|
|
|
With
thanks to Joana Morais for
transcript and translation |
| |
 |
|
Debate panel from left to
right: Tânia Laranjo, CM
journalist; Manuel
Rodrigues, former PJ
inspector; Joao Ferreira,
CMTV news anchor; Goncalo
amaral, former PJ inspector
& Rui Pereira, former
Minister of Internal Affairs |
|
|
| |
|
Anchor João Ferreira - This special by
CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to
focus on the book that I hold in my
hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie".
It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former
Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The
man that was at the forefront of the
investigation during the first months of
the case, a case that has been dragging
on for the past nine years. It's the
book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his
truth about the mystery of the Maddie
Case, a truth for which he was removed
from the investigation and the reason
why he requested an early retirement
from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26
years of service. A truth, according to
which the little girl died accidentally.
Following that death, an unwanted and
accidental death, the parents concealed
their own daughter's cadaver. This is
the truth that we are going to analyse
in this special, where the man that
wrote this book - and has just been
acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon
and absolved of having to pay a
compensation of 500,000 euro to the
McCann couple - will break the silence.
A special where we are going to ask
uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo
Amaral, where we will confront his truth
with other possible truths. Right now,
let us have a look to the truth revealed
in this book that is now allowed to see
the light of day.
News Segment 1
Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in
Portuguese) Please, give our little girl
back.
(in English) Please, give our little
girl back.
Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction,
defend the McCanns. Accident and
concealment of the cadaver is the belief
of Gonçalo Amaral.
Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) -
If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I
doubt the body still exists. In that
church there was a coffin with the
cadaver of an elderly British lady which
in the following day was going to
Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It
was possible for the body of a child of
that age and size to be concealed
underneath that cadaver.
Voice Over - After six months of
investigation, the former PJ inspector
is removed from the Maddie Case, and
this is one of the issues that was the
object of his reflection. In the book
that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie,
The Truth of the Lie", there is a
chapter dedicated to that topic: the
removal of a coordinator from an
investigation, conspiracy or
subservience?, questions the former PJ
inspector. And it is precisely due to
the 220 pages written by Amaral and a
DVD with a documentary about Maddie,
that the PJ inspector became the target
of a lawsuit, a legal process that has
been dragging for numerous years. In
2009, the McCann couple went to justice,
demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a
compensation of 1,2 million euro. The
McCanns considered the publication and
the documentary defamatory, they alleged
to have suffered moral damages. The
British couple considered that their
rights, liberties and guarantees of the
family were violated. The defence of the
McCann family considered that Gonçalo
Amaral could not have revealed
information that appeared in the process
of the investigation to Madeleine's
disappearance. The defence also alleged
that the book was ready three days after
the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e
Menezes, redacted the dispatch that
archived the process against the McCann
couple, which had the date of 29 of July
of 2008. In the book, the former
criminal investigation coordinator of
the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the
thesis that Maddie's parents were
involved in the disappearance and in the
concealment of the 3-year-old girl's
body. The McCann's defence lawyer,
Isabel Duarte, argued that the author,
Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized
documents from the process, documents
that were prohibited. This was a process
that dragged in court for years, with
successive postponements of court
sessions and an attempt to an
extra-judicial settlement between the
parties, which never came into fruition.
Kate McCann (archive footage, press
conference 2014) - We took on this case
because of the pain and distress that
Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our
children.
Gerry McCann - We want to get justice
for Madeleine.
Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil
court, ended up condemning Gonçalo
Amaral to pay to each one of the members
of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry,
the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro
plus interest, counting back from
January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment,
the civil court also decreed the
prohibition of sales of new editions of
the book and DVD, as well as the
negotiations to transfer the copyright
of both book and documentary. Gonçalo
Amaral appealed, and there was a
turnaround in this process. The Court of
Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the
PJ inspector and revoked the sentence.
The judges understood that Amaral acted
within the framework of the legitimate
right to exercise an opinion. The court
considered the facts presented in the
book and DVD, were, some of them,
divulged by the McCanns themselves in
numerous interviews all over the world.
Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the
indemnification of 250,000 euro to each
member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo
Amaral's book will soon return to the
bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have
already stated that they will appeal to
the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and
Gerry, who have always maintained that
Madeleine was abducted, were constituted
as arguidos (suspects)
in September 2007, but were cleared in
July 2008 for lack of evidence to
sustain the hypothesis advanced by the
investigation to the alleged accidental
death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just
a few days before of her fourth
birthday. The English girl disappeared
from this apartment (image of apartment
is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the
Algarve, where she was sleeping along
with her younger twin siblings.
Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in
this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral,
former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV
commentator and Minister of Internal
Affairs at the time of Maddie's
disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former
chief inspector of the Judiciary Police
and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia
Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV
journalist, who followed closely the
investigations to the Maddie case.
Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening
madam, it's a pleasure to be here with
you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with
you, good-evening, thank you for being
here.
Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you
for the invitation.
Anchor João Ferreira - Did this
investigation destroy your career?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my
career. I had a dignified professional
path in terms of work and progress in
the hierarchy, I was an officer, an
inspector, then chief-inspector, then I
was a coordinator and could have gone a
bit further, in fact at the time of the
disappearance, when the case happened, I
had applied for the role of superior
coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it
was a matter of time. So, that was the
interruption, the life change, the
career change, if I had stayed maybe I
could have been in another professional
position.
Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of
the circumstances?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered
myself as a victim then nor now. I felt
at a certain point in time and this was
part of the reasons that motivated me to
write the book, that there was a full
campaign of defamation and insults. A
campaign that is likely to begin again
given the court result, I have no doubts
that it may happen again. That is usual
under the circumstances associated with
this case. So, I was a target of that. I
requested at the time, I almost demanded
it in fact, that is, demand between
inverted commas, for the Judiciary
Police direction to come out in our
defence. Not only in my defence, but in
the defence of all the officers that
were working on the case and were called
names such as drunks, alcoholics, of
being lazy, incompetents, and so on.
There were intrusions on our private
lives, we were under surveillance, a
series of things. Nothing was done about
that. Then I begun to understand that
the process was going to be archived, a
conversation on that subject took place
and it was then that I decided that it
was enough. There was a preceding moment
where I went to Faro (PJ
headquarters)...
Anchor - After you were removed from the
investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the
direction, from being the officer in
charge of Portimão. I thought that
everything would end there, but no, the
attacks went on. I asked at that time to
Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...
Anchor - The National Director of the
Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the
director of the Judiciary Police. I
asked him to let me go to the Azores, so
I could regain some peace. I wanted to
get away of these issues. They
understood that I should stay and do my
job in Faro, there I stayed, things went
on until I've decided to.. I couldn't
stand it any longer.
