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

D – Dog searches and Constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos

In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine’s whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.

Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).

From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:

1 – The tracking dog named “Eddie” (dog that signals cadaver odour) “marked” (signalled) inside the couple’s bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

2 – That same dog “marked”, in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog “marked” a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

4 – In the “Vista do Mar” villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean’s Club, the dog “marked” the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);

5 – In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/”marked” pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);

6 – This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver’s door of the Renault – 59-DA-27 – that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

7 – Finally it “marked” the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

8 – The tracking dog named “Keela” (dog that detects the presence of human blood), “marked” an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been “marked” by “Eddie” (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

9 – After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

10 – It made another “marking” on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

11 – It “marked” the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

12 – Further concerning the vehicle, “Keela” “marked” the storage compartment, on the driver’s door, which held the vehicle’s key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

13 – This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.

The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs’ action and signalling, more than by any words.

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.

Martin Grime, the dogs’ instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: “Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations”; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler’s word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.

In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material’s quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE’S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)

____________________
From: "Prior Stuart"
To: "Task Portugal"
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
_________

From: Lowe, Mr J R
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart prior
Subject: Op Task - in Confidence

Stuart,

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contnbutors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John
________________________


but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests.

Previously to these indications, is the circumstance that the Parents were the last known persons who had been with Madeleine, alive and traced, a circumstance that in itself made them subject to investigation.

On the other hand, there was information, which was not confirmed afterwards, that the McCanns, while focused on stating an abduction theory, had contacted the British media (Sky News), before calling the police authorities.

Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised.

As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs’ findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code; thus the disposition from nr. 4 of article 58 (presently 5) – its new redaction was not in force yet, taking into account that they were made arguidos on the 6th of September 2009 – and on the other hand they could benefit from arguido status, with all the rights and guarantees of defence that are inherent to it, despite the stigma that is associated with it, which is techno-juridically misadjusted. In effect, the constitution and questioning as arguidos, while used to confirm indications towards the committing of crimes, are also used, with equal strength and reason, to infirm indications and to eliminate suspects.

As judicially stressed in the sentence dated 06.10.1990 by the then Judge of the Police Court of Lisbon. “The authority that directs the inquiry is not free to postpone the moment when a witness passes into arguido status (…) if diligences are being performed, which are destined to prove her imputation, that affect her personally (…)”
Colectânea de Jurisprudência, 1990, vol. IV. p.323 and following.

The constitution of Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos at that moment is nothing more that the practical fulfilment of the right to defence of those arguidos, which is to say, to ensure their concrete rights to “co-determine or conform the process’ final decision. Said rights assume consistency and effectiveness, according to the new Code, right after the moment of constitution as an arguido, and therefore, still during the inquiry and the instruction.” - Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, "Sobre os sujeitos processuais no novo Código de Processo Penal" Jornadas de Processo Penal, CEJ, Livraria Almedina, 1988, p 28.

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act.

[19] Cf. digital drives contained in Appendix III
[20] Page 2271
[21] Questioning file on page 3899"


in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4628-4636 (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

Lost in Translation: Confessions and lies

 by Jennifer Leighfield, Editorial Manager


I HAVE just finished reading the book by Gonçalo Amaral, the former chief of Portugal’s Judicial Police, who was taken off the McCann case. Some time back it was reported that the McCann family had sued Amaral and the publisher. Both responded they would be more than happy to face them in court.

The book, which has not yet been officially translated into English, is well-written, and in less than 200 pages, describes the investigation, without revealing anything that could jeopardize the case. Although there isn’t much that hasn’t been reported in the press, it is interesting to hear it directly from someone so deeply involved. His suspicions, which he presents as nothing more than that, of the McCann’s involvement in their daughter’s disappearance, are not surprising when we read of the evidence he is faced with, and there must be so much more he cannot speak of.

But what is his background? Amaral studied criminology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology and law, but what interests him most, he claims, is studying people. He is a devout Catholic, and has three daughters; the youngest Maddie’s age. While in charge of the investigation, he paid little attention to criticism against him, and went about his job with the professionalism he has been praised for since he joined the police force in the 1980s. His main preoccupation was the fact that requests for help from the British police were being either ignored or intercepted at a very high level, so that little information about the McCanns or their friends was available to the Portuguese.

During his career, it seems cases involving little girls have surrounded him, so much so that there have been rumours that he belongs to a supposed group of police who kidnap children to sell them to paedophile networks for extra income. From the outset, Amaral was wary of the McCanns, especially as he is convinced that when a family creates a media circus around the disappearance of a child, they usually know more than they let on. As he told his men, in 90 per cent of disappearances the parents are involved, in most of the remaining cases, relatives and close friends, and in a very small number, total strangers. He was worried. If Maddie had been taken, her parents had signed her death sentence.

Publishing her photo would mean that if a network of paedophiles did have her, they would not risk trying to sell her and would probably get rid of her. He has had experience in this type of case. On September 12, 2004, a nine-year-old girl named Joana Cipriano was reported missing from a small village in Portugal and the whole of Portugal went to look for her. Amaral was in charge of the case, and concluded in a report that Joana had caught her mother and uncle having sex and, afraid she would tell, they killed her, cut her body in pieces and hid it.

Her remains were never found, but her mother and uncle were sentenced to 20 years in prison. However, Amaral was in the press then, accused by Joana’s mother of beating a confession out of her. After she was sentenced, she failed to identify her alleged attackers and withdrew the complaint. Amaral believes that if Maddie really is dead, her body will not be found either. When asked if he thought Kate McCann was responsible for her death, he responded, “I don’t know if she’s guilty or innocent, but I wouldn’t like to have her as my mother.”


source: Euro Weekly News


Critic on the above article

The article written by Jennifer Leighfield at first glance seems to flatter Gonçalo Amaral, however it has so many incorrect and unsubstantiated rumours that one has to wonder where did the journalist got her informations? As matter of fact one has even to question if the author of this article intends to subliminally produce the idea that Gonçalo Amaral is somewhat connected to a paedophile ring of corrupted cops: "(...)so much so that there have been rumours that he belongs to a supposed group of police who kidnap children to sell them to paedophile networks for extra income", a serious allegation for a professional journalist to make since is based on malicious gossip, as the author herself states in the 3 arguidos forum "I am not spreading rumours about Amaral, but there are many websites (...) who speak of a group of officers belonging to the Portuguese police who actually collaborate with paedophile groups and 'help' the girls to disappear".

