Quotes by Gerry McCann

We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing, It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that.

I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines disappearance in the long term.

We have been advised our behaviour was legally well within the bounds of responsible parenting and have been assured no action will be taken.

One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't.

We are hoping for the best possible outcome for us.... and Madeleine.

If the worst happened...at least she will be in a better place.

Quotes by Kate McCann

I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.

I was sure immediately that she didn't walk out of that room.

Whoever Madeleine's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth.

We're good parents, not suspects.

It was really just like being in your back garden.

There's not a day that goes by that I think to myself why did I think that was okay? Was I wrong in thinking that was okay? All I can think to myself is I know how much I love my children, and I know I am a responsible parent.

Quotes by Clarence Mitchell

There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

It is true that we have requested a meeting with the prime minister to show him the strength of our case, to explain Kate and Gerry's innocence and yet all we've been offered is a medium-level-consular meeting, which we rejected.

Kate and Gerry are realistic enough to know that Madeleine may be dead and it would be a tragedy that she is found as such, because it rules out the hope that she is alive... But any widening of the search area is encouraging and we would welcome that. If she is dead then she is dead, but not by their hand.

They don't cry in public, but plenty of tears are shed 'backstage'.

Operation Grange - Counting the cost

30 September 2014 at 11:01:00 pm | Posted by  1 comments

Ben Thompson © 2014

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann has without doubt touched the hearts and minds of two nations. Never before has there been a case that has been so prominent in the public arena as this one, but without sounding heartless why has this case been given such prominence over others, and at what cost to the two countries involved?

On 30th August 2014 Mrs S Rhosier made a freedom of information request to the Home Office in London. The content of this letter requested details of the cost of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and also raised some valid points as to why the vast amount of money allocated to this case hadn't been evenly distributed to other cases. The example Mrs Rhosier gave was of teenager Mary Bastholm who disappeared in 1968. Mary was just 15 years old when she vanished, and although her body has never been found it is the belief of the police that she was abducted and murdered at the hands of notorious serial killer Fred West. This is the letter Mrs Rhosier sent:

Dear Home Office,

In 2011, your office authorised the Metropolitan Police to review the Madeleine McCann disappearance, and daily in the news we see updates of the searches carried out in Portugal, where UK police have no jurisdiction. The current cost of this has been reported in the media as exceeding £20m. Please confirm the actual costs thus far, including any costs that reimburse the Portuguese police for use of their manpower, resources and search equipment such as GPR, helicopters etc., and the ongoing costs of travel and overtime paid to UK investigating officers delegated to Operation Grange.

In 2011 new information came to light regarding the disappearance of Mary Bastholm in Gloucester; information which linked her disappearance to the activities of Fred West, and a request was made to carry out a small investigation using ground penetrating radar and side scanning sonar in a particular location where West was known to have worked. This new information caused great perturbation to the son of the person who owned the location at the time and the person reporting the new information was warned off.

Gloucester police did not take this seriously and when a complaint was made to the then Chief Constable Tony Melville, he refused to pursue the matter on the grounds of cost and incorrect information. A key corroborating document was destroyed by Gloucester Police and they refused to release photographic evidence of it from their files under a FOI request.

The information still remains valid and therefore I request to know what distinction you instruct the police to make when asked to investigate older cases and why there was no funding made available to carry out this search by Gloucester Police when the case of Fred West is far more notorious than that of Madeleine McCann. People in
Gloucester still remember Mary Bastholm and until the new information is acted upon, there is a clear bias in the police handling of this matter.


Please indicate why funds are allocated to look for Madeleine McCann and not allocated to find the remains of Mary Bastholm under the as yet ignored new evidence, and why the evidence was deemed 'not in the public interest' when Fred West made such a disturbing impact on the close-knit Gloucester community.

Yours faithfully,
Mrs S Rhosier

I have to agree with Mrs Rhosier, cases of missing children are a highly sensitive area, but surely there should be some level of equal attention and funds available to each individual case based upon it's merits. The following was the reply dated 22nd September 2014:

Freedom of Information request reference: 32767

Dear Mrs Rhosier,

Thank you for your e-mail of 30 August concerning decisions to approve historic UK police investigations and authorise funding. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You asked for the following information:

1. The actual costs thus far [of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann], including any costs that reimburse the Portuguese police for use of their manpower, resources and search equipment such as GPR, helicopters etc., and the ongoing costs of travel and overtime paid to UK investigating officers delegated to Operation Grange.

2. What distinction you [the Home Office] instruct the police to make when asked to investigate older cases and why there was no funding made available to carry out this search [for Mary Bastholm] by Gloucester Police when the case of Fred West is far more notorious than that of Madeline (sic) McCann.

3. Why funds are allocated to look for Madeleine McCann and not allocated to find the remains of Mary Bastholm under the as yet ignored new evidence, and why the evidence was deemed 'not in the public interest'.

Below are our responses.

1. The Home Office paid Leicestershire Constabulary a special grant payment of £525K in 2007/2008 and £221K in 2009/2010 for their work in liaising with the Portuguese police and co-ordinating UK policing involvement in this case. The Metropolitan Police received a special grant payment of £1.9m in 2011/2012, £2.8m in 2012/2013, and £2.6m in 2013/2014.

We have not yet received the costs for 2014/2015 but we expect them to be broadly in line with the costs of previous years.

The Home Office is provided with a breakdown of the costs by the Metropolitan Police and this has been set out in the attached Annex (FoI response Rhosier – McCann breakdown expenditure). We do not hold details on the costs of individual resources or specific search equipment.

The Home Office will continue to work closely with the Metropolitan Police to review and control the costs appropriately and to ensure that the investigation has the resources it requires to undertake its work effectively.

2. The Home Office does not instruct forces on whether to investigate crimes or not; the circumstances of each missing persons case will vary and it is for individual forces to make an operational assessment on how they pursue it. The decision for the police not to act was made solely by Gloucestershire Constabulary. Any questions you may have on the case of Mary Bastholm should therefore be addressed to the force itself. The Government takes very seriously all cases of missing children. Although most of these cases may not be in the public eye, unresolved missing children cases are never closed and they remain the responsibility of individual police forces until the child is found.