Anchor - But you asked to the Direction
of the Judiciary Police to write this
book? To reveal your truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do
with that. There was a problem, either I
would write the book and stay in the
Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would
be liable or I could leave the Judiciary
and anything that might happen would be
on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police
aside of the problem, and I left the
Judiciary Police in order to regain the
plenitude of my rights.
Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug
from under your feet?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one
pulled the rug from under anyone's feet.
There were a series of circumstances
that lead to this outcome. A colleague
of mine is present here today, and he
knows that it's very unlikely for the
PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe
with another director, I'm recalling Dr.
Marques Vidal -
to whom I express my gratitude for his
support since the very outset, right
from when the book was published, he
presented the book - maybe it would have
been different, maybe the protection of
the officers would have been another.
But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique
case, a director of the Judiciary Police
that we will never have again.
Anchor - A leader more brave than
others?
Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great
understanding of the officers, he was a
very humane man, and defended those that
risked, that worked at times almost
without a net, he was there, present. I
could tell you several stories, from the
time of the Cavacos,
the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave
to the men on the ground. These are
facts that can be verified, but we're
digressing from the topic. I would like
to add, that I have nothing against Dr.
Alípio Ribeiro.
Anchor - But do you think that Alípio
Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe
that... For example, in this issue of
requesting to the Direction of the PJ to
speak in our defence or to allow me to
speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the
directorate of the Judiciary Police,
addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later,
I learned that that letter never reached
his hands, he never read it. The letter
stopped at his assistants, therefore I
can't accuse him of anything, it's not
his fault, it's the fault of the
structural machine that exists,
additionally the PJ direction does not
usually come out in defence of its
officers. Note that we're talking about
the direction of the Judiciary Police
but we could equally talk about the
ASFIC (Association of the Criminal
Investigation Officers of the Criminal
Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for
the officers, for its members, that were
on the field, then and after? For
example, right now, until now, what did
they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any
time - regarding myself, a retired
officer with success on the work I did -
ever called me? Either to congratulate,
at this point in time or whatever.
Nothing at all.
Anchor - Why do you think is that,
Gonçalo?
Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture,
of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe
because I'm no longer in the police,
have nothing to do with the PJ.
Anchor - Are you saying that there is
fear from the people in the Judiciary to
come out in your defence?
Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I
find it strange, a very odd situation.
Those who have congratulated me at this
point in time, for this decision - a
decision that has not yet been rendered
final, and may still be the target of an
appeal - but those who have
congratulated me were colleagues that
are retired, not colleagues in active
functions. Not even a single colleague
on the active congratulated me. On the
other hand, I had the support of
colleagues in the active from the
British police, who also have been
present along the years.
Anchor - Let us move now to your truth,
the truth that is here in this book...
Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another
issue. That is not my truth...
Anchor - It's the factual truth.
Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that
book represents the elements of the
Judiciary Police...
Anchor - So, it's the material truth of
the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that
the book is the opinion of the Judiciary
Police until September 2007. Not my
truth alone.
Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo
Amaral, describes a scenario where the
little girl Maddie suffered an
accidental death...
Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is
described in the PJ report written by
the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.
Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the
parents and in face of that death the
parents concealed the cadaver.
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an
infringement. What that means is...
Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents
should be behind bars? Should they be
punished for these crimes?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have
to do with that. For us to read and
understand that book, we also have to
understand the moment, the progress of
the investigation. And we need to
understand that an investigations as a
beginning, a middle and an end, as my
colleague Moita Flores says an
investigation is always zigzagging and
he's right about that. At that point in
time of the investigation, when the
archival was decided, the archival was
decided in early October of 2007...
Whomever lead the process after me, was
there to adjust the process so it could
be archived. Any colleague of mine can
see that it is the adjustment of the
process so it can be archived; all of us
have at some point in time archived
processes when reaching a dead end and
we all know what to do so no
investigative leads are left unfinished.
So, at that point in time of the
investigation that was the line of
reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not
my line of reasoning alone, it's of the
whole team, of the Judiciary Police as
an institution. I will go further, after
that, nothing was done concerning that
line of investigation that...
Anchor - Of the accidental death.
Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the
probable responsibility of the parents
in the mysterious disappearance of the
child, with all that entails, but this
is the essential. Yet, that line of
investigation was set aside. Even the
Scotland Yard investigation and so on,
never explored that line of
investigation, and now they've reached a
dead end. They constituted, derided in
my opinion, - this is what this is all
about, opinion and freedom of expression
- in my opinion as coordinator, as an
investigator, that increase, that
creation of numerous arguidos was
a derision of that institution. There
were two or three arguidos -
the English didn't even know the meaning
ofarguidos was
- and they decided to constitute even
more arguidos,
and now we have an ocean of arguidos.
Before we had a few drops and now we
have an ocean where virtually nothing
can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.
Anchor - I would like for you to tell us
in detail your explanation for the
disappearance of the body, you have a
thesis..
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.
Anchor - ... in this book...
Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there
isn't anything concerning what we just
saw me saying on the news piece that was
shown. Because these are elements, these
are information that appeared afterwards
and were never investigated. It's just
an hypothesis, and when considering that
hypothesis...
Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's
body could have been hidden, could have
been incinerated, right?
Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information
here, in the police, that mentions that.
That in a night, three figures were seen
carrying a bag, entering the church...
Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.
Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a
coffin of a woman, a woman from the
United Kingdom...
Anchor - Of a British woman.
Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the
following day that coffin was
transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to
be incinerated. But no one is saying
that the parents did that, or saying who
did that. It's something that someone
who is on the field investigating has to
ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.
Anchor - But you concede that
hypothesis, that possibility of
Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the
church, and then incinerated is a
plausible hypothesis...
Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically
starting by the end, first is the
disappearance, if you allow me to
explain, to explain to the viewers...
[overlapping speech]
Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not
to lose this train of thought, is this
hypothesis plausible for you?
Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I
say plausible in this sense, that that
body would fit underneath the cadaver
that was already there.
Anchor - And it would fit?
Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the
time, when I was already out of the
Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion
of people that dealt with that, of
funeral agencies, and they said that it
was a possibility. It's an opinion that
is not officialized but it's a
possibility. If it happened like that or
not, we don't know, there are several
hypotheses to make a body disappear.
Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning
then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What
are the indications, post-disappearance
that helped construct the material truth
that appears here in the book?
Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed,
I would have to look at the book pages
and explain them to you in detail. There
were several indicia, the
contradictions, the discrepancies in the
statements of those people, other
witness statements that said they saw
the father carrying the child at a
certain hour, there are a series of
indications that point towards that. To
give you a full report on that would be
tiresome, I believe most people know or
are already aware. That was talked about
numerous times throughout years. So,
indicia and some evidence, evidence in
inverted commas, concerning the vestiges
that were collected and sent to the
English forensics laboratory for
analyses, it is said that there could
have been a manipulation of all that
data, it's still not clear what
happened. I recall that before we had
the official report, we had a
preliminary report which indicated that
the fluids found in the car rented a
month after the disappearance belonged
to Madeleine McCann. And when the report
arrived, it was no longer like that. It
was said at the time that the profile
with a series of alleles matched
Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone
in that laboratory could have
contributed to that profile. So, why did
it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to
the US president profile? There's
something very strange about that
analysis, something that should be
questioned, verified, investigated. I
believe that when forensic analyses are
done, the laboratory technician has to
keep a record of what he is doing. I
don't know if that was destroyed or not,
but it should exist along side the
report.
Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral
before I'll return to you, let us now
pay close attention to the next news
segment. The disappearance of Madeleine
Mccann was since the start embroiled in
mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da
Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a
few days before her fourth day. Let us
now watch a reconstitution of that
fateful Thursday.
Reconstruction segment*
Images of the crime scene, inside and
outside apartment 5A, appear on the
screen; also of Madeleine McCann and her
twin brother and sister, followed by the
caption “Where is Maddie?” – then the
programme starts.
Voice Over Rui Pando Gomes - On that
Thursday of the 3rd of May, 2007, the
McCanns’ decide not go to the beach with
the other three couples – their friends.
Instead, Gerry and Kate spend their day
at the Ocean Club.
That day, the couple never leaves the
holiday compound but, even so, they do
not keep their children with them.
Maddie aged three, and the twins Amelie
and Sean, aged two, spend their day at
the Ocean Club’s crèche (the children’s
day care centre).
At 9:10 AM, Gerry delivers the children
to the crèche.
The crèche staff take the children to
the beach. Between 10:30 and 11 hours,
Madeleine plays on the beach with other
children . Kate collects the children
from the crèche at 12:25 and returns
them (to the crèche) at 14:50 hours.
A few hours later (around 16:00) Kate is
jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she
returns to the crèche to pick up her
three children and to take them back
home to apartment 5A.
At the same time Kate McCann is
collecting her children from the crèche,
their friends (that is the other three
couples) drink on the esplanade
(terrace) of the restaurant Paraíso, in
Praia da Luz (17:35 hours on the CCTV
video caption).
The CCTV cameras of the restaurant
capture the presence of the British
group in a buoyant mood. Their children
are with them. (It looks like) a
tranquil (and enjoyable) end to their
afternoon.
Short break in the voice-over with more
images shown
At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the
group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and
Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant
and head in the direction of the Ocean
Club.
The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and
Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the
(restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up
from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about
15 minutes after their husbands who, by
then, have already arrived back at the
Ocean Club.
At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry
who is (already) playing tennis (on the
courts). He asks him where Kate is.
Gerry tells him, Kate is in the
apartment with the children. David heads
towards the apartment.
No one knows for sure how long David
stays in the apartment with Kate – his
visit is shrouded in mystery.
Gerry McCann says his friend was in his
apartment for about half an hour while
he played tennis, but Kate McCann says
he was not there for more than 30
seconds.
To deepen the mystery further, Fiona
Payne attests she accompanied her
husband to their friends’ apartment and
the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at
home.
One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’)
first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw
David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the
McCanns’ balcony.
David Payne will later tell the
Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone
to the apartment “to find out whether
Kate needed help with the children” and
that he had seen Maddie and the twins
there – a moment he had come to remember
as “the vision of three immaculate
angels.”
Dinner time approaches.
The four couples dine together at the
Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a
routine they had followed since their
arrival together, on the 28th of April.
They do not bring their children with
them – a few months old baby and seven
young children (toddlers) are left
asleep, unattended in their apartments,
while their parents, free from care,
dine until around midnight; their
children well out of their sights.
In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry
and Kate are the first to arrive at the
restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.
The oval table, near the swimming pool,
is reserved for the British group. By
20:45 they are all sitting at the table;
Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne,
Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew
and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster –
Fiona’s mother.
Kate for example, cannot do without her
usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum
cocktail). The group is in the habit of
drinking eight bottles of wine – four
red and four white (…)
That evening, they ordered grilled fish
and meat on the spit. As they sit and
dine at the oval table, most have their
backs turned against their apartments;
(but) even if they were facing the
apartments, the wall and the edges
(which were in the way) would not allow
them to see (the back of) the ground
floor apartments where the children are
sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic
wind-breaker placed between their table
and the apartments, further obstructs
their vision. Furthermore, the
(ground-floor) window of the bedroom
where Maddie sleeps, is located on the
other side (front) of the apartment
block which (obviously) cannot be seen
from the restaurant.
The McCanns and their friends, assured
the police, they had a scheme of
vigilance (an arrangement for checking
on the children). Each one of them, in
turn, would get up from the table to see
if everything was all right (to check on
the children).
According to the members of the group,
the (checking) rounds took place every
half an hour and sometimes, every
fifteen minutes.
But the truth is; (exactly) what the
group actually did during that dinner –
the evening Maddie disappeared – has
never been (fully) clarified.
After the authorities were alerted to
Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien
provides the police with a schedule of
the (checking) rounds done (on the
children) that evening. He drafted it
himself on the back of a cover he tore
off from a children’s book (activities &
stickers).
Days later, the police find among Kate’s
papers a manuscript (draft) with the
hours of the rounds (checking) written
on it – except, this differed from the
one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.
There are lapses in the memory of the
McCanns’ friends (account of events) and
(worst) contradictory versions of the
same (alleged events). The police never
knew with rigour, (with any degree of
certainty) the steps (movements) of each
of them during that dinner. There are
only four moments that coincide; (and
these are) the only ones corroborated by
witnesses.
At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the
table – one is Russell O’Brien; the
other Gerry McCann.
They set off to the apartments
(ostensibly) to check on their children.
In order to reach the apartment, Gerry
has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20
meters of a dimly lit street to reach
the small access gate to his apartment.
(After checking on the children and ) on
the way back to his dinner, Gerry
encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC
producer whom he had met during this
holiday.
It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is
strolling, pushing a pram, trying to
lull his baby son into sleep. The two
men greet each other and chat for a
while. The street is deserted.
(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of
Russell O’Brien, worries about his
absence from the (dinner) table and gets
up (to look for him).
Later, she assures the police that
between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a
stranger carrying a child in his arms at
the (top of) the same narrow street (she
was walking up) and on which, at that
very same time, Gerry stood chatting
with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy
saw anyone passing by, nor even for that
matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence
(walking past them.)
Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the
restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet
arrived back (from his check). He
finally returns close to 22 hours –
nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell
explains his older daughter had vomited,
that he gave her a bath, changed her
clothes and put her back to sleep.
At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien
arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate
McCann gets up to check on her children.
Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she
shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at
the back) facing the restaurant: “They
have taken her! They have taken her!” .
