Former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral retired at midnight on 30 June 2008, to "savour freedom of expression".
Since then, he has given a number of interviews to Portuguese and European TV and press. This page covers interviews
for July 2008.
Gonçalo Amaral retired since midnight, to "savour
freedom of expression"
Tuesday 01 July 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
The controversial coordinator, who was removed from the Maddie case, says he "leaves proud" and that
he is not "hurt". His last action was delivering the service mobile phone
The PJ's coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, who was removed from the Maddie case over an opinion offence, is,
from today onwards, a free man. At midnight, he went into retirement and, according to what he told 24horas yesterday,
his first day "is going to be beautiful, with plenty to do and the ability to savour the plenitude of his freedom of expression".
Just enigmatic enough, Gonçalo Amaral, aged 49, had his last day at the PJ yesterday,
"a perfectly normal day". He arrived early, finished the operation into the process that lead, over the weekend, to the apprehension
of two and a half tons of hashish and the detention of six traffickers, and dispatched a few more cases. Before lunch, which
lasted from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m., the controversial coordinator of criminal investigation delivered his duty pistol, his badge
and his card at the Faro Directory. At the end of the day, around 5.30 p.m., he delivered his service mobile phone.
In the evening, he hosted an "intimate dinner, with two colleagues that came from
Lisbon into the Algarve on purpose".
In the investigation
In a statement to 24horas, Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the future includes
"continuing to work in the area of criminal investigation, maybe as a consultant". "But not as a detective", he guaranteed.
At the same time, the coordinator who is now retired from the PJ is going to carry out a stay at an Algarvian law office,
in order to "maybe exercise [law]" within a year.
Gonçalo Amaral is also going to take advantage of his retirement to "dedicate more
time to his wife and children" and assured that, despite everything, he does not leave the PJ with hurt feelings, because
the institution and its servants deserve him "the utmost respect". "I leave, proud of having served the PJ and of having worked
with very good people, excellent professionals that still remain here".
This, despite him confiding to 24horas, in a reference to the controversial
Maddie case, that "many people remained upset" with him in Portimão.
Maddie book "is ready"
Gonçalo Amaral, who spent 28 years at the Polícia Judiciária, which he entered as
an agent in 1981, having passed through many different departments, revealed to 24horas that the book about the Maddie
case "is ready". It was written during his brief holidays, before he returned to the PJ in May, to leave now into retirement.
But the publication depends on the "judicial secrecy" which was not lifted yet. The book promises fabulous sales figures,
both in Portugal and abroad, mainly in Great Britain.
Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures
in the Maddie case, 01 July 2008
Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures in the Maddie
case
RTP Video (Short 'taster' for 30 Minutos programme, Portuguese language)
2008-07-01
Gonçalo Amaral speaks of pressures in the Maddie case
Former coordinator for the investigation of the Madeleine case said pressures existed
around the process of the case for it never to be solved. Gonçalo Amaral says that the presence of the officer Clarence
Mitchell is proof of that and argued that neither researchers nor directors should be afraid of working.
"I was removed because of the direction the investigation was heading"
03 July 2008
Thanks to 'debk' for translation, additional
text by Joana Morais
The former PJ inspector believes he was removed because he didn't wish to abandon
the homicide theory. He maintains that Maddie is dead and the only reason there isn't more evidence is because he wasn't allowed
to continue to the end of the investigation.
Amaral: We were doing the last diligences related to a very important witness who
was coming to Portugal.
Expresso: And the witness came to Portugal?
Amaral: As far as I know, the witness never came.
Expresso: But this was truly an important witness?
Amaral:
Very important.
====
Expresso: You believe Madeleine is dead?
Amaral: I believe it. That is my conviction.
Expresso:
Do you believe that the parents are involved?
Amaral: erm...........
Expresso: Hiding a cadaver?
Amaral:
erm....... I can't say anything about this during the secrecy of justice. We can only talk about this when the secrecy is
lifted.
*
Note: Tomorrow Expresso will publish the full interview.
The book is finished. 200 pages. Ready for publishing "immediately" upon the secrecy being lifted.Also notice Mr.
Gonçalo Amaral has a good sense of humour, his already grilling some sardines.
