14 December 2010

Gonçalo Amaral expects Wikileaks to divulge the Satellite Images


The former inspector finds it strange that it's necessary for an ambassador to speak about the evidence for «some veracity to be given as to the responsibility of the parents in Madeleine's disappearance»

Gonçalo Amaral, the former Judiciary Police inspector, stated this Monday that «it is strange» that it is necessary for an ambassador to speak about the evidence «for some veracity to be given as to the responsibility of the parents in Madeleine's disappearance» and that he looks forward for Wikileaks to divulge the satellite imagery, reports Lusa [Portuguese news agency].

«I accompanied the investigation, I know what is there and I know what still needs to be done, and I also know there's responsibility in the disappearance, I have no doubts about that», said Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in Praia da Luz, Algarve, on May 2007.

The author of the book 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie' spoke to the news agency Lusa, after the WikiLeaks site revealed a confidential cable from the British ambassador in Lisbon, of 2007, admitting to his U.S. counterpart in the Portuguese capital, that it was the British police that had found evidence against Madeleine's parents.

However, Gonçalo Amaral insists that «it was not the British police who had arrived at those conclusions». «I do not know what evidence are those that the British ambassador was referring to when he spoke with the U.S. ambassador. Now that there are strong indications as to the responsibility of parents, there are, and they were gathered by Portuguese police in cooperation with the British police», he assured.

Gonçalo Amaral also expects for Wikileaks to be able to get «the long awaited for satellite images».


Meanwhile, the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, played down these revelations, considering that the cable in question - which was also published in the British newspaper 'The Guardian' - was only an «entirely historic note».

in TVI24 - 14.12.2010

14 comments:

  1. An Historical Note, to Mitchell, you said there was "NO EVIDENCE" your a liar .

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is supposed to be another Leak due out ,hope it happens

    ReplyDelete
  3. love the piece on McCann Files when Clarrie respondinding to the leak said, the McCanns have done everything to be of assistance to the British police and PJ. Really Clarrie?? thats not what many think, It´s about time something broke on this case, and the McCanns will lose that smug arrogance on their faces.

    ReplyDelete
  4. no 3 the 2nd leak was just to do with the mccann case and eu amber alert stuff

    ReplyDelete
  5. All the hysteria aside, what on earth are the chances of a satellite being trained on that precise location at exactly the same time Gerry or anyone else was transfering Madeleine from the apartment? (unless it was trained on those coordinates for another reason that evening - for reasons best known to the security services).

    You can't blame Amaral but I do get the impression that he's upset because the leak suggests that the British Police were complicit in developing the case against the McCanns and (perhaps more singificantly) that the British Ambassador was just as keen to point this out to his diplomatic allies.

    The truth is - this doesn't support Amaral's theory that there was a wide-ranging cover-up by the British Embassy and British Government. Amaral should never had pinned his theory on this. That's his only fault, but to start producing complete chimeras like 'satellite images' isn't going to do his cause any good. Which is a shame.

    Who knows what to make of this particular leak. The vast majority of 'leaks' have supported some fairly obvious right-wing agenda.

    Iran? North Korea? Russia? The UK a safe haven for terrorists?

    These are your standard neo-con scare stories. Looks like Wikileaks has been hijacked by right-wing 'leakers'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every document that appears in a court case is an "historical document". Take the contradictory statements of Gerry McCann for example, on 5 May, we checked the children through the front door using our key, on 10 May, oh no we did not do that, we checked the children by going through the rear patio door which we left open for that purpose.

    It does not matter whether such a statement is historically 5 months old (probably the soonest such a case could come to trial) or 30 years old (many British murder cases have taken that long for a "development"), the simple fact is those historical documents are evidence against Gerry McCann and the Wikileak document is evidence that contrary to what Kate apparently intends to write, it was the nasty bungling Portuguese Police who were accusing us, it was not, it was the British and the PJ were acting upon that evidence by making them prime suspects. FACT!