No one from the group is able to see
her. They can only hear her. Then, they
all rush towards the (McCanns’)
apartment (…)
More images in and around the village of
Luz (Light), followed by the caption –
“Where is Maddie?” and back to the
studio.
Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation
to the Maddie case pursued several lines
of inquiry. There were political
pressures that marked the beginning of
the investigation, which, during a first
moment, shielded the parents from
becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized
a few months later, revealed the whole
machinery set up by the family to feed
the abduction thesis.
News segment 2
Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - 3 of May of
2007, just a little before midnight the
Judiciary Police was alerted, a
four-year-old English girl disappeared
from a tourist resort in Praia da Luz.
The parents dined in a near-by
restaurant. It was necessary to proceed
with caution, these were doctors,
unsuspicious, victims of an abduction,
of a hideous crime. Portimão was still
living with the hangover of the Joana
Case, Leonor Cipriano was condemned but
the delay at the start of the
investigation turned out to be tragic,
the remnants of the little girl were
never found. The Judicial condemnation
didn't erase the doubts. In Praia da
Luz, on that night, moments of tension
were felt. When the PJ arrived on the
scene, dozens of people had already been
inside the apartment. They had
contaminated vestiges, moved what could
have been evidence, destroyed indicia
that no one knows what they could have
clarified.
The English government acted swiftly so
the parents wouldn't be investigated, to
focus on the search for the abductors.
Kate's diary, seized a few months later,
revealed other pressures. On the morning
of the 23rd of May, 20 days after the
Maddie's disappearance, before leaving
to Fátima's sanctuary, Kate and Gerry
left a voice message to Gordon Brown.
Maddie's mother described it as a way to
increase the political pressure, she
disclosed that Tony Blair's successor
called back only three hours later. He
spoke with Gerry, was very sympathetic
and gave them strength, said Kate, who
described the visit to the catholic
sanctuary as overwhelming, powerful and
emotional.
Apart from the contacts with Gordon
Brown, Kate's diary also revealed other
important allies. From the hiring of
Clarence Mitchell as an advisor, who was
working for the government at the time,
to the conversations with the wife of
the former British prime minister, Tony
Blair. Mitchell, in fact, had a pivotal
role in the propaganda machine that was
set up by the McCanns within a few days.
They counted on the assistance from the
British diplomacy in all the trips that
were carried out. The first trip and the
one with the most intense media coverage
was the trip to Rome. They were received
by the Pope Benedict XVI, the trip had
been suggested by their advisor on the
27th of May, after speaking to Francis
Campbell, the British ambassador at the
Vatican. The visit to Rome was described
by Kate as being very emotional,
positive and important, and that loads
of journalists and photographers had
appeared, this was an ongoing concern
present in the couple's lives. After
Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Morocco followed,
trips made with the objective to divulge
Madeleine's face, followed by visits to
consulates or receptions given by
British ambassadors or by political
representatives of the respective
countries.
Amidst all that, was an investigation
marked by breakthroughs and setbacks.
Kate and Gerry started as victims, four
months later Maddie's mother was
constituted as an arguida for
negligent homicide. The British dogs,
requested by the couple, found the
little girl's trace inside the boot of
the car. A vehicle that was rented after
the disappearance, where DNA vestiges
were also found which suggested that
Maddie had been transported in there.
The genetic markers weren't sufficient.
The doubts grew, the mystery thickened.
Nine years later the narrative of the
pressures remain, of a failed
investigation, of a little girl who,
dead or alive, has never been found.
Where is Madeleine McCann? - the answer
never came.
Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what
pressures did you feel during the
investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt
immediately with the consul's
intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a
few hours later after by the British
ambassador (John Buck).
Anchor - The consul and the British
ambassador?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called
us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of
May, stating that the Judiciary police
wasn't doing anything, that we were not
doing anything, and that a different
kind of intervention was needed, a
diplomatic one. This did took place, the
British ambassador who was at the time
in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met
with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino
Encarnação, who was the director of the
PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was
also present.
Anchor - And what was addressed in that
meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary
Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice,
immediately after that meeting, a press
statement is drafted talking about an
abductor, I believe that it was Dr.
Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it,
there and then the parents start talking
about an abductor. The pressure was in
that sense, to state that it was an
abduction from the first moment.
Anchor - From the first moment there's
the attempt to construct the narrative
of abduction?
Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment.
It was almost simultaneous, that press
statement of the Judiciary Police was
read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the
door of the PJ headquarters of
Portimão...
Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of
the Portimão's headquarters.
Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on
the other side of the headquarters, was
the couple giving a press statement. The
meeting with the ambassador had ended
only a few minutes before.
Anchor - But when did you and the rest
of the team of PJ investigators begin to
have the belief that the explanation for
this case could be in fact related to an
accidental death concealed by the
parents?
Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other
lines of investigation, namely the
abduction, reached a dead end. So we had
to go back to the starting point. What
should happen now, if the process isn't
archived again, is to do what is
obligatory when following a determined
line of investigation. That is what we
did then, we investigated a third party
involvement, not of the parents but of
others, which enables the press
statements and that press statement of
the couple, previously mentioned. That
was the abduction thesis that was
investigated. We came to the conclusion
that an abduction wasn't possible. We
started to have doubts, we started to
question the statement of one person,
another person that belonged to the
group and was there, Jane Tanner, and
the said conflicts, and lies that
happened throughout. So, we couldn't go
further in the investigation to the
abduction thesis, we had to go back to
the starting point. And when returning
to the starting point, there's a new
inspection to the apartment where the
dogs brought by the British police were
used. We were working in close
cooperation with the British police,
they were always with us until the day
when the couple left. Then they all
left. I wondered at the time what
exactly they were doing here then,
because one thing is to assist in an
investigation and the investigation
wasn't concluded when the couple left
Portugal in September 2007, and they all
left in the following day, "good bye,
see you again, let's talk on the phone,
exchange mails". We were left alone when
we had already reached these conclusions
along with the British police input.
Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary
Police's opinion, but it was also the
British police's opinion that was always
present and present in the
investigations.
Anchor - So there were members of the
British police whose opinions agreed
with this thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one
of the officers, a former police
officer, that was present when the
preliminary reports were known, what he
said about the results was that back in
England they would already have been
arrested. The issue was that report was
just a preliminary one and we needed the
data of the official report, which
arrived at the PJ as it did. That was
his opinion, affirmed in front of
several people who can testify to that.
Anchor - I'll return to you soon
Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening,
thank you for being here.
Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.
Anchor - Let me issue you a challenge,
suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral
and as a PJ investigator you have to
assess the truth presented by Gonçalo
Amaral, which is the material truth. Is
it factually sustainable or is there a
possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral
being obsessed by the belief that he
formed and of him valuing more certain
indicia that give substance to his
belief and undervalue others?
Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll
try to play this game with you, and
answer with the utmost honesty possible.
