16 December 2009

Gonçalo Amaral: “I owe the McCanns nothing”


The investigator and former Judiciária coordinator in Maddie’s disappearance speaks about his book “The English Gag”. Controversial

by Pedro Sales Dias

The investigator and former PJ coordinator in the case of the disappearance of Maddie presents a new book in which he says he is silenced by the “English gag”. In an interview to I, he speaks about the [revolution of the] 25th of April [1974] and reveals that his future passes through the practise of law, and speaks about the recently published book: “The English Gag”.

You have already mentioned that you never expected to write this book. What are the reasons for that feeling?

On the 25th of April [1974], I was 14 years old. As a matter of fact, I thought that 35 years after the 25th of April [revolution which reinstated democracy in Portugal] there would be no acts of censorship or limitations on freedom of expression. People may say that I was somewhat distracted or that I was a bit naïve, but I thought those things had already been overcome and none of that would return to this country. It seems that it did, with my case.

Did you feel censored and gagged when “Maddie – The Truth of the Lie” was taken off the Market (in September), after having been targeted with an injunction that was presented by the McCann family?

I felt censored and gagged, hence the title of book. It is a gag which is English because it is an English couple that demands the gag. In fact, being told to shut up while we believe we are offering a technical and founded opinion, we are using freedom of expression in a responsible manner, then it it very hard for us to accept being told to shut up and to remain silent. I have respected the injunction until the day that I have to violate it in my own defence. So far it has not been necessary, but if it becomes so, I will violate the injunction.

When and why will it be necessary?

It will be necessary… We are presently experiencing a campaign from the injunction’s plaintiffs whose purpose it is to discredit me. By discrediting, they are destroying not only me, but also my family. This has been growing. Since September, well orchestrated and well planned news have been coming out, which rummage through my private life. We are going to act against those who make propaganda out of less positive things in life, like my debts. I have gone on holidays with my three daughters, with debts. When I returned, I brought my daughters and also my debts. We all have debts. There is an official campaign, and a parallel one. Some day, we will try to understand whether or not they are connected. It puts my reputation at stake, whether or not I am a good father, a good husband, and the debts. It is necessary to put this man’s reputation at stake, and to silence him… I do not accept that, and if necessary, I will violate the injunction.

What can we expect from this book, some news, and the clarification of the truth?

A while ago, I said that it is a protest against this injunction. A condensed travel – it is small, easily read – about these problems of freedom of expression. I think it serves as a support and clarification document, even for the young people who did not live that period, and can only imagine it… At this moment, specific situations are being experienced and I think that the youth has an historical opportunity to understand how things were in practical terms, how things were. They are not exactly like that time, but they become very similar. To silence people, to remove books from the market, or to apprehend books, to seize their assets, those are things from way back when, before the 25th of April [1974]. It is happening to me in that way, they want to asphyxiate me financially.

Is there anything new in the book?

I don’t have to write about cases all of the time. And in this case, I even cannot. If I could, I would have written. There was a discussion among the lawyers who helped me to perfect the book, whether or not I should speak about the private detectives’ work, about the abduction theory and to clarify that they did a disastrous job. Those gentlemen accuse me of being guilty of all evil, of not having found the missing child. They forget about the activity that they have done so far – I am not speaking about their responsibility in anything – and the detectives’ work.

The thesis about Maddie’s disappearance if not merely a thesis, it’s an investigation that is based on facts…

I cannot speak about that. I can tell you that what is in the book is in the process, that is to say, it reports about an investigation that is also supported by the process itself. One thing is the other. And it is only the work from May until October, while I led the investigation. Then, the work continued. We have already presented documental and witness evidence that what is in the process, is in the book. It is factual. There is no defamation. What is in there, is a technical and founded opinion about reports of what happened there…

The process is public…

But it should have been censored. If they say that this book, which is based on the process, is defaming, then the process also defames. Why don’t they censor the process itself? It is in circulation… It has been distributed to all journalists.

What is the truth about the Maddie case?

At the moment, I am forbidden from speaking about truths and lies, therefore I have to keep silent about that. I cannot even share my thoughts, as foreseen in the injunction. Now look at what things have come to…

The parents of Madeleine, who disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007, in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, consider that the thesis that Gonçalo Amaral defends in the book, that both are involved in their daughter’s disappearance, is unsustainable…

I can tell you that I have not seen written anywhere, anything that rebuts what is written in the book. They say that the book defames, but nobody picks up any part of the book to say what is a lie and what is not in the process. That is the major issue. Nobody questioned what is in the book, page by page. Nobody says why it is defamatory. Justice is performed in silence when it runs its normal course. I was already silent, I was writing another book about the Police. When this happened, I had to put it aside to give a public reply.