From here on we understand that Jennifer decided to use a bit of a creative license to write the article.

Jennifer writes for example, "During his career, it seems cases involving little girls have surrounded him" - as far as we know Gonçalo Amaral was the Judiciary Police Coordinator of two cases of missing children: the Joana Cipriano Case and the Madeleine McCann case; in his career Gonçalo Amaral has dealt mainly with drug related crimes, homicides, and other crimes who belong specifically to the sphere of expertise of the Judiciary Police.

While reading the rest of the article it was uncanny the similitudes we could find with an article written by Aníbal Malvar, a journalist from the Spanish El Mundo Newspaper who in 28 April 2008 was debunked and exposed in this blog as a plagiarizer, who tried to pass off excerpts of a fictional book as a real interview he had made to some Judiciary Police officers, including a "creative statement" given by Gonçalo Amaral - this was followed in the next days by some Portuguese and British media, it even got a mention by Arcadi Espada, El Mundo journalist, University professor of Journalism, and blogger at El Mundo Por Dentro, a blog which criticizes the El Mundo newspaper. Paulo Santos, the lawyer who represented Gonçalo Amaral at the time said ''Those statements are a complete lie. Gonçalo Amaral never told the journalist anything. They seem to be citations that were collected from the book about Maddie, which was written by former PJ inspector Paulo Cristóvão".

An example of the evident pasting by Jennifer is this sentence "I don’t know if she’s guilty or innocent, but I wouldn’t like to have her as my mother" attributed to Gonçalo Amaral [in the original article by Anibal in Spanish "Yo no sé si es culpable o inocente, pero no me gustaría que fuera mi madre"] which was later on refuted as being a complete fabrication by the Spanish journalist.

So, now that we know where Jennifer pasted her article from and what her sources are it's time to consider this Portuguese proverb - Not everything that glitters is gold!

Open Letter - Doubts on the McCann Process

The following is an email to a reader and member of the 3 arguidos who had some doubts regarding the Portuguese Penal Code, the McCann's process archival and the feasibility of the request to reopen the process by the former arguidos if they had wished to do so. I believe that it can help to elucidate some doubts, so I'll post here as well.

«I'll try to answer your questions, I just read again the Portuguese Penal Code [the articles 236 up to 310] and asked Astro as well to help me in giving you the correct answers, it's a bit hard to explain legal stuff since I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, there are two distinctions to keep in mind, the request to reopen the process and the request to open the instruction phase.

The reopening of the case by the Public Ministry, with the subsequent investigation by the PJ [the criminal investigative police] only happens if new evidence is considered by the Public Ministry to be relevant. This can happen at any given moment until the process prescribes, generally after 15 years, and if the case is considered to be of homicide, after 20 years. Any person can request the reopening of the process, thus, the arguido, a denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, an assistant to the process, an anonymous denouncer, anyone can request the opening of the process.

The opening of the instruction phase is something different in the procedures and also in the end result; this type of reopening has to be requested in the legal time limit of 20 days after the archival of the process. Here I'll quote extracts of Astros' explanation: “After being notified of either the accusation or the archiving, the arguido or the assistant may request, within 20 days, the opening of the instruction phase, which will then be conducted by the instruction judge. (…) Then, the instruction judge holds an autonomous investigation, with any instruction actions that he finds necessary, and is obliged to hold an instruction debate, where all parties - the Public Ministry, the arguido, his defendant, the assistant and his lawyer - take part. (…) The instruction phase lasts for a maximum of two months if there are any arguidos under arrest, or four months otherwise. At the end of the instruction phase, the judge will either pronounce the arguido for trial, or not.”

The second alternative that Rogério Alves mentions "(...)“I’m analyzing the process to see if it is worthwhile to give some impulse to the process, that is, to request the opening of the instruction or to advance to a hierarchical superior at the Public Ministry" - is another possibility presented under article 278 of the CPP, translated below.

Article 278 - Hierarchical Intervention

1) During the period of 20 days counting after the date when the opening of the instruction can no longer be requested, the immediate hierarchical superior of the magistrate from the Public Ministry may, by is own initiative or by request of the assistant or of the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, determine that the accusation is formally made or that the investigation proceeds, indicating, in this case, which are the diligences to be made as well as the deadline within which they must be completed.

2) The assistant and the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant may, if they opt not to request the opening of the instruction, appeal for a hierarchical intervention, according to the previous article, within the deadline foreseen for said appeal.

Then we have the next article which explains what happens in the case if the legal option to ask for the reopening of the inquest is not made by any of the parties within the deadline foreseen in the CPP, which I will also translate.

Article 279 - Reopening of the Inquest

1) After the ending of the deadline which is referred in the previous article, the inquest can only be reopened if new elements of proof emerge which invalidate the fundamentation argued by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch.

2) From the dispatch of the Public Ministry which delays or refuses the reopening of the inquest there is a complaint made to the immediate hierarchical superior. [This part means that one can appeal to, and make a complaint of the Public Ministry's decision to archive the inquest, but only if the number one of this article is established]

The McCanns could have stopped the archival at any moment up to the end of the deadlines, or even force the reopening of the process now, if for example they requested to do the legal reconstruction with their friends, or if Kate McCann answered the 48 questions that were never answered, or if any of their Tapas friends requested to do new statements, etc.. Those would be evidences that would oblige the Public Ministry to reopen the process - which means that if the McCanns really wanted the process and the legal investigation into the disappearance [presumed death] of their daughter to continue, they could do it.

If we compare the McCanns to the vast majority of parents whose children are missing or were abducted, it's bizarre, to say the least, that the McCanns don't use what is their legal right to force the authorities of the Country where their daughter was allegedly abducted, to continue the investigation.

I imagine that many parents in the state that the McCanns allege to be, would jump immediately at every single opportunity to keep their children's case "alive". In the McCann case, unfortunately, we only see the parents promoting a non charitable fund, t-shirts, plastic bracelets and using the media to excuse [and also obstruct the investigation…] themselves of their culpability of leaving toddlers alone, an indefensible and negligent act.»


