1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Maddie: Father returned to the Algarve - TVI video

source: TVI, 05.04.2009

note: This clip was opening news on the 8 o'clock evening newscast, followed by a live studio interview with Gonçalo Amaral. - minor note added by Joana M.: which is very similar to the exclusive interview Gonçalo Amaral has given to this blog and that you can watch here:

Exclusive Interview with Former PJ Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral

"The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen at the moment, because if there was a political will it would mean that there was a political will before the process was closed, in order to continue the investigation. And when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that’s because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October [2007]." Gonçalo Amaral in Vigo, October 2008


  1. Why not do both reconstructions? The police one for purposes of understanding what everyone was doing that night, establish a correct timeline and the comings and goings of the Tapas9 and correct any inconsistencies in their first depositions, and, a second one, televised, aimed at the public, jogging the memories and hopefully bring some new evidence? I wonder if the reconstructions the british police makes in the course of a criminal investigation are always televised? I believe not, so Mr.Mitchell is once again twisting the truth. It all sounds like another silly excuse to justify the unjustifiable, the refusal to do an oficial reconstruction.
    Shame on them all!

  2. "Gerry didn't want the cameras there when people were arriving in Church."

    So, on Palm Sunday he pops into Church for a photo call and does not bother to attend the service. Great!

    Speaking of the real reconstruction that the PJ wanted:
    "...people in the wider world wouldn't have seen it and it wouldn't have generated any new information."

    Has the man no understanding of how the police work? Has he no idea that sorting out all the discrepancies would have most definitely improved the investigation. Of course he has. The man is a paid liar (PR man).

  3. Filmaram o homem visto pelos Smiths?
    Filmaram esse raptor saindo pela janela, carregando a criança?

  4. May God forgive me but I had to laugh seeing thr man carrying the girl.

  5. Todo o homem que não sofre de hérnia de disco é suspeito. A PJ deveria ter pensado nisto mais cedo.

  6. Finally we have new witnesses who know the abduction through the window was not possible.
    The actors and the cameramen.
    I'm happy this happened.
    Thank you,Gerry.

  7. OK...
    this fiasco has to stop NOW!!!

    who is going to bring down Gerry McCann... or will his arrogance do it for him.

    Disgusting, guilty, shameful human being.

  8. Sorry for using your blog for this, Joana, but I know you have regular readers from "3Arguidos" and I am not registered there, so, if you think it is ok, I would like to correct some confusion that is happening in one of their threads. In a topic called "G Amaral in TVI NOW" some people seem to be under the impression that Gonçalo Amaral intends to ask the President of the Portuguese Republic to re-open the Madeleine investigation, and in this way encourage a interference "á la McCann" between the political power and the judicial power! All because they are confusing PR - as in "Procurador da Republica" with PR - Presidente da Republica!
    Of course Mr. Amaral was refering to Pinto Monteiro, the "Attorney General", in portuguese Procurador da Republica, hence PR ( in fact it is PGR-procurador geral da republica) and not to Cavaco Silva, the President of the Republic, also PR for short.

    Thank you!


  9. Jane Tanner has gotten excellent eyes.
    She could see the collor of the pyjamas, the flowers as well.
    That, combined with the abductor coming out through the window,
    Thank you again,Gerry!
    Finally you are collaborating with the PJ.
    14 actors and a couple of cameramen
    must be confirming now you are a lier.
    This is really very important.

  10. Why is the abductor not wearing a dark jacket?
    Does it have to do with the artificial collor of the pajamas'top, nearly orange, at the last second in front of the wall?
    And his right shoulder has nearly the same collor.
    For me, these pictures got a strong make-up.
    Maddie's collor is too strong.

  11. When the abductor comes by in that orange ambiance you can see no shadow at all, wall, ground.
    It looks like a strong light is coming straight from above.Immediately after we see Gerry, Jane and Oldfield in the same light, orange,another place, but we can see their very sharp shadows on the wall behind even a shadow of a camera.
    The abductor has no shadow at all and he would at least have one on the ground, his body, from the right to the left or from the left to the right.In original videos, there is a lamp at one side of the top of the road and not a big lamp on the middle, shining from above.
    This video was manipulated.

  12. J. Tanner stated in Panorama documentary she could see feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, so she could tell it was a child. No more!

    In the new video, the angle this scene was filmed shows the man from an angle that Tanner could not possibly have seen.

    She, Tanner claims to have been on the same side of the street as the apartment. If someone crosses your path as this man is meant to have done, carrying a child, you would NOT have been able to see so much of the child as is shown in this video made by the McCann's over the weekend.

    Look carefully,

    As the man appears from the top left corner, he is clearly being videod from the opposite side of the street, hence we can see the the childs legs in full, her arm quite clearly, part of her upper body and part of her face.

    There is absolutely no way that J. Tanner would have seen so much of the child had she been on the same side of the road. It is impossible.

  13. She said she ONLY saw feet and the BOTTOM of the pyjamas, which were pinky coloured.

    Madeleine's pyjama bottoms were WHITE with a little flower pattern. The top was pink. These particular pyjamas, do not have full length legs, but cropped!

    How Jane Tanner could have possibly seen the pyjama legs, let alone the pattern is beyond me.

    Even in this latest video, can any of you distinguish the colour without looking over and over again. I can't!

    Take a look at the picture from a while back where Kate and Gerry hold up a pair of pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine.

    They have cropped loose legs.

    Now take a look at the sketch of the man they introduced as the 'abductor.'


  14. In the sketch, UNLIKE the new video, you can only see legs and feet. Legs covered to the ankle in tight fitting pyjama bottoms with little frills at the ankle.

    Can anyone see these frills in the video.

    The sketch, does not show arms, upper body, face -
    the new video does!

    The chap in the sketch is wearing a dark brown jacket.

    The guy in the video ISN'T!

    I wonder if the actors playing the tapas group are wearing identical clothing as to what the group were on that evening.

    If I remember correctly this group could not remember what they were wearing- it was quite a struggle for them to put an 'outfit' together when questioned!

    Why are they not being "true" to what they have already stated. What they have stated previously might not be the truth - but at least be consistent with the lies, if that is what they are!

  15. with the man folks, most definitely filmed from an angle which it should NOT have been.

    This should have looked EXACTLY as it did in the sketch -

    Why show more than what Tanner claims to have seen?

  16. That's exactly it, fellow commentators, this "reconstruction" is nothing but a farse, a fictional tale, Hollywood style! They will show us what they want us to see for their convenience, anything that reenforces the "abduction" scenario and nothing but the "abduction" scenario. They ccould not care less about hard facts and accuracy. The script and the directors have taken "artistic liberties", and followed the suggestions of the 3 "consultants".
    For this to be a true, clean, no made-up reconstruction it had to follow what comes in the police files.


Powered by Blogger.