Gonçalo
Amaral interviewed by Expresso, 04 July 2008
"Since the day I left I knew the process would be archived"
Carlos Rodrigues and Rui Gustavo Lima
12:30 | Friday, July 4, 2008
Thanks to 'astro' and 'debk' for translation
The former inspector reveals some secrets from the investigation into the Maddie
case. He guarantees that the process contains evidence, not personal convictions, and he reveals that Paulo Rebelo, his successor,
never contacted him to talk about the case. When asked about what he would say to Gerry and Kate McCann, today, he replied:
"I'm worried about the girl, not the parents".
Your name and your
career will remain connected to the Maddie case forever?
I'm not worried about that. I have always worked
in a team, with the preoccupation and the goal of reaching the discovery of the truth. No policeman likes to leave a case
halfway through. Was that what happened with this investigation?
Is it left halfway through?
Not according to my will. Have
you agreed with the decision of the former director of the PJ, who removed you from the case?
No. It's
an unfair and dangerous decision. I was not removed from the investigation due to incompetence. I left because of the direction
that the investigation was taking. But the strategy was not decided by me only. It was everyone. It involved the English police
and other Portuguese policemen. And what was being investigated, was the little girl's death, even an accidental one.
After you left, was that course maintained?
I don't know.
I'm very naïve and I want to believe that my exit from Portimão had the purpose of advancing the investigation, because the
person that took over is much more efficient.
Do you believe that
Madeleine McCann died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd of May?
Yes. That is what I and other
persons believe in. And this is not because we idealised it that way. Is
there evidence to sustain that thesis?
I can't enter any details of the process. I will only say this:
I am certain that I, and the persons who worked with me, did a good job and I doubt that anyone else could do better. Some
day, people will see the process, they may agree or not, but there is nothing in there that questions my professionalism. Was the investigation's direction, homicide, disturbing the political power?
This
case was more political than a police case.
Did any politician
pressure you?
I was not pressured, I was removed. If
there was a homicide, where is the body?
That was what we were going to establish next. On the day that
I was removed, I was carrying out diligences for a fundamental witness to come to Portugal. It was necessary for the PJ to
pay for the trip, to arrange for lodging, and that was being taken care of. But then the important witness never came to Portugal
and was never heard. But why? Why was an exception opened? The
English police was used by the McCanns to send the PJ information that often was nothing but noise?
Yes.
And the fact that the couple had a press advisor, is a figure that is not even foreseen in the penal process code. In some
way, we were all influenced by the campaign that was built, which said that the child is alive and must be found. I don't
say that the English police was being ordered around by the McCanns, but it was influenced, like we all were. The PJ should
have found a way to protect the investigators from everything else.
That
is strange: you say that it was established with the English police that the direction that should be followed was the little
girl’s death, that there were enough indices, but there seems to have been an inflexion.
Yes. And
I was removed. I don't know whether there is a direct connection. I know that colleagues from the investigation have requested
the police's directory for a syndication, to see whether the work was badly done. Whether mistakes were made.
Do you believe that you reached the truth?
I am convinced
that we were on the right path and that we might end up knowing everything or not, but a great part. Now, that which we have
collected and which we consider to be indices, may not be valued in the same manner. One of the criticisms is that the results from the months when you were leading the investigation are lots of
convictions and zero evidence. Do you agree?
I was the coordinator of the investigation from 3 May to
2 October. Five months. After me, there came other people that have been there nine months. I am not comparing, but we were
professional and I'm not ashamed of anything. And when the process is public you will see if it is true that there is nothing.
There are indications and they are in the files. We did hundreds of interviews and searches. Thousands of diligences and from
that there are no results? The little girl went up in smoke?
Did
the theory of the death of the child continue to be followed after your exit?
I don't know. I can say
that ever since that day I knew the process would be archived.
That
being so, is there still a death to be resolved?
There is. And diligences to be completed.
Who made the decision to constitute the McCann’s arguidos?
Everyone.
And the national director was informed of all the decisions. Alípio
Ribeiro agreed with the decision?
Exactly.
But
then he ended up saying that the decision was hasty.
Hasty? Four months later? When there were concrete
diligences that reinforced some of the indications? While we waited for results of various tests? And beyond that, in our
law there exists the principal of no self-incrimination. A person can't continue speaking forever as a witness and providing
evidence ("indications"). There is certainly a stigma in the arguido status, but I don't know what is worse. They were made
arguidos, this was public, for simulating a crime and hiding a cadaver.
Do you think that you made any mistakes?
I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things
about which I still cannot speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should
be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved.
After leaving the investigation, did you ever speak with your successor, Paulo Rebelo?
No.