The CPP code can be downloaded in full here [PDF document]

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

C - The suspicions about Robert Murat and his constitution as an arguido

Apart from the suspect being seen on the location of the occurrence and speaking about the event with the persons that were around there, namely journalists, his name was on the list of interpreters, and he made a commitment as such (Commitment Act on page 1577).

On the 6th of May 2007 the PJ received a fax from the Leicestershire Constabulary (page 307) in which this police transmits that a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, Lori Campbell, had communicated that certain behaviours of the suspect compromised him, namely by giving his name without any information about himself, by having conflicting relationships with several people and being worried when a photograph of him was taken for that newspaper, which led the English Police to request that he was relieved of interpreter duties.

The files further contain:

- On page 328 a report of an external diligence tells that, on the 4th of May 2007, the suspect offered his assistance to the GNR to help with anything that was needed, namely as an interpreter;

- That on the 6th of May 2007 the signatory of said report was approached by several journalists indicating the arguido with suspicious behaviours, in the sense of what was already explained concerning the fax;

- On page 461 an anonymous information, where a telephone call from a woman who tries to incriminate the suspect is reported, although no facts were presented;

- On page 957 there is a report about an external diligence that resulted from a trip to the location where, according to witness Jane Tanner, she saw, a short time before she knew that Madeleine had disappeared, a man carrying a child walking into the direction of the suspect’s house, Casa Liliana;

- On page 960 the service information according to which the curiosity that the arguido showed in the investigation was found strange.

In order to be able to be heard about the suspicions that befell him, Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 [9], having declared that he has already served as an interpreter during process actions, that he has a daughter that was born in 2002 and lives in England where he visits her several times, having returned to Portugal on the 1st of May 2007 and that he rented a vehicle because his mother uses the VW at the stand that was put up in Luz to support Madeleine’s family.

That on the 3rd of May 2007 he didn’t leave home in the evening, having heard a siren at around 10.30 p.m. or shortly afterwards, a fact that he commented with his Mother, but didn’t come outside to investigate.

On Friday the 4th of May 2007 he was alerted by his Mother to the disappearance of a child in Praia da Luz, according to news on “Sky News”, having then walked to the location of the disappearance, where he was introduced to the child’s parents, offering his assistance.

That afterwards, with a GNR officer and a member of the resort staff, they entered several apartments, with the purpose of locating the child. That before this occasion, he didn’t know the inside of the “Ocean Club”.

He further clarified, because he was asked, that he was the main suspect among the journalists, therefore from that moment onwards he refused speaking to them, including in that refusal the mention of his full name, or allowing to be photographed.

He further clarified that he has nothing to do with the child’s disappearance, and knows nothing about this case, explaining that he asked an English policeman about the manner in which the British police was able to trace a person in a given location and at a given time and if the police could trace him at home through his mobile phone, but he did this to prove his innocence.

On the other hand, rather unpleasant references were made to his personality, as was the case of a witness that has known him for many years [10].

It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O’Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the “Ocean Club” resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

During the confrontation that took place on the 11th of July 2007 [11], these witnesses, just like the arguido, maintained their previous positions.

Nevertheless, the positions are different regarding the witnesses that were heard, because while Sílvia Baptista [12] admits it is very possible that a person with the arguido’s characteristics was helping to search for Madeleine on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses, Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque [13], among other officers, mentioned that they didn’t see the arguido on location that night.

Facing the suspicions that befell the arguido, considering what he seemed to transmit and the type of occurrence that was under investigation, whose real scope was not, like now, delimitated, and in order to confirm them or to set them aside, taking into account that they were indispensable for the continuation of the investigation, searches were made at the arguido’s house as well as at his mother’s and telephone interceptions were carried out, both on the arguido and on those with whom he directly or indirectly interacted, namely with whom he met on an almost daily basis and with whom he kept telephone contact.

Searches were also performed at the location where he started to spend the night at, the Quinta Salsalito, which is a vast place of difficult control, therefore the search on this location might permit the collection of elements that are reputed to be of high interest for the investigation, but those searches had no effect whatsoever.

During the searches at Casa Liliana, two rain water cisterns near the pool were checked, the missing minor’s trail was searched by the GNR’s sniffer dog team, both inside and outside the residence, searches were equally performed inside three vehicles that were parked there, and the matching photographic report was carried out by members of the CSS (Crime Scene Sector), experts from the Criminal Police Lab, but nothing positive was attained.

From the forensics exams to Serghei Malinka’s, Robert Murat’s and Jenny Murat’s computers [14], it could be concluded that the contents of the examined drives produced nothing that could compromise them as participants in any illicit activity, namely the one that was being investigated in the process.

From the interception of communications, the telephone contact record of arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luís António and Sergey Malinka; records and maps of the telephone calls that were made from public telephone booths in Praia da Luz nothing flows that could have any indicative use.

From the analysis that was performed on every contact, from the 1st of November 2006 until the 19th of July 2007, by Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luís António, results that Robert and Malinka, only contacted each other eight times [15], that there were no relations between Sergey and Luís António, nor between him and Robert, nor between either of them and the Murat residence, between the 30th of April and the 4th of May 2007 [16].

Searches were performed at the residence, and the subsoil was explored with a Geo-radar (GPR), - which consists of a radar antenna that transmits electromagnetic energy in the shape of an impulse within frequencies between 25 MHz and 1 GHz. Those impulses are partially reflected through sub-superficial geological structures, captured with a receiving antenna and marked as a time record of continuous bi-directional path which is presented as a pseudo-geological record section – e these technical searches neither found nor marked anything of interest to the files [17].

Searches were equally performed with the use of sniffer dog support, with the dog Eddie that detects cadaver odour, and it was verified that the dog signalled nothing [18]. The examination of the targets’ vehicles (arguido and people who interacted with him), nothing was found.

Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms – and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child’s disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.

