domingo, 11 de maio de 2014

CMTV “Maddie Special”, May 3rd, 2014

Obrigada a J.M.








" A huge thank you to Astro from themaddiecasefiles.com for the transcript and translation into English"



Imagem em: 


http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-fala-em-manobra-publicitaria.html

CMTV Interview with Goncalo Amaral

 A huge thank you to Astro from themaddiecasefiles.com for the transcript and translation into English
CMTV “Maddie Special”, May 3rd, 2014
http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.pt/2014/05/cmtv-interview-with-goncalo-amaral.html

(Gonçalo Amaral is asked for his opinion about the Euclides Monteiro and sexual predator leads)

GA - It’s been a long time, and a long time during which a story was built. A story was created from the principle that an abduction took place while no abduction was proved, nobody has proved that it was an abduction yet. 

So these news come out, these and other news, and this is worth zero.

Is [abduction] a possibility that you are not convinced of?

GA - It’s been seven years, nobody can prove that there is an abduction, why there is an abduction. There are important things in the investigation. When it was reopened, they should have been taken into account. If what is being done [in the current investigation] is serious, and I think it is, there are people who – the Portuguese police at least has many people who are interested in solving the case, or concerned with it.

They will have to take into account, namely that group of people, namely – we’re talking about a paedophile here, a serial predator, all over the Algarve, or from Vilamoura up to that area [of Luz]. Now they talk about 18 cases, cases that have not been registered with the police, cases that –

I remember, at that time, in 2002 there was already great sensitivity towards this kind of paedophilia situations, even because of the Casa Pia case, in that area the Joana case, so to state that the police forces seem to have stifled it and now suddenly these stories appear…

This makes us think, it makes us think and let’s stop for a moment and let’s look, objectively, at what is there. And what is there, objectively, is a complaint with the English police of a British couple that says: there is a gentleman there, who two years ago committed paedophile acts towards that little girl that disappeared.

I heard that that gentleman broke into a few houses and that he lied down besides [the little girls]. And that this is paedophilia. I ask: those gestures that were made relating to Madeleine, two years earlier, during the holiday in Mallorca, that are described in the process and they are, there is a complaint from a couple of doctors that were friends with this couple, at the British police, what happened to that?

Deep down, what are we looking for? First, we investigate what is there in the process.

And in fact, that never happened.

Not even in the first letter rogatory, the only letter rogatory that we went to England to carry out – no diligences were performed concerning that situation.

(…)

GA - The conclusions that we reached did not point to an abduction, they pointed at other things, but not to an abduction. An accidental death followed by the concealment of a cadaver. But the investigation was still at a point, it hadn’t reached the end yet. Therefore only by continuing the investigation, doing a reconstruction, carrying out more diligences, namely the questioning of that couple of doctors that complained about that gentleman, doctor David Payne.

So there’s a series of things that at the moment we seem to be forgetting, a deal seems to have been made, it gives the idea that there is a deal out there, we forget about this, now let’s think about that…

And then it’s all inconsistencies, you’ll notice: there was the witness statement of a lady, Jane Tanner, who is a friend of the couple, she was there on holiday, that said “I saw the abductor carrying the child walking into that direction. He was dressed like this, and this and that”. And this put at stake – the way she said it and the location where she said she saw it, where she walked – it put the very testimony of the child’s father at stake.

What happened?

A few years later, based on an e-fit that was made upon request from the couple, by their private detectives, someone is found who says “I still have the clothes from that time, this is my daughter that I was carrying, and I even still have – notice this! – I even still have the little girl’s pyjama, almost four years later. Here’s the little girl’s pyjama. And I went to pick her up from the Crèche”. 

And it’s said that the crèche was open at half past nine in the evening. It would just take someone who picks up a phone and calls the crèche and asks at what time the crèche closed. And why this gentleman appears after all of this time.

Then it is said: “Now we are going to make a reconstitution”. The English police makes a reconstitution, with some actors, and then reaches the conclusion that the important man was the one that carried at half past nine, who was walking down the street and was seen by the Smith family. And yes, that one is the important one.
This was said by the Scotland Yard.