The truth of an investigator has to do
with something, that in all likelihood
the common citizen is far from
understanding. That is, when a real
investigator starts an investigation,
when he starts to have the perception of
the facts and events, following leads,
and elaborating his belief resulting
from the findings and indicia that
appear, it's obvious that he believes in
them, but he can also keep its distance
and is able to evaluate all the possible
solutions available and diverging paths
that may arise. I believe that all the
work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and
by the team at the time covered all
those hypotheses and for doing so, they
were able to reach determined
conclusions, conclusions that he
expressed in his book. If we pay
attention and want to be honest, we can
verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo
Amaral in his book or in other
situations, accuse the couple of
homicide. He accused that an accidental
death took place in that apartment, that
they are suspects of concealing the
cadaver, that the death is likely to
have occurred as a consequence of a
tragic accident, I stress there never
was an accusation of homicide, and that
there exists clear evidence of
negligence in the guardianship of the
children. Therefore, before this, what
can I say - it should never be believed
that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one
truth. The truth before him is one which
results from the indicia that he
investigated, that is why he refuted the
abduction thesis, which they also
investigated until they reached a dead
end and returned to the beginning,
believing that the thesis of what really
happened was an accidental death
followed by the concealment of the
cadaver. there's nothing else to be said
about that. This question that you made,
if you allow me, implicates another - is
this investigation a failure or can it
be considered otherwise? I would say
that in a normal process, maybe we could
say that this investigation was a
failure. However due to what happened,
with the pressures that were felt, with
the press involvement, with the
involvement of advisors from the English
government, with all the manoeuvres done
by the parents of the child who were
always advised by press and image
assistants. The whole theatre created
around this, may to an extent signify
that this investigation was a failure. I
would add, that at that time, this
investigation wasn't able to reach
conclusions due to all the theatre that
surrounded it, which effectively
prevented the police to work as it
should, in a tranquil atmosphere,
following leads and constituting as arguidos those
who needed to be constituted, carrying
out the reconstitutions that should have
been done, obtain results that would not
be altered, and finally a series of
situations that if you wish I can later
detail.
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add,
just to reinforce, that is not my truth,
those are the conclusions of the
investigation of the Judiciary Police
and of the British police.
Anchor - You're not obsessed with this
truth that is here(book)?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed,
and I'll tell you why. What is in there
is a specific time of the investigation,
as I had said. A line of investigation
that was being followed and was never
resumed, and should be resumed. That
line of investigation was not concluded,
it did not reach a dead end, do you
understand? If it had been concluded,
then we would know what the results
were. Now the issue here is that line of
investigation is not allowed to be
pursued.
Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly
in your opinion?
Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't
allow it.
Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese
government, the Judiciary Police, the
direction of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese
government nor the Judiciary Police,
it's the British police. At this moment,
Scotland Yard who is doing the
investigation in one direction.
Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you,
we have a man here who was the Minister
of internal Affairs at the time...
Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A
bit later on.
Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.
Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.
Anchor - It should be said that tutelage
of the Judiciary police belongs to the
Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was
the government pressured?
Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm
going to tell you the following, and
please João allow me to contextualize
it.
Anchor - Yes, of course.
Rui Pereira - I remember very well
seeing in the English newspapers, right
in the middle of the investigation,
Portugal described as an exotic country,
where the inspectors of the Judiciary
Police were bushy moustached people...
Anchor - Exotic in what way?
Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing
from a news article of a daily English
paper, it described the Judiciary police
inspectors as people that had bushy
moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and
red wine. Exactly like this! What was it
that happened in this process? - and
please give me some latitude to explain
this. What happened in this process was
that there was an initial error that
caused a lot of damage to the
investigation and this not to blame
anyone...
Anchor - What was the error?
Rui Pereira - The error? Was not
constituting the parents as arguidos for
the crime of abandonment (article 138 of
the Portuguese Penal Code). Because,
without delay at the beginning there was
an extraordinary and ridiculous theory,
in my perspective, that said that the
English have very peculiar cultural
costumes and therefore was natural for
them to leave the two-years-old twin
siblings and the other 3-years-old child
alone in a bedroom, for the parents to
go out a few hundred meters away, to
socialize with their friends.
Anchor - Professor I'll give you back
the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo
please be very brief, why wasn't this
measure taken?
Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of
constituting them as arguidos?
I would even go as far as to ask why
weren't they constituted for abandonment
as it should?
Anchor - For abandonment.
Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment,
exactly.
Rui Pereira - That was given some
thought at the time.
Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that
but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping
speech, impossible to discern what is
said)
Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.
Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer
that question, and do you know why?
Because here something else is
introduced, that is the distinction
between what is a Judiciary authority
and a bodie of Criminal police. So, he
can't answer that.
Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely
right.
Rui Pereira - I can answer your
question.
Anchor - Here enters the pressure.
Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is
this, we have a legal order - this is
not to blame anyone, it's describing
what should have happened - we have a
legal order that makes the clear
distinction...
Anchor - But you can say who was
responsible if you wish Professor.
Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear
distinction between Judicial authorities
and bodies of Criminal Police. What
matters for an inspector, an experienced
one and with good reputation like
inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover
the material truth, with all the
difficulties that existed in that case.
Hence, there should have been a direct
intervention of the Judicial authority
that is in charge of the process, and
that is the Public Ministry (public
prosecution) to outline a procedural
strategy.
Anchor - And there was no intervention
then, in your opinion?
Rui Pereira - Clearly not, as far as I
know...
Anchor - But why not? The Public
Ministry "washed its hands" from it,
like Pilate?
Rui Pereira - I cannot make a process of
intention (accuse), but I do know what
happened. I know that..
Anchor - And what happened for you was
that there was no intervention?
Rui Pereira - No, not for me! What
factually happened was that in the first
interrogatory the PJ police was the only
authority present. The Public Ministry,
at odds to what should have been done
never defined a procedural strategy, and
the procedural strategy, obviously meant
to play with certainty. And what was
certain, was that the parents in an
irresponsible manner...
Anchor - But why didn't the Public
Ministry do that?
Rui Pereira - I don't know...
Anchor - But do you have any suspicion,
do you have any explanation for that?
Were they afraid?
Rui Pereira - No, nothing like that. Do
you know why? Because sometimes in our
relations with the foreigners, you know
that racism is a very curious phenomena,
and sometimes we almost have an
inferiority complex in relation to some
foreigners. When I saw reporting with a
certain bonhomie in the Portuguese
media, now it's not on the English
media, that the English truly have very
specific cultural costumes and it was
natural to dine and drink..
Anchor - So you're saying the Public
Ministry had an inferiority complex
before the case, before the British
authorities?
Rui Pereira - João, let me give you
another example. Give me another minute
please.
Anchor - Please professor, just answer
my question before that.
