couldn't that have been included in the rogatory letter? It could and it should. The ideal would have been for him to come to Portugal, as a key witness. Just like the couple of doctors that describe the situation in Mallorca. Once the abduction theory was set apart, how was the death theory built? With the elements that exist, we could only reach an accident, natural death, any cause without the intervention of another person. We were cementing evidence and advancing to understand what happened to the little girl's body. Also based on information from the British lab, about residues that were found inside the car that was rented by the McCanns. Where and how could they have hidden the body for over twenty days? That was what we were trying to find out. Searching within their friends, because the couple had a lot of acquaintances. We tried to understand where the little girl could have been during those twenty something days. Out of reach from the searches. Yes. There was information that the couple had been seen walking towards a certain apartment block, we were trying to understand which apartment it was. Who had access to that apartment. But everything stopped. How do you interpret that stopping of everything, when you left? It almost looks as if the investigation was syndicated. It was even said that the blood that was found was not human. The dogs only smell human blood. The sample that is collected and taken to England, to be analysed with the Low Copy Number technique, is microscopic. The technique does not allow them to state whether it is blood or any other type of fluid – but it guarantees that it is human. The family tried to justify itself. Later on, a brother-in-law and a cousin of Kate said that they had carried steaks in the trunk that had thawed, even garbage, but no. The dogs follow neither garbage smell nor non-human blood. Then there is a witness, that was never heard, a jurist that lived next to the couple, in the second house [villa] outside of the apartment, saying that the car trunk was left open during the night, for airing. But maybe that was because of the garbage… Within the theory of the parents' involvement, can you reconstruct that night?   We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew but also due to the terrain's conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness. At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club. They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked. And what about Gerry? He justifies some of the time with a trip to the toilet. That is not five minutes, then he meets another individual outside. Hence the need for the reconstruction. To find out how long it took them to get to the apartments, what route they walked, etc. A reconstruction that should be joint with the restaurant's movement, because when it is said that they asked for the food from 9 p.m. onwards, there was one person who ordered a steak. And that steak was heated again because someone was not there. It is necessary to find out whose steak that was. He was away for a much longer time period… An adult carrying a child, until the beach, how long [does it take]? Fifteen minutes. How was it possible for the apartment to be rented out after the crime? The apartment was immediately fully contaminated by the parents' action, before the police arrived. A complete fair was built there and at a certain point, dogs were demanded to come inside the house. You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives. The twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal. But the Judiciária did nothing. Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed. How is there room for speculation about the DNA tests? It was those results that allowed you to advance with the arguido status. The speculation is done by the scientist who performs the test. He starts out by saying, in his preliminary report, that it was easy to say that it was Maddie. Then he raised other questions. Of course nobody can be accused, based on that data alone. "The cadaver was frozen" Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body? Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it. How can you state that? Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there. If the body was hidden in the beach area first, was it always out of reach for the searches? The beach was searched at a time when it is not known whether the body was still there. Using dogs, but sniffer dogs have limitations, like the salted water, for example. Later on, it may have been removed. "We should have done phone tapping" Correio da Manhã – Did you feel political pressure during the investigation? G.A. – Inhibition. One of the mistakes was that we did not advance on this group with everything that legally was within our reach: Tapping, surveillance. It was necessary, for example, to recover the clothes that the little girl was wearing when she left the crèche to go home. There, we thought: if we go, it will immediately be said that we suspect the parents. That inhibition happened throughout time. And that led you towards the abduction. We had to prove that there was no abduction, in order to focus on those persons afterwards… How does the pressure appear? Right on the morning of the 4th of May, with a consul calling the embassy and saying that the PJ wasn't doing anything. Then an ambassador. Next, an advisor and the English prime minister. "Payne is the last one to see her" Correio da Manhã – When do testimonies concerning David Payne's behaviour indicating sexual practices with minors arrive? Gonçalo Amaral – In May. Something went wrong with that group during a holiday: David Payne made revealing gestures concerning behaviour towards children. Even towards Maddie. We asked for information but it arrived after the 26th of October. They sent the information without giving it any importance. What exactly did arrive? A couple of doctors spent holidays in Mallorca, in 2005, with David Payne, the McCanns and another couple. The lady says she saw Payne with his finger in his mouth, making a movement in and out, while rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And he was talking about Maddie, next to her father. Those statements should have been given a different treatment by the police. It was relevant to access the information, about doctors, who are just as credible as anyone else. What else remains unclear concerning David Payne? He will be the last one to see Maddie alive after 5.30 p.m., when she leaves the crèche. He meets Gerry playing tennis and asks him about Kate and the children. Gerry answers that they are in the apartment and he goes there. He returns 30 minutes later. Kate says it was 30 seconds. There is something not quite right here. ........................................................................................ Pre-publication The evidence and the results of the case "Arriving this far, it is important to make a deductive summary about this case. Which means, to reject what is false; to set aside what cannot be proved, because it is insufficient; to consider as valid and certain what has been proved. What is proved Therefore: 1. The abduction theory is defended by Maddie's parents since the first moment; 2. Within the group, only her parents stated that they observed the open window in the missing girl's bedroom; the majority cannot witness it faithfully because they arrived at the apartment after the alarm was raised; 3. The only statement outside of the group that mentions the open window and the raised shutters comes from Amy, one of the Ocean Club's nannies, who points her observation towards 10.20/10.30 p.m., which is some time after the alarm was raised and does not prove that it was open like that at the time when the crime happened; 4. The set of depositions and witness statements exposes a high number of imprecision, incongruence and contradictions – which, in some cases, may be typified as false testimonies. In particular, the key statement for the abduction theory, from Jane Tanner, which loses all credibility due to the fact that it successively evolved throughout various moments in time, becoming ambiguous and disqualifying itself; 5. There is a cadaver that has not been located, a conclusion that is validated by the English EVRD and CSI dogs and corroborated by the preliminary lab test results. Certainties until October "For me, and for the investigators that worked with me on the case until October 2007, the results that we reached were the following:   1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;   2. An abduction was simulated;   3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver;   4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident;   5. There is indicia of neglect in the guard and safety of the children." "Decisive diligence was never carried out" "The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann. "The man that the Smith were talking about was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep. "When the situation was presented to the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely] the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts." McCanns erased all the telephone calls The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception, in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known. But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.