It is an interesting question to consider. If they removed me for the barbarity of speaking to the press, and not for incompetence,
it would be normal to be consulted. But this never happened.
If,
as all seems to indicate, the case is archived, the public is going to hold the Portuguese police responsible. How will you
react?
Archival is not a declaration of innocence. A process can be archived and reopened. The archival
of this case could be the declaration of some incapacity of the police, or it could have a different meaning.
What would you say to Madeleine's parents?
I have nothing
to say. My overriding preoccupation is with the little girl, not the parents.
Gonçalo
Amaral interviewed by TVI, 04 July 2008
Gonçalo Amaral Former coordinator of the Madeleine McCann
Process, interviewed by TVI
"I was Kicked in the Butt"
04 July 2008
Are you convinced that Madeleine McCann is dead?
Gonçalo Amaral - I do have that conviction. It is an interpretation in the light of the Law based
in concrete elements, with the knowledge that I have of the inquest and of the diligences done. Yes, I am convinced that she
died there.
If the father and the mother were constituted as arguidos it’s because they were suspects?
GM - They were suspects and there were evidences for them to be constituted as arguidos, actually,
strong elements relatively to two types of crime: hiding a cadaver [corpse occultation] and simulation of a crime [faking
the crime of kidnapping]. That was public and at the time that I left the investigation that was the situation.
And the crime of abandonment, for what reason aren’t the parents accused?
GM – The issue there is to know if the children were safe or not. For me it’s evident,
even because the parents talked about kidnapping, that there was no safety.
Don’t you feel frustrated as the case isn’t moving forward?
GM – I do not feel any frustration over the decisions made in courts. I have been around
for many years and I do have a great admiration for the magistrates. I understand up to where the work of magistrates can
go.
However you don't understand why you had to leave?
GM – No, not that. I respected the decision as a professional. There was an understanding
between the Portuguese and British authorities that the girl was dead and that there was a need to solidify the evidences
that existed and move forward to try to understand where she could be.
Do you believe that the PJ's reaction had to do with the politicising of the case?
GM – I believe that there was more politics than police [at work]. But on the field we did
our best and we never felt any defence [probably meaning defence by the Director of PJ towards the ongoing attacks].
Do you think that it is normal for the case to be archived?
GM – It doesn’t shock me.
*
Gonçalo Amaral and Madeleine's case: "There was more politics than police" Gazeta Digital
04/07/2008
Paulo Reis, Transcription with help from Claudia
The former Polícia Judiciária investigator criticised
the PJ director and the Justice minister, in an interview, tonight, with TVI, a Portuguese TV channel. Asked if he believed
that Madeleine was dead, Gonçalo Amaral said that he
was "convinced" she was dead "based on the evidence
collected". When the journalist asked: "Was she killed, there (in the apartment)?", the former PJ inspector said: "She died
there". About Madeleine's parents being named as formal suspects, Amaral spoke about "strong evidence" as the base for the
decision and referred that "there was a common understanding", between Portuguese and British police officers involved in
the investigation, about the fact that Madeleine was dead.
"There
was evidence, about two different crimes – which were referred by the defence lawyer, Pinto de Abreu, in a public statement
– and it was hiding a body and a criminal simulation. That was the situation, when I left the investigation," Mr. Amaral
said. The former PJ inspector, who has a Law Degree from Lisbon University, mentioned the fact that "these kind of cases of disappearance, frequently bring with it other crimes,
sometimes fake statements or physical abuse".
Questioned about the fact that the McCann were not accused of negligence
or child abandonment, Amaral said that "it was clear they (the McCann children) were not safe", when Madeleine disappeared,
but reminded that it's easier, with UK laws, to charge parents in those kind of situations, once the Portuguese Law is more
complex, it requires the existence of intention to leave the children in a dangerous situation. Gonçalo Amaral refused to
comment any decision from the Public Prosecutor's Office of from the Courts and refused to admit that he was "frustrated"
with those decisions. Asked about his removal from the investigation, the former PJ inspector told the journalist that he
had no contact with PJ director, on that day, and he only knew the reasons when he had a "private conversation" with Alípio
Ribeiro – refusing to give details about it.
Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the "statement" he gave to Diarios de Noticias – and was the reason for his removal, according
to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk
with a journalist from Faro, "very close to the family, a friend of my wife", who called him to ask about the email sent to
the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. "What I said, talking not to
a journalist, but with a friend, a personal talk, was that Police should concentrate in what was the common conclusion of
British and Portuguese Police: the child was dead and it was necessary to consolidate the existing evidence and move forward,
to find where she could be and what happened." At that moment, the kidnapping line of inquiry was "already closed", and "another
door was opened", Mr. Amaral said. When asked about the existence of political interference in the investigation, is answer
was short and clear: "I think there was more politics than police."
"We did our job, the best we knew and we were the target of a lot
critics and insults, from the British newspapers", the former PJ inspector said. When the case of Joana Cipriano was first
raised by the British Media, Mr. Amaral contacted the PJ director and called the attention for the risks, because those news
about his alleged involvement in the "torture" of the mother of Joana Ciprianio would be, soon, a large campaign against him,
and talked about the convenience of taking him out of investigation. "What they told me, later, was that I had all the support
and should continue the work."
"Surprised" with his removal from the investigation, Gonçalo Amaral
used a popular Portuguese phrase to explain what he felt, when he knew about his removal: "I
felt as if I was kicked up in the ass, on October 2." About the influence and importance of the McCann, Mr. Amaral
said that "there is a all story to be told, about this case, and I think that the journalists that followed this case, have
a great opportunity and responsibility, in helping to understand what happened. This is really, a case that is different from
all other cases." Gonçalo Amaral criticized the Justice minister, who said, after his removal, that "it was, now, time to
work": "Mr. Justice Minister Alberto Costa, we worked hard."
Download
the audio from the full TVI report and interview here.
Gonçalo Amaral placed a strong bet on this witness
Text: Carlos Tomas
July 07, 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
When he was discharged, the former investigator of the Maddie Case
was preparing to hear an Irishman, who was considered to be a very relevant witness. But the present investigators don't give
him credibility
The statements from the Irish citizen who is considered to be a key witness
in the Maddie case by Gonçalo Amaral, the man who lead the entire investigation, were not considered to be relevant by the
investigators from the Polícia Judiciária who presently hold the process.
During the two depositions, both informal, the Irishman who is only known as
"Smith" said that he saw the father of Madeleine McCann, Gerry, leaving the apartment in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, carrying
a child on the day that the little girl disappeared. This, during the period of time between 6 and 10 p.m., precisely when
Maddie disappeared.
"He was one of the witnesses that should be questioned within the rogatory
letter that was sent to England. But, due to the fact that he is an Irish citizen, the authorities in Leicester, England,
failed to contact him. The diligence was not deemed relevant, given the fact that he was informally heard at the beginning
of the process and his depositions were highly contradictory", a senior officer who is connected to the investigations revealed
to 24horas.
The same source specified: "First he said that he saw Maddie's father leaving
the apartment carrying a child. But during a second hearing he said he was not certain that it was Gerry who carried the child.
He even said he could not assert whether said person was actually carrying a human being. This type of witness is not admissible
in court and they do not deserve credibility".
It is now up to prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, who is analysing the process,
to decide whether it is necessary to carry out further diligences, namely whether the hearing of the Irish citizen is necessary
or not to reach a decision about the case, which apparently is to be archived concerning the suspicions of concealment of
a cadaver and possible homicide that are pending on the McCanns.
Page last updated at 14:39 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008
15:39 UK
The former lead detective on the Madeliene McCann case Goncalo Amaral has defended making
her parents official suspects.
Mr Amaral was removed from his post in October 2007 after reportedly criticising his British counterparts.
(00:01:44)
*
Transcript:
Gonçalo Amaral: In this case, it wasn't purely and simply a decision taken by police officers - Portuguese
and British police - there were others involved; Public prosecutors, the National Directorate of the Portugese
police - they all knew there was a necessity to put everything on the table, in light of the advances we had made, the combinations
of leads we had. There were no persecutions, the police do not want to persecute anyone, just to investigate what happened
in a given case.
Steve Kingstone: According to the McCann's then spokeswoman, it was put to Kate McCann in her police interview
blood had been found in the car and we now know that that evidence was not conclusive, there will be people who say that the
police bluffed in that inteview.
GA: I guarantee there was no bluff in those interviews, not at all, and when all
the documents are made public, people will see I am telling the truth.
SK: Do you think it's possible that Madeleine
McCann is still alive?
GA: The evidence that we had gathered by the time I left the case pointed to the girl
being dead and having died inside the apartment. I don't know what happened next, I can't say, we'll have to wait for the
case files to be made public.