3. The Government believes it is right that it does all it can to support the search for Madeleine McCann. That is why the Home Secretary asked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and on balance took the operational decision to bring its particular expertise to the case.

Special Grant funding may be available to police forces to help meet costs where necessary additional expenditure incurred would place unreasonable strain on the force budget and potentially negatively impact on their capacity to deliver normal policing. Once a claim for a Special Grant has been received, it is considered by officials and then referred to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for their views, in particular as to whether the operational response is appropriate and proportionate. As is the case in all such instances, regular review and close scrutiny of the on-going and forecast costs is undertaken to ensure expenditure from this budget is appropriate.

The Home Office therefore agreed to fund this work from a central Special Grant budget, subject to the Home Office and the MPS reviewing together the value and cost of the work at each stage. [...]

The following chart shows the breakdown of expenditure, totalling £7,332,389:

These figures don't include the estimated 4 million Euro spent by Britain's Portuguese counterparts, so the total expenditure we're looking at is more likely to be in the region of £11.5 million (est). Spread out over 7 years that's an average spend of £1.64 million per annum.

It could be argued that no price can be put on the life of a child, but if we are looking at other cases that haven't received anywhere near this sort of money, can we really agree that the amount spent above is anywhere near a level playing field for all missing children?

Let's not forget that the McCanns are directors of a limited company that is currently spending the grand sum of zero pounds on the search for their missing daughter, yet the McCanns spend money silencing those who question their version.

Going back to Mrs Rhosier's claim that a request was made to the Chief Constable of Gloucester Police, Tony Melville, to perform a simple investigation using ground penetrating radar, to try and find the remains of a 15 year old little girl who deserves as much as anyone else to be laid to rest properly, and for her family to have closure. How does this differ from the fruitless, and vastly expensive trip to Praia da Luz earlier this year?

Yet again we find ourselves in a situation whereby it's one rule for the McCanns, and another for the rest of the country.

For months now we have been promised breakthroughs in this case, and as things stand it would appear that a massive amount of money has been spent, yet we're still no closer to an end result.

The money being spent is paid by the taxpayer, isn't it high time that as that taxpayer we as a nation had the right to fair, and sensible spending, as well as be able to see signs of a thorough and just investigation, which surely involves looking at all the evidence, not just the areas that don't involve the McCanns.

Either do it right, or not at all.

FOI request: Decisions to approve historic UK police investigations and authorise funding
FoI response Rhosier – McCann breakdown expenditure - PDF
FoI response 32767 - PDF
Fred West wikipedia
Police rule out new dig to find missing Mary Bastholm
McCanns limited company aka Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited - McCann files

Gonçalo Amaral on the mistakes made by journalists when they state this is a libel trial, it isn't

21 July 2014 at 6:04:00 pm | Posted by  59 comments

McCann couple ask for 1,2 million euros for damages | Pálacio da Justiça court, Lisbon, July 8, 2014

Gonçalo Amaral sobre os erros cometidos pelos jornalistas quando dizem que o julgamento é por difamação.

Lendo as notícias acerca da última sessão do julgamento fico com a certeza que a grande maioria dos jornalistas desconhece o que ali se está a discutir, e não se informaram de forma correta.

Sejamos claros. O que está em causa é saber:

- Se a escrita do meu livro “Maddie: A verdade da Mentira” constituiu um acto lícito ou ilícito;
- Se os autores sofreram danos e se existem factos que os provem;
- Se é possível estabelecer um nexo de causalidade entre o livro e tais danos.

È isto que está em causa.

Quanto à licitude do livro, sugiro a quem tenha dúvidas que leia o acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa no âmbito da providência cautelar que precedeu a acção em causa. Na verdade, para os Ex.mos Senhores Desembargadores, como se pode concluir dessa decisão, a licitude da publicação do livro é incontestável.

Quero com isto dizer que, com esta comprovada licitude, o assunto deverá ficar por aqui, sem necessidade de se averiguar mais nada, nomeadamente no que respeita aos danos de que os autores se queixam. Mas, note-se, mesmo que tal licitude ainda possa estar em causa, haverá, ainda, que estabelecer um nexo de causalidade entre a publicação e os danos de que os autores se queixam, tais como depressões profundas, isolamento social, etc…E, claro está, provar que tais danos, seja qual for a sua origem, existem de facto.

Quanto à parte social, parece-me óbvio, se atentarmos aos inúmeros eventos sociais em que os autores têm participado, incluindo, pasme-se, discursos no próprio Parlamento Britânico, entrevistas em programas como o Oprah Winfrey, jantares de gala como as mais ilustres personalidades, nomeadamente britânicas, entre muitos outros, o dito afastamento social é totalmente falso.

Já quanto às depressões, embora, de forma alguma se encontrem provadas no processo, a meu ver, a verdade é que muito estranho seria se não existissem. O desaparecimento de uma filha, esteja morta ou viva, tenha sido ou não raptada, não pode deixar de originar enormes sequelas desse tipo. Muito estranho seria se tal não acontecesse! Mas a este respeito já não digo nada, na medida em que os autores parecem querer imputar-me a mim e ao meu livro todas as suas dores, como se o referido desaparecimento, acrescido da sua constituição como arguidos e demais circunstâncias que rodeiam o caso, só por si, não tivesse qualquer importância, ou não fossem mais do que suficientes!

Infelizmente, devido a manobras claramente dilatórias da parte dos autores, que obrigaram, mais uma vez, ao adiamento da audiência, receio que o processo se arraste – como eles claramente pretendem -, e não tenhamos sentença proximamente, como eu gostaria e pela qual anseio. Ainda para mais quando se iniciaram já as férias judiciais e, como a Ex.ma Sr.a Juiz bem explicou, com a entrada em vigor do novo mapa judiciário, em 1 de Setembro, a morosidade processual irá agravar-se consideravelmente. Da minha parte, porém, mantém-se inabalável a confiança na justiça portuguesa.

