Les avocats des McCann vont contre le Leicestershire Constabulary (LC) devant la Haute Cour pour contraindre le LC à laisser leurs PI avoir accès au d'informations policières. Le LC a refusé, n'acceptant de divulguer 81 éléments d'information (remarque: pas de fichiers) sur un total de plus de 11 000 éléments détenus. Les informations publiées concernent des appels téléphoniques passés aux avocats des MC et transmis à la salle de contrôle de Leicester au début de l'enquête.
Au cours de l’audience, il est révélé que Madeleine est devenue ward of law le 2 avril 2008 à la suite d’une procédure entamée le 17 mai 2007.
Au cours de l’audience, il est révélé que Madeleine est devenue ward of law le 2 avril 2008 à la suite d’une procédure entamée le 17 mai 2007.
Representation
Madeleine
McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May
2008.
Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.
Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.
(Mrs Justice Hogg intervened: 'I did not expect to see them.')
As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with her abduction. Her whereabouts are completely unknown. There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not.
After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could barely afford it, have given generously to that fund.
Simultaneously a massive international police search was launched. Since the McCann family lives in Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Constabulary has been the lead force among UK law enforcement agencies. Gerry and Kate would like, through me, to acknowledge the enormous effort which has been devoted both by the Leicestershire Constabulary and by other law enforcement agencies to the search for Madeleine. They would also like to thank many individual officers for the kindness and concern which they have shown to the family throughout this terrible time.
Proceedings
were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole
purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers
of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for
a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division
for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case
(though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone
company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the
parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
Among
the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire
Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the
Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course
the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking
clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which
were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be
resolved. This is that hearing.
As
the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the
Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while
personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on
principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the
information in their possession. They raised a number of legal
arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the
Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened
in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues
of public policy.
It became clear that if today's hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal.
It became clear that if today's hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal.
Also
there have been two recent developments which have greatly affected
Gerry and Kate's views on these proceedings. The first is that the
Leicestershire Constabulary has now agreed to release an important,
though limited, part of the information which they have been seeking;
I shall come back to that. The second is that, as has been widely
publicised, it is expected that Gerry and Kate's status in Portugal
as arguidos or suspects will be lifted soon. When that happens it is
hoped and expected that a substantial further amount of information
will be released.
Since
Gerry and Kate have always wanted to work with all law enforcement
agencies on a cooperative basis, they decided to withdraw the
application against the Leicestershire Constabulary. We therefore
come to Court today to ask you to approve an Order which all parties
consent to.
The
first part of the Order recites that the Chief Constable of
Leicestershire has agreed to provide by today a document in
accordance with Paragraph 50 of the Skeleton Argument which has been
presented to the Court on his behalf. That Paragraph is at 34. It
says that the Chief Constable is currently preparing a document which
will provide the parents with the contact details of persons that
have been forwarded to the investigation by the parents or those
acting for them. This document will also contain a brief resume of
the information that it is believed the person informed the parents
or those acting for them that they wished to pass on to the
investigation.
I
said earlier that this is an important but limited amount of the
information which Gerry and Kate had hoped to obtain. I would like to
explain why it is important. Although the Leicestershire Constabulary
were quick to set up a major incident room and to provide a telephone
number which anyone with information could call, there was a period
of time before this became widely known.
During
that time Gerry and Kate's solicitor, Ms Ann Thomas of The
International Family Law Group, who sits in front of me, had already
been retained. Her firm’s number was publicised and a large number
of people called in.
All
of these callers were given the number which the Leicestershire
Constabulary had set up for the purpose. The solicitors thought it
right that the police should be receiving it. In fact with few
exceptions the solicitors did not even retain any notes on what the
callers were saying or even their contact details.
So
what the Chief Constable is now voluntarily providing is the contact
details and a summary of the information provided by a substantial
number of people who were among the first to try to help the
investigation. It is because these were on the whole people who came
forward to volunteer information in the period immediately after the
abduction that it is likely that the information which they provided
will be most helpful.
So
on that basis Gerry and Kate McCann are content to withdraw their
application for any wider disclosure. Paragraph 4 of the Order
provides that the documents in the case shall remain confidential to
the Court. This of course is completely normal in wardship. An
exception is made to enable the Chief Constable at his discretion to
reveal the contents of his evidence and the legal arguments advanced
on his behalf.
The
parents understand that the points of principle which have arisen are
of wider interest to law enforcement agencies, and they would not
want to restrict proper discussion of those matters which might have
a beneficial purpose in future investigations. They are confident
that the Chief Constable will exercise his discretion in a
responsible way.