Gonçalo Amaral admits that investigators protected the McCanns, 27 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral admits that investigators protected the McCanns Jornal de Notícias     By Marisa Rodrigues 27 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for translation    For the first time since he began to talk publicly about the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Gonçalo Amaral, the co-coordinator of the investigation, analyses his own responsibilities in the outcome of the case and in the conduct of all the work of the Judiciary Police.   Of the pressures and constraints that they were anticipating, more than feeling, of the virtually unlimited autonomy in the carrying out of the diligences and even in the mistakes that he himself now assumes to have committed, particularly the group of investigators initial decision to show precaution with everything that concerned Kate and Gerry McCann. For fear of the reaction of public opinion. Today, he would not agree with decisions that he helped the group of investigators to take. In the book " Maddie, The Truth of The Lie " he does not say everything that he knows. A second book is not out of question. Jornal de Notícias | Who has pressured the Judiciary Police (PJ) so that it could not advance with diligences? Gonçalo Amaral | The pressures were immediately felt in the morning following the disappearance of the girl. The British consul in the Algarve went to the Judiciary Police to find out about the investigation, which is not abnormal. Shortly afterwards, it was the turn of the ambassador to go there. It is not a normal proceeding with all the English subjects. At least, I had never assisted a similar situation. But were you prevented from advancing with the diligences that had been planned? To me no one told me "do not do it". If that had happened the "broth would pour over" [Portuguese idiomatic expression meaning it would be over the top]. There my participation in that investigation would have ended. But we felt constrained. In what way? Notice. Soon after the visit of the ambassador, an announcement goes out referring the thesis of abduction. Was it the ambassador who pressurised the PJ? It was not that what I said. The pressure was felt in the team of investigators. When, in the heart of the group, if it was discussed the realisation of a determined diligence there was always someone who would say "Oh, oh, we have to be careful". Who? I am not going say names. If in the book I was careful to never give names, I am not going to do that now. It is one of those things that are kept. But in the group there were seven, eight, ten persons taking part, between co-ordinators, directors… When the question of the necessity of doing a determined diligence was raised, everything was discussed, namely, which was the importance, the objective that was wanted to accomplish and what were the consequences. And when there were issues that needed us to come even closer to the couple and the group of friends, one was careful for them not to be considered suspects so soon at that time, to prevent them from being accused in the public opinion, faced with the existing media pressure. Are you saying that the PJ itself decided to protect them. Why so many precautions? It's natural to have suspects in a criminal investigation. Because, at that time we would have been crucified by public opinion. You were afraid of the media pressure… No. We felt it was necessary to treat them with ‘tweezers’. I recognise what we were mistaken. If you believed in the accidental death thesis and in the parents involvement what was the reason for you not to insist that determined diligences were done? At the time when the arguments against were suggested they were considered valid for the whole group. It was the group itself that said "let us not go there". If you didn't agree why didn't you close the door? It was your image, while co-ordinator, that was in question. Those were not times for rebellions. I always worked in group. If the arguments were valid, one had to respect them. Even without agreeing with them? At the time I agreed because I considered them to be valid. Perhaps now, at a distance, I do not agree.   What remained to be done? Too much. The first version of the rogatory letter, which was changed after my expulsion on 2 October, had several steps that were simply struck out. It was requested that the British dogs be used to search the house of the McCanns in Leicester and also those of their friends and that they smelled their clothes. It also asked to verify the existence of a chart on the refrigerator of the girl's parents, which showed that she had problems with sleep and used to rise several times at night. The chart is referred to by an English police officer. New interviews with the arguidos were proposed but were never done. The charter was amended by the prosecutors. With what goal? Probably the steps were not considered important after my removal.  You said that with another prosecutor perhaps the outcome of the investigation would have been different. If there had been another National Director, not Alípio Ribeiro, recently criticised by Almeida Rodrigues, would the investigation have been conducted differently? I do not know, but probably not. The National Directorate is only one and has a very specific understanding and procedures, regardless of whom addressed. Who chose the laboratory from Birmingham to examine the remains? The PJ decided that the remains had to be analysed by an English laboratory. Given the campaign that already existed at the time against the PJ. At that time, we had to be fully aware that if the results tested positive, in Portugal, there would be a strong reaction against the competence and capacity of our laboratories. We did so to show confidence in British laboratories. The choice of Birmingham was made by the English police. It was a strategy? Or was there fear that the samples had not been well received and that they had been contaminated? It was strategy. We had confidence in the strength of the traces and the competence of our technicians. It was all collected with the utmost care. During the collection, the Portuguese had the technical care to contact the English technicians and follow the information given to them by phone. In particular the remains collected on the tile of the room, so that nothing collapsed on the question of evidence from the collection to the handling and packaging. But the procedures are not universal? Or did you want to safeguard your position in case of failure? They are universal. But we wanted to follow to the letter the procedures of the English police because the remains were to be sent to an English laboratory. Were you not confident in the Portuguese technicians? I had and still have absolute confidence. But we wanted someone who the British police would also agree with what they were doing to that later, no one could see that the remains were poorly collected. It was a kind of defence before the attack? That's more or less it. The line is that you advocate accidental death in the apartment with the involvement of parents. But the book raises suspicions about David Payne. It seems a contradiction. Nobody can say that the two have no relationship until they are investigated. I have suspicions about this gentleman or against anyone. Only I can see that there are situations that were unclear. There is a testimony from a couple of British doctors who say that in September 2005, when holidaying with the McCanns in Majorca and other couples, they became aware of behaviours that are not normal for them and that they related to this gentleman. The couple went to British police as soon as they saw them on television and the evidence only came to Portugal on 26 October. They say they saw Payne put a finger in his mouth, and move it in and out, whilst rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And speaking of what Madeleine would do, next to the father, Gerry. These testimonials from doctors, as credible as the McCanns, should have had another treatment by the police. And what did the PJ do when they finally received this information? Nothing. Not even included in the letter of any investigation related to this episode. David Payne, in your opinion, may have something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine? I do not know why it was not investigated properly as it should, in my opinion, have been. He was the last to see Madeleine alive after 17.30 hours, when she left the nursery. Gerry was playing tennis and asked him to look in on Kate and the kids. Gerry replies that he was in the apartment and she (Madeleine) was there. He returned 30 minutes later. Kate says it was 30 seconds. Something that does not fit together. In the book you say that he was recognised by a social worker. What did you intend by reporting this episode? Only that people realised that it is one more situation that was not investigated. The following morning to the disappearance, a social worker of English nationality in the Algarve offers to help, but she was almost ill-treated/offended by the couple, apparently by indication of this man [David Payne]. This man is recognised by the social worker as already having passed in a process, in an investigation, without her being able at the time to tell if it was in the quality/status of a  witness or as in another processual figure [means a judicial status like arguido or suspect]. If he has or not some relation with the death, I do not know. But these are situations that could not have passed in clear/without being investigated, as they were. They should have been checked. How did Robert Murat become a translator for the accused? There were many difficulties in finding translators. We needed him because many had to listen to many people. It was the GNR who suggested the name of Robert Murat because he spoke fluent Portuguese and English. He was known by the military to have helped informally in some translations. He was now accused by a number of factors combined. There is a testimony of Jane Taner that recognises him from the view of his back and assures that this is the man who she saw that night passing with a child. But Jane Taner was a credible witness? Never was. But there were other things. Phone calls from anonymous people who came to mention it as a possible abduction. These anonymous phone calls took place before or after being recognised by Jane Tanner? I do not know need, but it was certainly before he was made arguido. Either way, nothing has been found that links Robert Murat in this case. Recently you said that there is much you know and have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out? It is logical that yes. What and for what purpose? I cannot disclose it. It leaves room for a second book, for example? Maybe. Let's see.