SK: You know what people are going to say, back in Britain, they will say that this was
a total failure by the Portuguese police.
GA: Let's wait and the people will see the Portuguese Police and
the British Police did a good job because various British agencies were involved. We tried and we worked hard, so we can't
be accused of incompetence, or failure.
Cadaver was frozen or kept
in the cold, 24 July 2008
Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept
in the cold
Gonçalo Amaral regrets that a 'fact-finding inquiry (sindicância) to the investigation was done".
In the first interview where he talks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched
today in Lisbon and promises to re-launch controversy.
Interview with Gonçalo Amaral in Correio da Manhã today
"The
investigation was syndicated"
Gonçalo Amaral laments that "the investigation was syndicated". In
the first interview during which he speaks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched
in Lisbon today and promises to launch the controversy again
Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator,
what is your thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book,
which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police
and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the
exposure or abandonment were proved.
What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?
It
all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's
testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which,
according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.
How
was it proved?
Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with
Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person,
completely different from Robert Murat.
Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.
In
order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction.
And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether
or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only
person that mentions the open window.
Does that undo the abduction theory?
There lies the solution. To be closed or not, is a strong indicium for simulation.
And why does one simulate abduction, rather than simply saying that the child has disappeared? She could have opened the door
and left…
Do Kate's fingerprints reinforce the simulation theory?
They are the only fingerprints
on the window. And in a position of opening the window.
Did Kate have suspicious attitudes?
She
goes out for dinner and supposedly leaves three children asleep. She returns, one is missing, she goes out, leaving the window
wide open with the twins asleep. And the night, according to what she says, was very cold…
What about
Maddie's bed?
It carries no signs that anyone was in it. Nor does the chair or the bed under the window. And
there are no imprints from strangers.
The reconstruction is missing.
It was not carried out
10 or 15 days after the facts, because the resort was full of tourists. We trusted that it could be carried out at a later
date. It couldn't.
Did you request data about the group?
At 8 a.m. on the 4th, the request
was made to the English liaison officer, but [the data] never arrived.
What did you want to know?
Who
the people are, their antecedents. And the child, whether or not there are complaints against the parents or others. How she
behaved in school, to find out if she was the target of abuse.
How important is the Irish witness within the
case?
He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little
girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried
the child.
That was back in May.
When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching
Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked
and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says
he and say the other members of the family.
What did you do?
On the days before I left Portimão
we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from
the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected
to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains
the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.
Couldn't
that have been included in the rogatory letter?
It could and it should. The ideal would have been for him
to come to Portugal, as a key witness. Just like the couple of doctors that describe the situation in Mallorca.
Once
the abduction theory was set apart, how was the death theory built?
With the elements that exist, we could
only reach an accident, natural death, any cause without the intervention of another person. We were cementing evidence and
advancing to understand what happened to the little girl's body. Also based on information from the British lab, about residues
that were found inside the car that was rented by the McCanns.
Where and how could they have hidden the body
for over twenty days?
That was what we were trying to find out. Searching within their friends, because the
couple had a lot of acquaintances. We tried to understand where the little girl could have been during those twenty something
days.
Out of reach from the searches.
Yes. There was information that the couple had been seen
walking towards a certain apartment block, we were trying to understand which apartment it was. Who had access to that apartment.
But everything stopped.
How do you interpret that stopping of everything, when you left?
It
almost looks as if the investigation was syndicated.
It was even said that the blood that was found was not
human.
The dogs only smell human blood. The sample that is collected and taken to England, to be analysed
with the Low Copy Number technique, is microscopic. The technique does not allow them to state whether it is blood or any
other type of fluid – but it guarantees that it is human.
The family tried to justify itself.
Later
on, a brother-in-law and a cousin of Kate said that they had carried steaks in the trunk that had thawed, even garbage, but
no. The dogs follow neither garbage smell nor non-human blood. Then there is a witness, that was never heard, a jurist that
lived next to the couple, in the second house [villa] outside of the apartment, saying that the car trunk was left open during
the night, for airing. But maybe that was because of the garbage…
Within the theory of the parents' involvement,
can you reconstruct that night?
We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons
were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew
but also due to the terrain's conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already
exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there
was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness.
At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements
that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.
They are not credible. The employees are unable to
tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments.
And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only
on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every
five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.
And what about Gerry?
He
justifies some of the time with a trip to the toilet. That is not five minutes, then he meets another individual outside.