[9] Notice on page 1169
[10] Questioning report on page 1288
[11] Confrontation report on pages 1957/1958
[12] Questioning report on page 1290
[13] Questioning report on pages 1338, 1328, 1330 and 1349
[14] Forensics – Appendix-1, Vol. IV, V and VI
[15] Analyses report, annex 87
[16] Analyses report, annexes 82 to 86
[17] Search and Apprehension report on page 2130-v
[18] Dog Inspection report, page 2131"


in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4645 (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

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

G – Appreciation and Juridical Frame

From the analysis of the elements that are part of the files, this first conclusion emerges immediately:

When the GNR officers arrived on location, several people had already touched the window and entered Madeleine’s and her siblings’ bedroom, and later on, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to collect traces, the space had already been rummaged through and contaminated due to the entrance of all of those people and to the fact that everything had been touched, thus rendering inviable, right away, the collection of important elements for the investigation.

In the drama of the moment, nobody – parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel – was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person’s responsibility to preserve crime scenes – apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code – thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child’s mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.

It was only when members of the Polícia Judiciária arrived, at around 0.10 a.m., following a request for their presence, that measures were taken to make the collection of residues and the preservation of the event’s location possible.

It further results from the files that, despite the fact that the ‘Ocean Club’ resort’s crèche offers a complimentary dining out service from 7.30 until 11.30 p.m., at an additional cost, apart from another babysitting service with no defined schedule [22], the members of this group of friends with children chose to do their own checking on the children during dinner. During a first phase, each couple took turns among them to check on their own children, and as the days went by, they started to ask one of the members that got up, to listen whether there was any noise in their apartment, as Jane Tanner mentioned during questioning on the 10th of May 2007 [23], with the exception of the David and Fiona Payne couple, who possessed an intercom system to watch over their children Lilly Payne and Scarlett Payne.

It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he “noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group’s members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to “check” on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club…”

Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.

In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.

It is so much so that Kate herself mentions that on Thursday morning, the 3rd, Madeleine questioned her about the reason why they didn’t come to her room, given the fact that the twins had cried [26], as was also mentioned by Gerald.

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block’s first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn’t check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.

If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.

It is further added that Kate, after noticing that the bedroom’s window and shutters were open and Madeleine was missing, headed for the Tapas Restaurant asking for help, suggesting that an abduction had taken place, it is incomprehensible, or only comprehensible in a state of panic, that she once again abandoned, this time only the twins, while the Tapas was close enough to shout for help, - although Matthew Oldfield refers [27] that from the restaurant table there was very tenuous visibility, taking into account the distance at which they were from the apartments, and vision being hampered by a transparent linoleum that covered the area where the tables were located.

Finally, the fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment “the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards” [28], remains unexplained. Nevertheless, a Team from the Criminal Police Lab, on the 4th of May 2007, eliminated the existence of any product that could have been ministered to the missing child, in order to maintain her in a state of unconsciousness, as well as the presence of blood traces.

On the other hand, it also results that none of the parents was inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared and that their behaviour until the moment of the disappearance was perfectly normal, not manifesting any kind of preoccupation or any other similar feeling, contrary to what happened after that moment when the state of panic was notorious.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the ‘Ocean Club’, the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not – despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

“1 – Whoever places another person’s life in danger,

a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or

b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;”

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim’s life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim’s behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn’t even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty – the disappearance of Madeleine – due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal."


in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4645 (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

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

One year ago today, the Madeleine McCann case investigation was archived, pending 'better' evidence. The three arguidos in the process, Robert Murat, Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, were relieved of their arguido status.

The archiving dispatch, authored by public prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, and joint prosecutor João Melchior Gomes, is the document that analyses the case investigation and justifies the decision to archive the process.

I personally respect, but disagree with the decision that was made on the case one year ago. The archiving dispatch itself is riddled with contradiction and recognises the very significant amount of aspects of this case that remain unclear. How any case can be archived, sustained on a 57-page document that lists nothing but doubts, can only be justified by the need to comply with the new Penal Process Code, which was enforced on the 15th of September 2007. Under the new code, any judicial process starts a countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months, with two possible extensions of 3 months each, there has to be a decision to either accuse, or archive the case.

Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 - 4 months before the new Penal Process Code was enforced -, and 14 months later, the case was archived, caught in time between two different legal frames.

Nobody wants to believe that Justice could be anything but blind. Personally, I don’t want to believe that this case was archived due to a technicality, at a time when there were still diligences to be made, leads to be followed, important details to be clarified.

But that is precisely what the archiving dispatch tells us.

Today, we start the publication of translated excerpts of the document. The full text will be made available when finished

E – About the Interest of the Reconstitution

Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos’ and witnesses’ statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the “reconstitution of the fact”, a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:

1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;

3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;

5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child’s] parents.

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."

in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (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

Joana Case Revision: Leandro Silva's Statement & Comments

These are my personal comments on the statement signed by Leandro Silva, that is one of the main documents included in the recent request for extraordinary revision of the Joana case trial, which has been requested by Marcos Aragão Correia, legal representative of Leonor Cipriano - a document that the illustrious lawyer refers to as revealing "very important new facts". Here are the facts:

"Statement I the undersigned António Leandro David Silva, residing at Rua Evangelista Rosado Nunes, 14/1 Andar, Mexilhoeira Grande, 8500 Portimão, hereby declare and swear over my honour that everything that I hence describe is true: I was the partner of the mother of missing girl Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro, Leonor Maria Domingos Cipriano, having lived with both for approximately six years. Therefore I know them perfectly well and know that Leonor was incapable to beating her children, something that she never did during all of these years nor do I believe that she would ever be capable of doing it, because Leonor never not once became violent or aggressive, because that was not her temperament.”

From the clinical psychiatric evaluation report during the Joana case trial: “The arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] manifests socially deviant behaviour at the level of norms, values and responsibilities, emotional instability and difficulties in expressing frustration, while her socialisation was marked by immature, superficial and narcissistic interpersonal relationships, where characteristics of manipulation (to satisfy her own needs) and aggressiveness (of mainly sadistic tonality) stand out, while in her personality the absence of empathy and the insensibility are salient, leading to the arguida’s despise for other people’s rights, needs and sentiments, directing her aggressiveness towards them, with a weak capacity to feel remorse. She possesses a borderline personality with anti-social/psychopathic, narcissistic and schizoid traits”.

