The former coordinator of the Judiciary Police considers that “a police officer is not obliged to obtain results”, but do the best that he can. In addition, he is convinced that he will win the case which opposes him to the English couple regarding the temporary injunction over his book, “Do not underestimate me”, he warns.
O Crime – How do you answer to the observation made by the couple, in an interview to our newspaper, that none of the PJ investigators has done more than their job, unlike you, who accused persons that the prosecutor and the judge have declared to be innocents?
The couple is misinformed. The process never reached within the scope of any judge, it stayed by the prosecutor. Then, the prosecutor did not made a definite archival but a provisional one, leaving the case on «double boiler», pending for the production of better evidence.
However, the final dispatch concludes that, to the parents, could not be laid any responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter…
Also not true. What the prosecutor said on the archiving dispatch was that the non-involvement of the parents in any illegal action “seems to result” - it does not say “results”[imperative], he said “appears to result” – from a set of elements on which he issued an opinion. An opinion that is valid for the process, but that does not establish an absolute truth that limits the public discussion. We are no longer in the Middle Ages.
Don’t you think that you had the obligation to find little Maddie, as the couple arguments?
A police officer is not obliged to obtain results. He is obliged to do the best that he can. That was what I did, my Portuguese and British colleagues and me. With mistakes, I admit it. I already made the self-criticism of the investigation on the book “The Truth of the Lie”.
If there had been no errors in the investigation, would it have been possible to find the girl alive?
Maybe we could have found the girl. I cannot say anything else due to the temporary injunction.
The McCanns are convinced that the thesis of the alleged death of Madeleine undermines the efforts being undertaken in order to find her alive...
The Public Ministry prosecutor who archived the investigation - and who distributed the archival dispatch to the media around the world - wrote in that dispatch that Madeleine’s death is the “most likely scenario”. And he has not yet been sued.
The McCanns accuse you of pronouncing over situations related to their family, something that they don’t do in relation to yours…
I speak about a criminal case and not over situations related to their family. And they don’t speak over situations related to my family because they don’t need to. Perhaps there is someone who does that professionally and without them knowing it. There are many who forget that I have worked for 30 years in criminal investigation. At a certain point I will request the adequate means of evidence, find the truth and ask a repairment of the damages that I have suffered.
It is true that, until now, you have not lost anything, not even the only two euros that remained deposited in your bank accounts?
So far I have not lost anything, nor will I loose it. I will win the case, of that you can be sure. What happened was that they froze my income in order to prevent me of paying the court expenses and the payment of fees to lawyers. Do you have any idea of how much does it cost to support such a process? It costs a fortune. Indeed, much more than my Jaguar...
Speaking of Jaguar, it is said that it was bought with the returns made with the book “The Truth of the Lie”…
However, what is not said is that before of this second hand Jaguar, I had another, a much older one.
In your book “The English Gag”, you criticize in a very contending manner the judicial decision that ordered the withdrawal from the market of the book “The Truth of the Lie”. Would you care to explain?
I say that it is an illegal decision, an unjust decision, a case of censorship. The court did not hear me before they decreed the provisional injunction; it was decided solely on basis of the elements submitted to them by the McCanns. The court did not know the motives of what I said in the book and, therefore took my words as gratuitously offensive and not as a fundamented opinion.
Do you believe that after the witnesses hearing that you have requested, the decision will be reversed?
I do, yes. I presented witnesses and presented the criminal process for the court to analyse. Such elements of proof will be, in my opinion, sufficient for the lady judge to obtain an enlightenment that until then she did not possess. I contacted with judges for almost 30 years. Among judges, I have many friends. What they do is always fundamented in the elements that they have at their disposal and, at this moment, madam judge of the civil court of Lisbon has more elements than she had previously. Therefore, I am convinced that she will decide in my favour.
The McCann couple felt offended with your conclusions on the book ‘The Truth of the Lie”.
It is not because of the fact that a person feels offended, or alleges to feel offended, that the censorship of a publication is legitimized. If it was like so and if the majority of citizens had the economic capacity of McCann, no newspaper would go to the newsstands. Half of the pages would be blank. A news piece, just like an opinion, does not have to be correct to be freely expressed and published. It has to be substantiated; it has to be conceived without the intention of harming anyone.
“The English Gag” also violently criticizes politicians. Why?
Did any reputed politician in this country spoke out against what happened to me? But when it’s they themselves or their friends, the target of a judicial proceeding, even if it is for paedophilia or corruption, they all immediately come out offending the judges, the prosecutors and the Judiciary Police, saying they are politically manipulated, that they are incompetent, etc..
Were you expecting politicians to criticize the decision made by the Civil Court of Lisbon?
The least that I expected was for politicians to come out publicly to say that the institutionalized pre-trial procedures must be rethought so that never again it would be possible for a judge to decide to limit freedom of expression of a citizen solely based on the elements that are provided by the party that alleges to be offended. This is censorship and there is no way to turn it around.
Depending on the outcome of this process, will you stop here?
The future belongs to God. However, if I have the financial conditions, there may still be surprises. I was almost 30 years in the Judiciary Police. Do not underestimate me.
Weekly Newspaper 'O Crime', paper edition, published 2009.12.23