domingo, 7 de setembro de 2014

Crime, disse ele.









Correio da Manhã Sunday Magazine
(Translated by Montclair & C0lonel Fabien)
07/09/14
Maddie The English Police's Disinvestigation
I had the hope that the British means would help the investigation, but the
intention has always been to clear the McCanns
I confess that when the English police decided to start an investigation into
Maddie's disappearance I believed that everything would be elucidated. Not
because the English police are better but simply because of their disproportionate
means and resources could make a difference.
I started to start having doubts when I heard the first news about this case, in the
BBC television programme "Crimewatch", but did I see a programme to finally
find out what happened to Maddie McCann? Unfortunately, there was no answer.
We just watched a television programme disguised as a police investigation.
The English police committed several serious mistakes. The first of which was
called the reconstruction. The reconstruction of a crime has to be done at the site
where it took place and, if possible, in the presence of all those involved. And it
would have been easy for the English to have carried out this diligence, it would
have been enough to bring to Portugal the entire group of English who were in the
Ocean Club.
One of the doubts which persists is to understand the reason that the English
police insist on repeating diligences which had been done by the PJ and not trying
to do the only thing that the PJ did not do, the reconstruction.
But lets be serious; it was not SY who did the reconstruction but the BBC. How
was it possible to understand where the McCanns were sitting at dinner? Would
it have been possible to see from this location the window of the apartment where
Maddie was sleeping? What route did the McCanns and friends take when they
went to see the children? How much time did it take? This reconstruction cannot
answer any of these question. But would the answer to these questions be of any
importance to the British? I do not think so. Today, I am certain that the purpose
is not to know what happened to Maddie, but to divert any eventual suspicions
from the McCanns.
Hoax
As an example, for the reconstruction they hired actors, one of them Mark Sloan,
a well known porno actor. The situation is worth what it is, but when this was
made known, it was the object of criticism from the association Mothers Against
Murder and Aggression, as well as the Labour deputy, John Mann.
At a moment of great impact on the television, at 00h00 exactly, and in the
entire world, they presented various e-fits, as if these had been drawn up in the
course of this investigation. A hoax. We will concentrate of the only two which
have any viability of leading to the recognition of any person.
The first one, elaborated by the PJ, is an image of a man carrying a child. Thus, an
Irish couple declared to the PJ that they saw a man that night carrying a child in
pyjamas. But they were no able, however, give any kind of expression to the man's
face. Later, on the day that the McCanns returned to England, the same couple
telephoned the PJ claiming that the man that they saw that night was Gerry
McCann. They were sure of this when they saw him get off the airplane carrying
one of his children.
There was only problem for the PJ. At the time the Irish couple declared having
seen Gerry McCann carrying the child, he had six witnesses at dinner at the
Ocean Club. This fact discredited the recognition. But what the English police did
was to grab on this "doll" (boneco), giving him other features to kill off any or all
suspicions. For this reason, the e-fit presented by the English authorities of a man
carrying a child is a hoax, not seen by anyone, its aim is to eliminate any kind of
suspicions concerning Maddie's father.
The other e-fit, that of a man with gray moustache, was also not done by the
English police but was done by Oakley Agency, from whom the McCanns had
asked for an investigation.
The first part of the English investigation is resumed: the reconstruction of the
facts done by the BBC, the disfigurement of the e-fit done by the PJ and taking
advantage of another e-fit done by private detectives that they never wanted to
make public. A handful of nothing.
From the beginning, the English police began by telling us that Maddie had been
abducted by a sexual predator, but that she was alive and would be found quickly.
They crossed telephone records, registries of paedophiles and other information
and identified 4 suspects. The first, the Englishman, Raymond Hewlett, had in
fact lived in the Algarve, but had since died some time ago in Germany, a victim
of cancer. Later, a Swiss citizen came up, Urs Hans von Aesch, who lived in
neighbouring Spain, in Alicante. But he too was dead, as he had committed
suicide in his native country. Another suspect turned up, David Reid, a convicted
British paedophile, who after serving his prison sentence in the UK he came to
live in the Algarve. But destiny was maintained, he too died a victim of cancer.
Finally, a Portuguese suspect came up, Euclides Monteiro, who, surprise, had
already 4 years ago.
It was never understood why these suspects. If they were strong, they would not
have gone up in smoke with their death, this fact would not invalidate the fact
that they could have been the authors of this crime. However, for the English
police, dead the suspect, dead the suspicion.