Rui Pereira - But I'm going to answer
you. Answers sometimes aren't a simple
yes or a no. I'll give you a more subtle
answer, in a recent case at the Expo
(Tagus river area in Lisbon), when a
Chinese child fell from a building (21st
floor), what happened to the parents?
They were constituted as arguidos.
Tânia Laranjo - They were arrested.
Rui Pereira - And no one said that it
was natural, according to the cultural
costumes of the Chinese, to leave the
child alone and go gamble at the casino.
Anchor - So, I can infer from your words
that the Public Ministry has failed.
Tânia did the public Ministry fail?
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to say one
thing, in this case, it wasn't only this
parents (McCann couple) who left their
children.
Anchor - Did you feel lack of support
from the Public Ministry?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I wouldn't say
that. I'm telling you something
different, the other couples' children
were also abandoned, and it wasn't just
for one night, it was for a whole week.
In order to constitute arguidos them
(McCann) for abandonment, the whole
group (Tapas7) of friends would have to
be constituted.
Anchor - Did you feel alone, without the
support of the Public Ministry, in the
conduction of the investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, we don't usually
have a constant presence of the Public
Ministry in investigations. The
Judiciary Police advances normally with
the investigation, which is supervised
by the Public Ministry, and it also has
to propose and suggest investigative
steps to the Public Ministry. In this
case in particular, someone from the
Public Ministry, should have made the
decision to be present since the first
hour, which didn't happen.
Anchor - Tânia did the Public Ministry
fail from what you could gather when you
followed the investigation?
Tânia Laranjo - What was visible from
the interpretation of the process and of
the investigation that I followed during
those months, those first months, was
that the Public Ministry was completely
absent, that is an undisputed truth, for
better or for worse. Success or failure
would always be of the Judiciary police
and not of the Public Ministry, it was
always completely absent of the
investigation. Allow me to go back to
one point. Gonçalo Amaral a while ago
spoke of that meeting with the British
ambassador, minutes later a press
statement was read at the door of the PJ
headquarters, the truth is that moment
changed everything, from then on the
Judiciary Police undertook a thesis,
undertook the abduction thesis, and went
into the investigation absolutely
restricted. There, it would have been
pivotal, like Professor Rui Pereira
said, for the Public Ministry to be
present, even more so to provide the
guarantee and freedom for the police to
be able to follow all paths. We have two
elements of the Judiciary Police here
that will naturally say this, that all
investigative paths need to be followed
and that (freedom to investigate) cannot
be restricted. As to the parents, they
would have to be considered suspects,
naturally. The professor gave the
example of the Chinese, but years before
that, and in the Algarve as well, we had
the Joana case where the mother was
considered a suspect, in the majority of
these situations the parents are
naturally considered suspects from the
first moment and are investigated.
Gonçalo Amaral - In that case the Public
ministry was present.
Anchor - In the Joana case?
Tânia Laranjo - In the Joana case. Rui
Pedro's mother, that is a case of
disappearance that has not been solved
so far, she was investigated in a first
moment, and that is how it should be.
With all the pain that a mother that has
nothing to do with the disappearance of
its own child must feel for being
investigated. And naturally, here, we
had an inferiority complex before the
English.
Anchor - When you say 'we', are you
saying the Public Ministry?
Tânia Laranjo - We, the Portuguese. We,
Portuguese police; we, Public Ministry;
we, Portuguese government and we,
Portuguese journalists ourselves,
because we also accepted at a certain
moment for the English to impose upon us
an initial thesis, the thesis that it
would be impossible for those parents to
have anything to do with the
disappearance. The fact is, during those
first moments, in one or another
circumstances, if the parents had not
been doctors and English, the Portuguese
media would have gone for the jugular. I
remember, let me just say this.
Anchor - Please be fast because we need
to go on to a commercial break.
Tânia Laranjo - My daughter was about
the same age at the time, when I was in
the Algarve, those parents, like Gonçalo
Amaral said, sat every night in that
restaurant and they never had any
viewing angles, it was not possible. No
Portuguese parent would ever leave a
child sleeping alone in the bedroom.
Rui Pereira - What if there had been a
fire, what if there had been a tragedy?
Not to say anything further, but really
for exposure to abandonment there could
have been other consequences...
Tânia Laranjo - At least that situation,
that crime existed.
Anchor - They should have been
constituted as arguidos. Gentlemen,
madam, let us now take a very short
break. After the break we'll see the
lines of investigation that still exist
and should be followed in this process.
See you soon.
(commercial break)
Anchor - The Maddie process was reopened
in 2013. At this time, all hypotheses
remain open, from abduction to
accidental homicide committed by the
child's parents. The English have an
independent investigation.
News segment 3
Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - Almost 9
years after Madeleine McCann disappeared
in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, all
hypotheses remain open. The process was
archived in 2008, re-opened in 2013.
From the negligent homicide they moved
to the abduction thesis. The suspect was
a man that had already died. He would
have abducted and murdered Maddie,
buried the body in the proximities of
the tourist resort. The new thesis
surfaced after a thorough examination
carried out by another team of
investigators. Elements of the Judiciary
Police from Oporto spent months
reviewing the process. They searched for
loose ends, abandoned the thesis
defended by the team of Portimão. After
all it hadn't been Kate, Madeleine's
mother had not been responsible for her
death. It hadn't been an accident. The
thesis was never confirmed, the
Judiciary police investigated, searched
but found nothing. At the same time they
kept a close cooperation with the
English, who, in turn, continue to ask
for more investigative steps to be
carried out via the letters rogatory.
They have already been on the field,
asking for more excavations to be done,
but found nothing. Breakthroughs and
setbacks, absence of answers, Madeleine
has never been found. There is no body,
ransom note, any solid evidence to
indicate what effectively happened on
the night of May 3, 2007. After 9 years
the process remains open, at least until
its limitation period, which will happen
in 2027, twenty years after Madeleine
disappeared.
Anchor - Gonçalo, do you believe things
at this moment are being routed for the
process to be archived here in Portugal?
Gonçalo Amaral - I have no doubts
whatsoever, what was done by Scotland
Yard is practically at an end. What they
wanted to do was basically to, and I had
said this before, was to in a certain
way to give credence to the couple and
remove all suspicions that existed
concerning the couple. They did a
reconstitution here in Portugal, not
with the couple but with actors;
constituted a series of arguidos that
have nothing to do with the case, just
for the sake of constituting arguidos;
they followed a number of false leads.
Now they have reached an end, after
having spent a lot of money, maybe there
isn't any more money to spend, perhaps
the British public fund may not support
such expenditure. And it will be
archived, I can't see the Judiciary
Police resuming the investigation when
Scotland Yard ends theirs. In the end,
the process was re-opened almost only
and by the Scotland Yard, and when they
leave the process will be archived just
like before.
Anchor - Help me here in this line of
reasoning, just a little while ago you
said that there are still lines of
investigation that remain open.
Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, remain open.
Anchor - ...if the Judiciary Police
follows those lines of investigation...
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to recall
something, in brief, this court decision
that has not yet become final (res
judicata/passed into matter adjudged),
there are still a few days left for it
to become final, but I can give you an
idea of what was...
Anchor - The decision of the Court of
Appeals?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it's new, the
deadline for the appeal is taking place.
Anchor - Of course.
Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you what in
essence is concluded, is that the line
of investigation that is here (book) and
remains open, is a plausible one. And we
can conclude that from this decision
like we could conclude from the decision
of the temporary injunction.
Anchor - That's included in the decision
of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon that
acquitted you from paying the
indemnification?
Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, and in the
temporary injunction they go further,
they actually said that it even though
the Public Ministry had archived the
process, with another Public Ministry
another result could have occurred. Even
so, this line of investigation isn't
followed and nothing is done relatively
to it.
Anchor - But by not following it, what
does that mean? That the actual
direction of the Judiciary Police
doesn't want this case to progress?
Gonçalo Amaral - That's not the
question. This is a case that appears to
be traumatizing several people, right?
Maybe someone completely neutral has to
appear in face of all this, that decides
to advance with the investigation. In
all the lines of investigation and this
one that is missing. (overlapping
speech)
Anchor - But is the Judiciary Police
afraid of the truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - There's something that
the Public Ministry says in the archival
dispatch in respect to the
reconstitution that wasn't carried out
because the friends of the couple didn't
wish to return to Portugal. They said
the ones who lost with that, the ones
who are jeopardised are the couple. We
could reach the conclusion that what
they said - that we believe to be
contradictions or lies - where truthful.
The reconstitution could be good for
them. Usually that is what happens, it
can have a good or bad result and this
investigation...
Anchor - Gonçalo please, just answer
this question...
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to conclude.
If this line of investigation reaches an
end, with what is left to be done, and
if at the end of all that is concluded
that after all the parents could not be,
in any way, held responsible for the
disappearance of the child, that would
only help the couple.
Anchor - Of course. Isn't the Portuguese
Judiciary Police interested in finding
the truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - The Portuguese
Judiciary Police is likely more
interested at this moment for no one to
speak about the case. Because it's a
case that has left several people
distressed, it seems that there is a
series of people traumatized with the
situation. People that want, for
example, to be able to prove that
parents don't murder their own children,
I'm not saying that this ones did that
of course. It seems that there is a
whole culture, a way of thinking that
has existed until recently and needs to
be changed because we are all upset by
it.
Anchor - Manuel Rodrigues, the Judiciary
Police doesn't want to find the truth?
Manuel Rodrigues - I appreciate that you
made me that question because I don't
agree with Gonçalo in this aspect,
likely the only one. I don't think that
that is the situation, it's not the 'not
wanting to', what I think is that, like
I said earlier, this process was subject
to a blockade in such a way, that at
this moment it's extremely difficult to
escape from this. That is, what I want
to say is that I agree because I am
obliged to agree with Gonçalo when he
says that the British police set out an
investigation where they decided to
constitute a series ofarguidos in
order to credibilize the couple, to take
them from one looking at the process and
the only arguidos in
there that one sees is the couple,
seeing that they are responsible for
what happened. For that, they
constituted six more, or eight or nine
arguidos to divert attentions and
diminishes the possible responsibility.
Now, to be able to move forward, in a
process like this, the timings have all
been lost, everything disappeared, we
need to have this notion that it's very
difficult at this time to recover a
body, it's very difficult to retrieve,
even making a reconstruction, a credible
and exact idea of what took place yet it
was imperative for this to have been
done.
Anchor - That attempt was indispensable.
Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, and I don't
understand why it was never achieved,
certainly not due to the unwillingness
of the Judiciary Police.
Anchor - Not due to the unwillingness of
the Judiciary Police?
Manuel Rodrigues - Certainly not.
Anchor - By whom then?
Manuel Rodrigues - Someone has prevented
that reconstitution, and that is why
that those couples, friends of the
McCann...
Tânia Laranjo - Inclusively, the friends
themselves refused to come back.
Anchor - But who is that someone?
Manuel Rodrigues - Don't make me name
things...
Anchor - The English police, the English
government?
Manuel Rodrigues - We've already talked
here about the direct assistance given
to the couple by English governmental
aids...
Anchor - The English government and the
English police, is that what you are
trying to say?
Manuel Rodrigues - Obviously. I cannot
say anything else differently. I cannot
have a different interpretation when in
a first exam that was done in an English
laboratory, because the Portuguese had
the honesty of sending them the
evidence, they weren't even analysed
here - 'let's send it to England so they
can carry out the tests so no doubts
remain', in a first moment...
Anchor - Honesty or naivety?
Manuel Rodrigues - Pure naivety. In a
first moment 15 alleles of a series of
19 appear, that constituted Maddie's
DNA, and in a second report those 15
alleles had completely vanished, there
was no longer any DNA of the girl
present in there.
Anchor - So, what you are saying is that
the probabilities for the "Guilt to die
single" (Portuguese saying, no one get's
blamed for it) are high.
Manuel Rodrigues - Extremely high.
Rui Pereira - It's a certainty.
Anchor - So, the "Guilt dies single"
then professor?
Rui Pereira - Yes, it will, it
absolutely will. Now, what I would like
to tell you João is that...
Anchor - But the Judiciary Police, in
your opinion Professor, is doing
everything they can or they want to
archive the case?
Rui Pereira - The Judiciary Police was
under great pressure by the huge media
coverage of the case, it was very active
then and at a certain point in time it
short-circuited, and why? Because what
happened in the Algarve was that
negligent parents left their children
helpless, who could not defend
themselves from natural or human
threats, all alone! And in the sequence
of that, which initially was a crime of
abandonment, the child disappeared -
there are no doubt about this.
Tânia Laranjo - And that was everyday.
Rui Pereira - For the English media what
happened was that in an exotic country
in the south of Europe, in a tourist
resort, one child disappeared, full
stop. And that the English police is
unable of finding out why, full stop.
This second story, is a narrative that
is totally detached from reality. Thus,
what failed in there, and I insist, was
the first moment. In the Portuguese
Penal code, the Public Ministry who is
considered to be the "Master" of the
inquest (process), but rarely
intervenes. Let me add, that I feel most
reassured because the Court of Appeals
produced a balanced decision, and even
though the case isn't over yet, it's a
civil process and there is still an
appeal to the Supreme, it seems to me
that what the Court of Appeals concluded
is correct. It doesn't say that the
investigation of the Judiciary Police is
truthful but says that what is revealed
in the book corresponds to the
investigation, and therefore, within the
freedom of information, within the
freedom of the press, can be made
public.
Anchor - That is a plausible line of
investigation. Gonçalo Amaral are you
going to sue the McCann couple?