As a former Polícia Judiciária coordinator, in one of the most recent and most media-exposed investigation cases in Portugal, what is the priority in the scale of juridical values, for you: an injunction that is imposed by an English couple, or the right to freedom of expression?

There are limits. There is a hierarchy of values. The use of responsible freedom of expression will always be above private life itself. If you look at the Republic’s Constitution, freedom of expression is worth more.

What will you do in the future?

I will start my practise in law… I am going to be a lawyer…



source: I, 16.12.2009




50 comments:

  1. way to go mr amaral,you cant keep a good copper down(thank the lord)
    Respect to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No Gonçalo, you don't owe them a penny. THEY should pay back to the Portuguese people the bundle of money wasted in the search of a fabricated abductor that exists only in their twisted minds. But as we now know they are not in the business of paying (Halligen and Método 3) but rather in the business of making money at any cost, either through court proceedings or by selling T-shirts and high quality wristbands. Surely they have put aside any income from a future film because no film producer believes their theory anymore. But let us wait and see, they could have picked up GA's hint and I wouldn't be surprised if a book is in the making.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have no doubt that you will be a very fine Lawyer, Dr.Amaral.
    Never let the bullies of this world win.
    I wish you and your family a peaceful and prosperous New Year.
    VIVA AMARAL!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a wonderful irony. Goncalo goes on holiday with debts but nevertheless manages to return with his family intact. Other people may go on holiday with debts so enormous that they have to come up with the most appalling plan imaginable in order to hang on to their house and maintain a celebrity lifestyle. I know who I would rather be. Goncalo's honesty and dedication shines through in everything he says. I am desperately sorry for what he and his family have been through, and may still have to go through. To quote a verse from an English (not Scottish!) hymn: "Not for ever by still pathways do we ask our way to be; but the steep and rugged pathway may we tread rejoicingly." Goncalo, you have chosen the path that leads ultimately to the Kingdom of Heaven, and you have never wavered from it so far. I am certain you won't give up now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No.No Gonçalo,you do not owe them anything at all and we will make sure they give YOU back everything they have STOLEN YOU.
    Now,if any oif the mccies read this post: please,forward anything you consider defamation writen in this book.
    Are the files defamatory then? Are you going to sue the Portuguese sate as well as anyone who is not accepting your "law"?
    You are commiting a very sever mistake: we wont let you destroy more lives.Now,breath in deeply and remember: we wont let you destroy the Amaral Family and dirty Madeleine"s memory.
    Game OVER

    ReplyDelete
  6. This court case is definately the start of the end for Team Mccann,Mr Amaral is getting STRONGER imo. I am British, and very embarrassed by my Governments involvement, but Im so very proud of Mr Amaral
    lilly

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://whatawonderfulnewworld.xanga.com/562814056/item/

    It would appear that 'The Friends of Mccann' need a little education. They also lack knowledge of the revolution and the burning of books. I can imagine the anger of the Mccanns to have been in their eyes'fooled' in this way. Not fooled at all, it just proved how uneducated they are.

    The Mccanns are out to destroy GA.They are not content in having the book and documentary banned they also want 'in the name of their children' to take every possession he has..destroy his family and his marriage ,by revealing his private life through a very dubious looking character. I have a feeling however, that GA can take care of himself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I can tell you that I have not seen written anywhere, anything that rebuts what is written in the book. They say that the book defames, but nobody picks up any part of the book to say what is a lie and what is not in the process. That is the major issue. Nobody questioned what is in the book, page by page. Nobody says why it is defamatory."


    This is exactly why I have been saying that the trial is a joke; it is simply a formality to give credence to a verdict which the court has already decided upon. If I was in Mr. Amaral's shoes I would leave Portugal and seek justice elsewhere.

    Once the court renders its verdict, you can be sure that it will be transmitted by all the media outlets around the world. When people who have not followed this case as closely as us, hear that the former lead detective was found guilty of libel in his own country, they will say to themselves: "The McCanns were right after all."

    ReplyDelete
  9. A point of information...

    The McCanns are not an 'English Couple'. Gerry McCann is a Scot (as is our dear Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and half of his cabinet).

