Goncalo Amaral - The Civil Court Injunction *

The Civil Court decision (translation), 09 September 2009

The Civil Court decision, 09 September 2009 Joana Morais blogspot

Thanks to Astro for translation

This is a translation of the text of the Civil Court ruling that granted the temporary injunction on Gonçalo Amaral's book, 'Maddie – The Truth of the Lie', and the corresponding DVD. It was issued on the 9th of September, 2009. The numbered notes [x] are from astro, for clarification purposes only. It should also be recalled that this injunction was granted exclusively based on the evidence that was provided by the Applicants. The Defendants were only allowed to oppose the injunction after it had been granted. As we have no access to the text of the request that was made by the Applicants, we have no possibility of knowing what articles 13 and 58 (which were 'Not Proved') were about.

CONCLUSION – 09-09-2009

In this process of common injunction that is being handled at this court and section under the number 1143/09.0TVLSB, the Court decides to reply to the factual matter that appears in the initial request, and that has been subject to proof in fulfilment of the Appeals Court Decision [article 13, in the factual segment that appears on page 15 of said decision, articles 58 to 67 and 92 of the corrected initial request] [1], as follows:

Article 13: Not proved;

Article 58: Not proved;

Article 59: Proved that curricular pieces concerning the first Defendant [2] are published on the internet, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;

Article 60: Proved that the media focus hit the first Defendant;

Article 61: Proved;

Article 62: Proved that the first Defendant knows the meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;

Article 63: Proved that the first Defendant knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;

Article 64: Proved that the first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;

Article 65: Proved that the first Defendant knows what it means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;

Article 66: Proved that the first Defendant has professional experience and is of adult age;

Article 67: Proved that by divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants [3], saw his person promoted and earned money.

Also proved that the first Defendant wished to intervene in local political life.

Article 92 – Proved that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants [4] and rendering the search for the third Applicant [5] more difficult.

For the preceding decision concerning the matter of fact, the Court has pondered the documents that have been appended to the process, as well as the depositions from the questioned witnesses [6], in the segments in which they revealed direct knowledge about the facts that they were questioned upon. The Court has also used judicial presumptions, namely in the answers to articles 60 and 62 to 66.

Concerning the depositions of witnesses 1 to 4, it has to be noted that those have been essentially characterised by the transmission of their opinions, deductions and personal convictions. It was nevertheless revealed that they manifested direct knowledge of the increase in difficulties and obstacles to the ongoing private investigation that searches for the third Applicant, which is being promoted by the first and the second Applicants, each time that new editions or the announcement of future editions of the book, interviews with the first Defendant, or divulgations of the DVD take place.

The depositions, especially from the third and fourth witnesses, were equally considered, concerning the direct knowledge that they demonstrated over the intensification of the suffering of the first and second Applicants, each time de first Defendant's thesis was newly divulged – whether through the existence or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants [7].

Concerning the fifth witness, although her knowledge of the facts that she was questioned about comes from a set of investigative tasks that tend to sustain the allegation that is made in this injunction, what is certain is that, together with the documents that have been appended to the process, it was possible to establish that the book in question has already been subject to a Spanish edition in May 2009, a French one in June 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June 2009, then an Italian and a Dutch one, and Defendant 'Guerra e Paz' has also launched an edition in Brazil [8].

This is, in synthesis, the basis for the previous decision concerning the matter of fact.

REPORT

The five Applicants move the present injunction against the duly identified Defendants on page 38 [given the fact that the initial request with the corrected numbering, which has been appended on 20/05/2009, is being attended to], alleging, in synthesis, that the first Defendant's thesis about the events that took place in Praia da Luz in May 2007 – which relate to the disappearance of the third Applicant, which took place at that time -, which have been put into the book that he authored, that was published by the second Defendant, that sustains the video that was produced and marketed by the third Defendant and was broadcast by the fourth Defendant as a television documentary, have already violated several rights of all of the Applicants and cause them fear of future, serious and hardly repairable damage of the following rights:

a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, in the future;

b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth Applicants) to their moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of their elder sister, in the future, as well as their right to the reservation of private and family life and to the good name of the family that they belong to, their right to freedom and to security;

c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and second Applicants) to their image, to their good name, to their good reputation and to the preservation of the integrity of their private and family life, their right to freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity, the right not to be treated in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen, the guarantees of the penal process.