But that man doesn’t have a belly. He is not dark, he is not an African.

Why were you removed from the process?

GA – That is a good question. I know that before I left the investigation, someone suggested to me that I should let the case go into archiving, that I shouldn’t worry about the outcome of the investigation.

Who suggested that to you?

GA - It was suggested to me.

In the Judiciary Police?

GA - Yes, in the Judiciary Police. Then there were statements from me on the night of the first of October – I remember that on the 2nd, at the time, the British prime minister, Gordon brown, was in Portugal, it was the Lisbon Treaty, therefore I remember that day well, even because it was my birthday. 

And I unburdened with a journalist who called me asking about a sighting in Morocco, and what I said to her is what I reiterate now: the British police, at that time, was so worried with us to know, in fact, what the involvement was, if there was involvement from the parents at all, what was the parents’ responsibility in the child’s disappearance.

We are not speaking about homicide, we are not speaking of any of that.

In fact, what had happened there, that night? Specifically with that group, and with the parents as main suspects.

And then when that news appeared that the little girl had been sighted in Morocco, because there, it was said, there could not be any blonde girls, but it turned there could, I think she was the daughter of a Belgian lady. So the English are not that much smarter than we are, or the Moroccans (…)

GA – What is happening here is as simple as this. Removing me from the investigation is the first step towards archiving of the process. And then the process is archived. And then it was reopened, with what looks like a deal.

I’ve already seen it written in the papers: “The parents were cleared”. I don’t know, was there a trial? Why were they cleared? Were the Gaspars investigated, was everything that is there [in the process] investigated?

Isn’t it at least strange that 7 years later these parents, if they had anything to do with the case, continue to search for their daughter will all means?

GA - Who says that they are searching for their daughter? What I have analysed, because I have the right to look at the situation, is that they have always carried out a campaign to defend themselves, a campaign to sell an image of themselves. 

A campaign to collect donations, a campaign that has already allowed them to pay the house that they live in. 

A campaign in which they destroy the lives of a series of people, a campaign that put employment at the Ocean Club at risk, it led to unemployment. 

A campaign where they don’t care about others. 

Deep down, it’s their image. Only that. This is my analysis of the situation and I am entitled to it.

Do you think that Scotland Yard is accessary to that campaign?

GA – Until Scotland Yard clarifies the mystery within this mystery that is Mr David Payne, and that situation of the paedophilia complaint – it’s not someone who goes to burglarise a home and lies down next to – we are talking about obscene gestures and saying, with words, asking if Madeleine did certain things, to the father of that child, Mr Gerald McCann. 

Other people saw it, witnesses, who on the 12th of May denounced it to the English police, who in turn never informed us about that situation, only in October did a fax arrive concerning that, but the story has been told.

So, let’s understand what this is about.

If it’s only the fear that all of them have, that pact may exist, all of them having abandoned their children, because they did abandon them, during that week they always left them alone, at their own risk, nothing more – or if there is more to it.

That is what needs to be understood, and how far that can cause, within the British society, hat damages it may cause. I don’t know.

But what motives could Scotland Yard have to go along with that?

GA – Let’s find out why. Let Scotland Yard come and say why they don’t investigate. Let them deny that the complaint existed, or let them confirm that it did exist and why they don’t investigate it.

It’s seven years later. Seven years later, it’s said that Scotland Yard is making an appeal, some big appeals, and that people call SY and a call centre.

We already did that. The Judiciary Police and the English police, at that time, seven years ago, launched that questionnaire. They launched a questionnaire, in England a call centre was installed, people who spent their holiday at the Ocean Club, who spent their holiday in the Algarve, had the opportunity, seven years ago, to say all that they could say, to contribute, and nothing was said about it.

Now seven years later these things start appearing.

So that is the mystery. First the statement of Mrs Jane Tanner was cleaned, then they tried to clean the Smith family’s statement. That backfired because on the internet, everywhere, people started saying, no, but this gentleman here is Gerald McCann, the one in the e-fit that had been made by those detectives that had left the MI5.