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  10. If the judge who has imposed the gag on Sr Amaral wants to be fair then he/she should tell the McCanns they must bring proof of an abduction before an injunction will even be entertained.

    Why should a gag be imposed on a person who is stating what are the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of a couple who are going around spouting their abduction scenario with no proof whatsoever that it ever occurred, yet plenty of money being sent to them on the basis of this?

    Tell the McCanns to get lost Portugal, instead of coming fishing for yet more money. They are lucky to have escaped without neglect charges being brought against them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bravo Sr Amaral, i hope when he gets his assets back he will sue the arse off every one of the lying scum, papers and people. Now that will be justice part 1, part 2 will be every one of those involved in the disappearance of a child that even her own parents didn't care enough about to provide her basic human rights, land in a court of law and do serious time for their crimes, part 3 will be to remove their remaining children to a place of safety. I am British and despair at their lack of remorse and dreadful parenting. The majority of British people love their children enough to protect and defend them, we are not a nation of people who think it is ok to go on the lash leaving our children home alone, those people are a very small minority, and should all be punished accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The big lie is the McCanns going around telling everybody their child was abducted when there is no evidence, and getting money sent to them on them on the strength of that.

    All evidence points to the child having died in the apartment.

    That is why they want Sr Amaral gagged.

    Their 'Family find madeleine Fund' should be closed until they can prove an abduction did occur.

    On the basis of these FACTS, if the judge finds in the McCanns' favour there is something seriously wrong going on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excellent as ever from Sr. Amaral. Let's hope this thorn in their side opens up the truth, however horrible and upsetting.

    And a word to the English journalists who undoubtedly visit this site:

    We will never forgive your cowardice, your lack of professionalism and your peddling of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I first saw Mr Amaral on UK TV news in May 2007 he was just a policeman who was not doing his job properly, thats what we were all lead to believe. Now in 2009 he is a extrodinary man of faith courage and hope and an example to each and every one of us, he is a man I have never met and probably never will in this life, but he has made a lasting impression on me, and is in my prayers every day I salute you sir.
    As for the Maccanns they are not fit to tie your shoes. You will see the day of them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guerra - I agree the book should be gone through page by page and the 'defamation' shown.

    I would also be interested where he 'defames' Madeleine, Sean and Amelie as the McCanns are suing on behalf of the children.

    It does seem unbelievable that an educated couple can go on holiday with their children. Go out and leave them unattended with the door open and nearly 3 years later be asking for £1M off someone.

    It's as if they have lost their daughter and now want compensation for it.

    It was them NOT G. Amaral, or the PJ who left them unattended in the first place.

    Unfortunately it appears that they don't seem to 'get it'. I don't understand them. I would be crying my eyes out with guilt and shame for leaving them alone in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If there are any UK journalists reading this, please ask the McCanns where is their proof of an abduction?

    Their Jane Tanner so called sighting can easily be discredited.

    She has changed her story so many times, and in the only credible sighting of a man carrying a child that night, the man looked like Gerry McCann hurrying off to the beach area.

    The McCanns say that can't have been Gerry because he was at the Tapas at that time. This also is in doubt because the statements of the Tapas lot is so confusing, Gerry McCann could have been anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well done Mr Amaral ,it`s a great pity the police here in the UK didn`t get so involved like you did ,There is to much covering up thing in this country ,One day thou these two will make one huge slip up and i pray it`s soon ,i wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas x

    ReplyDelete
  18. It would appear that the people who are donating money to the McCanns are having to take a lot on trust.

    They have to trust that there was an abduction because the McCanns say so. There is no evidence there was.

    They have to trust the McCanns are telling the truth. No evidence they are absolutely truthful.

    They have to trust that the money the McCanns are getting into the Fund is really being spent on looking for Madeleine. No evidence of that, no account of where it is going.

    They have to trust they are not secreting it away in their own account somewhere hidden away. Who knows, blind faith needed here?

    All round, people are being far too trusting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To the person who asked about the red carnation.

    Although I am a Brazilian, I think I can explain it.