“When Joana our daughter did anything that Leonor thought was not well done, the mother my companion waited for me to come home from work and spoke to me for me to have a word with Joana and if necessary to give her a punishment like not watching television or going to her room to do her homework.”

Unfortunately, doing homework is considered ‘punishment’ in this family.

“Joana liked her mother very much, and always spoke very well about her. In no way do I believe that Leonor hit Joana even once, and much less that she slapped her to death. In no way do I believe that Leonor my partner had sexual intercourse with anyone except me since the first moment that we met, much less with her brother João Manuel Domingos Cipriano.”

This is one of the facts that the court which tried João and Leonor Cipriano considered that had not been proved. Why the need to insist on this aspect of the case, which was duly excluded from the facts, except to reinforce a suggestion of malicious intentions from the PJ against the arguidos? It should also be noted that Mr Silva's own stepfather testified in court, during the Joana case trial, that João Cipriano told him he was having sexual intercourse with Leonor Cipriano and that they had killed the little girl.

“I can say that I believe one hundred percent in his confession on the 18th of May of this year, in which he finally admitted that he was the sole person responsible for Joana’s disappearance by trying to sell her. Apart from boasting over having tried to kill a man, João also used to present violent and aggressive attitudes whenever he had no money for drugs and whenever someone said something that he didn’t like very much. That story of sexual relationships and of Leonor having killed Joana with João was made up by the Polícia Judiciária and both were forced to say exactly the same so the Police could show they had done their work at any expense.”

The fact that João Cipriano voluntarily and in the presence of his legal representative took part in a reconstruction of the events – a reconstruction that made it possible for the investigators and forensics experts to verify his detailed descriptions’ veracity – is cautiously avoided, and for good reason. The fact that none of the arguidos made a statement in court, thus rendering any previous confessions useless and invalid, is also a fact. Why would the PJ 'beat confessions out of suspects' if those confessions were clearly devoid of any legal utility? On the other hand, Dr Marcos Aragão Correia makes no secret about the fact that he obtained João Cipriano's latest 'confession' through coercion.

“I was aggressed several times at the PJ in Faro by Inspector Gonçalo Amaral and by others that I cannot determine, who over the course of several says punched and slapped me to make me say what they wanted, and I was not condemned in trial merely because I resisted the spanking that I was a victim of.”

Mr Silva was never ‘condemned in trial’ because he never stood trial in the first place. The PJ’s suspicions that Mr Silva sexually abused Joana could never be verified, because a request to test semen found in Joana’s underwear for DNA was never carried out – it was apparently too expensive. Nevertheless, Mr Silva, knowing very well what would have been found if said DNA test had actually been made, was careful enough to offer an explanation for any traces that might be found on Joana’s panties.

“I believe that João never wanted to tell the truth about what he really did to Joana, probably due to fear of the buyers, and that if the girl’s body was discovered there would be evidence against him but not against Leonor. I can also witness that I heard the investigations’ Coordinator Inspector Gonçalo Amaral trying to turn João against Leonor telling him that if he incriminated Leonor he’d get a lower sentence because instead of just one guilty person killing it would be two and the sentence would be divided.”

João Cipriano was not a novice to crime. He had been widely taught during a previous prison sentence that without a body, there could be no conviction. Mr Cipriano may have a criminal record, but he is no idiot. ‘Divided sentences’ do not exist in Portuguese law. Coincidentally, neither do ‘plea bargains’.

“Two Polícia Judiciária inspectors took João to the toilet when I was there as well and telling him insistently to say what they had discussed, they went as far as putting words in his mouth by insisting: “you tell Leandro here how you have fucked his woman”, being that João said nothing and only after being kicked by one of the inspectors did he say that it was true. The police has always refused to investigate the many rumours that were circling in Figueira that there had been an attempt from criminals to buy the girl, invoking a high cylinder black car that circulated on that day the 12th before Joana disappeared.”

If rumours are now the base for legal proceedings, it might be interesting to recollect some of the actual local rumours at the time when Joana went missing. Those rumours would have placed the entire Cipriano family, friends and distant relatives, on the scaffold, without appeal.

“Finally I can also guarantee that on Monday the 13th of September 2004 João started saying right away that he had to leave Figueira and he looked very nervous and at the same time uninterested, really very uninterested, over what might have happened to his niece Joana. Contrary to Leonor my companion and the girl’s mother who was very sad and upset about her daughter’s disappearance, having cried several times.”

From the court ruling in the Joana case trial (proved facts): “ar) nevertheless, the arguida didn’t inform the police authorities about anything, despite there being GNR officers on duty in Figueira, because a popular fair called “Mussels Party” was taking place, and it was the third person (NN) that did it by telephone, at around 0.44 a.m. on the 13th of September, when she heard that the arguida hadn’t done so yet, and it was following said telephone call that the arguida ended up talking to GNR officers near the church in Figueira;”. Furthermore, several witnesses testified in court that on the following days, Leonor Cipriano appeared only slightly worried about her daughter's disappearance.

“Before he fled Figueira, João called me aside to speak to me alone and told me: “If your wife makes up any story I’ll come back to speak to her”. At the time when he told me this I didn’t see it as suspicious and therefore gave the sentence no importance. But now, analysing it all and Leonor’s confession and then João’s confession in May this year, I realise that João was afraid that Leonor might tell what he really did to our daughter Joana. Therefore I ask for Justice and for Leonor to be freed because she is innocent over the death of our little Joana. Portimão June-5-2009 António Leandro David Silva"

‘Our little Joana’ – from the court ruling in the Joana case trial (proved facts): “q) before arguida BB [Leonor Cipriano] moved in with her partner II [Leandro Silva], she wanted to stop having CC [Joana] under her care, and left her, at the age of 5 months, with her father, LL – with whom she had no relationship since the beginning of the pregnancy – who ended up ‘returning’ her 2 days later, and later, she once more handed her over to the father, who didn’t want to keep her; r) in September 2003, arguida BB left CC under the care of a couple of persons with alcoholism problems and with a bed-ridden child that had an infecto-contagious illness, in a house with no conditions whatsoever, for 2 or 3 weeks; s) on the first day of school for minor CC at the Primary School in Figueira, in the school year of 2003/2004, arguida BB didn’t walk the minor to school, and CC arrived with a neighbour, whom she asked for help because she couldn’t find the way;”.