"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI, broadcast live on 28 July 2008

"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI, broadcast live on 28 July 2008   Thanks to 'astro' for transcription and translation Thanks to Joana Morais for collage   This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on the 28th of July 2008. Júlia Pinheiro (JP): The Attorney General's Office has archived the process, but everything indicates that a new stage of the Maddie case is about to begin. Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ's former coordinator has launched this book (Maddie – The Truth about the Lie) which is already here and also in my hand, where he numbers some surprising facts. He is going to be my guest today, he has not arrived yet but he will soon be here, and as these things work best with more than one accomplice, I have two journalists present to talk with me and to interrogate and talk a bit with Gonçalo Amaral. These are also two well known faces, who have been following the Maddie case in a committed and involved manner, please welcome Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis. (applause) JP: Hello good afternoon! Now tell me, you have obviously read the book already. Paulo Reis (PR): Yes. Duarte Levy (DL): Yes. JP: Right away, right away. PR: On the day before. DL: Right on the day before. JP: Right on the day before. So while we wait for Gonçalo Amaral, and we’re talking in his back, afterwards we will talk in front of him, what did you think? Duarte? DL: There are still things that remain unsaid. I think that this book already opens a path, it already shows, clarifies a lot of things, many doubts that existed concerning the case, but I think that former inspector Gonçalo Amaral probably has a lot more to say. JP: So there is a certain feeling that there could be more. Is that it? DL: There could be more. I think that sooner or later he will do it. The book should maybe be read twice, because there is a lot between the lines but it’s a book that I strongly advise people to read. JP: Paulo? PR: Just one detail. We read the book on the day before like so many other journalists, because the editor offered copies to the journalists that requested them on the eve of the publication. I make a very simple initial analysis that is the following. I presume that what is in the book is what is in the process. Dr Gonçalo Amaral would not make things up and include things that are not in the process. And after reading the book, I remembered the PJ’s final report which led to the archiving. I went to re-read and compare both. JP: And what about that comparison? PR: The perception that I have is that there are two perspectives, the perspective with which the PJ looks at the process' contents, in the light of what is contained in Gonçalo Amaral’s book, it gives me the idea that the PJ's report focuses on what was not discovered. While the book contains what was discovered and what was not discovered. This would be almost like looking at a glass of water that is filled up to half, and saying it is half full or half empty. But I think that the PJ's report says that the glass is half empty, and Dr Gonçalo Amaral’s book says that the glass is two thirds full. JP: And we are desperate to read the whole liquid, to drink the whole liquid, aren't we? Gonçalo Amaral could not endure us speaking about him in his back and he is already here. A round of applause for Gonçalo Amaral. Please come in… (applause) JP: Good afternoon! How are you? GA: Good afternoon. JP: Please be seated. GA: Here? JP: Yes, here. I finally get to meet the man who everyone is talking about and I can't resist the first question: Are you apprehensive about the McCann couple's threats? GA: No. The book is based on facts and like someone told me it was written honestly, therefore it does not contain falsehoods and I’m not apprehensive. JP: Why do you think that they went as far as making sure that it reached Portugal, especially that sentence: "He should be very careful" the McCann couple said two days before the book was published? GA: I didn't hear the McCann couple say that. I heard a person who says he is a spokesman. Therefore it is not a status within the process, I think he is even a witness in the process at the moment, so that gentleman should know what he is saying. JP: You don't give it anything more, another value… GA: I have already thought about what I should do regarding that gentleman, but I'm keeping it to myself, therefore… JP: With Clarence Mitchell? GA: Exactly. JP: It is curious that he is one of the persons that are not mentioned in the book. GA: Yes because the book is about a criminal investigation of which that gentleman is not part. There may be an area, which is the journalistic area to understand the political pressure, but maybe a journalist could write about that area, even concerning the role of the media, the book doesn’t focus much on that. JP: Yes but it also covers it. GA: It mentions facts, a set of facts, diligences, testimonies and scientific and documental evidence that is featured in the process. Therefore that gentleman is not part of the investigation despite all the noise that he has produced in the investigation. JP: Indeed and you report his entry into the process. There are so many questions that have not been clarified to this day GA: The investigation does not have to worry about that gentleman, does it? JP: Duarte Levy and Paulo, who will ask questions just like me, were saying that they were left with the feeling, may I call you Gonçalo? GA: Yes. JP: That's settled, then. They were left with the feeling that you leave a lot out of the book. And that the book does not contain everything. GA: Something has to be left out. JP: Why? GA: I'm a trained lawyer, I'm a lawyer, and we don't say everything, do we. It may be for a second edition of the book, it may be for certain explanations that someone wishes, therefore… it's my own secret. JP: It's your own secret. So there is a secret? You haven't told everything? GA: No, but it's details, anyway. JP: But I get the feeling, precisely in this book, you two can join the conversation if you wish (to DL and PR), that in this book the details are very important, in fact, it's in the details that for people like us who follow things attentively, that this book becomes surprising. I'm going to let Paulo launch… PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ's final report, which was widely reported by the media and was even published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation? GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice. PR: That is my obligation as a journalist. GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven't read it yet. I haven't had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it's an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it's the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written… JP: Weren't you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ? GA: No, no. I haven't had time, either. I haven't had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride… JP: I find that absolutely impossible, I don't believe it. Have you cut all bonds with what you left behind? Have you distanced yourself emotionally from all of this? GA: No. I haven't cut all bonds. No. JP: I don't believe it! GA: But sincerely I haven't read the report yet. I haven't read the report, I know it's on the internet, so I will read it but I haven't read it yet. JP: I'm not convinced at all but say it. GA: But I'm telling you the truth. JP: Yes, Duarte? DL: There is a question. We heard, a short while ago, about the existence of an investigation into your private life, yours, inspector Tavares de Almeida's private life and even Guilhermino de Encarnação's private life. Carried out by private detectives that are connected to the McCann family. And in the book, at some point you mention your dog. What happened to that dog? This is a question. GA: A mere coincidence, at the beginning of the investigation, the dog died. Surely nobody went there and killed him, it could have been other dogs, right. DL: But during this investigation, did you never feel that maybe there was a pressure on you, on