    On April 25th 1974 a revolution(peaceful) happened in Portugal and its symbol was a red carnation.
    It is called the Carnation Revolution.
    This revolution finished the dictatorship in Portugal and its polulation became free, including with the right of freedom of speech, right to express themselves freely, the Portugueses had got rid of the gag, imposed by dictator Salazar, in the years 20ies.
    People were freed from concentration camps in Africa, where they were kept, and they returned to Portugal.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Goncalo, your integrity restores my faith in human nature.
    You WILL win in the end, good always triumphs over evil in the long run.
    The truth will come out no matter how much the gruesome twosome try to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are a big difference between Mccans and Gonçalo Amaral, they went in holidaying with 3 children and big debts. They returned with 2 children but they got a fund to pay their debts and afford a goodlife style without working.
    Gonçalo Amaral went with debts and 2 daughters and returned in the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course they'd like nothing more than to leave him a broken man! But we're still waiting to hear how this book has defamed them. Still waiting and still watching to see the outcome of this case. Because if it cannot be shown that Dr Amaral's book runs contrary to the spirit and essence of the case file, then defamation cannot be proved and there's no way that any court can rule against Dr Amaral. So watching and waiting......

    ReplyDelete
  23. Portugal should bar them from entering the country. They have brought nothing but trouble. That is the way it appears to me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have always believed that jealousy played a part in whatever happened to Madeleine.

    I think there is a very vindictive mentality in play.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 23 I could not agree more. They should be stopped once and from running their own show and be told the only way back into the country is to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police and answering all the questions, taking part in a POLICE reconstruction and taking a lie detector test. No more photoshoots!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. A sure way to keep them out of Portugal would be to reopen the case and make them arguidos.

    No chance there would be any cooperation from the McCanns, and no doubt Kate would most likely get sick again and be unable to return.

    You know how fragile she is and all that!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would like to think that Sr Amaral is in a "win-win" situation in that surely not EVERY word of his book can be held as defamatory. After all, as he says, it is largely based on the process that is in the public domain. SO, even if he loses it would only be in relation to certain parts of his book. Based on the judgement, he and his lawyers should then be able to come up with a "bulletproof" third book (or a new edition of the first one) that could then be published in English and sold in the UK at WH Smiths, Waterstones etc. OR it might be open to some other luminary such as Sr Flores to pull off a similar stunt. This is exactly what the McCanns wish to avoid, make no mistake. Plus I endorse what another poster said, that even if the McCanns win 60% of the compensation ought the to be invested for their "three" children until they reach the age of 18. So all-in-all it ought to be dawning on the McCanns that they are not going to make a clean getaway this time.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon 23,

    They should know that the Portuguese people have already considered each of them "persona non grata" in this country. So, please, please, STAY AWAY.

    Does anyone of you know of a good spell we can put on this couple? No sorceres here? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  29. O Gonçalo Amaral não deve nada aos McCann e nós também não. Se o próximo passo é processar o Ministério Público nós não podemos aceitar entregar o erário público a um casal que vem de férias para um país estrangeiro e deixa os filhos de 3 e de 2 anos de idade sozinhos à noite para ir jantar a um restaurante longe do apartamento. Abandono é crime! Sozinhos por longos períodos de tempo como testemunha uma vizinha inglesa que ouviu uma das crianças chorar por mais de uma hora e cujo choro só cessou quando os pais regressaram bastante tarde nessa noite. Ora, se chorou muito mais que 1 hora como é aque as crianças eram vigiadas de 1/2 em 1/2 hora?
    O dinheiro dos nossos impostos custou demasiado a ganhar para esbanjar em indemnizações indevidas. Não podemos permitir que isso aconteça. Torneira fechada.
    Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Great Goncalo Amaral, thank God for you, because if not for your courage and committment to get justice for Madeleine and be the only one to tell the truth, the McCanns would have gotten away with it scot free. I sincerely hope that you will be a thorn in their sides for the remainder of their lives.
    You will not let them forget and you will not be alone in that, for their are thousands and thousands of us behind you. They did it as sure as eggs are eggs, so sue me McCanns, but I am forgetting, you wouldn't bother to sue someone for an attack on your principles as you have none, you would only be interested in how much cash I'm worth - and I have absolutely diddly squat.
    Everyone, we must not let them silence us because to do that would mean that little girl died all alone, with no voice.
    I wish Goncalo every success in the future - God Bless this brave man, your family have every right to be extremely proud of you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Alison @ No. 4

    Do you seriously know the McCann's had large debts - the police were never able to find out were they? When you refer to a plan, was it an abduction plan that went wrong? Without knowing about the debts for sure we can only guess the motive. They certainly are greedy, that's for sure.