Resta-me agradecer e reconhecer todo o apoio que tenho recebido, por parte de todos aqueles que acreditam na justiça e na verdade, sem o qual não me teria sido possível fazer face ao processo. Nem tampouco, levar-me a ponderar, como estou, intentar um processo contra o casal McCann e outros, com vista a ser ressarcido dos enormes prejuízos que já me causaram a todos os níveis, tais como morais, profissionais e financeiros.

Vai sendo tempo de reagir judicialmente contra todos aqueles que têm colocado em causa a minha, privacidade, intimidade, liberdade de expressão, opinião e condições de subsistência.

Tentaram assassinar-me civilmente, mas, graças ao apoio e solidariedade de todos vós, não conseguiram.

Muito Obrigado,
Lisboa 21 de Julho de 2014
Gonçalo Amaral

Gonçalo Amaral on the mistakes made by journalists when they state this is a libel trial, it isn't.

Upon reading the news about the last trial session I became certain that the vast majority of journalists is unaware about what is being discussed there and they have not informed themselves properly.

Let us be clear. What is at issue is to establish whether:

- If the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” [Maddie: The Truth of the Lie] has constituted a licit or illicit act;
- If the authors of the claim have suffered damages and whether there are facts that prove them;
- If it is possible to establish a causality nexus between the book and the alleged damages.

This is what is in question.

As to the legitimacy to write the book, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appeals Court ruling within the scope of the temporary injunction that has preceded the legal action at stake. In fact, for the honourable Appellate Judges - as one can conclude by their decision - the lawfulness of the publication of the book is indisputable.

By this I mean that, since the legitimacy was proven, the matter should come to an end, without ascertaining anything else, namely what concerns the damages alleged by the authors of the lawsuit. Yet, it should be stressed that even if that legitimacy remains in question, it will still be necessary to establish a causality nexus between the book and the alleged damages claimed by the authors of the lawsuit, such has the deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that those damages, whatever their origin may be, factually exist.

As to the social aspect, it seems obvious, if we take in consideration the numerous events the authors have attended, including astonishingly, speeches at the UK Parliament, interview in talk shows such as the Oprah Winfrey's, gala dinners with distinguished personalities, mainly British ones among plenty others, then the so called social isolation claim is utterly false.

Regarding the depressions, even tough they were not proven in any way in the legal proceedings, in my view it would be very strange if they didn't exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether dead or alive, whether abducted or not, cannot but originate enormous sequelae of that sort. It would be very strange indeed if that did not happen! But regarding this issue I won't make further comments since the authors appear to want to apportion blame on myself and on my book of all their suffering, as if the aforesaid disappearance, in addition to their subsequent constitution as arguidos [formal suspects] and all other circumstances that surround the case, don't bare any importance, or as if they aren't already more than enough!

Unfortunately, due to the clearly stalling tactics on the part of the authors, who forced, once again, the postponement of the hearings, I fear that this process will drag on - as they patently intend - and that we will not have a ruling in the near future, as I would like and for which I so longed for. Even more so since the judicial holidays have already started, which along with the reorganisation of the judicial chart on the 1st of September, and as explained by the Honourable Judge, will worsen the lengthening procedures considerably. On my part, nonetheless, my confidence in the Portuguese justice remains unwavering.

All that remains for me now is to express my thanks and acknowledge all the support I have received from all those who believe in justice and truth, without which it would not have been possible for me to cope with the process. Or without which I could not even consider, as I am, to bring a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be reimbursed of the extensive losses that they have caused me at every level, namely morally, professionally and financially.

Now it is the time to react judicially against all those who have jeopardized my rights to privacy, intimacy, freedom of expression, opinion and livelihood opportunities.

They have tried to ‘assassinate’ me judicially, but thanks to the support and solidarity of all of you, they have failed.

Thank you so much,
Lisbon July 21, 2014
Gonçalo Amaral

Acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa sobre a providência cautelar interposta pelo casal McCann e seus filhos contra Gonçalo Amaral e outros, no âmbito da acção movida pelos mesmos autores por causa do livro "Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira" e respectivo documentário. 14 de Outubro 2014

English translation and review of the Lisbon Appeals court ruling done by several people, including Caroline, Pia, "Ines", Sofia [astro] and Joana Morais.

«[...]We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.

In a concise manner:

The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.[...]»

The McCanns' Injunction: Quotes by the Defence Lawyers
The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009 (1143/09.0TVLSB)
Audiência das testemunhas de defesa de Gonçalo Amaral
On the last hearing session
Gonçalo Amaral revoked his lawyer's mandate, McCann couple are "furious" for the umpteenth time
McCann couple versus Gonçalo Amaral trial expected to restart on Monday
McCanns ask for extrajudicial settlement
McCann Couple demand Gonçalo Amaral Divorce to be Rewarded
Supreme Court turns down McCanns' request
McCanns appeal to the Supreme Court to forbid Gonçalo Amaral’s book
Lisbon Appeals Court Decision on the McCann Couple Injunction
Seized books: Gonçalo Amaral denounces the McCanns and their lawyer (Updated w/ video)
Court upholds 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie' book and documentary ban
McCann libel trial hearings to start in February 2012
Gonçalo Amaral's Defense reveals NPIA's Report which involves McCanns in Maddie's disappearance
Gonçalo Amaral : 'Book Ban limits Freedom of Expression'
McCann couple demand books to be fully destroyed
McCann Book Ban Lifted - Freedom has returned to Portugal
Gonçalo Amaral in Court: Witnesses defend that book results from the Investigation
Lisbon Appeals Court Decision on the McCann Couple Injunction (overturned)
McCanns appeal to the Supreme Court to forbid Gonçalo Amaral’s book
Supreme Court turns down McCanns' request
Carter Ruck abusive use of the 2009 Temporary Injunction

Phone calls and hairs frame suspects

14 July 2014 at 7:00:00 pm | Posted by  86 comments

The faces of the English police suspects were pixelated

Investigation Three Portuguese arguidos due to phone calls made on the day of the crime
Phone calls and hairs frame 4 suspects
Sergey Malinka an arguido because he had a sofa with hairs whose DNA "was similar" to Maddie's

Texts by Henrique Machado/João Mira Godinho | Photos by Luís Costa

The driver of the resort, José Carlos da Silva, transported the tourists to the Ocean Club apartments in Praia da Luz. He had the “opportunity” to select the houses to be robbed - [robberies] which “tripled” at the time. And, in the three weeks before Maddie's disappearance, on May 3 2007, “two break-ins took place in the same apartment block” - in which the entrance was made “through the windows”.