your colleagues… GA: The pressure was the persecution that we were subject to, but it was not much of a persecution anyway, because they didn't find out where I lived, they didn't find out outside of Portimão and not inside either, which was 100 metres from the police building that we all lived, they just followed me during those 100 metres from the police building and from the restaurant where I had lunch, so that big investigation that was done, by those journalists from English tabloids, they only managed to check 100 metres, because in fact nothing more apart from that. Concerning those gentlemen's investigation, it's the first time that I hear about that, I'm not worried. I only hope that if it is true, I hope that the entities that have responsibilities in criminal terms in this country act, because in fact it has been too much time. There is a very serious interference that started after I left Portimão, to try to carry out investigations, not only in this case but also related to the Joana case. And I think that - JP: In order to discredit you, to ruin your credibility, is that it? GA: Me and the Polícia Judiciária. I mean, they tried to question both investigations, there are things that, people came up and told me that this is for the little girls, for Joana and for Madeleine. Therefore, and they want to obtain information and things, therefore. In Portugal, criminal investigation it’s well defined in the law who can carry it out, those gentlemen cannot do it and what they do here in Portugal has to be sanctioned somehow. JP: Obviously. Before I let Paulo speak, I would like to ask a question which I don’t know whether Gonçalo will answer, but as you are not an inspector anymore and are now out of the circuit and haven't even read… GA: I was never an inspector. I was a coordinator… it's a matter of… JP: Coordinator, I apologise, but as you are not with the PJ anymore, maybe you can, we have already talked more about states of the soul, about impressions. You started shaking your head as a no, but anyway. The first contact that you had with the McCann family, father and mother, what did you think? GA: Well, I don't speak English, therefore the contact was made through other persons, but I had no reaction. JP: But did you think that you were in the presence of a genuinely worried couple, desperate to find their daughter? GA: I didn't make that type of judgment. In a criminal investigation, we have to base ourselves in facts, we have to be objective and leave emotions behind. The parents' situation of anguish is logical, there was anguish, now whether it was anguish over the disappearance of their daughter or over knowing that their daughter was dead, it's different and it cannot be distinguished like that. But in fact there was anguish contrary to what is being said, not in the police building but it's known that the little girl's mother cried, she apparently cried that morning, so that anguish could be over the loss of her daughter, right? Therefore if they are committed to searching, it's not normal that on the first day, the first hour, the only possible lead was abduction, abduction and it's extended into saying abduction by Portuguese paedophile networks, therefore, these conclusions are made too soon after the event, because several possibilities were open at that moment, therefore, from then onwards I also find that strange and we took it into consideration. JP: And later on? When you continue the investigation, you cross ways with this couple several times, did your opinion change or do you think that… GA: The idea that I got and that my colleagues got, things have to be put in their place, don't they, I was the coordinator of an investigation team, which included English, Portuguese, joint national directors, vice directors, this was the operational part that was being directed from Portimão, where the investigation was based. The advance that happens, is relatively changed. There is a sort of flight forward, we can understand that, it happens and possibly not only in this case, but in other cases where people sort of, I don't want to say lie, half truth, they stick to the idea that there is an abduction and they don't think about anything except abduction and psychologists and psychiatrists have already mentioned that, so it's as if they believed it was true, there is this flight forward, therefore, from that moment onwards they continue to say that they search for their daughter. JP: But did they change their behaviour, or did they have a more cold, more reserved attitude, more contained or more emotional… GA: There are situations that are reported in the book but there are others when there isn't a normal behaviour, so the person despairs during a moment of anxiety and we actually try to understand, we try, if it's an obstruction that was the issue there, if it was really a demand for ransom, and we try to negotiate with that individual who was in Holland. JP: That episode is particularly surprising. GA: And then we watch that, us Portuguese who were there... JP: ... and the English... GA: ... and the English, we watched it in stupefaction, he was sitting there with a lollipop laughing on the phone and we were all waiting... JP: We're talking about Gerry McCann, at the moment when, because someone did try a coup like that, correct? So while you were waiting for him to make contact with you… GA: … maybe it was his way of reacting to that tension, maybe it's justifiable but to us, we were shocked, it's not. We were searching for his daughter, doing our job. JP: While he visited sites on the internet... GA: No, he was on the phone. JP: Ah he was on the phone and sucking on a lollipop wasn't it and laughing and chatting? GA: Yes! Completely detached from what was going on and about to happen… JP: So that shocked you in particular? GA: Me and the colleagues who were present. JP: Very well. Paulo wanted to ask a question. Let's hear it – PR: A very specific question that stands out in your book. There are 7 witnesses, 4 friends of the McCanns, 2 English tourists that were there at the Ocean Club, and one of the nannies from the crèche who guarantee that they saw Robert Murat near the apartment on the evening that Madeleine disappeared. Robert Murat denies this, he says that he was with his mother, and then the Judiciária questions several members of the GNR, of the staff from the Ocean Club, and people who live there and who participated in the searches and who know Robert Murat perfectly because he lives there and all of those people deny those witnesses and peremptorily state that they did not see Robert Murat that night. This is the question that I ask you. Isn't it obligatory even from a legal standpoint, faced with what to me seem like false statements, that certificates are extracted and that there are legal procedures against those witnesses because they are giving a false statement? GA: Provided that the Public Ministry proves that they are really false statements. PR: I'm aware it's a decision for the Public Ministry, I only – GA: I think they are. As a layer, I think they are, I have that notion that they in fact don't give a truthful testimony. PR: But there is no news that those persons were targeted by a process from the Public Ministry. GA: In fact there is another situation with Mathew Oldfield who says he went inside the apartment and states that he saw two windows, and his wife says that moments before that, minutes earlier, he had listened at the two bedroom windows, so that detail of the two windows, which seems to be a mistake but it's not quite so, therefore, if they had been in the bedroom they would know that there was only one window in the bedroom, even outside of the bedroom if they had been listening it would only be one window as well, therefore there is only one window. PR: So it is not known that the Public Ministry acted on the matter of the false testimonies by those witnesses, which in fact, Robert Murat's lawyer has already announced that as soon as he has access to the process – GA: Yes, because there even was a confrontation between them… PR: Yes precisely, precisely. JP: So for now there are no consequences? GA: Well, it seems not. JP: It seems not. I insist on the questions