    I am English and hope and pray that Sr Amaral and all his family stay strong,

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous @ 31; of course, I can only go by what I have read, and this goes back to the early days just after they were made arguidos, but it was reported then that the Rothley house was several mortgage payments behind. Since we know that they made at least two mortgage payments (of what size we don't know) from the Maddie fund, this seems to bear that out, as surely they would not have risked doing such a thing and getting found out unless things were pretty desperate. Dr Gerald at least was said to be on compassionate leave, not upaid leave. As for the plan, we can only speculate, but everything fell into place remarkably quickly on the evening of May 3rd, and they apparently had photos of Maddie ready to distribute, plus a phone book full of useful numbers to hand. Did they have pre-printed baby photos of the twins with them in case a misleading description of them had to be broadcast around the globe? I am sure most of us, even the most accident-prone, don't usually take these precautions when going on a relaxing holiday, so this points in the direction of pre-planning. Money certainly seems to be their driver.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The McCanns were said to pay about £2,000 a month for their mortgage, plus child care fees.

    It not cheap running a house that size.

    Kate would need all the help she could get with the children, with three little ones all under four. Her diary says it was hard for her.

    If true, earlier that afternoon when Gerry was said to have been playing tennis, and Kate alone with the kids, was one of the few times she was alone with the children. And, if true, she and Gerry had a row the night before and slept in different beds. It can't have been a happy day for Kate.

    Did anything happen to Madeleine during this time?

    Or, were the children given somthing later on to make sure they slept. Yet Madeleine was a sleepwalker. Did she get out of bed and have an accident climbing and falling behind the settee? Or, did Madeleine hear her father talking to JW outside and climbed up to try and see him through the window and have an accident.

    One thing that ought to have been asked was what were they all wearing, especially Gerry McCann, on that last night at the Tapas.

    The official investigators could not get access to any photos taken that last night so as to discover this.

    There was a pair of light coloured trousers discarded on the McCanns bed in the official photos that were taken at the apartment, though Gerry was shown later with jeans on.

    Were those light coloured trousers the ones Gerry had been wearing prior to changing into the jeans?

    I ask this given the description of the man seen by Mr Smith, but also the same as JT.

    Jane Tanner did not go only once to the apartment that night. She went twice, when requested to go back the second time by her husband because their child was sick. The second time she went would have coincided around the time of the Smith Party sighting.

    Given the two sightings she may have cobbled them both both together in her mind, of her sighting of Gerry and JW the first time, and of the man dashing off with the child (GM?) the second time. She only caught a quick glance, fleeting, hardly remembered, of somebody, but the clothing was of similar description to the Smith sighting.

    It was around the time that O'brien and Oldfield went to check that the McCanns were also in line for another check and Oldfield had told Kate he would listen for her. Then Oldfield came back and told Jane that her child was sick and could she go back, so she finished her meal and went back after.

    Was it during this time that Gerry then went again and checked? There is a lot of confusion as to who was where at what time.

    Who is really paying attention when they are drinking their wine, scoffing, and talking? Nobody was taking notes and it is hard to remember exactly the sequence when there are a lot of people and a lot of things going on.

    Did Kate go make that last check when Gerry had not returned (him having discovered Madeleine behind the settee, and needing to hide her for whatever reasons), and also to try and find out why he was late back. Was this something to do with the previous argument?

    Gerry is on his way rushing off into the night, carrying the child, when JT finishes her meal and goes to relieve her husband so he can go eat his ordered steak. Another steak was cooked for him as the original was cold.

    Meanwhile Kate sets off to find out why Gerry not back yet and goes back to apartment where discovers no Madeleine.

    Gerry then slips back into the Tapas.

    Kate becomes hysterical in the apartment, and then runs screaming about Madeleine gone, and the whole thing set in motion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The revolution of 1974 brought about freedom from oppression for all in Portugal, so much so a constitution was produced to ensure that this freedom and others were and are the right of all persons irrespective of class or creed.

    (Article 37 of the constitution
    1. Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination

    2. Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship)

    With such a constitution how is it possible for a Judge to ban a book?