On these fundaments, they conclude by requesting the determination of the following measures:

a) The prohibition of sale and the order to seize, for destruction, the books and the videos that are still left at shops or any other deposits or warehouses;

b) The prohibition to execute new editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be sold or divulged by any means, in Portugal;

c) The prohibition to cede the editing rights or the author rights on the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos on the same subject, for publication in any part of the world;

d) The prohibition to cite, to analyse or to comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or of the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the two first Applicants;

e) The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or can be inferred;

f) The prohibition to publish statements, photographs, or any other documents that are allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.

According to what was established by the Appeals Court's Decision and considering what has resulted from the production of evidence during trial, the following FACTS are proved in an indicative way:

1 – On the 24th of July of 2008, the first Defendant launched in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant that reserved all rights to itself, the book that he has authored, "Maddie A Verdade da Mentira";

2 – In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis of death of the third Applicant and the concealment of her cadaver by the first and second Applicants;

3 – Said book attained 4 editions until the end of July of 2008, 9 editions until the end of August of 2008, and 12 editions until the end of September of 2008;

4 – Each edition was of 10,000 copies;

5 – Presently the book is sold out at practically all points of sale;

6 – When said book was published, the first Defendant gave interviews to all of the media that requested him to, namely to RTP [9], and defended the thesis that he presents in the book, in those interviews;

7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to newspaper "Correio da Manhã", which was published on the 24th of July of 2008, in which he defended the thesis that he presents in the book;

8 – At the beginning ot May of 2009, the same book was published in France, now under the title "Maddie, L’Enquête interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé de l’enquête";

9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published in the newspaper "Le Parisien" and on the matching internet site;

10 – In those interviews, the first Defendant again mentioned the theses that he presents in the book;

11 – The book's French edition is systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least on:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/goncalo-amaral-maddie-lenquete.html

hhtp://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2009/05/09/Maddie-1-enquete-interdite-en-belgique1.html

http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=31806&sid=abe61a1c34b42a74ad5a2e50f315c20d&start=0

hhtp://twitturly.com/url/a194ef0f54f1985133b2ff092ddcf75d

http://www.bourin.editeur.fr/livre/maddie-1-enquete-interdite-les-revelations-du-commissaire-portugais-charge-de-1-enquete.html

http://www.amazon.fr/Maddie-lenq%C3%AAte-interdite-Amaral-G/dp/2849411256

http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Maddie-l-enquete-enterdite.aspx/9782849411254;

12 – Between the publication of the Portuguese edition, on 24/07/2008, and the publication of the book's French edition, in May of 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a television programme that was produced by the third Defendant, that reserved the possession of the corresponding rights for itself;

13 – The first broadcast of said television programme took place on the 13th of April of 2009;

14 – The second broadcast of this television contents took place on the 12th of May of 2009;

15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least those two times;

16 – That programme/video is intrinsically based on the contents of the book "Maddie A Verdade da Mentira";

17 – In that video the first Defendant again sustains his thesis, that the third Applicant is no longer alive, that her death took place inside the "Ocean Club" apartment and that the parents, the first and second Applicants, concealed their daughter's cadaver;

18 – At least two million and two hundred thousand people watched that programme's first broadcast;

19 – In late April of 2009, the DVD that corresponds to that programme started being sold, with the title and the subtitle «Maddie A Verdade da Mentira – Um poderoso documentário baseado no best seller "A Verdade da Mentira" de Gonçalo Amaral» [10];

20 – 75.000 copies of that DVD were put on sale;

21 – The DVD is publicised, at least, on the third Defendant's website;

22 – The first and the second Applicants are married to each other and the parents of the third, the fourth and the fifth Applicants;

23 – In the Criminal Inquiry in which the first and the second Applicants were made arguidos, an archiving dispatch was issued concerning them, as per appended copy, pages 145-173;

24 – Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007;

25 – There are curricular pieces published on the internet, concerning the first Defendant, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;

26 – The focus of the media has hit the first Defendant;

27 – The abovementioned curricula (item 25) reveal a man who "studied engineering", obtained a university degree in juridical and criminal sciences and was a PJ agent/inspector for 27 years;

28 – The first Defendant knows the meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;

29 – The first Defendant knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;

30 - The first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;

31 - The first Defendant knows what it means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;

32 - The first Defendant has professional experience and is of adult age;

33 - By divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants, saw his person promoted and earned money.

34 - The first Defendant wished to intervene in local political life.

35 - The Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants and rendering the search for the third Applicant more difficult.