    I hope Kate has a good secretary to help her remodel the book, she must be in one heck of a tiz!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The satellite stuff is mush. Why is it being dragged up again now? Soz but it's silly!

    ReplyDelete
  8. 6 You make some very good points.

    And what are the chances of scheming Gerry McCann walking through the streets with his alive or even dead daughter for any passerby to notice? What are the chances of him demanding sniffer dogs to search if he had just dumped her right there on the beach?

    What are the chances of Martin Smith being a serious police witness when, in the final analysis, he was completely ignored as a credible witness.

    What are the chances of a serious police witness rattling away to the Daily Mail as Martin Smith repeatedly did? He would be threatened with imprisonment!

    What are the chances of Martin Smith not even thinking about Madeleine's disappearance until about two weeks later when Gerry was desperate to get his abduction scenario in the worldwide media?

    And even more amazingly, what are the chances of Martin Smith realising several months later (not having previously checked or thought about it) that it was in fact Gerry McCann he saw carrying said child.

    Forgive me but I honestly believe that giving Martin Smith any credibility whatsoever (his wife no longer wished to be involved in repeating same) is following a very wild goose chase, just as Gerry planned. IMO it was important for Gerry to "get into the investigation" that Madeleine "was taken" whilst they ate dinner. Only then he could try to establish their innocence, the real view is revealed by reading email correspondence between UK and Pt officers in October 2007, she had already flown the nest and they wanted to know what David Payne was wearing that afternoon, which makes the McCanns 100 per cent complicit in her "being taken".

    ReplyDelete
  9. @9 wrote: "What are the chances of a serious police witness rattling away to the Daily Mail as Martin Smith repeatedly did? He would be threatened with imprisonment!"


    Please provide evidence of your insulting claim.

    I have read 10,000+ news reports about this case since May 2007 and NOT ONCE have I come across Martin Smith "rattling away" to ANY newspaper, let alone the Daily Mail!

    On the contrary, Martin Smith's behaviour was exemplary in respect of the secrecy of justice and his refusal to speak to the media has continued SINCE the case was shelved in July 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're absolutely right Jilly, perhaps Viv should read the Smith statement again, namely this part: «He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor’s fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

    I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.» in Processos, Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414
    4135 to 4139—Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perhaps you should both look at McCannfiles where it can be seen that from January 2008 onwards, Martin Smith was repeatedly talking to the British Press, and not just the Daily Mail I would add, including The Sun where he commented he is not very impressed with the Pt Police!

    I can only say again that if he were to be a serious police witness he would be threatened with imprisonment for speaking out in this way, on the contrary he is a McCann witness and those reports and his behaviour make that perfectly clear.

    They are all here: (enjoy)

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. 9...i so agree with you! There is just no way on earth that someone would suddenly months later (especially in the u.k) "remember" that -oh but we saw a man carrying a child that night, u remember darling?
    With the massive media attention of Madeleines disappearence from the very first day, they would only suddenly remember something that much later?..nah..and IF they did remember something all along and never reported anything until when they did, then they should be considered very strange people themselves to not come forth with such a recollection much much earlier..basically, as soon as the news broke..and i don't really care why or how the police holds in specific Mr. Smith as a credible witness, there is nothing credible to me about not coming forth with such an important piece of evidence as that would be RIGHT AWAY..they can hardly say they had not heard of Madeleines disappearence until then. (not saying they do) And because they can't say that, their sudden recollection months later upon seeing Gerry walking down the stairs from the plane, just takes away the credibility of their statement. Now, would they have contacted the police MUCH sooner and said they remember a man carrying a child down the street that night, and THEN upon seeing Gerry on telly much later and state that - That's HIM..that's who we saw.. Then the scenario would be totally different to what it is today. Just the way my logic works though..so, it's simply my opinion..

    ReplyDelete
  13. OMG! I'm so pleased to see Gonçalo Amaral expects Wikileaks images. Thanks a lot! :)

    ReplyDelete