A final wish: may the illustrious lawyer Dr Marcos Aragão Correia and his client, Mr Leandro Silva, earn their day in court. Every once in a while, people actually do get a lot more than they ever bargained for.

Marcos Aragão Correia launches ‘support site’ for Leonor, Leandro, Kate and Gerry

A new website was launched this week, dedicated to the "memory of Joana Isabel Cipriano Guerreiro and Madeleine Beth McCann”. The website, which is owned by Marcos Aragão Correia, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano and Leandro Silva, traces parallels between the cases of missing children Joana and Madeleine, stating that both girls “continue to protect” their parents even though “very far away from here”.

Leaving no doubts concerning what Mr Correia believes happened to both Joana and Madeleine – “abused and murdered” -, said website dedicates less energy and resources to ‘supporting’ the two couples than to attacking Gonçalo Amaral, the former Polícia Judiciária Coordinator who led the Criminal Investigation Department of Portimão during the investigation into the Joana case, and during part of the investigation into the Madeleine case.

The opening statement by the website’s author, which mentions that “Gonçalo Amaral is one of those evil, very evil persons”, is written in an almost childish language, describing Leonor, Leandro, Kate and Gerry as “mommies and daddies, so beloved by their little girls”.

The insistent comparison between the two couples is only briefly interrupted to state that the McCanns, English citizens with "money, social standing and good connections", were spared Mr Amaral's "Macchiavellian action against the rights of those children and their parents", contrary to what happened to Joana's family.

An ‘open letter’ to Gonçalo Amaral, authored by Mr Correia, calls the former inspector “shameless”, and states that he, Marcos Aragão Correia, does not “support criminal presidents like the case of your [Amaral's] idol, George W Bush”. Furthermore, Mr Correia proclaims his belief in “Spirituality” and in communication with the dead, stating that the late Pope John Paul II believed in the same principles.

Mr Correia claims that, contrary to Gonçalo Amaral, he wants the missing children to be found, thus “unmasking the hideous, false Satanist ‘need’ to massively implant microchips in Human Beings”.

The letter finishes with the ‘promise’ that until Gonçalo Amaral “gives peace to the souls of these girls and their parents”, he will be relentlessly persecuted by Mr Correia, “in the name of Peace and Justice”.

Other areas of the website reproduce assorted legal documents that have been reported in the Portuguese press, namely Leonor Cipriano’s request for an extraordinary revision of the trial that condemned her over the murder of her daughter Joana, as well as 4 photos of each of the two "abused and murdered" girls.

In summary, a website that proclaims that "the mommies and daddies of Joana and Madeleine are not alone", and that those who support Leonor, Leandro, Kate and Gerry are part of "the front line that defends the implantation on Earth of a truly fair, charitable society, based exclusively on the loving Moral that constitutes the happiness of all fortunate planets" - it is not in vain that the website's title is "The little girls that came from the stars".

A mixture of esotericism and interplanetary spiritualism with the matching dose of political conspiracy theories, in what essentially seems to be nothing more than another excuse for the relentless demonization of Gonçalo Amaral, to a degree of almost insanity that drives the website’s author to accuse the former PJ coordinator of “opening his mouth that is filled with rot and bad breath to continue to unload the falseness, the lies, the hatred and the violence that characterise his poor beastly heart”.

Time will tell what ties actually bind the case of Joana to the case of Madeleine. Time will tell to what degree the comparison between Leonor and Leandro, and Kate and Gerry is adequate.

And time will, no doubt, tell who exactly it is that spreads lies, hatred and violence, in a self-admittedly persecutory exercise under the pretence of seeking Truth and Justice for two little girls who deserved so much better.

Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part IV

"Apart from the reconstitution files and the witness and forensics evidence that is related to them and which corroborates them, it should be further stressed that several of the questioned witnesses mention the arguida’s [Leonor Cipriano] lack of concern over the minor’s “disappearance”, accepting it without despair or anguish. It should be noted that the arguida only goes to “search” the minor at the café between 10.30 and 11 p.m. (according to witness NN), more than two hours after CC [Joana] was there; she contacts nobody else to ask about CC’s whereabouts and it is not through her initiative that the GNR is contacted. It is further underlined that the arguida bought petrol and a steel scrub-cloth (page 876), with which she washed the house on the 18th of September, and witnesses CC3 and CC4 mentioned that the cleanliness of the house’s floor and walls contrasted with the state of dirtiness of the rest of the house, namely as far as the dishes and clothes were concerned – this kind of cleanliness, under these circumstances, is only compatible with the desire to eliminate traces of blood that could have remained in the house.

We can conclude that the representation that was made by arguido AA [João Cipriano] in the reconstitution files from page 273 onwards, concerning the outcome of the aggressions, results from the manner how those were produced, with them successively applying violence that revealed itself apt to produce hits of the victim’s head against the wall, therefore in all lights they could not have avoided knowing the outcome. The manner in which the quartering of the cadaver is performed, patent in the reconstitution file from page 2100 onwards, leaves no doubt concerning the direct intent of the action and also about its motive.

This is enough to fundament the Court’s conviction concerning the correspondent facts.

It is further added, and concerning the same factuality, that witness DD1 (II’s stepfather) stated that arguido AA confided to him that “they had killed the girl”. Witness II [Leandro Silva] also mentioned that BB [Leonor Cipriano] told him that “she had slapped CC and AA finished killing her” (later on, arguida BB tried to justify the statement by telling II that she had only said that because the PJ had hit her, but on the day that she mentioned the aggression against CC, BB and II were alone and he did not see any marks on BB that she had been beaten, and there was no motive for her to make such a statement to her partner if it wasn’t true). Of course these witnesses’ statements cannot be seen as a confession from the arguidos – who did not confess, but rather opted for silence during the court session – but that doesn’t mean that they cannot simply not be valued by the court.