Hence the need for the reconstruction. To find out how long it took them to get to the apartments, what route they walked,
etc. A reconstruction that should be joint with the restaurant's movement, because when it is said that they asked for the
food from 9 p.m. onwards, there was one person who ordered a steak. And that steak was heated again because someone was not
there. It is necessary to find out whose steak that was. He was away for a much longer time period…
An
adult carrying a child, until the beach, how long [does it take]?
Fifteen minutes.
How was
it possible for the apartment to be rented out after the crime?
The apartment was immediately fully contaminated
by the parents' action, before the police arrived. A complete fair was built there and at a certain point, dogs were demanded
to come inside the house.
You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives.
The
twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were
carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal.
But the Judiciária
did nothing.
Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order
to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the
parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed.
How is there room for speculation about the DNA tests? It was those results that allowed
you to advance with the arguido status.
The speculation is done by the scientist who performs the test. He
starts out by saying, in his preliminary report, that it was easy to say that it was Maddie. Then he raised other questions.
Of course nobody can be accused, based on that data alone.
"The cadaver was frozen"
Correio
da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body,
after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues
that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the
cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part
of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that
this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
If the body was hidden in the beach
area first, was it always out of reach for the searches?
The beach was searched at a time when it is not known
whether the body was still there. Using dogs, but sniffer dogs have limitations, like the salted water, for example. Later
on, it may have been removed.
"We should have done phone
tapping"
Correio da Manhã – Did you feel political pressure during the investigation?
G.A.
– Inhibition. One of the mistakes was that we did not advance on this group with everything that legally was within
our reach: Tapping, surveillance. It was necessary, for example, to recover the clothes that the little girl was wearing when
she left the crèche to go home. There, we thought: if we go, it will immediately be said that we suspect the parents. That
inhibition happened throughout time.
And that led you towards
the abduction.
We had to prove that there was no abduction, in order to focus on those persons afterwards…
How
does the pressure appear?
Right on the morning of the 4th of May, with a consul calling the embassy and saying
that the PJ wasn't doing anything. Then an ambassador. Next, an advisor and the English prime minister.
"Payne
is the last one to see her"
Correio da Manhã –
When do testimonies concerning David Payne's behaviour indicating sexual practices with minors arrive?
Gonçalo
Amaral – In May. Something went wrong with that group during a holiday: David Payne made revealing gestures concerning
behaviour towards children. Even towards Maddie. We asked for information but it arrived after the 26th of October. They sent
the information without giving it any importance.
What exactly did arrive?
A couple of doctors
spent holidays in Mallorca, in 2005, with David Payne, the McCanns and another couple. The lady says she saw Payne with his
finger in his mouth, making a movement in and out, while rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And he was talking about
Maddie, next to her father. Those statements should have been given a different treatment by the police. It was relevant to
access the information, about doctors, who are just as credible as anyone else.
What else remains unclear concerning
David Payne?
He will be the last one to see Maddie alive after 5.30 p.m., when she leaves the crèche. He meets
Gerry playing tennis and asks him about Kate and the children. Gerry answers that they are in the apartment and he goes there.
He returns 30 minutes later. Kate says it was 30 seconds. There is something not quite right here.
"Arriving
this far, it is important to make a deductive summary about this case. Which means, to reject what is false; to set aside
what cannot be proved, because it is insufficient; to consider as valid and certain what has been proved.
What
is proved
Therefore:
1. The abduction theory is defended by Maddie's parents since the first
moment;
2. Within the group, only her parents stated that they observed the
open window in the missing girl's bedroom; the majority cannot witness it faithfully because they arrived at the apartment
after the alarm was raised;
3. The only statement outside of the group that mentions the open window
and the raised shutters comes from Amy, one of the Ocean Club's nannies, who points her observation towards 10.20/10.30 p.m.,
which is some time after the alarm was raised and does not prove that it was open like that at the time when the crime happened;
4. The set of depositions and witness statements exposes a high number
of imprecision, incongruence and contradictions – which, in some cases, may be typified as false testimonies. In particular,
the key statement for the abduction theory, from Jane Tanner, which loses all credibility due to the fact that it successively
evolved throughout various moments in time, becoming ambiguous and disqualifying itself;
5. There is a cadaver that has not been located, a conclusion that
is validated by the English EVRD and CSI dogs and corroborated by the preliminary lab test results.