A question of Faith
After all this carnage, they changed strategies. Finally, its not just the suspects
who were dead. The English police have gone to having no doubts that Maddie is
also dead. Maddie, after all, was the victim of an abduction, having been killed
afterwards and buried in wasteland near the Ocean Club. What lead them to this
new theory is a mystery, as big as the disappearance of little Maddie. The same
certainty that they had that she was alive is exactly the same, today, that she is
dead. It all comes down to a question of faith.
As for the motive of the abduction, there are two hypotheses; one, it was a
paedophile who entered the house to abuse the child and, as she awoke, abducted
her and killed her; two, a thief who entered the apartment and as the child woke
up, kidnapped and killed her.
The first doubt concerning these radical theories in detail, perhaps without
importance, but which must be made; if there was an abduction, the perpetrator
had to enter the apartment. First question: how did he get in? According to the
McCanns and their friends, the front door of the apartment was locked and
everyone, when they went to check on the children, opened it to enter and locked
it when they went out. This door showed no signs of having been broken into. The
window of the apartment, which looked towards the restaurant where they were
having dinner, had signs of having been forced but from the inside of the
apartment, which makes things more complicated, because this is not credible
that someone would enter by the door to go out carrying a child through the
window, which was looking out towards where her parents were having dinner.
Thus, or the McCanns or their friends are lying and left the door open or the
abductor has supernatural powers. This bring us to a deadend; as long as the
English police cannot tell us how the abductor(s) entered the apartment, how can
they affirm categorically that an abduction took place?
To complicate the situation, the abductor would be in the dark because if he
turned the light on he would be immediately seen by the McCanns and friends,
who claimed that they had visual contact with the apartment. After, in this
situation, no criminal would have taken the child, because even if she had woken
up and started crying, the probability that she would recognise him would be zero,
unless it was someone she knew well. Besides this, the possibility of fleeing
successfully was better if he fled alone. Taking the child would have been a
hindrance, delaying his escape, it was an added risk.
Useless Searches
But stranger still is the English police's idea that the child was killed immediately
by the abductor right away in the empty lots around the area. I believe that they
came to this conclusion because, in absence of the spy satellite photograph which
I believed existed, they resorted to that powerful investigative tool that is Google
Maps. If anyone had been to this area they would not have made this mistake.
This terrain is rocky and no one would be able to dig a hole to bury a body, even
more without tools. It's clear that when they started these diligences on the
ground, even with all the machinery brought from England, they found nothing,
other than small animal bones and even these on the surface and they discovered
that digging a hole in this area was not an easy task.
Afterwards, they returned bringing their sniffer dogs from England. But not the
same who discovered cadaver odour in the apartment, on clothes, on dolls and in
the car used by the McCanns. I believe that these two dogs, seven years later, have
either died or have been arrested or fired from the police, due to their work in
Portugal.
They brought two other dogs, but they did not want to take any risks, therefore or
the two dogs did not have smell or were search dogs, but for drugs and not
cadavers, because they did not find any cadaver odour, but rather two cannabis
plants, the seizure of which was immediately announced due to its importance.
Furthermore, they looked for the girl's cadaver in the sewers. Looking for the
cadaver of a 5 year old girl in the drains, 7 years later, in inexplicable. All you have
to do is think about the time of a body's decomposition and about the conditions
of the weather and the site. Just remember last winter and the rains that fell on
the Algarve. The force of the waters was such that either the cadaver was washed
away with everything in front or there was no drain cover at the site. This search
with cameras was a joke.
To finish, the new suspects and their interrogations. The English police
constituted 3 arguidos, three persons who they believe are suspected of something,
eventually an abduction. But does any proof or evidence exist connecting them to
an eventual crime?
Apparently not. But let us rejoice. Firstly, because these three suspects, contrary
to the other four, are alive and in good health. These three individuals are suspects
because they are suspects. This is their major crime; being suspected of being
suspects. One of them, at the date of the events, was 16 years old, and his big
crime is being in the area that day where the events took place and of having
spoken on his mobile with the other two suspects.
Now they want to come back to Portugal, to query other persons and interrogate
new suspects. This means that, after all, everything that they have done up to now
is worthless.
The question to be made is: when are the English going to stop with all of this, if
this were not such a serious attack against our sovereignty it would even be funny?
This is the only point that I have no doubt about. The English will stop on the day
the Portuguese authorities say enough. But, on this day, the English police will say
that they have not discovered what happened, because the Portuguese authorities
would not let them. Of this I have no doubt and I am not joking.