Gonçalo Amaral - At this moment I'm not
thinking about that. There is always a
reckoning of the numbers, the case has
not yet ended, there are still appeals,
let's see what will happen from now on,
and then I'll decide.
Anchor - But you suffered damages, well,
you obviously suffered moral damages,
and you suffered material damages as
well?
Gonçalo Amaral - And others. We have to
wait. I don't think that is essential at
this moment. What is essential now is to
wait for this deadline to end, that the
couple has to make an appeal, verify, to
know the basis of their appeal, and only
then react.
Anchor - What is going to be necessary
for you to take that step? To make that
decision to eventually sue the McCann
couple.
Gonçalo Amaral - If at the end of this
appeal..
Anchor - Did you not think about that
yet?
Gonçalo Amaral - I thought about that,
yes, but to affirm that I'm going to
sue, let's take it slowly. I've to tell
you another thing, to sue the McCann
couple alone, what for? They're over
there in England, I would have to go
there, for an eventual thing, that would
take years, and then would the sentence
be executed there in England? It would
have to be done by a number of people.
Rui Pereira - Inspector please allow me
to say something very briefly, just to
complement. What in fact is curious in
the process, is that when the couple
gave their Statement of Identity and
Residence, they used an address in
England, isn't it true?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, that's true.
Anchor - Are you going to publish this
book in English?
Gonçalo Amaral - I'm planning to do
that, yes. I know that the couple said
that if anyone buys the book in England
they would sue them. So? The couple does
not own the English language and the
book can be published in any language,
namely in English. In any country where
English is spoken or even via the
internet. Now, what's going to happen,
I'll still need to talk to my publisher,
that still hold copyrights on the book.
But I do have the intention of divulging
the book even because there are some
copies going around and inadequate
translations online, and people have the
right to know what my opinion is, and
the opinion of others, and know them
through in the official work.
Anchor - Gentlemen, madam, thank you so
much for being here in this special
broadcast by CMTV. We conclude with
another news piece. In just one single
day, in the exact same day Maddie was
seen in the Brazil, in Canada, in a
ferry-boat in Ayamonte (Huelva, Spain)
and even in Syria. The thesis multiply
but of Maddie there is not a single
trace.
News Segment 4
Voice Over - 3 of May 2007, a British
little girl, 3-years-old, disappears
from the hotel's (sic, apartment)
bedroom where she slept with her twin
siblings, in the Ocean club tourist
resort, in Praia da Luz, Algarve. This,
whilst the parents dined with friends in
a restaurant, less than fifty (sic, only
in a straight line) meters away from the
apartment. Two days later the Judiciary
Police of Faro says that they could now
state that the daughter of the McCann
couple had been abducted. A theory that
continues to be alive in the memory and
on newspaper pages that every year tell
about another suspect, of another search
carried out by the Portuguese
authorities or English in Praia da Luz,
or of another statement by someone that
guarantees to have seen the girl, whom,
if still alive, is now 12 years-old.
Anna Stam, a 42 years-old Dutch, was
working in a shop when a blonde and blue
eyed little girl asked her 'Do you know
where my Mummy is?', convinced her
mother was the woman that was with her,
Anna pointed in the woman direction.
'She is not my Mummy, they took me from
my holiday', said the child who
according to the description was 4 or 5
years-old and spoke in a perfect English
with a French accent (sic, the woman had
the accent not the child).
This is just one of the sightings that
can be found in the over thirty
volumes and dossiers of
the investigation that is yet to be
concluded. The information is so
dispersed, that on the same day (11th
May 2007) Maddie was seen in Indonesia,
in Singapore, in Mozambique, in Brazil,
in Canada, in Belgium, at Zurich's
airport in Switzerland, in a ferry-boat
in Ayamonte at the Spanish border and
even in Syria. Not all sightings were
taken into account, only those which
according to the authorities presented
solid elements, like one description of
a sighting by two British sisters, who
assured to have travelled in a bus in
Malta with a little girl resembling
Maddie who even had a similar eye defect
in the right eye and who said to the
woman who was with her 'You're not my
Mummy'. After Malta it was Morocco,
the stage of numerous sightings. First
the sighing by a Norwegian woman
alleging she had seen a girl similar to
the oldest daughter of the McCann couple
at a petrol station, followed by dozens
of sightings, like one sighting of
Madeleine in a mansion, in Massira, on
the streets of Agadir or in Marrakech.
After Morocco, the little girl that
cried 'Help' in Mem Martins, in Amadora
(Lisbon suburbs), then a Roma couple
with a baby stroller in France, with a
child that didn't appear to be theirs.
Hundreds of psychic visions and
divinations that placed the little girl
at a specific street in Sagres or inside
a hole in the vicinity of the tourist
resort from where she had disappeared.
Theories are abundant, of Madeleine
Mccann there is not a single trace.
Recently, in 2015, the Australian police
entered in action, at stake the body of
a child, with light hairs, that would
have been murdered in 2007 and placed
inside a suitcase, a few days later the
conclusion - the body found in Australia
wasn't Maddie's. Nine years and hundreds
of sightings later the mystery remains
and the sightings multiply.
Cândido, a former farmer and fisherman,
that lives less than 100 meters away of
the tourist resort from where the
English child disappeared told CMTV why
he can't erase the night of May 3, 2007
from his memory.
** Cândido
- On the day the girl disappeared, her
father, at 1am, was walking around with
a bottle of wine in his hand, and he was
'atascado'
(drunk), and screaming for the girl near
to my door, I live right there close to
the main road, and I said 'what's going
on, what's all this noise?' and he said
'menina, menina' (girl, girl), 'embora,
embora' (gone, gone), and I said 'girl
gone, what girl?', and he said 'menina',
and I said 'go call the police', 3 hours
he said, 3 hours since the girl went
missing, and I said 'call the police',
and he said 'no police, no'.
Voice Over - Today Madeleine McCann is
not the same child that we got used to
watch in loop on TV. If she is alive she
will be 12 years-old. For now it's the
synonym of a perfect crime. No one has
seen her, no one knows where she is,
much less what happened on that night of
2007.
Anchor - This is the end point of this
special broadcast by CMTV, 'Maddie, the
Mystery', where we tried to bring new
facts into light so this mystery may one
day be solved.
Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20, CM Special:
Maddie, the Mystery, April 23, 2016 -
first draft
Notes
*Same
reconstruction that had been broadcast
in the CMTV Special in 2013, see Zizi's
full translation with extra notes.
** A
fisherman's story, for what it's worth.
A very poor news segment riddled with
avoidable mistakes to conclude an
important debate, a bad editorial
decision. |
|
|
|
Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20,
CM Special: Maddie, the Mystery, April
23, 2016 - first draft |
|
MCCANN PJ FILES
|
|
|
|
 |
|
