An interview in three parts with Gonçalo Amaral, 03/04 August 2008

An interview in three parts with Gonçalo Amaral IOL PortugalDiário (Links provided beside each part of interview)   03/04 August 2008   Maddie: the questions that were missing Link    IOL PortugalDiário spoke with the former PJ inspector, Gonçalo Amaral and asked some questions This Monday, the Maddie process will no longer be subject to the judicial secrecy, and can be consulted by who requested to do so. IOL PortugalDiário asks the former inspector Gonçalo Amaral some questions. The goal is to try to shed some light on aspects of the investigation, which was questioned early on. In your book, you write that you believe that Maddie died in the apartment, on the 3rd of May. When did you form the conviction that the child was dead? It was with the dogs' work. That was when we were most convinced. But when did you sum "two plus two"? That is part of the investigation work and the logics of the investigator. He joins things throughout time. There was atypical behaviour from the witnesses right away, which then transforms into indicia. Then one realises that people are lying. How can anyone who has the obligation to cooperate with the police, not do so?! All the person wants is to receive information and all that the person says is a lie?! Then it was necessary to understand why they lied. Were they afraid of the police? Of its reaction? Of the exposure and abandonment of the children? But when we asked, they said no, and insisted that the little girl had been abducted. This immediately caused strangeness and suspicion. According to your book, the body was preserved and you have already stated that you suspect it was frozen. If it were so, were could it have been hidden? Any investigator knows that when there is a group of people that is on holidays, foreigners or not, it is necessary to discover what means they had available to, for example, move the body. But the McCanns and their friends, at that point in time, only knew the route between the beach and the resort. To us, taking into account how little they knew the area, it would be normal that if they did anything, they would move towards the beach. Later on there is the Irish family, which guarantees that they saw a man walking towards the beach, carrying a child. It was something that matched our suspicions. Does that mean that from your point of view, the body may have remained on the beach? Yes. But how long was it there for? It is unknown. It is true that the area was searched by the dogs. But some people say that the smell of salted water may lead the dogs not to indicate where the body was. There is also the possibility that the body was taken to another location on that very same night. It is materially possible. The body may have been moved three or more times. In your book, you also mention political and diplomatic pressures. Was the PJ ever contacted by the British government? There was an intervention from the British government, even though it was somewhat clumsy. Mainly from the present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He spoke with Kate and with the English authorities that were involved in the investigation. And he also spoke with José Sócrates [Portuguese Prime Minister]. As far as I know, he never spoke directly with the PJ. But where did the alleged power of the couple, which you have been suggesting, come from? On the first night, a dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also mentioned. Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends? No. They never sent the information that we requested. In fact, they did send only once, financial information. They stated that the couple had a mortgage and that there was no knowledge of any credit or debit cards. How didn't they have any? The registration of the rental car mentions the card numbers. Concerning the other members of the group, the information was also only that.   *   Maddie: the leads that remained unexplored Link   The former inspector speaks about what could have been done in the investigation and says that making Murat an arguido was not a mistake The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child… It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further. When you were removed from the case, they were planning to return to Portugal. But they desisted from the diligence… The family should have come to Portugal and they didn't. It was not done on purpose, but a person cannot be left waiting to be heard over five months. That allowed for, according to what I have heard, the Irish family to be contacted and the target of coercion. Several people went there and they were not from the police. He even had to get himself a lawyer to try to get things into order. Before the police arrived to hear them, several persons had tried to speak to them. And they were not the only ones. In the book "Maddie Truth of the Lie" you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end… Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie. Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn't there be a possibility that this couple "dispatched" the child within a few hours? That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie's. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore. Could you have gone further with this couple? We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere. Was it a mistake to make Murat an arguido? No, it was not. A mistake would have been if we had not acted in the manner that we did and he would always remain a suspect without being able to defend himself. Now he has even received compensation. Have you noticed that nobody has requested the instruction of the process? He could have done that. Did the Joana case contribute to your removal? It cannot have contributed. The national director knows that the issue are two social psychopaths – considered by the IML [national institute for forensic medicine] – that lie. The issue is my word and the word of a psychopath. May the noise of the case have had some influence? When the first news came out I called for the attention of the director in Faro. What I said at that time was: maybe it's best for the process to leave Portimão, or for me to step aside from the investigation. Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case? I did. And the feedback that I got was that I had full support. Don't you regret that you did not go to the location [on the night of the events]? There are several ways to coordinate. And one of them is over the phone. No, I have no regrets. Don't you think that the result might have been different? It is possible. At least there would have been someone, and I have a good memory, who would remember how they were dressed that evening.   *   Maddie: the questions from readers Link   IOL PortugalDiário allowed its readers to ask questions from the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral. Among several that were received, here are the ones that were chosen by the editor Could the tests have been made at another laboratory, like for example the FBI's? (question from Michael Williams) That is another group decision. And it is decided in order to somehow compromise the other side. There was already that "bad posture", let's put it that way, from the English tabloids. The idea was for them to be compromised with the results. But yes, it could have been done at another lab, it didn't even need to go to the United States, there are some very good ones in Europe. Were the diligences the same in the cases of Joana and Maddie? (question from Luís Nogueiro) The first diligences were the same. How do you comment on the statements from the former President Jorge Sampaio? (question from Fernando Moura das Neves) I think it is a concern. Deep down, he is not against the publication of the book. Maybe what he meant is that it was not necessary to go this far. Was anything done about the church where the McCanns spent so much time and to which they had the key? (identified reader) There were never any motives to question the Catholic church. There is no indice that points towards the child being there, at least up to the moment when she was transported in the car. Even because there are no freezers there, or cold spots that would allow for the body to be kept at that location. Was no cadaver odour or other indicia ever found on the father's clothes? (identified reader) No. We don't know what he was wearing on the night of the disappearance. If it was him who was seen carrying the child, those clothes may even not exist anymore. He went to London and he might have washed it. As a matter of fact, we never knew what anyone of the group was wearing on the evening of the facts. IOL PortugalDiário remembers that the process of the disappearance of Maddie was archived and that Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, stopped being arguidos on the 21st of July. Maddie's parents have made it known that they intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral, following the publication of the book "Maddie: Truth of the Lie".

Gonçalo Amaral interview with 'El Mercurio', 10 August 2008

Translation of Article published in "El Mercurio" Santiago, Chile, Sunday August 10, 2008   Portuguese Gonçalo Amaral, ex-Chief Inspector on the case, insists on his theory of 2007:   "There is strong evidence that Maddie is dead" El Mercurio   by Graciela Almendras 10 August 2008 Thanks to 'carmerina32' for translation   Traces of blood and of a body detected by dogs in the belongings, flat and car occupied by the couple were part of the proof collected during the period of time when Gonçalo Amaral was in charge of the search for Maddie. Last October, one month after the McCanns were declared suspects, he was removed from the case – "without any explanation" he says – and two weeks ago he published the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", wherein he considers it proved that the British girl died and that her parents are lying. Who supports your theory that Gerry and Kate McCann are the guilty parties in Madeleine’s disappearance?   In September 2007, the investigation, Portuguese and British police, reached the conclusion that Maddie had died and that the parents were responsible and were involved in the crimes of hiding a body and simulating a kidnapping and potentially the crime of abandonment. You have said that the child died when she fell from a sofa – why are you so sure of this?   First of all, there is strong evidence that Maddie is dead. When I left the case, the investigation was pointing at the sofa, due to the cadaver odour and blood tracked on the floor behind this piece of furniture. Which are the clues that indicate that the McCanns simulated a kidnapping?   The thesis of the kidnapping was based upon two issues. The first, the testimony of Kate's friend Jane Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a child, while none of the other witnesses mentioned this fact. However, one of the suspects was the man recognized by Tanner, Robert Murat.   I involved him because of his behaviour. Later, Tanner said she recognized him during that night. And also according to statements from other friends in the group holidaying at Praia da Luz. The second issue…   That Maddie's mother is the only person who says that the window was open. When she calls to the other members of the group, she goes out leaving her twins, exposing them once again, to danger. Further proof is Kate's finger prints that describe the movement when she opened the windows – we know that the window was cleaned the previous day -. However, Kate says she never opened the window. And most importantly, there were no signs of breaking in. You have been under pressure from the McCann family lawyers.   I felt strong pressure from the British press. I think that nobody has ever seen such a tendentious campaign such as this one, with the sole purpose of denigrating the Portuguese police and myself. After publishing the book, have you received any threats?   Before publishing it, I received some warnings. Afterwards, these became legal threats. In any case, I am not afraid, because this book presents only data and facts. This week, the McCann's accused the Judicial Police of having withheld crucial information at the time you were Director, regarding a witness who said she had seen Madeleine last June.   It appears that the McCann family is playing their part defending the thesis of a kidnapping. The Dutch police evaluated this evidence, which proved to be ridiculous. We are aiding the marketing of a kidnapping which, obviously, does not fit within a modern law system. Do you believe that what happened that night was an accident?   When I left the investigation, all evidence was leading us in that direction.