    Letter from Iberia

    ReplyDelete
  35. A wee bit off topic, but interesting reading and support for Goncalo here http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  36. What do you me @33? Kate did not know immediately what has happened to Madeleine that night? You mean Gerry has covered up all alone?
    Does not make any sense, after all dogs did find some odor in Kate clothes? Maybe those light coloured trousers get lost when dogs finally arrived. Otherwise those trousers had a story to tell as well. But then, if your theory is right (which I doubt) Kate had been in contact with little M later on. When?
    My guess is that some sort of accident has happened after the creche and the couple with a little help of some friends had plenty of time to decided what to do in the next hours, how to do, how to re-arrange the furniture, how to re-arrange the room where was supposed to happened an abduction, who to call and where to take it. First to the beach and then that's where the Priest came in. They've made a confession, they were afraid of the consequences, the Priest felt compassion and has decided to help. And has worked...so far
    I believe the police is in a better standard to understand what has really happened that. The best solution to all of us is to re-open the case and finish to investigation. For the worse and for the best.
    A.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Regarding the statement by Kate McCann about seeing Cuddlecat on a shelf and knowing then that Madeleine had been taken, which was after changed to Cuddlecat having been on the bed all the time.

    Why should Kate McCann have said that about Cuddlecat being on the shelf?

    Could it be that Cuddlecat really had been on the shelf, having been put there by Gerry who had found it when he went to check the kids while JT was finishing her meal, prior to her going back to her apartment the second time.

    Perhaps the talk of a child being sick prompted this check by Gerry.

    Before Kate raised the alarm about 10pm, people had said they heard the name 'Madeleine' being called earlier from the McCann's apartment area.

    Was this GM searching for his child, and then discovering her behind the settee where something terrible had happened, and was she holding Cuddlecat at the time.

    He then has to do a quick clean up and that is when the red t shirt is used, better than white which would show blood stains, and then it is put in the washer.

    He then puts Cuddlecat on the shelf, and dashes into the night carrying Madeleine to the beach, and is fleetingly glimpsed by JT on her way back to her apartment the second time.

    GM bumps into the Smith party on way, then puts Madeleine whereever she is put, and goes back to the Tapas.

    Meanwhile, Kate has left Tapas about 10pm to find out why Gerry is so long checking, and discovers Madeleine gone and Cuddlecat on the shelf, and assumes it was put there by whoever had taken Madeleine.

    In Oldfield's statement he mentioned that he went into the McCann's apartment to check their kids about 9.30pm. This is after JT's first visit back about 9.10pm to her apartment, and her supposed sighting then of Bundlman, at same time as seeing Gerry and Wilkins.

    Oldfield looks through the bedroom door, sees the twins and they are breathing, but does not check Madeleine whose bed is behind the door, but what does catch his eye is the shelf with books on, and he has a look at those.

    There is no mention of any Cuddlecat there on the shelf.

    If this is the shelf referred to by Kate,(and Sr Amaral will know that), it means whoever put the toy on the shelf did so after the JT sighting of Gerry talking with Wilkins, and her supposed sighting of the abductor at about 9.10pm.

    About 9.45pm Mr Smith recognised what looked like Gerry McCann carrying a child to the beach, and it would have been possible that the sighting JT had of the man with child was also a quick glimpse of the same person.

    Was her sighting of Bundleman really at the later time of her second trip back to her apartment at about 9.40. It is easy to get confused when not a lot of attention is being paid.

    This is what might have really happened, but the statement about the shelf?? and why is Cuddlecat referred to now as having been on the bed?

    ReplyDelete
  38. The public prosecutor's final report said about Madeleine, that it was not possible 'to establish whether she is still alive OR IF SHE IS DEAD AS SEEMS MORE LIKELY.'

    They thought it seemed MORE LIKELY that Madeleine was dead. Why? They must have had a reason to say this, since you don't say something seems more likely than the alternative without a reason. I presume GA knows why they said this ... was it the dogs, the DNA results, the lack of evidence for the abduction theory? Or something as yet not made public?

    With this 'more likely dead' official conclusion, I fail to see why GA isn't allow to come to a similar conclusion in his book.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anoymous 33
    The problem with your theory is the time frame is too small for the cadaver odour to appear

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon 33 and 39 - agreed, the body had to be lying under that window for at least an hour and a half to two hours for the odour of bacterial breakdown to occur.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  41. Here in NYC we have a little 4 year old boy missing, allegedly wandered away from home while in his step-father's care. Police have now arrested him and charged him with endangering the welfare of a child. (I can only pray that what I think really happened did not.)

    WHY HAVEN'T THE MCCANN'S BEEN ARRESTED???? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM??????