This circumstance allied to the fact that José, 38 years old, made four phone calls on May 3 that were considered as suspicious, were the reasons why he was constituted as an arguido yesterday at the Judiciary Police (PJ) headquarters, at the request of the Scotland Yard in their letter rogatory to which the CM had access to.

One of the other arguidos is Sergey Malinka, a Russian that had already been constituted as an arguido [sic, he wasn't constituted as an arguido but was considered as a possible suspect to the PJ investigation at the time and cleared of all suspicions later on] by the PJ in 2007. [Malinka] Who had a sofa - that he tried to dispose of and which was later retrieved by the PJ and was subject to forensic analyses - where hairs whose DNA “was similar to hairs previously found in the 5A apartment (to Maddie's hairs) and to those that were retrieved from Robert Murat's bed”.(see secondary news piece)

Another suspect is Ricardo Rodrigues, a beggar, 18 years old: [sic, actually he was 16 years old in 2007 and he is now merely unemployed and is 23 years old] he received phone calls from José (see box). Finally, the other suspect is Paulo Ribeiro, addicted to heroin and a schizophrenic: he is said to have a “strange behaviour” and what connects him to Rodrigues is a suspicious phone call at 12:08 of May 2, 2007.

Box [text insert in this page, on the left]
Four phone records under suspicion
Four phone records between José Silva and Ricardo Rodrigues, made at the day of the crime, are under suspicion: the phone call made at 17:26 which coincides with the time that Maddie left the crèche; a text message at 21:25 when two members of the McCann's group went to check the children; another at 21:38, when Jane Tanner left the Tapas bar and the last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance.

Photo Captions on this page
Middle top - Suspects. Ricardo Rodrigues (left) and José Carlos Silva (right) were questioned yesterday and constituted as arguidos at the PJ headquarters in Faro

Middle bottom - Two suspects were transported by police

Left bottom - Morning. Scotland Yard inspectors arrive to the Judiciary Police of Faro before 9am yesterday

Right bottom - Lunch time. The works were only interrupted around 13pm to buy the lunch which was consumed inside PJ headquarters.

End of page 4

Robert Murat was mentioned

Robert Murat who was constituted as an arguido by the PJ in 2007, is also mentioned in the rogatory letter by the English authorities, even though there is no request for him to be constituted as an arguido again. The English make reference to hairs “that were retrieved from Murat's bed” that are similar to the ones found on Malinka's sofa and also to the ones discovered at the apartment 5A - which would belong to Maddie. Besides that, the Russian “has helped Murat to set up a site on the internet”, this can be read in the rogatory letter sent by the Scotland Yard.

Finally the document highlights the fact that “Robert Murat was previously constituted as an arguido”. It should be recalled that in 2012 a South African investigator [Mr. Birch, an alleged businessman who illegally trespassed Mr. Murat's mother's home and is now, rightly so, being sued by both Mr. Murat and the Portuguese Public Ministry for the illegality of his actions] did a georadar analysis on the grounds of the Englishman's house in Praia da Luz. At the time, based on the results, three experts admitted that a human being could be buried in that spot. [It should be mentioned, since CdM hasn't, that Mr. Murat's mother's house was thoroughly investigated in 2007, inside and out, using sniffer dogs and georadars and nothing was found.]

Murat was the first suspect to be questioned by the Judiciary Police in 2007. He was interrogated and the house with a garden where he lived with his mother, in Praia da Luz, was target of searches. Robert Murat was never detained and the PJ ended up dismissing the suspicions they had about him.

“They rely on considerations made by the family private detective”
Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ coordinator that has investigated the case, told CM, that these leads of the English police “do not present anything relevant”. And he deplores that Scotland Yard is relying their investigation on the “considerations of a private detective” hired by the McCann family. As to the DNA of the hairs found in a sofa which used to belong to Malinka, he says that the fact “that they present similarities is meaningless”.

Child being carried on arms
Malinka, José, Paulo and Ricardo they all live in the same area of Praia da Luz. There, says the English police, two men were seen arguing on the night of the crime. And, at 21:50 “a man was seen carrying a child on his arms”.

Burnt out car
On the suspicions about Malinka it also weighs the fact that his car, Audi A4, was set on fire on March 20, 2008. On the side-walk, in front of of his house, the word “Fala” [Talk/Speak] was written down.

Suspicions ruled out
Investigators contacted by CM state that all of these suspicions had already been ruled out by the Judiciary Police.

Box [text inserts on red boxes at middle of page]
Woman says that she overheard conversation
A woman said that she overheard the following sentence spoken in English, between two men who were at Malinka's house door, a few days after the crime: “Why did you bring her here? We have to get rid of the body.” [see here how this hearsay statement is refuted]

“He would do anything for drugs”
The English police basis its conviction on the considerations of a detective about Paulo Ribeiro, the suspect who suffers from schizophrenia: “He would do anything for his next fix.”

Top Page [text inserts]
Cars | The English bring dogs
The English police brought to Portugal, again, sniffer dogs specialized in detecting cadavers. They want to use the animals in the arguidos' cars.

Media | Gathering in Faro
At the early start of the morning several media, from the printed press to TV channels, arrived at the PJ headquarters in Faro, where they remained gathered for the rest of the day.

Luz | Arguidos were neighbours
Connecting the four arguidos, besides the phone calls, is the fact that they all lived close to each other in Praia da Luz, near by the first site that was target of searches a month ago.

Photo Captions on this page
Top Right - First suspect. Robert Murat was the first suspect questioned by the Judiciary Police in 2007

Bottom left - Gerry and Kate McCann have an ongoing dispute with the former PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, whom they accuse of defamation.

End of page 5

in Correio da Manhã, exclusive paper edition, pages 4 and 5, July 2, 2014


Transcript by JM/Textusa

CMTV News anchor - The questionings at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro, requested by the Scotland Yard within the scope of the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, continue today. After the four arguidos, witnesses will give their statements as requested by the British police.