OF THE LAW

From the Applicants' allegation, it becomes clear that they understand that several of their rights – all within the scope of personality rights – have already been violated by the divulgation of the first Defendant's thesis concerning the events that are related to the third Applicant's disappearance in May of 2007. A thesis according to which the third Applicant would have passed away on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Praia da Luz apartment, and her cadaver concealed by the first and second

After the production of evidence, performed in fulfilment of the Decision, it was established that the book that was authored by the first Defendant [and although after the injunction was interposed] was in the meantime the subject of a Spanish edition in May of 2009, a French one in June of 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June of 2009, and later on, an Italian and a Dutch one, and the Defendant "Guerra e Paz" also launched an edition in Brazil, facts that allow for the conclusion that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD over the world, obtaining financial, commercial and social profit (cfr. answer to article 92).

On the other hand, it resulted demonstrated that the dissemination of those materials (book and DVD) deepens the suffering of the two first Applicants and renders the search for the third Applicant more difficult (cfr. answer to article 92): each time the first Defendant's thesis is newly divulged, the suffering of the first and second Applicants intensifies – whether through the existence or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants.

Thus translates the threat of future lesions or the worsening of those already verified to the Applicants' personality rights.

The protection of personal integrity in its two dimensions, physical and moral, is consecrated by the Constitution (cfr. article 25, number 1 of the CRP [11]), and it should be articulated with other means for the protection of personal rights, such as those foreseen in number 1 of article 26 of the Constitution, that is, the rights to personal identity, to the development of personality, to civil capacity, to citizenship, to the good name and reputation, to image, to word, to the reservation of intimacy of private and family life, and to legal protection against any form of discrimination, constituting the fundamental seat of the designated general personality right, as well as the direct expression of the basic postulate of human dignity as admitted in article 1 of the Constitution, a basic value and the first reference in the matter of fundamental rights.

The ordinary law, on the other hand, generically names, in article 70 number 1 of the Civil Code, the defence of individuals against illicit threats of offences against their physical and moral personality (from that mention and from the precepts that are subsequent to it, one infers the existence of a certain set of rights that are connected to personality, as the right to image, to the reservation of private intimacy, the right to a good name and reputation), with number 2 foreseeing that the person that has been threatened or offended can request the injunctions that are adequate to the case's circumstances, with the purpose of avoiding the consummation of the threat or to attenuate the effects of the already committed offence.

On the other hand, number 1 of article 381 of the Civil Process Code, and concerning non specified injunctions, establishes that whenever someone shows a based fear that someone else causes a serious and hardly repairable lesion to his or her right, that parson can request the conservatory or anticipatory injunction that is specifically adequate to ensure the effectiveness of the threatened right.

By handling the preceding juridical considerations with the established facts, the objective fulfilment of the conditions for the establishment of the injunction that is destined to safe keep the Applicants' rights is verified.

Nevertheless, and just as mentioned in the Appeals Court's Decision, one must pay attention to an eventual conflict of rights.

In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.

Those rights of the Defendants, as well as those of the Applicants that were noted above and that are at stake, have equal constitutional standing, and therefore it is peacefully understood that when there is a conflict in their exercise by different holders, and because there is no relationship of predominance of one towards the other, one must seek within the circumstances of the specific case, the fair measure of contraction of one of them, or even of both, in order to render the adequate exercise of each one of those rights viable. That solution is contained in article 335 number 1 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, taking into account that the thesis that is presented by the first Defendant, through the adequate means that are placed at his disposal by the other Defendants, raises the suspicion of the involvement of the first and second Applicants in the practice of criminal actions, albeit in a negligent way, among the general public, and that they, having been made arguidos at a given point in time, saw the criminal inquiry archived in relation to them, one has to conclude that it must be the rights of the Defendants that cede to the rights of the Applicants.

On the other hand, the divulgation of the thesis that the third Applicant passed away on the 03/05/2007 raises difficulties for the investigation into what happened and the search for her whereabouts. The contrary hypothesis that is defended by the Applicants, that the third Applicant is still alive, must be taken into account, and if it is verified, then her life and her wellbeing may depend on the search for her whereabouts, and these rights of her must also make those of the Defendants cede.

Therefore, and having reached this point, we conclude that the injunction is to be granted, nevertheless, and as far as the requested measures are concerned, it has to be taken into account that those requested under d), e), f) and, partially, under b) are directed against an undetermined universe of addressees, and can therefore only be granted concerning the Defendants.

As for the compulsory pecuniary sanction, taking into account the financial capacity of the Defendants that are companies (to which the requested injunctions of apprehension of books and DVDs are destined), the profits that have already been obtained through the sale and the divulgation at hand, and taking into account the interests that are in conflict, we see it as adequate under article 829-A of the Civil Code.

