12 August 2009

The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VIII


2 – The Inquiry

A) General analysis

In the present process, the disappearance of the child of British nationality, Madeleine Beth McCann, daughter of Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, aged three on the date (about to become four, as she was born on the 12th of May 2003), was investigated.

Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 1007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called “Ocean Club”, located in Vila da Luz – Lagos, where the child’s family, together with a group of seven persons, - with whom they kept a friendship that had started before this trip and which was based on professional relations and on other leisure trips -, were enjoying a holiday period, with the duration of one week, having arrived in Portugal on the 28th of April 2007, more precisely at the Airport of Faro, coming from the United Kingdom.

At check-in, they were placed in several apartments, all of them in block G5, next to each other, which was a demand, or, at least, a suggestion of the entire group, which was composed of the couple Gerald McCann, Kate Marie Healy and their children Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, (apartment 5A), David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne, their children Lilly Payne and Scarlett Payne and mother-in-law Dianne Webster (apartment 5H – first floor), Russell James O’Brien, Jane Michelle Tanner and their children Ella O’Brien and Evie O’Brien (apartment 5D) and Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly and their daughter Grace Oldfield (apartment 5B), with the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family being the one that was most accessible and had the easiest visibility from the outside.

The behaviour of the group’s members until the day of the event was shaped by the normality of a daily routine, which, as far as the McCann couple is concerned, consisted of getting up at around 7.30 a.m. and having breakfast in the apartment; at around 9/9.30 a.m. they left the apartment and left their children at the crèche where they remained until around 12.30 a.m. After lunch, at around 1.30 p.m., the children went to play by the pool and around 2.30 p.m. they left them at the crèche again, where they stayed until around 5 p.m., the time at which the children went for high tea at the bar, which was done in a group, independently of age, in a recreational area next to the “Tapas” restaurant; between 5 and 5.30 p.m., they returned to the apartment, where around 5.30 p.m. they bathed the children, that went to bed at 7.30 p.m.

From the 2nd day of their stay onwards, the couple had dinner at the “Tapas” Restaurant, with the rest of the group, while all of the children stayed asleep alone in their apartments, with the surveillance initially being made by each couple, whose members took turns in checking the children, and as the days went by, each member who went to check his children would take the chance and check on the rest of the children, with the exception of the Payne couple, that possessed their own technological control system, through baby listening monitors, an issue that we will discuss in more detail further ahead.

All of the group’s members including the McCann couple were questioned several times, at length and in detail, in order to collect the greatest possible number of relevant details that could assist the investigation in discovering the truth of the facts.

From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident; details that would need to be tested and tried on location, in order to establish the apparent failures to meet and lacks of synchrony, even divergences, in a suitable diligence, which was not possible to perform despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ to fulfil that purpose, as we will see in closer detail, further ahead.

Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.

The systematisation and order that were given to the Inquiry should further be stressed, as it facilitates an easy approach in its consultation, despite its volume and the complexity of some of the issues; with attention to the synthesis that was made and that is visible namely in the index and in the listing of the persons that intervened in the process.

Therefore, we will follow, despite some isolated diversions, the division that was observed in the Final Report that was made by the Polícia Judiciária:

1 – General diligences to locate the child, performed by the Polícia Judiciária, the Polícia Marítima [Maritime Police] and the G. N. R., and added to the inquiry’s main body;

2 – The suspicions about Robert Murat and his arguido status;

3 – Sniffer dog searches and the consequent constitution as arguidos of the British child’s parents, Gerald McCann and Kate Healy.

Concerning the appendixes and their contents, they will be analysed within the 3 main issues into which the investigation has been divided."


in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4595-4598 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)

Related:

The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part I
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part II
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part III
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part IV
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part V
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VI
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VII
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VIII

PDF File via Expresso


5 comments:

  1. This should be compulsory reading for anyone who still holds the blinkered (nay, blind!) view that the PJ were hell bent on only investigating the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter!

    Perhaps Mrs Susan Healy would care to read just one example of the evenhandedness of the investigation and then repeat her accusation that the PJ were framing her daughter! -


    "..The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification..."


    I wouldn't have even given the above scenario a gnats whisker of a possibility but it was amongst the many wide-ranging hypotheses that the PJ tested.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wish this would be publicised on British news-papers, specially the abductor carrying her alive or dead.

    Speaking about Madeleine's blanket: I noticed that the police gave the cuddle cat back to the parents,if I am right.
    It is possible that they returned the pink blanket to them as well, after forensics were done.
    And very much possible that, when they took all clothes,toys, books, etc from their second home in PdL, they missed the blanket and never talked about it.
    It is obvious that the abductor did no take it that night.
    But it could be that the blanket disappeared.



    The last photo at the swimmingpool:





    who took it?
    Amelie?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Viva L,Anglaterre. Racism is a speciality of British tabloids: Blame every child in Portugal for the archiving of the process, the incompetence of portuguese police, unlike British police, who in their eficiency killed an innocent portuguese man for running. That is eficiency. Efficient labour party has laws that protect the killers of baby P. Please Britons, FFS, get on the streets, it is intolerable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UK citizens have for 12 years allowed the Labour govenment under Blair and now Brown run this country to its kness we are now living in a Mob rule UK. We are in an unwinable war in the middle east no one knows what we are fighting for. and the Labour govenment has allowed this circus with the Maccanns to go on and on. we are a nation in shame.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There were visitors from the UK during the same holiday period. Re those who stayed locally were the male visitors checked, DNA for example and compared with any traces found in the apartment?











































    Were there any UK visitors (male) at the same area during the same period? Was their DNA etc. checked with any such traces found in the apartment?


    found in 5A?

    ReplyDelete