Unknown reporter [Voice Over] - Hairs found on Sergey Malinka's sofa had a very similar DNA with Madeleine McCann’s. This is the main argument that Scotland Yard has presented to the Public Ministry in order to constitute as arguido the man born in Russia but living for many years in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve.

With him, there are 3 other men, now also arguidos at the request of the English police: José Carlos Silva, Ocean Club driver in March [Sic, May] 2007, when Maddie disappeared from the resort; Pedro [sic, Paulo] Ribeiro, who the English classify as a drug-addict and schizophrenic and also Ricardo Rodrigues, a young man who at the time was close to Pedro [sic, Paulo] Ribeiro.

These three men made a series of phone calls regarded as suspicious on the night of March [sic, May] 3 2007, when Maddie disappeared.

Scotland Yard believes the three planned a burglary to the apartment and when surprised by the little girl, they murdered her and took away her body.

The arguidos were all questioned on Monday [sic, on Tuesday] at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro. This Tuesday [sic, this Wednesday] the questionings will continue, now of the 8 witnesses [sic, 11] requested by the Scotland Yard.

The English brought with them again to the Algarve the sniffer dogs specialised in detecting cadavers. The idea is for the animals to inspect the cars owned by the four arguidos back in 2007.

These proceedings are likely to go on until Friday.

in CMTV [Correio da Manhã TV], July 2, 2014

Note: Firstly published on this blog on 02/07/2014 08:00 GMT, republished on 14 July 2014 at 19:00 GMT - this Correio da Manhã article is important because it quotes directly from one of the Metropolitan Police rogatory letters. Everything in square brackets is my personal addition to text either to aid the flow of the readability of the text or to explain facts.

Maddie case: Four arguidos questioned by PJ on behalf of Metropolitan Police
English ask for DNA of the arguidos at all costs in the Maddie case - even in a sneaky way
Andy Redwood's Four Arguidos - one was 16 years old at the time
Arguidos answered to 250 questions and refuted involvement in Maddie's disappearance
'Did you Murder Madeleine? Did you hide her body?'
Maddie Case: Car of Malinka's family member searched by two sniffer dogs

In the UK media
EXCLUSIVE: Maddie witness overheard sinister comment about disposing of a body, 13 July 2014
Former Ocean Club driver is suspect in McCann case, 13 July 2014

Why the media lies to us and how it works in the McCann case

| Posted by  8 comments

Thomas Baden-Riess, is a book author writing from comedy novels to dark crime novels, here he gives his opinion on how the British media spins the McCann case. Thomas also has a great sense of humour and creates internet meme regarding factual and contemporary issues including on the McCann affair. You can follow him here or his videolog here.

Why the media lies to us and how it works in the McCann case

McCann PR: clever campaign or gullible public?

Quote of the Day

10 July 2014 at 2:10:00 pm | Posted by  53 comments

'The parents killed Maddie, English police are stupid'


“As I drove down the hill to Luz this morning the anti Met graffiti had been whitewashed away (see before and after pics)

Says it all really, doesn't it?”

(Many thanks to C. for photos)

On the last hearing session

9 July 2014 at 8:50:00 am | Posted by  103 comments

Palácio de Justiça, 8th of July 2014

Intervenient parts
Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro presiding the trial
Dr. Miguel Rodrigues for Gonçalo Amaral, the book author
Dr. Fátima de Oliveira Esteves for Guerra e Paz, the book publishers of ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira
Dr. Miguel Coroadinha for TVI, the Portuguese TV channel that broadcast the documentary ‘Maddie, What lies beneath the Truth
Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto for Valentim de Carvalho [VC] Filmes who produced the documentary and DVD copies with the same documentary that were never sold
Dr. Isabel Duarte for the McCann couple and their children, the claimants

What follows is the recount of what happened yesterday at court, to the best of my knowledge and short handwritten notes.

The Judge at the beginning of hearing sessions spoke and instructed the scribe about the request that had been made by Gonçalo Amaral’s previous lawyer so the defendant could be heard in court. That request was opposed by the McCann couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, and had been previously denied by the Judge in 2013.

The McCann couple, who had also requested to be heard in court, saw their application being refused as well. Yet they pleaded against that decision to the Appeals court and their request was granted, therefore they were now authorized to be heard in court, which is what takes place after this “introductory” instruction by the lady Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro.

The Judge then added that since Gonçalo Amaral’s former lawyer did not oppose to the ruling - which refused his request to be heard - a new appeal opposing it [the Judge's ruling] could no longer be accepted, and therefore that decision had now become final.

The Judge continues instructing the scribe and states that the authors of the lawsuit - the McCann couple - have requested the court to solicit an official application to ATA [Autoridade Tributária Aduaneira] i.e. the Portuguese equivalent to the IRS, in order to obtain confidential fiscal information.

The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro authorized and ordered for the dispatch to be prepared “since it is essential to know, within the scope of the case being analysed here at the court, what are the eventual earnings” of the defendant Gonçalo Amaral regarding the sales of the book ‘Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira’.

The Judge then added that the court dismissed the need to observe the confidentiality of that fiscal information in view of the fact that “the acquirement of that evidence” is crucial and ruled that the other defendant parties have 10 days to oppose the McCann’s lawyer request. That meant that the hearing session of yesterday's afternoon, where Isabel Duarte was supposed to make her final allegations for a period of three hours was adjourned sine die [without a definite date scheduled] and so was the hearing session of the 10th of July. Due to the judicial holidays it's very likely that the trial will only continue in or after September. The Judge also mentions that in September alterations will be made to the Penal Code Process but those changes will not affect in any way the ongoing trial.

Earlier on this year, the only defendant party opposing the McCann’s fiscal request was the lawyer for the Guerra e Paz book publishers who argued that this new application would cause an unnecessary lengthening of the trial.

Follows Kate Healy and Gerry McCann declarations to court in strict compliance to Portuguese law. A declaration is a series of answers to questions put by the Judge, and of questions from the accusation or/and defendant lawyers.