concerning your impressions because it was maybe the aspect of the book that I was most avid to know whether or not you would take that route, and twice or thrice you let the text slide towards it, and I was really very surprised over that behaviour from Gerry McCann at the moment when the possibility of his daughter's ransom is being discussed, which was obviously fictitious, but his behaviour relating to it and some observations that you make concerning Kate McCann. Namely a certain irritation and ill humour under several circumstances. Can you define who is Kate McCann? GA: It is difficult to define, isn't it. She almost cried in front of us, and then she lowered her head and when she returned she came back more aggressive, more – JP: But within the couple she is the more combative, the more controlling person. GA: I didn't want to take that route in terms of rendering things subjective but… JP: I noticed that. GA: … but that is how it was. It was a bit, there was something not right there, but maybe a psychiatrist or someone could analyse the behaviour. JP: Very well, you don't want to say much about your personal impressions of her ahaha GA: The issue here is not… I don't have to worry about the McCann couple. What I have to worry about, or had to worry about is that little girl and find out what happened to her. It's logical that knowing who the parents are and their behaviour, how they react, all of that is important within an investigation. But the most important thing is for us to integrate with what we have, to find the facts and to follow a route in terms of the final objective. Therefore, discussing the parents… it's a question… JP: But surely the second route that was chosen was the possibility that they are involved in her disappearance it had to do with that behaviour that we just referred… some coldness, some… GA: No… JP: It wasn't only about that? GA: It was about the entire investigation that is made isn't it, but… JP: And these elements aren't analysed? GA: We don't base ourselves on empathies and we don't like or dislike persons, we focus on the investigations. JP: I'm not talking about empathies; I'm talking about behavioural observation. That is also analysed. GA: It is, but – JP: Ah! GA: But what leads us into the direction of the little girl's death is facts, not only looking at people and thinking that… JP: Do you really reach the theory of an accidental death according to your theory, before the dogs arrive in Portugal, or… GA: Yes, before the dogs come to Portugal, there are signs of death as I say in the book, signs which are given by the family that a cadaver is being searched. This gentleman comes from South Africa, and hair from the little girl, supposedly from the little girl, he places it inside a machine which he invented and we hear its contents which says that there within a certain area of the beach lies a cadaver. So he came on the couple's request, otherwise he would not be requested. Then, the dogs' intervention follows a work of analysis, of planning carried out by a British national consultant, from the British police, he was here in Portugal, he saw the area, he consulted the process with what happened, therefore with facts that existed, he went to the area, he rode a helicopter, consulted with academics, and all that and he reached the conclusion that we have to search for a cadaver. In order to search for a cadaver these experts have to be used, these dogs and that was what happened. So from there on… JP: So that was what is called a good relationship between British and Portuguese investigators. GA: Very good. JP: Very good. Contrary to everything that was later reported by the press. GA: Exactly. JP: So your opinion is that an accidental death took place in that apartment. GA: It is not my opinion. It's the opinion of the investigation. This has to be made very clear. I have repeated this several times but it's important. JP: You are absolutely right, so according to the investigation… GA: According to the investigation that was composed of English, Portuguese investigators… JP: Exactly. The little girl died in that apartment? GA: The little girl died in that apartment. JP: On the evening of the 3rd of May. GA: And we reached that conclusion with the data that we have. JP: And before the time that was announced? Before 10 pm which is the time that was… GA: The time is not known because the reconstruction was not carried out, which could be important in order to define the times and to verify if they could have attended all that vigilance from the parents, every 10 or every 5 minutes, so if they were having dinner and all of a sudden almost nobody dined, isn't it. But it seems that only one plate went back, a steak that had to be warmed up. It was necessary to understand who it was that failed to eat that steak and what everyone else ate, how long the dinner lasted, how long the meals take to be prepared, and all of those things in order to understand it all afterwards.   The reconstruction was not carried out and from there on it's difficult to know at what time it could have happened. There is one piece of data in terms of accurate time that evening, it exists and it concerns the little girl, it's the time at which she left the nursery. JP: At 5.30 pm. GA: At 5.30 pm, concerning the other witnesses that were at the beach there is the video registry, they were filmed by the camera that was there, at 6.36 pm they leave the beach, first the men and afterwards the women and children, in terms of times and then there is the time of the Irish witness who knows at what time his dinner ends, and he has the receipt of the payment with the time at which he paid, when he leaves the restaurant across the street – JP: Across the street he sees a man walking down with a child… GA: He sees a man walking down with a child. JP: … who he only realises to be Gerry McCann when he sees Gerry McCann descending with his children… GA: Exactly. JP: … when they return to England. GA: The files that mention the testimony, they mention the clumsy manner in which he carried the child, the posture which we could call athletic, that he was an athletic individual and they offer a description, they reach the point of saying that, it was maybe possible in terms of saying who it is physically, but with those characteristics, the manner in which he walked, how he carried the child, they could know who it was. And so when he sees, when that family sees Gerry McCann descending from the airplane carrying the child and he starts to walk on the pavement, they realised. Now he says it's 80%, if you tell me ah that is not evidence, I also agree it’s not evidence but at least it's a piece of information and that information should always be worked out. JP: And was it? GA: When I left Portimão, on the 1st of October, I left on the 2nd but on the 1st we were arranging for those witnesses to come to Portugal. We already had permission from the national director, all that was left to do was to choose a hotel for them to stay and to schedule a date. After I left I know it took several months until the witness was heard, which happened around January or February this year, I don't know, through a rogatory letter or a request for assistance under international cooperation. JP: That is really one of the surprising bits of data. Another piece of data which is also surprising is related to that towel that Kate McCann gives for the first dogs, our dogs, the Portuguese. Why did she give a towel and not a piece of clothing? After this I'll let Paulo speak. GA: That is another question that has to be understood as well, doesn't it? The towel because supposedly she had had a bath that day, right? It would therefore carry more of the little girl's smell, the little girl's odour, so this was an option between her, I think, and the members of GNR. JP: The GNR which was there. Let's hear Paulo. PR: Now before I move on to another question, concerning the towel has the PJ established for example how often the bed sheets and the towels in the apartments are changed. Because if memory doesn't fail me, the towel is delivered to the GNR 48 hours after the little girl disappeared. GA: No. The towel was handed over right on that night. PR: On that