Correio da Manhã Sunday Magazine
07/09/14
Maddie The English Police's
Disinvestigation
I had the hope that the British means
would help the investigation, but the
intention has always been to clear the
McCanns
I confess that when the English police
decided to start an investigation into
Maddie's disappearance I believed that
everything would be elucidated. Not
because the English police are better
but simply because of their
disproportionate means and resources
could make a difference.
I started to start having doubts when I
heard the first news about this case, in
the BBC television programme "Crimewatch",
but did I see a programme to finally
find out what happened to Maddie McCann?
Unfortunately, there was no answer. We
just watched a television programme
disguised as a police investigation.
The English police committed several
serious mistakes. The first of which was
called the reconstruction. The
reconstruction of a crime has to be done
at the site where it took place and, if
possible, in the presence of all those
involved. And it would have been easy
for the English to have carried out this
diligence, it would have been enough to
bring to Portugal the entire group of
English who were in the Ocean Club.
One of the doubts which persists is to
understand the reason that the English
police insist on repeating diligences
which had been done by the PJ and not
trying to do the only thing that the PJ
did not do, the reconstruction.
But lets be serious; it was not SY who
did the reconstruction but the BBC. How
was it possible to understand where the
McCanns were sitting at dinner? Would it
have been possible to see from this
location the window of the apartment
where Maddie was sleeping? What route
did the McCanns and friends take when
they went to see the children? How much
time did it take? This reconstruction
cannot answer any of these question. But
would the answer to these questions be
of any importance to the British? I do
not think so. Today, I am certain that
the purpose is not to know what happened
to Maddie, but to divert any eventual
suspicions from the McCanns.
Hoax
As an example, for the reconstruction
they hired actors, one of them Mark
Sloan, a well known porno actor. The
situation is worth what it is, but when
this was made known, it was the object
of criticism from the association
Mothers Against Murder and Aggression,
as well as the Labour deputy, John Mann.
At a moment of great impact on the
television, at 00h00 exactly, and in the
entire world, they presented various
e-fits, as if these had been drawn up in
the course of this investigation. A
hoax. We will concentrate of the only
two which have any viability of leading
to the recognition of any person.
The first one, elaborated by the PJ, is
an image of a man carrying a child.
Thus, an Irish couple declared to the PJ
that they saw a man that night carrying
a child in pyjamas. But they were no
able, however, give any kind of
expression to the man's face. Later, on
the day that the McCanns returned to
England, the same couple telephoned the
PJ claiming that the man that they saw
that night was Gerry McCann. They were
sure of this when they saw him get off
the airplane carrying one of his
children.
There was only problem for the PJ. At
the time the Irish couple declared
having seen Gerry McCann carrying the
child, he had six witnesses at dinner at
the Ocean Club. This fact discredited
the recognition. But what the English
police did was to grab on this "doll" (boneco),
giving him other features to kill off
any or all suspicions. For this reason,
the e-fit presented by the English
authorities of a man carrying a child is
a hoax, not seen by anyone, its aim is
to eliminate any kind of suspicions
concerning Maddie's father.
The other e-fit, that of a man with gray
moustache, was also not done by the
English police but was done by Oakley
Agency, from whom the McCanns had asked
for an investigation.
The first part of the English
investigation is resumed: the
reconstruction of the facts done by the
BBC, the disfigurement of the e-fit done
by the PJ and taking advantage of
another e-fit done by private detectives
that they never wanted to make public. A
handful of nothing.
From the beginning, the English police
began by telling us that Maddie had been
abducted by a sexual predator, but that
she was alive and would be found
quickly. They crossed telephone records,
registries of paedophiles and other
information and identified 4 suspects.
The first, the Englishman, Raymond
Hewlett, had in fact lived in the
Algarve, but had since died some time
ago in Germany, a victim of cancer.
Later, a Swiss citizen came up, Urs Hans
von Aesch, who lived in neighbouring
Spain, in Alicante. But he too was dead,
as he had committed suicide in his
native country. Another suspect turned
up, David Reid, a convicted British
paedophile, who after serving his prison
sentence in the UK he came to live in
the Algarve. But destiny was maintained,
he too died a victim of cancer. Finally,
a Portuguese suspect came up, Euclides
Monteiro, who, surprise, had already 4
years ago.
It was never understood why these
suspects. If they were strong, they
would not have gone up in smoke with
their death, this fact would not
invalidate the fact that they could have
been the authors of this crime. However,
for the English police, dead the
suspect, dead the suspicion.