The couple decided to ask if they could make a further statement at the end of each declaration, these statements will not be considered and will have no reflection on the trial outcome even though they were recorded by the scribe.

Court outline

Kate McCann enters the court room, stands at a chair directly in front of the Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, standing at her right side is a lady interpreter that will translate the questions put to Kate and her answers back in Portuguese Brazilian to the Judge and lawyers, on Kate's left side is the scribe.

On the left side of Kate McCann, sits the lawyer Dr. Miguel Coroadinha, Isabel Duarte's assistant Dr. Ricardo Afonso and Dr. Isabel Duarte. Opposite to the McCann couple's lawyer is the lawyer for VC Filmes, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, then Dr. Fátima de Oliveira Esteves, Gonçalo Amaral's new lawyer Dr. Miguel Rodrigues and Dr. Gonçalo Amaral. In the gallery there was a wide range of people, from British journalists, to Mr. Amaral supporters, to the McCanns' entourage.

The Judge tells Kate McCann that she is obliged to speak with truth during her declaration. Kate then promises under oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. The Judge questions her about her name. Kate replies that it is "Kate Healy". The Judge wonders why she doesn't have the name McCann as her last name, she states that she still uses her maiden name. Kate Healy is then asked about her home address, and her employment status to which she replies that she is a "general practitioner" and that she has stopped working since Madeleine was "abducted". The Judge orders Kate Healy to sit down so her declaration can proceed.

Judge - Do you recall when the book was first published and when you first heard about it?

Kate Healy - A few months after it was published.

Judge - Did you read the book and when?

Kate Healy - I first read extracts from the book in media reports and then on the internet around the end of 2008.

Judge - How and what did you feel?

Kate Healy - Devastated, I already had an idea but it made me feel desperate because of the injustice done to my family, to Madeleine. I felt anxious. It damaged our family.

Judge - What sort of damages?

Kate Healy - Mr. Amaral's book stated as fact that we were involved in the disappearance of our daughter and faked an abduction, it attacked us systematically.

Judge - What were the damages in Portugal?

Kate Healy - The book was read by thousands of people, people would believe, due to the author's credibility, that Madeleine was dead and that we were involved. People, neighbours on the street, in coffee shops believed Mr. Amaral. And for us Portugal was the most important place. It was here that Madeleine was taken from us.

Judge - Do you remember a documentary?

Kate Healy - I learned about it through Portuguese friends who watched it on TVI, they texted me saying the documentary was horrible. On the following day they sent me detailed annotations.

Judge - Did you watch the documentary?

Kate Healy - I watched some parts of the documentary on the media and then the full documentary on the net.

Judge - What did you feel about the documentary when compared to the book?

Kate Healy - It was worst in terms of damages, because it was more definitive, Mr. Amaral's assumptions were more unequivocal, it led the audience in a journey of certainties. It compounded to the anxiety and feeling of injustice at a time when we were the only ones making efforts to find Madeleine. There was no police force investigating and it damaged the searches.

Judge - Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã? [You can read it here, from July 24, 2008]

Kate Healy - He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 23 days later].

Judge - How did you learn about that interview?

Kate Healy - Some friends in Portugal sent us the translations, they made summaries of what was published by the Portuguese media.

Judge - When did you learn about that interview?

Kate Healy - Right after the documentary was broadcast.

Judge - What is your impression about what the Portuguese people think of you and your husband regarding this case?

Kate Healy - Most people are against us. The damages were more extensive because Mr. Amaral published his book in various languages and gave interviews.

Judge - What were your feelings regarding that?

Kate Healy - We needed the help and support of the Portuguese. We felt distressed with the negative opinion people had of us. It was stressful.

Judge - You felt ashamed by it?

Kate Healy - That is not the right word for it. People thought that we were bad parents.

Judge - In the thesis presented on the book it is claimed that you hid the body, do you think people thought that you were cowards?

Kate Healy - It was worst than that.

Judge - Do you suffer from insomnia?

Kate Healy - No, not as much as I did in 2008, 2009, because then the efforts that we did were boycotted by Mr. Amaral's book. We were desperate to find Madeleine. I felt that he destroyed our hypotheses.

Judge - Do the twins know about the book and about the documentary?

Kate Healy - They know about them but they don't know the details. They understand why we are here today.

Judge - So they have an idea?

Kate Healy - In October last year my son Sean asked me why did Mr. Amaral said that we had hid Madeleine's body. I told him that Mr. Amaral says many silly things.

Judge - How did he know about that?

Kate Healy - I think he heard it in the radio, in the school bus.

Judge - What have you done to protect the twins?

Kate Healy - We arranged for them to have psychological support, David Trickey a child psychologist told us that we should answer the twins questions with honesty and let them speak about it if they wished to. We also had to make arrangements with their school and supervise the twins access to the internet in school and at home. The book is already very distressing for an adult and it's even worse for a child.

Judge - Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?

Kate Healy - No. Depression is over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed.

Judge - There is a quote attributed to you - did you ever say that you wished you were in a coma so you wouldn't suffer?

Kate Healy - Yes.

Judge - Did that have to do with the disappearance of your child, or with the book and the documentary?

Kate Healy - Both were overwhelming, but it was intensified when the book was published.

Judge - How old are the twins?

Kate Healy - They are nine years old.

Judge - What year are they at school?

Kate Healy - Fifth grade.

Judge - In what year did they start at school?

Kate Healy - When they were 4 years old at the end of August 2009.

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro allows a question put by Dr. Isabel Duarte - What were the reactions to the book and to the documentary in England?

Kate Healy - The reactions were less negative than in Portugal, due to the newspapers in England who were sued for defamatory articles, those articles weren't based on evidence. We have people that monitor the internet and there are groups of people, like the 'Madeleine Foundation' who have caused us great distress by publishing Mr. Amaral's theories on the internet, which has compounded to our vilification.

Judge - What is the 'Madeleine Foundation'?

Kate Healy - They are a group of people who believes and promotes Mr. Amaral's theories. They even distributed leaflets in our home town at a time when our children were starting school.

Judge - What is the connection between them and the book or the documentary? Did they appear afterwards?