night. GA: The GNR dogs also arrived that night. But the last time that the apartment had been cleaned was on Wednesday. PR: A while ago, you mentioned an English policeman, a great expert, I suppose you were referring to Mark Harrison who is one of the two or three best British policemen in terms of investigating complex crimes. He was here, he spent a week in Praia da Luz, he rummaged through Praia da Luz, he walked everywhere, the saw the process upside down, he read the entire process, and then he wrote a report in which he concludes that the most likely hypothesis is the child's death, and if I'm correct, he proposes the dogs' coming, right? GA: Exactly. PR: Was he the policeman who also retired, a reference that you made during a press conference? That there was an English policeman who retired. GA: No. PR: Was there an English policeman who also retired? GA: The English policeman who retired is from the Leicester police. Now the reasons I would prefer not to talk about him at the moment. As a matter of fact I'd like to talk to him personally and I don't want him to be pressured so I would reserve myself the right not to comment any further. PR: Just to make this very clear, is that English policeman, Mark Harrison… GA: No, no, no. PR: … who comes here, writes a report, no, I'm not talking about the retirement issue, I'm just saying that he came here, that he is an expert in complex crime, one of the most prestigious from the English police, he walks the streets of Praia da Luz from one end to another, he measures, routes, timings, he analyses the process and after that he writes a report in his quality as one of the finest English experts, where he writes black on white that the most likely possibility is that the child died in the apartment, is that correct? GA: Correct. PR: That is what marks the turn in the investigations. GA: Correct. PR: And then the famous dogs arrive… GA: Yes, to detect cadaver and human blood odour. JP: So you don't want to tell why your colleague retired. He has his own reasons. But you are aware that all of this thickens the public's perception of a Machiavellian conspiracy theory. I understand your position, maybe at the moment you don't want to say more or you can't, it's a fact that your book has brought us something more but we still fail to understand everything. Mainly, possibly the macro-structure that surrounds all of this. Duarte? DL: No, I just wanted to talk about the issue of the English lab's reports. JP: That is very important, yes. GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn't have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let's say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann's profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann's. DL: In Portugal, for example, we only need a match of 15 alleles out of 19 in order to determine someone's paternity, therefore… That is the first fact. The second fact is that at this moment, the institute for Forensic Medicine is already prepared, they already own the same equipment as the FSS in England to carry out this type of analysis. Why does the Public Ministry or the Polícia Judiciária not request, or don't they have any more samples to carry out… GA: As far as we know, they have all been destroyed by now, namely the hair. Nothing can be done. PR: Concerning the FSS reports – GA: And the samples were microscopic, weren't they… PR: Are you absolutely certain that the reports that reached you, namely those concerning the blood residues in the car boot, are exactly the reports that left the FSS? GA: I have no doubts whatsoever, in fact, they were delivered by a senior official from Leicester police, it carries a logo, they came and went by email, so there is an existing origin, therefore the report is signed, so I have no doubts about that. JP: You have no doubts whatsoever about that. GA: On the official document. JP: But wasn't it published in Belgium that… DL: … that there are two reports. There is one report that left the FSS and there is a second slightly different report that arrived in Portugal. GA: There is a recent report and there are two other reports. The first one mentions 15 alleles and here is the main question, it places the focus, they place the focus on that part of the exam from the vehicle, in the second [report] they then focus on the apartment, if on one side 15 alleles were not enough, in the other there were only 5 alleles that matched Madeleine McCann's genetic profile, what could be read there was that there were almost no problems. Because it's easily justifiable. It may not be justifiable with the cadaver odour on the spot where the blood sample was collected, but therefore, inside the house it is easy to justify, it's more difficult with a car that was rented more than twenty days later. So this is where the major confusion lies. JP: Yes, Paulo? PR: At a given moment in time, around the 9th or 10th of May, starts what you mention in your book, a wave of sightings of Madeleine. Madeleine is first seen in Morocco, by a… GA: First she is seen here in Portugal. The wave starts to spread in Portugal. PR: Exactly. Portugal and then – GA: Then she is seen in the North, then jumps to South America, Brazil… PR: One that was largely publicised by the English newspapers, was from a Norwegian lady who was spending holidays in Morocco and who swears that she saw the little girl. What the English press does not mention at that time is that the lady is Norwegian but she is married to a man who was born and bred in Rothley, the town where the… JP: It could be a tremendous coincidence. PR: … the McCanns resided for the last few years. This is the question that I ask you: The wave of sightings, namely in Morocco, where witnesses state that they are 100% certain that it was the child, I have no doubts. Beyond the usual confirmation with Interpol, Interpol and the police forces in those countries were requested to investigate those sightings and those witnesses. GA: The witnesses, it was necessary to hear those witnesses and she lives in Southern Spain. She lives near Valencia. That is one of the diligences that possibly remained to carry out. But concerning those sightings in Morocco, it was through the cooperation with the English police, with liaison officers with the Moroccan police that tried to obtain the video tapes from that petrol station where the little girl was seen, in order to try to find out if it could actually be her or not. It was all handled from there. JP: And you don't value the fact that really the lady who saw is married to someone who coincidentally is… GA: That was actually taken into account and it happened later, as Paulo Reis said, and as a matter of fact it's something that should have been worked upon in terms of being heard. JP: Well, let's talk about what worries… GA: But I can also say that apart from those sightings all over the world, in Praia da Luz there were little girls that strongly resembled Madeleine, blond with blue eyes, many of the same age as her. Therefore, someone could have spotted Madeleine there, in Praia da Luz, something that was not done. JP: That's true, that's true. In your opinion, Maddie, in the opinion of the investigation and of your colleagues and the team that you coordinated, did Maddie die that evening? GA: She died. JP: And someone took her from that apartment and placed her where? GA: Look, when we are in an investigation of this kind we have to understand what the knowledge of those persons is, if they know other people, what contacts they have. If they have means at their disposal. We have to know the area itself, to know about the facility or the almost material impossibility to conceal the corpse within few hours and few minutes. And the conclusion that we reach with all of this, with all of this data is that, if there was any involvement from those nine persons, the corpse could only be in the beach area. And that is in fact where the gentleman… JP: The investigator. GA: Not the investigator, the Irish witnesses… JP: Ah yes! GA: … see a person passing, a man carrying a child, a little girl, they say that it is in effect Madeleine going towards the South area, let's put it that way, towards the sea side. Now whether or not she