"I was close to finding Maddie" - Gonçalo Amaral interview, 13 August 2008

"I was close to finding Maddie" Focus (no online link, appears in edition No. 461)   by João Vasco Almeida and Frederico Duarte Carvalho 13 August 2008 Thanks to 'astro' for translation   The inspector of the McCann case demolishes the abduction theory: "The sightings are marketing". He explains, for the first time, what remains to be done in order to find the body Gonçalo Amaral has already sold 140 thousand copies of his book 'Maddie: The Truth about the Lie'. The former coordinator of the investigation into the case that shocked the country explains his theory to Focus. Focus – A newspaper reported that your book could be summed up as "murder, the dog wrote", given the fact that it was the cadaver odour and the blood that were found that led you to sustain the theory that Madeleine McCann died. What do you actually know beyond the dogs? Gonçalo Amaral – That comment only reveals the ignorance of the person who wrote it. The technique of residue collection using special dogs like these, CSIs, is usual in England, in the United States and it has already led to more than 200 condemnations. The laboratory where the samples [of blood, cadaver odour and DNA from Maddie] were analysed has corroborated these experts' work. Focus – It has corroborated it, but it does not specify that they belong to Maddie McCann. G.A. – They can only match that from Madeleine McCann, because the lab had the twins' DNA and it was not a match. Those are 15 out of 19 markers that match. Focus – What else sustains the theory? G.A. – There is evidence from indicia, which is possible in this country, as long as the prosecutor possesses the conviction and the elements that indicate that, in court, there will be a condemnation. The Public Ministry has to value this evidence that was collected. This time, the Public Ministry considered that the indicia are not sufficient and archived the process. Focus – And what are those indicia that you understand as sufficient? G.A. – The atypical behaviour of the parents: The fact that the lady says that she had three children sleeping in one room, that she arrives and one is missing, the window is open, she mentions it's a cold night, the shutter is up… and she goes away, leaving two children asleep, with a possible abductor around. I know that [the reports from the PJ and from the Public Ministry] didn't give any relevance to the contradictions and didn't expose the falsehoods and the false testimonies that exist there from all the persons who intervened. That, deep down, is the evidence that indicates that everyone is lying and those lies cannot be understood. Focus – And who took the child from her bed? G.A. – That is the question that we were investigating on the 2nd of October 2007, when I left. From that moment on, little investigation was carried out in that apartment. The parents should have come over for a reconstruction and they didn't. That was necessary to understand what happened. Focus – Which was… G.A. – The death of the child in the apartment. The Public Ministry even mentions homicide. The abduction theory has been dismissed due to everything that has been made public. Focus – How do you defend the "accidental" death? G.A. – There is indicia behind the sofa [of the McCanns' living room]. The sofa is under a window that looks onto the street, which is three or four metres high. It is normal behaviour, and justice deals with normal behaviour, that the parents would have moved the sofa away from the window, given the fact that they had small children and alone at home. The window was easy to open and the shutters were not functioning… Focus – But why "accidental"? G.A. - I don't say it's accidental. Up to that moment, we could only reach an accidental death, because we had not worked on the rest yet. We had yet to understand what had happened there. Cadaver odour and blood from the child appear next to the sofa. Death has presumably taken place there. There are no doubts that it is a death and that it took place on that spot. We are not going to say that the mother did this or that, that would really be speculating, the only hypothesis is the accidental death. In the continuation of the investigations is where we could go further or not. Focus – You said that the mother can't be accused of having done this or that… How far can you deduct? G.A. – As far as we could deduct on the 2nd of October. I believe, and so did my colleagues in the investigation, that if we had continued into the same direction of the investigation, we might eventually have gone further. We might even have reached a point where we dismissed any suspicion concerning the parents. Investigations that only go half the way is what leaves things as they are now. Focus – Are Madeleine McCanns' parents responsible for their daughter's death? G.A. – No. There is a neglect in the guard [of the children]. There are no doubts that those children were not safe, because if they were, one of them wouldn't have disappeared. Now, saying that "the responsibility of the death belongs to…" We had to understand, to collect data about what happened from there on. The reconstruction is essential. I did not understand, but I accepted the decision from a hierarchical team that I was part of, why the reconstruction was not done right away. The possibility of trying to make a new reconstruction was opened, but the arguidos had already left Portugal. A thing like this