Article 129 of the Penal Process Code establishes the prohibition, in principle, of testimony that doesn’t verse on concrete facts and direct knowledge, particularly on “hearsay testimony”, hence the determination of the need to confirm the indirect deposition, with the consequent hearing of the persons “who one heard saying”. Only after such confirmation may such an indirect deposition become effective as a means of evidence, but in this case the confirmation would have to be made by the arguidos and they chose not to make any statements nor can they be forced to make them. According to number 7 of article 356 of the Penal Process Code, which number 2 of article 357 points to, it is not allowed to reproduce the contents of statements whose reading is not authorised, with a recourse to the person who collected them, which is well understood, but the witness statement of a person who is not a criminal police member and who didn't collect statements, but merely asked and heard the reply, is a different thing

Alas, our superior courts have already decided that: “the hearsay evidence, when reported to statements that were produced by the arguido outside of the process, is subject to free appreciation by the court (Ac. da RC de 6.10.1988, BMJ 380, p. 552); “if the witness reports having heard the confession from the arguido himself, such does not configure indirect deposition under terms and for the effect of article 129 of the Penal Process Code (Ac. STJ de 15.11.2000, proc. 2551/2000-3ª); “the hearsay evidence, when reported to statements that were produced by the arguido outside of the process, can be subject to free appreciation by the court when the arguido is present during court session, therefore, with the full possibility of contradicting it, which is to say, to defend himself” – in this case, the arguido had chosen to remain silent during court session (Ac. RC de 18.6.2003, CJ 2003, tomo III, p. 51).

The Constitutional court has also decided already that “article 129 1 (in conjugation with article 128 1) of the Penal Process Code, interpreted in the sense that the court may freely value the indirect depositions of witnesses that report conversations held with a co-arguido who, when called to depose, refuses to do so in the exercise of his right to silence, does not impact the arguido’s defence right in an intolerable, disproportionate or manifestly oppressive manner. Therefore, as there is no inadmissible shortening of the arguido’s defence right, that form is not unconstitutional” (Ac. Trib. Constitucional nº 440/99 de 8.7, proc. 268/99, DR II Série de 9.11.1999).

With the complete set of indicative evidence conjoined, the Court has created the conviction that CC is dead (the appearance of the body is unnecessary given the Court’s conviction that the arguidos have made it disappear in the manner that has been described) and that it was the arguidos who practised the facts. All the established elements, appreciated in conjunction, have set aside any reasonable doubt and have created the full conviction that both arguidos have committed the facts in the manner that is described in this ruling."



in Supreme Court of Justice - ruling SJ200604200003635, 20.04.2006



previous:
Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part I - Fundamentation
Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part II
Supreme Court of Justice - 'Joana case' ruling - Part III

The Wrong Lawyer was Suspended

José Maria Martins [blog], defense lawyer of Carlos Silvino (Bibi), the main arguido in the Casa Pia process, was condemned by the Superior Council of Deontology of Lisbon of the Portuguese Lawyers Order Association [Ordem dos Advogados - OA] to a 3 year suspended sentence. At the origin of the process is the violation of several articles of the Order's Code of Conduct. José Maria Martins is accused of ignoring conflict of interests situations, of lack of honesty and the violation of trust of partners and clients, among other accusations.

The accused, who did not want to advance too many details (since he is appealing the Order decision), just said that " the Lawyers Order Association serves the interests of power", it is as well the same institution who "protects the Prime Minister and the paedophiles", he concluded.

In declarations attributed to the polemical lawyer, the Council referred , that in the internet José Maria Martins, also included the former head of the Bar Rogério Alves as "entangled in a web of important people who surround him in the LOA". Rogério Alves , in the words of the lawyer, would be "damaging the lawyers and magistrates" and that "he could aspire to become a minister for the PSD [Social Democrats]".

(extract source from magazine i)

Meanwhile the current head of the LOA's bar, the infamous Marinho Pinto and the President of the Order's Deontological Council, Pedro Raposo declined to comment on José Maria Martins suspension. Marinho Pinto said to the news Agency Lusa that he does not comment on disciplinary processes [he should at least comment on his own Order processes]. Pedro Raposo said that he did not want to comment on the case since José Maria Martins presented an appeal to the decision. (in DN)

This blog however still continues to ask to the Portuguese Lawyers Order Association and to the Superior Council of Deontology of Lisbon if the Lawyer José Maria Martins was suspended because he breached the Code, why wasn't Marcos Aragão Correia?

As we have previously explained here Marcos Aragão Correia, the lawyer has revealed to the Portuguese Media that he visited João Cipriano in prison and in order to force a confession in writing, Aragão Correia lied, pressured and bluffed João Cipriano stating that "some people" wanted him dead, and if he didn't sign the confession that he tried to sell Joana Cipriano he would be murdered in prison.

Just this fact alone, should be an evident proof to the LOA and to the Deontological Council that the lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia does not respect the Code of Conduct nor his colleagues. Along with various breaches of the Code, some of them made visible in Aragão Correia media appearances, the fact that he lied and exerted psychological pressure to get a signed confession is enough reason to suspend Aragão Correia from the continuing mockery of the Portuguese Justice System.

If the LOA and the Council have forgotten their own Code of Conduct [Estatuto da Ordem dos Advogados - PDF], here is a small reminder of the Chapter I, General Principles, under Title III - Professional Deontology, Article 83.

1) The Lawyer is indispensable to the administration of Justice, and, as such, he has to have a public and professional behaviour adequated to the dignity and the functions that he exercises, obliging always with punctiliousness and scrupulousness the duties presented in the Code, and all that the law, the practice, customs and professional traditions impose on him.

2) Honesty, integrity, correctness, loyalty, courtesy and sincerity are professional obligations.

I would also advise the LOA to re-read again Article 85 - 2 a), g) and h); Article 86 - a), g) and h); Article 87 - 1- a). e), and 3); Article 88 - 1), 2) ; Article 89 - 4 a), d) and f) ; [and I could go on and on citing various articles] all the mentioned articles were breached one time or another by the Lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia and can be fundamented in videos, media interviews and articles widely available in the internet.

A final word about Marinho Pinto, Marinho Pinto represents the mainstream 'populist voice' filled with rhetorical demagogy and 'catch-phrases', blaming everyone, attacking on the right and on the left, from journalists to the government opposition without officially accusing anyone just for the sake of being 'populist', polemical, a man with 'brass balls'.