stayed there, that is another question. For how long she stayed there, what happens next, only the development of the investigation of that area of death, let's put it that way, could take us there. JP: Would you have followed that investigation line? GA: It was the direction that I was following at that time so until we emptied it we weren't stopping, were we… JP: It sounds so unbelievable, the possibility that a body was placed on a cliff, or in any other area on the beach, and then removed and transported in a rental car. GA: The corpse couldn't have remained there all the time. It's impossible. JP: So where was it taken next? GA: If we take into account that, if we consider the traces that were found in the car boot… JP: … which are in fact… GA: … which are in fact from the little girl. In order to justify that bodily fluid as the lab says, it could only have been preserved and conserved in the cold because otherwise it would have been… JP: That means that… GA: … in an advanced state of decomposition, at least it's a hypothesis. Therefore it's a question of a deep freezer, or something similar, and there we had to search for it and that was what we were doing. This means, the contacts that they had, where they went, where they were seen… There are people who say that they were seen entering an apartment block near the cemetery in Praia da Luz. At that point in time we weren't able to detect which apartment they entered, who lived there, because it's also a bit complicated because you have to understand it's a tourist area and often it's not known who the apartment belongs to. JP: Of course, of course… GA: Who lives there, for how long they live there, so all of that was being worked upon. To try to understand the support… JP: If someone discovered a deep freezer in the area and… GA: If it was actually a deep freezer, it doesn't exist anymore now. JP: Is that still possible to find out? I imagine… GA: Look, a few years ago on the Azores, after a homicide that had taken place years earlier, we managed to locate a vehicle that was already in a junk yard in which a taxi driver had been killed, a taxi driver from Praia da Vitória in the Azores. But we were unlucky, normally the van's back had a carpet but it didn't exist anymore. That carpet didn't exist anymore, so if we had found that carpet it would have been possible to prove that the death had taken place there, so anything is possible. JP: Anything is possible. I don’t know if Paulo and Duarte have any further questions, you have to be brief, we’re almost finishing. DL: One more doubt, I read in your book that you never received the medical report, Madeleine's clinical history. For example, I also know that – GA: We think, because that's the way it is, we spoke to the English police, they said right away that there were problems in England to hand that over within the rogatory letter's context. There is a rogatory letter that was carried out but before that there was another rogatory letter that was being prepared which also contained those questions and which also contained questions about other tests, other tests by the dogs with the friends that were there, namely on the clothes with those same dogs in order to try to find cadaver odour or any other trace, that was important. So there was that rogatory letter… DL: And you never received those reports, you receive the reply that the McCanns had no credit cards, you already knew that was false, could it then be said that there were two English teams working on this case? The one that in fact stood beside the PJ and the one that worked against… GA: I don't speak with the English police, I can assure you… JP: And now we don't speak at all because we're arriving at the end. I only want, Gonçalo Amaral, I only want to know one thing. Will Maddie return to your life one of these days, or not? GA: I think yes. This book has the will of clarifying and of contributing to the investigation, I think yes, there are more things to talk about. JP: Is that your mission? GA: It's not a mission, it's a question of recovering my dignity and my honour and that of my colleagues and of this institution to which I was so proud of belonging to for so many years, and of justice being done for the little girl. JP: Thank you. A round of applause for Gonçalo Amaral. Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis, thank you very much. (applause)

Gonçalo Amaral and Hernâni Carvalho on TVI at 12:30pm, 30 July 2008

Gonçalo Amaral and Hernâni Carvalho on TVI at 12:30pm Joana Morais      30 July 2008 Thanks to Joana Morais for review   Mr. Gonçalo Amaral was asked several questions regarding the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie'. Some contradictions in the case were explained, also possible reasons for the simulation of kidnapping and hiding of the body were advanced. Several aspects were covered relative to the dogs and their findings and were shown on the diagram produced by Correio da Manhã, which also appears in the book.   Diagram and Dogs   Regarding the diagram, produced by Correio da Manhã, there are a few mistakes: for example, the sofa should be placed under the left window, there, exactly at the middle of the window, human blood and cadaver scent was found. The window in the twins and Maddie's bedroom, which is annotated in the diagram with a dog is wrong - the cadaver scent was found on the opposite side of the apartment, outside, in the small garden or backyard . Through investigation it was established that no one had died in the apartment prior to that day, so the scent and blood, which indicated a partial match to the genetic profile of Madeleine, provides the conviction that she was the one that died there. The closet in the McCanns bedroom was big enough to hide a corpse inside. Diagram of the McCanns' apartment by Correio da Manhã Jane Tanner's Inconsistencies and Kate's Finger Prints   When Jane gave her statement, she explained that she saw a man carrying a child, but she and some of the tapas witnesses failed to see the window of Maddie's bedroom open, which was the alleged window used by the alleged kidnapper to take Maddie. The first problem is that Jane Tanner was never seen at that hour, and minutes, and place by either Gerry McCann, who has said that he was coming out of the apartment, or Jeremy Wilkins. They have both stated that they never saw her. Second inconsistency is that the window was cleaned on the previous day by the Ocean Club employees, and the only finger prints (thumb and middle finger) that were found were the ones of Kate and it was evident through the position of the prints that the window was opened from the inside, to the left. Kate McCann stated that she never touched the window. 1. Maddie's bedroom window, 2. Route taken to enter apartments by front door Gordon Brown and the existence of Political Pressures   The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown called the police counterpart of Mr.Gonçalo Amaral, in Leicester, to warn him that Gonçalo Amaral had been removed. Gonçalo Amaral was only given notice of his 'removal' from the case two hours after this call was made.   Madeleine's Right Arm and the Strange Mark   The issue was raised by Mr. Hernâni Carvalho. Madeleine's right arm has a strange mark, a mark which, according to what Mr. Carvalho has learned with Doctor Natália Vara, a forensic psychologist is not a sun burn - in that case more parts of her body would show signs of sun burnings and it has the signs of a hard slap or similar. The point here, is that interviews were conducted with the baby sitters at the Ocean Club crèche and none of them remembers this very visible mark on Madeleine's arm. There wasn't any statement from the parents regarding this fact. Therefore, the conclusion is that this was made after 17:30, after the parents picked Maddie up from the crèche on the 3rd of May 2007. Click picture to enlarge On the Side   A question regarding the tapas friends and how many people were seated at the table dining when the girl disappeared was put to Gonçalo Amaral. He stated: 'It is not known'. The dispatch of the archival of the process has 140 pages. Since there are no longer jurisdictional problems the neglect case can be tried in the UK.