A question of Faith
After all this carnage, they changed
strategies. Finally, its not just the
suspects who were dead. The English
police have gone to having no doubts
that Maddie is also dead. Maddie, after
all, was the victim of an abduction,
having been killed afterwards and buried
in wasteland near the Ocean Club. What
lead them to this new theory is a
mystery, as big as the disappearance of
little Maddie. The same certainty that
they had that she was alive is exactly
the same, today, that she is dead. It
all comes down to a question of faith.
As for the motive of the abduction,
there are two hypotheses; one, it was a
paedophile who entered the house to
abuse the child and, as she awoke,
abducted her and killed her; two, a
thief who entered the apartment and as
the child woke up, kidnapped and killed
her.
The first doubt concerning these radical
theories in detail, perhaps without
importance, but which must be made; if
there was an abduction, the perpetrator
had to enter the apartment. First
question: how did he get in? According
to the McCanns and their friends, the
front door of the apartment was locked
and everyone, when they went to check on
the children, opened it to enter and
locked it when they went out. This door
showed no signs of having been broken
into. The window of the apartment, which
looked towards the restaurant where they
were having dinner, had signs of having
been forced but from the inside of the
apartment, which makes things more
complicated, because this is not
credible that someone would enter by the
door to go out carrying a child through
the window, which was looking out
towards where her parents were having
dinner. Thus, or the McCanns or their
friends are lying and left the door open
or the abductor has supernatural powers.
This bring us to a deadend; as long as
the English police cannot tell us how
the abductor(s) entered the apartment,
how can they affirm categorically that
an abduction took place?
To complicate the situation, the
abductor would be in the dark because if
he turned the light on he would be
immediately seen by the McCanns and
friends, who claimed that they had
visual contact with the apartment.
After, in this situation, no criminal
would have taken the child, because even
if she had woken up and started crying,
the probability that she would recognise
him would be zero, unless it was someone
she knew well. Besides this, the
possibility of fleeing successfully was
better if he fled alone. Taking the
child would have been a hindrance,
delaying his escape, it was an added
risk.
Useless Searches
But stranger still is the English
police's idea that the child was killed
immediately by the abductor right away
in the empty lots around the area. I
believe that they came to this
conclusion because, in absence of the
spy satellite photograph which I
believed existed, they resorted to that
powerful investigative tool that is
Google Maps. If anyone had been to this
area they would not have made this
mistake. This terrain is rocky and no
one would be able to dig a hole to bury
a body, even more without tools. It's
clear that when they started these
diligences on the ground, even with all
the machinery brought from England, they
found nothing, other than small animal
bones and even these on the surface and
they discovered that digging a hole in
this area was not an easy task.
Afterwards, they returned bringing their
sniffer dogs from England. But not the
same who discovered cadaver odour in the
apartment, on clothes, on dolls and in
the car used by the McCanns. I believe
that these two dogs, seven years later,
have either died or have been arrested
or fired from the police, due to their
work in Portugal.
They brought two other dogs, but they
did not want to take any risks,
therefore or the two dogs did not have
smell or were search dogs, but for drugs
and not cadavers, because they did not
find any cadaver odour, but rather two
cannabis plants, the seizure of which
was immediately announced due to its
importance.
Furthermore, they looked for the girl's
cadaver in the sewers. Looking for the
cadaver of a 5 year old girl in the
drains, 7 years later, in inexplicable.
All you have to do is think about the
time of a body's decomposition and about
the conditions of the weather and the
site. Just remember last winter and the
rains that fell on the Algarve. The
force of the waters was such that either
the cadaver was washed away with
everything in front or there was no
drain cover at the site. This search
with cameras was a joke.
To finish, the new suspects and their
interrogations. The English police
constituted 3 arguidos, three persons
who they believe are suspected of
something, eventually an abduction. But
does any proof or evidence exist
connecting them to an eventual crime?
Apparently not. But let us rejoice.
Firstly, because these three suspects,
contrary to the other four, are alive
and in good health. These three
individuals are suspects because they
are suspects. This is their major crime;
being suspected of being suspects. One
of them, at the date of the events, was
16 years old, and his big crime is being
in the area that day where the events
took place and of having spoken on his
mobile with the other two suspects.
Now they want to come back to Portugal,
to query other persons and interrogate
new suspects. This means that, after
all, everything that they have done up
to now is worthless.
The question to be made is: when are the
English going to stop with all of this,
if this were not such a serious attack
against our sovereignty it would even be
funny? This is the only point that I
have no doubt about. The English will
stop on the day the Portuguese
authorities say enough. But, on this
day, the English police will say that
they have not discovered what happened,
because the Portuguese authorities would
not let them. Of this I have no doubt
and I am not joking. |