is only done with arguidos. The ideal is to have everyone, but even only with the couple, that were arguidos at that point in time, the reconstruction could have been carried out. Focus – And with actors? G.A. – No. It would be enough to tell them: 'You say that you did this and that, then do it, where did you enter, were you having dinner, weren't you having dinner, what did you order for dinner…? Where did you touch and where didn't you?' All of this. It was important for Kate and Gerry McCann to come over, but the Irish witnesses could also come… Focus – Those who say that they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child, down the street, on the night of the disappearance. G.A. – Yes, those who assert that they saw, with a certainty of seventy, eighty percent, Gerald McCann carrying a child, walking in the street, it was already night-time. Focus – You suggest that the little girl was frozen or conserved in the cold. How do you reach that? G.A. – There is a bodily fluid, inside a car boot, above an "embaladeira" [note: metallic piece of the car that reinforces the lower part of the doors], from a child that presumably died on the 3rd of May. The car was rented 20 days later and was even new. It had been rented two or three times. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the climate, the temperature, the decomposition of a body… A body, in order to leak a fluid in that manner, a body with more than a month of decomposition had to be preserved. Focus – Did it have to be close by? G.A. – And why? Focus – It could have been taken to Lisbon, Oporto, Badajoz… G.A. – That was what we were taking care of at that time. The body could have been moved, but nobody knows when the body was transported in the car. The car ran several kilometres [around 3000, according to the process]. And given the fact that it is not known when the body was transported, according to the analysis of the fluids, we have to attend to where the car went through. The McCann couple and their relatives. For example, the relatives later state that they transported garbage, a package with meat from the supermarket, but the dogs can tell those things apart very well. Focus – There is a contradiction in the valuation of the dogs' evidence. G.A. – What happens is that the Public Ministry devalues it. In Portugal, we are all very skeptical towards this form of collecting indicia. Focus – You state that you have not told everything that you know. G.A. – And I haven't. Focus – Why? G.A. – Because I am a jurist, too. Let's see how the situation evolves. Focus – And how can the situation evolve? G.A. – The things that are missing are important in terms of the investigation, but they are ours… When it is said: these are your convictions… This is the understanding of a work team and even with the English police. And with documents. It's this kind of thing, for any action that may be coming. I don't believe, but who knows. Focus – Does the English police agree, then, with that "understanding" about what you are saying? G.A. – The work with the English police went very well. Then, certainly due to a mere coincidence, when the McCann couple leaves, all the English policemen leave as well… Focus – You are convinced that someone made the process reach the hands of the English. G.A. – I have that idea. I think that it even fits into that marketing campaign that is saying that the little girl is alive. Focus – But don't you admit you may have doubts if there is a sighting? G.A. – How many sightings have there been? Thousands. It's been a year. I stopped giving them a lot of importance on the day that the dogs confirmed the cadaver odour and the blood. Focus – But you did start with the abduction hypothesis. G.A. – If you look closely, right in my first document, the process mentions "abduction" followed by two question marks. Focus – Then, you were thrown out… G.A. - … that is a good expression… Focus - … because of the reports that mention that you drink whiskey at lunch or because, in your work, you believe that there is a death? G.A. – I don't drink whiskey. I drink beer at lunch time, if they had written that, they would have been right. Before I left, a weekly magazine says: "That person does not last beyond October as the head of the investigation." This happened a month or two before. And then I was given a speech like that one from the Attorney General: 'Not all investigations can be successful, or the authors of the crimes are not always discovered…' What may have hurt many people was my will to discover the material truth. And when I left, I was naturally closer to the truth. Two examples: Apart from our need to know who the friends of the McCann couple were, or if they knew anyone in Portugal, or who drove the car… if they eventually visited another apartment, if they used to meet someone, if they deposited someone… just for us to understand. Towards the end, I was informed that they had visited people at a villa in Praia da Luz. We went to check it out. Then, we were informed that the McCanns had visited an apartment block near the cemetery. And we were working on that, in order to confirm whether it was them or not. This was how we were trying to understand where the body was. And there are many persons who were not investigated, who were not in the process. Focus - So are you going to let this entire case pass into the clear? Don't you at least want to be sued by the McCanns over everything that you leave in the air… G.A.