Well, Mr. Marinho Pinto shames the Order, in fact his 'populist' style is a danger to Justice, to the serious Justice, not the one that he plays in the media, like his disciple, Marcos Aragão Correia.




Related: Money Bytes: Marcos Aragão Correia, Public Ministry, Portuguese Bar Association versus Gonçalo Amaral

Justice:‭ ‬Leonor Cipriano’s lawyer suspended,‭ ‬targeted with disciplinary process by the Lawyers‭’ ‬Order

Leonor Cipriano’s lawyer confesses to lying to obtain a confession

European Economic and Social Committee to take stand in protection of children from travelling sex offenders

EESC to take determined stand in protection of children from travelling sex offenders
European Economic and Social Committee press release via Europa Press Rapid

Two months after a broad public hearing on the issue, on 15 July 2009 the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) will vote to adopt an opinion calling for a binding European strategy for the protection of children from travelling sex offenders. The opinion will be presented in a press breakfast in the Jacques Delors building of the EESC at 09:00 on Wednesday morning.

The EESC initiative, set out in its opinion by  Madi Sharma [Rapporteur of opinion TEN/343, EESC Member (Group I, UK)] , includes a series of proposals in an effort to urge EU institutions to adopt a comprehensive European strategy for the protection of children from travelling sex offenders. According to the draft opinion, it is imperative that sex offenders do not remain the responsibility of foreign jurisdictions. Repeat offenders often stay in the country where they have offended or travel to other countries to avoid detection. As a result, European authorities are unaware when an abuser comes into Europe, a situation that presents an increased risk to European children.

Highlighting the fact that the sexual abuse of children through travel is part of a well established lucrative global sex industry, the EESC will put forward a host of measures that amount to a strengthened child-focused approach. These include the establishment of international partnerships for police cooperation and the deportation of offenders, barring sex offenders from working overseas, and the provision of mechanisms for education for the public and counselling for victims.

In addition to the proposed measures, the EESC is calling on all EU Member States to ratify the relevant Council of Europe Convention, to prove their commitment to the protection of children globally.

Press Breakfast

M s Madi Sharma, President Mario Sepi and Lucien Stöpler of Terre des Hommes will present and discuss the EESC opinion and the EESC's proposed new ethical travel policy.
Date : Wednesday 15 July 2009, 9 a.m. – 10 a.m.
Place : VIP salon 4+5, 1 st floor, Jacques Delors Building, 99 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels

For more details, please contact:
Barbara Gessler at the EESC Press Office,
99 rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels
Tel.: +32 2 546 9396; Mobile: +32 475 75 32 02
Email: press@eesc.europa.eu
Website: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/ 


The previous public hearing on 6 May 2009 focused:

The key challenge of this public hearing is to reinforce employers' awareness of this issue, which could be achieved by putting into place a European project: "Europe Against the Sexual Exploitation of Children". For European employers in particular, fighting against child prostitution, child pornography and trafficking of children for sexual purposes is being gradually perceived as a matter for corporate social responsibility.

EU authorities, the Member States, the travel and tourism industry and European NGOs are all increasingly concerned about the rise in child sexual exploitation inside and outside the EU, together with the increase in activity and geographical expansion. Joint strategies and further actions focusing on prevention and penalties must be developed to combat this problem.

Europe protecting children from sex tourism – main conclusions of the public hearing at the EESC  - PDF Document

Updated on the 15th July

EESC opinion on the protection of children who are at risk of abuse from travelling sex offenders

On 15 July 2009 at the plenary session the European Economic and Social Committe adopted an opinion by Rapporteur Madi Sharma (Group I – Employers –UK), calling for a binding European strategy for the protection of children from travelling sex offenders. Highlighting the fact that the sexual abuse of children through travel is part of a well established lucrative global sex industry, the EESC puts forward a host of measures that amount to a strengthened child-focused approach. In addition to the proposed measures, the EESC puts forward a new ethical travel policy and calls on all EU Member States to ratify the relevant Council of Europe Convention, to prove their commitment to the protection of children globally. Watch Madi Sharma's presentation.

video to follow

Transcript

"This is a report on the protection of children who are at risk of abuse from travelling sex offenders.

To abuse a child is absolutely unacceptable. Unfortunately, when people travel, they consider that abusing a child may become acceptable.

What we are trying to do here is to raise the awareness that abusing any child in any Member State or further afield is absolutely unacceptable.

Most importantly, we also need to call on Member States to ratify the Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of children from the sexual exploitation and abuse. It has not been signed and ratified by all Member States. [Signing and ratifying] it is important if we are to prove that we are serious.
From the point of view of the European Economic and Social Committe, we have an outcome from this document already and we will improve our ethical travel policy by adding on the bottom of all Members' expenses forms and staff forms that the Committee will not accept the abuse of children and has an ethical travel policy that all its Members have to sign up to. The whole document is provided to stop the abuse in the first case and, where abuse has taken place, to protect children and victims of abuse. We hope it will go a long way to make a difference."


Related links:
ECPAT International

* The European Economic and Social Committee represents the various economic and social components of organised civil society. It is an institutional consultative body established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Its consultative role enables its members, and hence the organisations they represent, to participate in the Community decision-making process. The Committee has 344 members, who are appointed by the Council of Ministers.

Documents [in English, for other languages see EESC Extra]


CES1384-2008_NIAI - Protecting children from tourism - Information memo - own-initiative opinion
Doc Link

R_CES1969-2008_POJ - SOC/317 Protecting children from sex tourism - DRAFT AGENDA
Doc Link

R_CES1385-2008_DT - Protecting children from sex tourism - Working document
Doc Link

R_CES1971-2008_APA - Protecting children from sex tourism - Preliminary draft opinion
Doc Link

R_CES1970-2008_CONV-POJ - Protecting children from sex tourism - Notice of meeting – Draft Agenda
Doc Link

CES1971-2008_PA - Protecting children from travelling sex offenders - Draft opinion
Doc Link

CES1971-2008_AM1_AM - Protecting children from travelling sex offenders - Amendment
Doc Link

CES1971-2008_FIN_AS - Protecting children from travelling sex offenders - Section opinion
Doc Link

CES1384-2008_FIN_NI - - Protecting children from travelling sex offenders - Information Memo
Doc Link