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Mccann's are going down everyday. After that injuction and the last campaign with a tan 6 years old Maddie, people which don't pay too much attention to the case or have doubts about what to believe, dead or abduction, start looking deep at the police investigation and start believing that the abduction was the most improbable situation. Every step, done by the mccann's now, will be a shut on their own feet, unless they decide to re-open the case and leave portuguese police to work without pressures. No injuctions, no gaggs, no carter-rucks, no press advisers can change that. The environment surrounding justice, in portugal, It is working against the Mccann's, even if they have friends of friends of friends of a friend with some power. There is always somebody uncorruptible, also with power, on the other side of the game to balance the situation. Yesterday, Lopes da Mota, from the Eurojust, was forced to suspend his job at the Eurojust accused of being pressuring judges in the Freeport case. and WHAT ABOUT HIS PARTICIPATION ON ALL MEETINGS INVOLVING THE ROGATORY LETTERS, THE ACCESS TO BANK ACCOUNTS, SMS, MOBILE CALLS and MEDICAL RECORDS in Mccann's case? WAS HE WORKING ON THE BEHALF OF PORTUGAL AND THE PJ or was he working under Brtish and portuguese government agenda? THE MONSTER JUST BEGAN, Clarrie and Gerry.
    Lopes da Mota it is also accused of being leaking important steps of the investigation in Fatima Felgueiras ( Sandra Felgueiras mother) case, helping her to runaway and avoid justice. Everybody still not understanding why so many crimes have been deleted on her case which end up with a suspended conviction of 3 years in prison. That guy, which achieve one of the top jobs in justice in Europe, looks like he is working on PRO-CRIMINOUS SIDE specially if the cases were related with politicians from PS( Socrates Party).
    STEP BACK, CLARRIE AND GERRY, on Amaral injuction and re-open Maddie case. We, the portuguese, in portugal or around the world, we did not forgive you about the bad publicity you made about Portugal without any prouve. In fact, on that ironic Saga, the only ones which have been publicly defamed, were the portuguese people and G. Amaral, trough British Media and free of charges. Amaral book did not defame anybody and was not free then only circulate trough public which buy it. But the British Media insults, circulated free in all on-line Media sites, available to everybody, even to small children. JUST REMEMBER Mr. PARSON'S ARTICLE " UPS SENOR" insulting the portuguese embassador and on his figure, the all country. YOU MCCANN'S SHOULD GIVE BACK TO PORTUGAL EVERY SINGLE EURO, CENTIME, ETC. THAT YOU EARN FROM THE portuguese on YOU FRAUDULENT FUND.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon 33 and 37: Very interesting ideas on JT's sighting possibly having been from the 2nd trip to the apartment. Plausible. Interesting also the colour of the trousers on the bed. I read recently that the PJ was denied access to family's clothes initially.
    "Oldfield looks through the bedroom door, sees the twins and they are breathing, but does not check Madeleine whose bed is behind the door, but what does catch his eye is the shelf with books on, and he has a look at those."
    I haven't read anything about someone looking at the books on the shelf. What shelf was this ? Where can I find this mentioned?
    How could Oldfield establish that the twins were breathing without going right up to them?
    There was no shelf or high ledge in the bedroom.
    Anon 39
    You assume everyone is telling the truth about the checks. What's to say M didn't get up, go to the window and have an accident from the sofa as soon as her parents left, before 20.30.
    Is anyone out there brave enough to make an animated film reconstruction of the night according to Mccann gospel, with all their variations on the abduction theme?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon at 39

    According to Sr Amaral it takes less time for cadaver odour to build up than was thought (did originally think it was one and half hours).

    Yet, as I don't really believe that Gerry saw the kids that night, like he said he went in and looked at them, as that was only added later, I think whatever happened to Madeleine happened much earlier on and she had been lying there dead for quite some time.

    Anon at 36

    No, I think they both know what happened to Madeleine. After Madeleine was brought back she was put in Church and they had plenty of time alone in there. Cadaver odour could have been transferred then. This is what I think may have happened, but you could be right in what you are saying, as that is also possible.

    I was trying to point out that the timing for the evening would allow for Gerry McCann to have gone back to the apartment and moved Madeleine, and been sighted by JT and Mr Smith at around the same time, because JT did go back twice to the apartment. First time about 9.05, and second time about 9.40. The 9.40 time fits the Smith sighting.

    I think JT has got confused and lumped the later sighting of Bundleman in with her earlier sighting of Gerry and Wilkins, and by doing that has given Gerry an alibi. I don't think she has done that deliberately.

    I also think that if any of the Tapas crowd helped it was Payne. He was closest to Gerry.