Exclusive in English: Former 'Maddie Cop' interview, 31 July 2008

Exclusive in English: Former 'Maddie Cop interview The Portugal News      Brendan de Beer Dated: 2/8/2008, Appeared online: 31/7/2008   In an interview staged only a short walk from the regional PJ police headquarters in Faro over the weekend, Gonçalo Amaral, the former leading detective in the case involving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has an open and frank conversation with The Portugal News. Lambasted by the British media, and ignored by much of the Portuguese written press since the launch of his controversial book last week (which the Correia da Manhã newspaper has assisted in promoting), Gonçalo Amaral explains his reasoning behind certain methods of investigation, and stresses his actions to date have not been to accuse anyone, rather, he argues, his focus has been about the pursuit of truth.   The Portugal News: Did you leak information about the investigation to the media?   Gonçalo Amaral: I never had anything to do with leaks. We have to look at from where these leaks could have originated. A number of entities worked with us during the investigations and we cannot rule out the possibility that some of these leaks originated in Britain. As a matter of fact, when the FSS handed over their report to Portuguese police, we kept it under wraps, but a British daily was the first to appear with extracts of the FSS's findings.   TPN: But how does that explain that some sections of the Portuguese press have printed confidential information that later proved to be accurate?   GA: Perhaps they had good sources of information, but we cannot conclude that they were given information by police in the Algarve.   TPN: The report leaked last week says that Gerry and Kate were made arguidos on the "merest possibility" that they were involved in the disappearance of their child. Is that accurate?   GA: They were made arguidos on suspicion of two crimes: concealing a body and simulating an abduction and potentially the crime of abandonment. But saying they were made arguidos on the merest possibility that they were involved in the disappearance of their child is not true. The conclusions reached by the team investigating the crime, including colleagues in Britain, are the same as the five points I mention at the end of my book. Perhaps the conclusions reached in this latest report were made to facilitate the archiving of the case and findings were put across in a mild manner. Once you gain access to the case files, you will find that it was not due to a mere possibility.   TPN: What do we know about Madeleine's disappearance?   GA: She was here on holiday. There is obviously no doubt that Madeleine existed. There is also no doubt that she went missing. The scheme employed to visit the children does, to a large extent, not correspond with the truth, it was probably used to safeguard the view that the children were safe [in the apartments on their own as their parents dined at the Tapas restaurant].   TPN: How often were the children checked upon?   GA: One of the first lines of the investigation was to interview the party that was on holiday with the McCanns to establish this.   TPN: What did you find at the apartment?   GA: No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.   TPN: Do you think more could have been done before archiving or closing the case?   GA: In my opinion, a number of things are still lacking: We should have continued investigating the parents in order to either charge them or rule them out as suspects. If I represented this couple, I would have insisted that police investigations continue. Not everything we do is to incriminate a suspect. Often a phone will be tapped in order to obtain information that will clear a suspect.   We worked long hours discussing a number of potential explanations for Madeleine's disappearance; we did not insist solely that she had been abducted.   TPN: You say that politics prevented you from doing certain things during the investigation. What were those actions you would like to have taken?   GA: I found the intervention of the [then] British Ambassador strange, as besides the British Consul in Portimão already being involved in the case from the first morning of Madeleine's disappearance, all diplomatic channels had been opened and were functional. With the arrival of the Ambassador, my colleagues and I thought it was odd, and to a certain extent made us feel limited in our investigations.   TPN: Did you ever receive orders to investigate in a certain manner?   GA: No we did not receive any orders. I don't like talking about orders. But we felt limited.   TPN: Did the police offer a plea bargain to Kate McCann?   GA: No.   TPN: But did you not suggest she consider a plea bargain?   GA: We only explained the nature of certain crimes. Her lawyer was there, you can ask him.   TPN: Did Kate and Gerry McCann answer all the questions that you posed to them as fully as possible?   GA: Up until being declared an arguido, Kate, at the request of her lawyer, co-operated. When questions became of a nature that could incriminate her, she was made an arguido, her rights and duties were read out to her in English and thereafter she opted for the right to remain silent.   TPN: And Gerry McCann?   GA: He answered all questions, before and after being made an arguido.   TPN: When did the police first learn of the intention of the McCanns to leave Portugal?   GA: With the arrival of the sniffer dogs, I think back in August, the couple started showing a keenness to leave the country. As for these dogs, I have not seen or heard any scepticism in Britain, contrary to Portugal.   TPN: How can you explain the theory that Kate and Gerry used their hire car in the disappearance of their daughter when it was hired 25 days after she vanished?   GA: I don't know. I was not the one who hired the car.   A bodily fluid was detected in the trunk of the car which was similar to that of Madeleine McCann in 15 of the 19 indicators of her profile.   TPN: Has this evidence been investigated further?   GA: No.   TPN: Why not?   GA: You will have to ask my former colleagues that question.   TPN: What evidence was there that someone had been watching apartment 5A prior to Madeleine’s disappearance?   GA: We spoke to a number of people who came forward.   TPN: Anyone suspicious mentioned in these statements?   GA: No. Perhaps just a British musician we later tracked down.   But in a reconstruction, witness testimonies, such as that of Jane Tanner and others, including restaurant workers, could be clarified further.   TPN: At what stage did you become suspicious of the McCanns and why?   GA: There were a number of inconsistencies detected during the first interrogations.   TPN: Such as?   GA: We were initially told by the parents that when they checked on the children they would use the front door. But Kate later said they used the other door. Because had they used the front door, they would have detected someone had forced their way into the room [where Madeleine and the twins had been sleeping].   But during these initial rounds of questioning, my team and I believed these inconsistencies were due to the McCanns and their friends trying to cover the fact they had left their children unattended, along with their possible lack of trust in the Portuguese police. This had a lot of weight for me in the beginning, especially as the law in Britain is far tougher concerning the abandoning of children.   TPN: Did you look into sex offenders, and what was the outcome?   GA: It is very difficult that a paedophile pre-selected Madeleine. It had to be very well planned. But all known sexual predators were investigated.   TPN: Did you have any evidence that Robert Murat and the McCanns or their friends knew each other previous to Madeleine's disappearance?   GA: We tried to confirm this, but along with the assistance of the British police, we were unable to establish any connection. But we looked into all possibilities. Robert Murat purchased a last-minute ticket to come to Portugal a couple of days before Madeleine went missing, perhaps as it was cheaper to do so. But we had to investigate whether or not his visit coincided with Madeleine's disappearance a couple of days later and whether he had been contacted to come here.   TPN: How do you see the lawsuit that you might face over your book?   GA: My book is based on facts. It could be a good occasion to take all the case files to court and compare what I wrote with that which is contained in the files.   TPN: What next lies ahead for you?   GA: I have had a number of proposals, but in October I am intending on starting my practical training as a lawyer, as I already have a law degree, but never practised.   Brendan de Beer   Edition: 970