Certainties
until October
"For me, and for the investigators that worked with me on the case until October 2007,
the results that we reached were the following:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club,
in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;
2. An abduction was simulated;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the
concealment of their daughter’s cadaver;
4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident;
5. There is indicia of neglect in the guard and safety of the children."
"Decisive diligence was never carried out"
"The Smith family [Irish
witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch
was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition
that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little
girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.
"The man that the Smith were talking about
was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the
McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked
on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction
of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.
"When the situation was presented to the National
Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely]
the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."
McCanns
erased all the telephone calls
The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception,
in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known.
But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably
after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.
Gonçalo Amaral admits that investigators protected the McCanns, 27 July 2008
Gonçalo Amaral admits that investigators protected the
McCanns Jornal de Notícias
By Marisa Rodrigues
27 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
For the first time since he began to talk publicly
about the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Gonçalo Amaral, the co-coordinator of the investigation, analyses
his own responsibilities in the outcome of the case and in the conduct of all the work of the Judiciary Police.
Of the pressures and constraints that they were anticipating, more than feeling, of the virtually unlimited
autonomy in the carrying out of the diligences and even in the mistakes that he himself now assumes to have committed,
particularly the group of investigators initial decision to show precaution with everything that concerned Kate
and Gerry McCann. For fear of the reaction of public opinion. Today, he would not agree with decisions that he helped the
group of investigators to take. In the book " Maddie, The Truth of The Lie " he does not say everything that he knows. A second
book is not out of question.
Jornal de Notícias | Who has pressured the Judiciary Police (PJ)
so that it could not advance with diligences?
Gonçalo Amaral | The pressures were immediately felt in the
morning following the disappearance of the girl. The British consul in the Algarve went to the Judiciary Police to find out
about the investigation, which is not abnormal. Shortly afterwards, it was the turn of the ambassador to go there. It is not
a normal proceeding with all the English subjects. At least, I had never assisted a similar situation.
But
were you prevented from advancing with the diligences that had been planned?
To me no one told me "do not
do it". If that had happened the "broth would pour over" [Portuguese idiomatic expression meaning it would be over the
top]. There my participation in that investigation would have ended. But we felt constrained.
In
what way?
Notice. Soon after the visit of the ambassador, an announcement goes out referring the thesis
of abduction.
Was it the ambassador who pressurised the PJ?
It was not that
what I said. The pressure was felt in the team of investigators. When, in the heart of the group, if it was discussed the
realisation of a determined diligence there was always someone who would say "Oh, oh, we have to be careful".
Who?
I am not going say names. If in the book I was careful to never give names, I am not
going to do that now. It is one of those things that are kept. But in the group there were seven, eight, ten persons taking
part, between co-ordinators, directors… When the question of the necessity of doing a determined diligence was raised,
everything was discussed, namely, which was the importance, the objective that was wanted to accomplish and what were the
consequences. And when there were issues that needed us to come even closer to the couple and the group of friends, one was
careful for them not to be considered suspects so soon at that time, to prevent them from being accused in the public
opinion, faced with the existing media pressure.
Are you saying that the PJ itself decided
to protect them. Why so many precautions? It's natural to have suspects in a criminal investigation.
Because,
at that time we would have been crucified by public opinion.
You were afraid of the media
pressure…
No. We felt it was necessary to treat them with ‘tweezers’. I recognise what
we were mistaken.
If you believed in the accidental death thesis and in the parents involvement
what was the reason for you not to insist that determined diligences were done?
At the time when the arguments
against were suggested they were considered valid for the whole group. It was the group itself that said "let us not go there".
If you didn't agree why didn't you close the door? It was your image, while co-ordinator, that was in question.
Those
were not times for rebellions. I always worked in group. If the arguments were valid, one had to respect them.
Even without agreeing with them?
At the time I agreed because I considered them to be valid.
Perhaps now, at a distance, I do not agree.
What remained to be done?
Too
much. The first version of the rogatory letter, which was changed after my expulsion on 2 October, had several steps that
were simply struck out. It was requested that the British dogs be used to search the house of the McCanns in Leicester
and also those of their friends and that they smelled their clothes. It also asked to verify the existence
of a chart on the refrigerator of the girl's parents, which showed that she had problems with sleep and used to
rise several times at night. The chart is referred to by an English police officer. New interviews with the arguidos were
proposed but were never done. The charter was amended by the prosecutors.
With what goal?
Probably the steps were not considered important after my removal.