    That is my theory anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon at 43

    The mention of the shelf and books is in Oldfield's statement.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Re cadaver odour. A body doesn't have to be in a particular spot for any specific length of time for cadaver odour to be transferred in that place. All that is required is an hour and a half to two hours approximately for the cadaver odour to begin to be produced; after that the odour can transfer to anywhere the dead body is put or anything it touches, even for a brief period. It doesn't have to be in situ for any specific length of time, once the cadaver odour is being produced.

    Therefore if cadaver odour is found behind a sofa, it doesn't mean the body has to have remained there for at least an hour and a half. A dead body placed in that spot, a body that had already been dead some time, could produce cadaver odour there which could then be picked up by the cadaver dog, even if the body only rests there for a short time.

    No idea if this is the case in this case of course, as we don't know what happened to Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anon at 43

    What an interesting and innocent confession: "Oldfield looks through the bedroom door, sees the twins and they are breathing....".

    Why did he go to check if the twins were breathing? Did Kate or Gerry, or both, asked him to do so? Were they afraid of the consequences of the dose of whatever they gave them?

    Saying so really confirms the situation in the room when Kate repeatedly checked if the twins were breathing.

    Could it also be that when he entered the room he already knew the fate of Madeleine (that is why he didn't even bother to check on her), and they wanted to make sure that the twins woudn't suffer the same fate? Does this make any sense? Those words raise a lot of questions IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  48. About the bookshelf and Oldfield's checking, before, I quoted poster 37. Now I've found what Oldfield actually stated in April 2008 (this wasn't in his first statements):
    "So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet.

    078 "How long were you actually in the apartment for then?"

    Reply "One or two minutes maybe. I remember looking, they've got, all the rooms had sort of a book supply and so, because we were spending all this down time at lunchtime looking, you know, doing a bit of reading or maybe sunbathing, but some reading, so I sort of remember sort of looking along their bookshelf as I walked through to see if there was anything that I could sort of take to read for the next couple of days, erm, so it might have been, you know, a minute or two".

    Reply "So you come in, the steps would bring you up to this end of the patio, oh sorry, that's the side street so it comes up to this bit and you go in through (inaudible), erm, I'm not sure which one of those, I think it was this left one here and there's sort of like, erm, a sort of a book shelf here".

    4078 "Is that the one that you looked at to see what books?"

    Reply "Yeah, and there was, I think there was a sofa here and a sofa here, it's either one of those two corners, it was a vague memory of it, that there was like a sort of little side light, a sort of reading light that was on".

    4078 "So you didn't cross the threshold?"

    Reply "No".

    Well, basically, he sort of, maybe didn't actually see much. Not with just a reading lamp in the living room, not having entered the bedroom. He did see books on the bookshelf in the living room, but not cuddlecat.
    Sort of, maybe his memory improved between May 2007 and April 2008...

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you are going to have a cover up like I believe this is, then you can't have too many people involved, and they would have to be people you absolutely trust.

    People usually end up telling other people, and somebody is bound to blab.

    That hasn't happened so far, so whatever happened was more than likely contained within a very select few knowing. Three at the most, four is really pushing it. One or two is better, but each must have a lot to lose if the secret is discovered.

    I think it was Oldfield's mention of looking at the books in the bookcase that has led to Kate changing her original story of knowing Madeleine was taken because Cuddlecat was on the shelf.

    Since we are supposed to believe the abductor Jane Tanner said she saw at 9.10pm had put it there at the same time she saw Gerry and Wilkins talking, Oldfield's statement would show that was not true.

    If it was left there by somebody who had taken Madeleine, it must have been put there later than 9.30pm because that was about the time Oldfield did the check, and he makes no mention of seeing Cuddlecat on the shelf.

    If Gerry had moved Madeleine after that time, then he would have been the one who put it on the shelf.

    Kate has since changed the story about Cuddlecat being on the shelf, so that now Cuddlecat was on the bed.

    I had always wondered why that was, as Kate had said at the beginning it was seeing Cuddlecat on the shelf which alerted her to Madeleine having been taken.

    Now there is a different story of how she knew Madeleine had been taken, and after reading Oldfield's statement about the books and the shelf, this may be why.

    ReplyDelete
  50. sr amaral is correct from day 1the mcanns have put on a brilliant show why!to cover up there selfs from the start its all been about money they have had freebees for everything traveled the world been on operas show everything and payed for doing so the only 1 telling the truth is gongalo the british goverment showed have no say in this maddie died then no way was she abducted and by the way if any child was abducted by the way the mcanns have displaced it world wide the abductor would hae to get rid of them they are living a lie

    ReplyDelete