Kate Healy - I think they already existed as a group, the book just added more fuel to the fire. They even invited Mr. Amaral to go to England for a conference, they kept promoting his theories.

Dr. Isabel Duarte - Were there threats?

Judge - [to Isabel Duarte] That is not material to the case being discussed in this court. [rejects the question]

Judge - [to Kate Healy] On the subject of your children, of Sean, where there any repercussions?

Kate Healy - At that time no. The twins ask questions, and following David Trickey's advice we answer their questions only then, instead of giving them information.

Judge - Did Sean speak to you about the case again?

Kate Healy - No, he never spoke again, it was just that one time.

The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro allows a question put by Dr. Miguel Rodrigues - What caused you to feel more distressed - a) The disappearance of your daughter? b) to be constituted as an arguida? c) or the book and the documentary?

Kate Healy - There is nothing worse than loosing a child, and that pain was amplified by both the book and the documentary.

Dr. Miguel Rodrigues - The authors of this lawsuit speak of social destruction. However didn't you have the support of many celebrities? Namely of Angelina Jolie in August 2008? [see article - Jolie’s support to Maddie mum]

Kate Healy - I don't recall Angelina Jolie but we were given support by various celebrities.

Dr. Miguel Rodrigues - Do you recall an event that took place in December 8, 2008 of about twenty thousand people who got together to pray for Madeleine? [see article - Thousands join East Lancashire group's prayers for Madeleine McCann]

Kate Healy - No, I don't remember that. Where did that took place?

Dr. Miguel Rodrigues - In the UK.

Kate Healy - Obviously there are people who have always prayed and will continue to pray for Madeleine.

Dr.Miguel Rodrigues - Did you not receive the support of Missing People UK, when they created a fund raising gala dinner to commemorate the 1,000th days since the disappearance of Madeleine? [see the McCann Files - The 1,000 Day Anniversary Events in January 2010]

Kate Healy - Yes I did.

Judge - Very well, no one else has questions. [To the interpreter] Please tell the lady that she is excused.

Kate Healy - May I say something?

Judge - You may.

Kate Healy - I believe in freedom of expression I don't believe in the freedom to defame.

Judge - Very well. This court will now hold a break of a few minutes and then we will proceed with Mr. Gerald McCann declaration.

After the court recess I was a bit delayed outside smoking a cigarette, so when I entered the court room Gerry McCann was already sworn in, and was sitting down answering questions. I'll quote Anne Guedes' report hosted kindly by Pamalam for the start of his declaration.


At the end of a 10' pause, the clerk arrived with GMC. He was asked to stand to answer the usual identity questions and commit himself to tell the truth.

Judge – When did you learn that Gonçalo Amaral's book had been published?

GMC says it was in April 2008, a friend sent them translations of media articles.

Judge – The book hadn't been published yet?

GMC – No. He says that the book was introduced in the media before it was published.

Judge – Was it through interviews?

GMC – Yes.

Judge – When was the book published?

GMC says it was published 3 days after the releasing of the AG final report [Note by JM: The prosecutors José de Magalhães e Menezes and João Melchior Gomes co-wrote and signed the archival dispatch on July 21, 2008 which closed the investigation pending new evidence, there was no final report written by the at the time Attorney General Pinto Monteiro].

Judge – When did you have access to the book?

GMC replies that he learnt through the media, particularly the Correio da Manhã, that the book was published. Portuguese friends daily translated for them what the media said.

Judge – Have you read the book entirely?

GMC says that he read translated parts. Only later a translation of the whole book was available.

Judge – When?

GMC – Later in 2008. He adds that he must say that their lawyer Rogério Alves read the book, made a report upon it and then had a discussion with them about it.

Judge – How did you feel?

GMC says that what was said in the media, before he himself read the book, was the cause of much anxiety for him.

Judge – And the book?

GMC says it was shocking. The book is an affront to him, to his wife, to his family and to the people who believe in them.

Judge – How did you feel?

GMC says that he obviously felt anguish, despair and of course anger reckoning that someone so close to the investigation alleges claims without evidence that his missing daughter is unequivocally dead. The most important issue for them was that the book was read by hundreds of thousands of people and widely publicised. That made the people believe in the conclusions, preventing information about Madeleine from being brought up.

Judge – Then the documentary was broadcast?

GMC says that it was even worse then.

Judge – Why?

GMC explains that it states right at the beginning that Madeleine is dead, that there was no abduction, that he and his wife are liars, that they are cold and ruthless enough to hide a body instead of rending assistance. There's no evidence of that and the evidence that the documentary presents doesn't match.

Judge – Have you watched the documentary?

GMC watched it on the Web.

Judge – Have you been feeling the same as with the book?

GMC says it was worst.

Judge – In what way?

GMC says it was horrible to realise that people were watching something that wasn't true. They were working very hard on the investigation, including people in the Algarve who had been brought in to help. The documentary destroyed all the possibilities of obtaining assistance.


Judge - Do you recall an interview Mr. Amaral gave to the Correio da Manhã?

Gerald McCann - I read several interviews that were published in Correio da Manhã and in other newspapers.

Judge - It was an interview published on July 2008. [See Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold - July 24, 2008]1

Gerald McCann - There were many articles published on a daily basis. May I see the headline?

The Judge allows it and orders the interpreter to translate the header and the first paragraph of the interview.

Interpreter - «'Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold' 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.»

Judge - Do you recall it then?

Gerald McCann - Yes, I've read the same in other interviews.

Judge - Did this article had to do with the pressure from the media that you allege?

Gerald McCann - Yes.

Judge - Did you suffer from insomnia?

Gerald McCann - Yes, we didn't sleep well for many nights because of the anxiety caused by the book.

Judge - Do you have any idea about what people thought after reading the book?

Gerald McCann - I can't answer that, only if I knew what people thought before hand.

Judge - Allow me to rephrase that. Do you think that people believed that the thesis in the book was true?

Gerald McCann - When the process was archived there was no evidence to prove that Madeleine was dead, and there was no evidence to prove that we were responsible for the concealment of Madeleine's body. The Portuguese were bombarded with information that we hid the body in the car and that we had staged an abduction, mainly after the book publication.

Judge - What about the English?