So this is where we are. When you say to me that they are searching for their daughter, I doubt it.

You were removed from the case just as you were about to collect the testimony of this man [Martin Smith].

GA – It’s true. We had already asked the Police’s National Directory for permission to bring him to Portugal, so we were taking care of the traveling, the accommodation. When I return to Faro [after being removed from the case], my colleague that came afterwards considers that deposition not to be relevant.

But he still made diligences, I think there is contact with an Irish liaison officer in Madrid, he is the one who then brings his statement from England, therefore…

But after the deposition that this man gave to the English authorities, he contradicts himself, he is no longer absolutely sure that this man was Gerry.

GA – That is no contradiction. When he speaks to us, he says it is that person. When the statements to the British police appear, 85 or 90% is mentioned, so it’s a probability percentage. The way that he identifies him is not due to the physiognomy, it’s the way he walks, the way he holds the child. So in terms of evidence, let’s put it this way, it would never have great value as evidence.

But in terms of the police work, in the investigation, it’s an argument that is important to understand and to clarify.

Until someone appears – maybe someday someone appears, someone who says that he was also fetching his child at that time from the crèche that hands out the little girls at half past nine or ten in the evening, someone who also kept the clothes and the similar pyjamas. Maybe there were children of that age, all wearing the same pyjamas. 

Even we had one of those pyjamas, it was bought from the same store, in England, for future comparison.

Is this one of the key moments in the investigation, for you?
GA – It is important. It’s one of those points that until it is clarified, we can’t move forward with the abduction theory, because the description matches the description of Gerald McCann and it matches the description that Jane Tanner made of the other individual, the one who allegedly appeared in the meantime.

Nothing was confirmed in Portugal.

Here in Portugal something interesting is happening, here in Portugal and in England. Scotland Yard has information from the Portuguese police and breaks the judicial secrecy, and says a few things there. And everyone takes it for granted. They take it for granted, it’s the police saying it, therefore it’s an almost absolute truth. But the question is why.

I’m a policeman.

And I know that some journalists investigate.

And sometimes I ask myself why nobody asks, why there isn’t one journalist that says “But is this even possible?”. Why don’t I go and knock on the crèche’s door, for example, and find out if it is possible, at that time. 

Why don’t I go to the GNR and the PSP and say, my friends, in 2002 child abuse was already under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Police. There had already been the Casa Pia case, you were alert to the situation, so there was a serial predator on the loose and only SY knows about it?

And so on.

There are questions that we have to find out why. And why, for example, Mr David Payne, why it doesn’t move forward.

Were mistakes made in the investigation?

GA - Certainly so. There are mistakes made in all investigations. The first mistake that was made in this one, and I tell you this easily, was that we didn’t place this couple under surveillance from the first moment onward, under phone tapping and so on. The McCann couple. 

Because in such a situation, with children of this age in their care – it was their duty to guard them, to care for them – they are the first suspects. This happens anywhere in the world, doesn’t it?

Is this a never ending story?

GA – It will have an end. I don’t know. Madeleine disappeared, in the meantime some witnesses are already deceased, others will be deceased in the future, I don’t know my future, either. This will have an end. We shall see what happens.

But before the end, and before this program ends, I want to alert to a situation that is important. The English like this very much, it’s important. It’s not only indications, it’s not only the inconsistencies, it’s what they call the scientific part of the question.

And the scientific part is the hair that was found in that car. Hair without roots, that the English laboratory says that from its coloration, it belongs to Madeleine McCann. And that nothing except for transference between objects could justify [hair] inside that car trunk where cadaver odour was found.

The Judiciary Police that has them, they should send them to a laboratory to be analysed for a DNA profile without the need for hair roots. People say that there are labs of that kind, so do that now.

We have been at this for such a long time. Maybe they can spare some money and we can move forward in the investigation, surely. To the Netherlands or to Germany, I think there are laboratories there.




CMTV invited the McCann family’s legal representatives and its spokesman to make a statement. The invitations were not accepted.