DECISION

Under these terms and due to the exposed fundaments, the Court grants the present injunction and, as a consequence, decrees as follows:

a) The prohibition for the Defendants to sell the books and the videos that are still in stores or in other deposits or warehouses, and the obligation for the Defendants to collect them and to deliver them to the depositary that is nominated below;

b) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform new editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the same thesis, and that are destined to be sold or published by any means whatsoever in Portugal;

c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editing rights or the authorship rights over the contents of the book or the video, or of other books and other videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;

d) The prohibition for the Defendants to cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of concealment of her body by the first two Applicants;

e) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform the reproduction or comment, opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or from where it can be inferred;

f) The prohibition for the Defendants to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.

Moreover, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant societies to pay a compulsory pecuniary sanction in the amount of 1000 euros for each day that the prohibitions or the order to apprehend the books and the videos are not respected.

The depository of the books and videos, whose collection is ordered, is the lawyer who represents the Applicants.

Expenses by the Applicants to be attended in the main action.

To be registered and notified.

Lisboa, DS

(The Judge of Law, Amélia Puna Loupo)

Notes:

[1] This reference to an Appeals Court decision is due to the fact that the first request for an injunction that was filed by the McCann couple and their children, was not granted. An appeal was filed, and the present injunction was granted after intervention by the Appeals Court.

[2] The first Defendant is Gonçalo Amaral.

[3] The three other Defendants are Guerra & Paz, Valentim de Carvalho Filmes and TVI.

[4] The two first Applicants are Kate and Gerry McCann.

[5] The third Applicant is Madeleine McCann.

[6] The Applicants' witnesses are mentioned here.

[7] The forth and fifth Applicants are Sean and Amelie McCann.

[8] The Brazilian edition does not exist, as was later clarified during a hearing on the 13th of January 2010.

[9] Rádio Televisão Portuguesa

[10] «Maddie The Truth of the Lie – A powerful documentary based on best seller "The Truth of the Lie" by Gonçalo Amaral»

[11] Portuguese Republic's Constitution

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 reconstitution 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 reconstitute 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.

"Maddie's parents don't want the truth", 07 May 2009

"Maddie's parents don't want the truth" Le Parisien

VIDEO LINK DAILY MOTION

The Portuguese policeman, who was in charge of the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie, remains convinced of the responsibility of her parents. He has published a book against the McCann couple.

Timothée Boutry

07.05.2009, 07h00

Translation by Nigel Moore

Gonçalo Amaral led the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie, in Portugal, for several months before being dismissed for having publicly criticised the attitude of the English police. Since then, he has retired early. In a book out today in France*, he delivers his truth. According to him, the investigation is definite: Maddie died accidentally in the apartment where the family spent their holidays.

The parents would then have staged an abduction. Without formal proof, his book, very much against the parents, raises real questions.

What evidence do you have to support your version?

Gonçalo Amaral: There are several. We constantly noted the contradictions in the statements of the McCanns and their friends. An Irish couple say that they saw Gerald McCann, on the evening of the events, with a child in his arms. In terms of findings, we discovered the fingerprint of Kate McCann on the window of Madeleine's room. The shape of the fingerprint indicates that it has opened this window. But she says that the window was open when she entered the room. It is therefore clear that she wanted to steer the investigation toward the thesis of the abduction. Finally, there is scientific evidence. The dogs detected a scent of corpse in the living room and discovered a trace of blood in the same place. Traces which were also discovered in the rental car.

Rather, they are clues, not evidence. Blood, for example, has not been identified 100% as that of Maddie...

True, but the results still indicate that the samples resemble the DNA profile of Maddie. These indices are in addition to one other.

Why would the McCann couple lie?

Because they had been negligent with their children. They went for dinner and left them alone. Such behaviour was condemned. They therefore made up the kidnapping story.

Your book shows that the investigation by the Portuguese police has not been flawless. Including the crime scene...

That's true. At the time, there was no specific procedure in case of a missing child. The site has not been well preserved. Since then, these shortcomings have been repaired.

What is your main regret about this investigation?

I think it would have been to very quickly organise a reconstruction. We could then have realised the contradictions in the statements of Kate McCann and other witnesses. Unfortunately, my leader considered that it was impossible to implement. Then, the parents refused.

How was the collaboration with the English police?

With the investigators on the ground, it went very well. However, it was much more complicated with the headquarters in Great Britain. The information we had asked for created a lot of trouble to be taken up. The McCanns have managed to influence the opinion of the British police and to win their case. In Britain, the vision of the record is political. On the ground, it remained the police.

Will Maddie be found one day?

Today, the file is archived. The parents do not feel it will be reopened. They do not want the truth to be known. Yet I am convinced that there are still avenues to pursue. Unfortunately, it is a dead body which we need to search for.

* « Maddie : l’enquête interdite ». Bourin Editeur. 19 €.