Gerald McCann - The book was never published in England because of the legal actions that we took. It wasn't published on the main stream media either. There is however a small minority, a small group who have launched an harassment campaign who use quotes from the book.

Judge - Who are they?

Gerald McCann - They are called the 'Madeleine Foundation' and we were forced, as the last resort, to take legal action against them, specifically against a man named Anthony Bennett.

Judge - What is the connection between the book and the 'Madeleine Foundation?

Gerald McCann - The book was quoted by the 'Madeleine Foundation' on a forum and they have inclusively distributed a leaflet in Rothley titled '60 reasons which suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted'. [see article - Accusatory leaflets scare McCanns, August 16, 2009] They have interviewed Mr. Amaral and invited him to meet them in England. This was what led us, after our lawyers had warned him several times, to seek legal action against Anthony Bennett, as a last resort.

Judge - Do you know if the group existed before the book was published?

Gerald McCann - I'm not sure if the book was published before or after.

Judge - Do the twins know about the thesis?

Gerald McCann - We try to be open about it but it worries us that they make questions about Mr. Amaral's allegations since he was the coordinator of the case. Kate told me that Sean had asked her about us hiding Madeleine's body. It worries us that they might hear things from other people.

Judge - What measures have you taken to protect the twins in that instance?

Gerald McCann - We had professional advice by a child psychologist who still advises us today if needed. He gave us a key piece of advice which was to answer the twins questions as honestly as possible, at their age level of understanding. However I am afraid that they might read the horrible things people say about us on the internet.

Judge - How is the coordination with the school?

Gerald McCann - The school has been very supportive, Kate has handled that with them. As far as I know there were no incidents specifically related with the book.

Judge - Have you ever heard about a book written by Paulo Pereira Cristovão? ['A Estrela de Madeleine' (Madeleine's Star) pub. 2008]

Gerald McCann - Vaguely...

Judge - Have you ever heard about a book written by Manuel Catarino? ['A Culpa dos McCann' (The McCann's Guilt) pub. 2007]

Gerald McCann - I can't say I have no. I don't remember that name.

Judge - Have you ever heard about a book written by Hernâni Carvalho? ['Maddie 129' pub. 2007]

Gerald McCann - I know about Mr. Carvalho's comments in the press about Mr. Amaral's book.

Judge - But you never read the book?

Gerald McCann - No, I haven't.

The Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro asks each lawyer if they have any questions to put to Gerry McCann, only Dr. Miguel Rodrigues has a question, replicating the one he had previously asked Kate Healy.

Miguel Rodrigues - What caused you to feel more distressed - a) The disappearance of your daughter? b) to be constituted as an arguido? c) or the book and the documentary?

Gerald McCann - They all happened at different times, obviously the abduction of a child is devastating but the book intensified that feeling.

Judge - Very well. [prepares to conclude the hearing session]

Gerald McCann - Can I make a statement?

Judge - The statements in the Portuguese court system, unlike in England where people can give extemporaneous statements [see VPS], are the declarations, which consist on a series of questions put by the lawyers and judge and by the answers of the deponent, which you just gave. You can say something but it won't have any legal validity, nevertheless it will still be recorded.

Gerald McCann - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge - [interrupts] We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.

Gerald McCann - But the book states that as a fact!

Judge - To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.

Note 1 - Amended since on my handwritten notes I have the interpreter reading out-loud an extract of a question of the Correio da Manhã journalist to Gonçalo Amaral "What is your thesis?", question which only appears on the 24th July 2008 interview and not on the 22nd July 2008 article which publishes Gonçalo Amaral's book extracts in exclusive, that was published in a link at Anne Guedes report and reproduced here without proper verification. My apologies.

'Did you Murder Madeleine? Did you hide her body?'

4 July 2014 at 11:13:00 pm | Posted by  74 comments

R to L: DCI Andy Redwood, in charge of Scotland Yard's investigation and the head of the Policia Judiciaria 
in the Algarve, Luís Mota Carmo, after a search last month

Arguidos were confronted with direct questions about the crime and all of them refuted it

by Marisa Rodrigues

"Did you murder Madeleine? Did you hide her body? Did you assault the apartment?". These were some of the questions put to the four men constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] at the behest of the Scotland Yard. They have all agreed to answer them to refute their involvement in the child's disappearance.

The police interrogations did not result in arrests nor in information that would allow to support the English thesis that the girl was killed for allegedly having surprised burglars in the apartment where the parents left her alone with her twin siblings to go out and dine with friends. The same happened with the inquiries to the 11 witnesses that went on yesterday at the Judiciary Police(PJ) headquarters in Faro.

A PJ source considers “inconceivable” the thesis that people with “humble and poor financial resources” would be able to keep the secret for seven years and recalls the big rewards that were offered to anyone who had information. “It would be far too tempting for some of them, at least for those who would have played a smaller role in the crime, such as monitoring the street, to contact the authorities or even the British newspapers to denounce the others”, he added.

These men are regarded as suspects only in the Scotland Yard investigation. The PJ has no doubts that they had no involvement in the case. However, it was the duty of the Portuguese inspectors to constitute them as arguidos, as ordered by the Public Ministry, since the British authorities classified them as “suspects” in a letter rogatory of July last year. The acceptance of the constitution of arguido was also motivated by the wording of the questions and also so the suspects could defend themselves.

One of the arguidos is Sergey Malinka because hairs were found similar to the ones that were discovered in the McCann's apartment. The others are José Carlos da Silva, a former Ocean Club driver, a 51-year-old man, who is schizophrenic and a young man who was at the time 16 years old, who is similar to a “beggar” spotted near the Ocean Club.

in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, page 40, July 4, 2014

Quote of the Day

| Posted by  8 comments

Cell phone photo of road sign taken by a Praia da Luz resident

Second photo being used as profile avatar in protest

Two more #StopMcCannCircus photos from two other Luz residents fed up with Met Police show off

Another #StopMcCannCircus sign photo from an angry Luz resident

As pessoas na Praia da Luz dizem: #SomosTodosPedintes Pedimos Paz!

People in Praia da Luz say: #WeAreAllBeggars 
We ask for Peace!