You said
that with another prosecutor perhaps the outcome of the investigation would have been different. If there had been another
National Director, not Alípio Ribeiro, recently criticised by Almeida Rodrigues, would the investigation have been conducted
differently?
I do not know, but probably not. The National Directorate is only one and has a very
specific understanding and procedures, regardless of whom addressed.
Who chose the laboratory
from Birmingham to examine the remains?
The PJ decided that the remains had to be analysed by an English laboratory.
Given the campaign that already existed at the time against the PJ. At that time, we had to be fully aware that if the results
tested positive, in Portugal, there would be a strong reaction against the competence and capacity of our laboratories.
We did so to show confidence in British laboratories. The choice of Birmingham was made by the English police.
It was a strategy? Or was there fear that the samples had not been well received and that they had been
contaminated?
It was strategy. We had confidence in the strength of the traces and the competence
of our technicians. It was all collected with the utmost care. During the collection, the Portuguese had the technical care
to contact the English technicians and follow the information given to them by phone. In particular the remains collected
on the tile of the room, so that nothing collapsed on the question of evidence from the collection to the handling
and packaging.
But the procedures are not universal? Or did you want to safeguard your
position in case of failure?
They are universal. But we wanted to follow to the letter the procedures
of the English police because the remains were to be sent to an English laboratory.
Were
you not confident in the Portuguese technicians?
I had and still have absolute confidence. But we
wanted someone who the British police would also agree with what they were doing to that later, no one could see that
the remains were poorly collected.
It was a kind of defence before the attack?
That's more or less it.
The line is that you advocate accidental death in the
apartment with the involvement of parents. But the book raises suspicions about David Payne. It seems a contradiction.
Nobody can say that the two have no relationship until they are investigated. I have suspicions about this gentleman
or against anyone. Only I can see that there are situations that were unclear. There is a testimony from a couple of
British doctors who say that in September 2005, when holidaying with the McCanns in Majorca and other couples, they
became aware of behaviours that are not normal for them and that they related to this gentleman. The couple went to British
police as soon as they saw them on television and the evidence only came to Portugal on 26 October. They say they
saw Payne put a finger in his mouth, and move it in and out, whilst rubbing his nipple with
the other hand. And speaking of what Madeleine would do, next to the father, Gerry. These testimonials from doctors,
as credible as the McCanns, should have had another treatment by the police.
And what
did the PJ do when they finally received this information?
Nothing. Not even included in the letter
of any investigation related to this episode.
David Payne, in your
opinion, may have something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine?
I do not know why it
was not investigated properly as it should, in my opinion, have been. He was the last to see Madeleine alive after
17.30 hours, when she left the nursery. Gerry was playing tennis and asked him to look in on Kate and the kids.
Gerry replies that he was in the apartment and she (Madeleine) was there. He returned 30 minutes later. Kate
says it was 30 seconds. Something that does not fit together.
In the book you say
that he was recognised by a social worker. What did you intend by reporting this episode?
Only that people realised that it is one more situation
that was not investigated. The following morning to the disappearance, a social worker of English nationality in the Algarve
offers to help, but she was almost ill-treated/offended by the couple, apparently by indication of this man [David Payne].
This man is recognised by the social worker as already having passed in a process, in an investigation, without her being
able at the time to tell if it was in the quality/status of a witness or as in another processual figure [means
a judicial status like arguido or suspect]. If he has or not some relation with the death, I do not know. But these are situations
that could not have passed in clear/without being investigated, as they were. They should have been checked.
How did Robert Murat become a translator for the accused?
There were many difficulties in finding translators. We needed him because many had to listen to many people. It was
the GNR who suggested the name of Robert Murat because he spoke fluent Portuguese and English. He was known by the
military to have helped informally in some translations. He was now accused by a number of factors combined. There
is a testimony of Jane Taner that recognises him from the view of his back and assures that this is the man who she saw
that night passing with a child.
But Jane Taner was a credible witness?
Never
was. But there were other things. Phone calls from anonymous people who came to mention it as a possible abduction.
These anonymous phone calls took place before or after being recognised by Jane Tanner?
I do not know need, but it was certainly before he was made arguido. Either way, nothing has been found that
links Robert Murat in this case.
Recently you said that there is much you know and
have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out?
It is logical that yes.
What and for what purpose?
I cannot disclose it.
It leaves room for a second book, for example?
Maybe. Let's see.
"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on
TVI, broadcast
live on 28 July 2008