The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as "Madeleine's Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned" remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate's purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.
The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as "Madeleine's Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned" remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate's purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.
Tim Scott Q.C.
Phillippa
Kaufmann
The
International Family Law Group
For
Gerry and Kate McCann
[The
following two transcripts (for 'Mr James Lewis QC' and
'Representative of the Attorney General') are from an eye-witness
account of the proceedings by 'emma2', these sections have been
confirmed in various press reports:]
Mr
James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:
We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
Representative of the Attorney General:
The
Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and
has no further
comment
to make.
At the High Court, Family Division, RCJ London
McCann Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers
Mr Tim Scott, Q.C., International Family Law Group, acting for Gerry and Kate McCann : Madeleine McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May 2008. Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.
Mrs Justice Hogg : I did not expect to see them.
Mr Tim Scott, Q.C., International Family Law Group, acting for Gerry and Kate McCann : Madeleine McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May 2008. Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.
Mrs Justice Hogg : I did not expect to see them.
TS : As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with her abduction. Her whereabouts are completely unknown. There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not.
After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could barely afford it, have given generously to that fund.
Simultaneously a massive international police search was launched. Since the McCann family lives in Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Constabulary has been the lead force among UK law enforcement agencies. Gerry and Kate would like, through me, to acknowledge the enormous effort which has been devoted both by the Leicestershire Constabulary and by other law enforcement agencies to the search for Madeleine. They would also like to thank many individual officers for the kindness and concern which they have shown to the family throughout this terrible time.
Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents’ wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents’ solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine’s whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing.
As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann’s objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.
It became clear that if today’s hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal.
Also there have been two recent developments which have greatly affected Gerry and Kate’s views on these proceedings. The first is that the Leicestershire Constabulary has now agreed to release an important, though limited, part of the information which they have been seeking; I shall come back to that. The second is that, as has been widely publicised, it is expected that Gerry and Kate’s status in Portugal as arguidos or suspects will be lifted soon. When that happens it is hoped and expected that a substantial further amount of information will be released.
Since Gerry and Kate have always wanted to work with all law enforcement agencies on a cooperative basis, they decided to withdraw the application against the Leicestershire Constabulary. We therefore come to Court today to ask you to approve an Order which all parties consent to.
The first part of the Order recites that the Chief Constable of Leicestershire has agreed to provide by today a document in accordance with Paragraph 50 of the Skeleton Argument which has been presented to the Court on his behalf. That Paragraph is at 34. It says that the Chief Constable is currently preparing a document which will provide the parents with the contact details of persons that have been forwarded to the investigation by the parents or those acting for them. This document will also contain a brief resume of the information that it is believed the person informed the parents or those acting for them that they wished to pass on to the investigation.
I said earlier that this is an important but limited amount of the information which Gerry and Kate had hoped to obtain. I would like to explain why it is important. Although the Leicestershire Constabulary were quick to set up a major incident room and to provide a telephone number which anyone with information could call, there was a period of time before this became widely known.
During that time Gerry and Kate’s solicitor, Ms Ann Thomas of The International Family Law Group, who sits in front of me, had already been retained. Her firm’s number was publicised and a large number of people called in.
All of these callers were given the number which the Leicestershire Constabulary had set up for the purpose. The solicitors thought it right that the police should be receiving it. In fact with few exceptions the solicitors did not even retain any notes on what the callers were saying or even their contact details.
So what the Chief Constable is now voluntarily providing is the contact details and a summary of the information provided by a substantial number of people who were among the first to try to help the investigation. It is because these were on the whole people who came forward to volunteer information in the period immediately after the abduction that it is likely that the information which they provided will be most helpful.
So on that basis Gerry and Kate McCann are content to withdraw their application for any wider disclosure. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that the documents in the case shall remain confidential to the Court. This of course is completely normal in wardship. An exception is made to enable the Chief Constable at his discretion to reveal the contents of his evidence and the legal arguments advanced on his behalf.
The parents understand that the points of principle which have arisen are of wider interest to law enforcement agencies, and they would not want to restrict proper discussion of those matters which might have a beneficial purpose in future investigations. They are confident that the Chief Constable will exercise his discretion in a responsible way.
The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as “Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned” remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate’s purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire : We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine . We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire : We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine . We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don’t apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
Representative of the Attorney General : The Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and has no further comment to make.
Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg : Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.
Representative of the Attorney General : The Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and has no further comment to make.
Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg : Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.
The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.
The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.
I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.
I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.
I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:
The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court.
It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden.
I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine. I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made. There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found. I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God. I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found. I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well. I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.
Interview de Francisco Moita Flores à Semanario
How do you read the process of the removal of Gonçalo Amaral Dias?
Gonçalo Amaral is a great policeman who did an excellent job and one day couldn't take the pressure anymore and said some unpleasant things to the English. He shouldn't have said it but the world was not damaged because of him saying it, either. The truth is that he understood where the investigation was being stalled, and well fed up of being insulted, maltreated without a single voice to defend him. In fact, he should have remained silent but it is also true that a man is not made of iron.
Can we say that, together with the novella of little Madeleine and the removal of the coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, we're looking at another case of Portuguese submission to the "perfid Albion"?
I don't know. It will take somewhat longer until we manage to understand how far this mess has reached.
Do you maintain your conviction that Madeleine McCann was killed in Aldeia da Luz?
I do. There are no material conditions to opt for another solution. The mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment.
I
possess little data apart from knowing the location and the positions of
each one of the persons that
intervened. It is
impossible for an abduction to take place under those circumstances.
Only as an academical hypothesis.
Interview de Francisco Moita Flores à Semanario
Extraits traduits par Astro - 11.07.2008
How do you read the process of the removal of Gonçalo Amaral Dias?
Gonçalo Amaral is a great policeman who did an excellent job and one day couldn't take the pressure anymore and said some unpleasant things to the English. He shouldn't have said it but the world was not damaged because of him saying it, either. The truth is that he understood where the investigation was being stalled, and well fed up of being insulted, maltreated without a single voice to defend him. In fact, he should have remained silent but it is also true that a man is not made of iron.
Can we say that, together with the novella of little Madeleine and the removal of the coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, we're looking at another case of Portuguese submission to the "perfid Albion"?
I don't know. It will take somewhat longer until we manage to understand how far this mess has reached.
Do you maintain your conviction that Madeleine McCann was killed in Aldeia da Luz?
I do. There are no material conditions to opt for another solution. The mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment.
In your opinion, do you think that the PJ's image was affected by this case? Can the Portuguese [people] believe in the Police that we have?
There will be some damage to the PJ's image that the criminal turbulence itself and the succession of solved crimes will dissolve. This, if it is confirmed that there is no indicia and the process is archived. And of course the Portuguese can believe in their police. It has a history of prestige and their level of effectiveness is one of the highest within Europe. It is not by one unsolved crime, among hundreds of thousands that are solved, that the capacity of the PJ can be evaluated.
Within this process, which was often surrounded by obscure outlines, what do you think has failed?
Let’s see when the process becomes public. It is too early to make that evaluation.
Was the archiving of the process foreseeable?
I don’t know whether the process is going to be archived.
What illations can be taken out of this case, in order for another process not to suffer the same outcome?
I don't know what the outcome is going to be but every case is a case. There are no formulas or rules. That is why criminal investigation is a set of methods and not a science.
In what aspect did the media influence the course of the investigation into the case of Maddie's disappearance?
The negative aspects are related to the natural pressure on the investigation. The PJ wants evidence, the journalists want news. Those are different things. But the publicizing of the problem was positive because it caught the attention of so many people about children’s rights, about the duties of protection towards the minors.
What measures should be taken to diminish the abductions of children and adolescents?
Abductions are hard to predict and to prevent. The only way to avoid them, or at least to reduce the possibility, is to watch the children directly.
Do you consider Portugal to be a safe country?
It’s the safest country within the European Union.
There will be some damage to the PJ's image that the criminal turbulence itself and the succession of solved crimes will dissolve. This, if it is confirmed that there is no indicia and the process is archived. And of course the Portuguese can believe in their police. It has a history of prestige and their level of effectiveness is one of the highest within Europe. It is not by one unsolved crime, among hundreds of thousands that are solved, that the capacity of the PJ can be evaluated.
Within this process, which was often surrounded by obscure outlines, what do you think has failed?
Let’s see when the process becomes public. It is too early to make that evaluation.
Was the archiving of the process foreseeable?
I don’t know whether the process is going to be archived.
What illations can be taken out of this case, in order for another process not to suffer the same outcome?
I don't know what the outcome is going to be but every case is a case. There are no formulas or rules. That is why criminal investigation is a set of methods and not a science.
In what aspect did the media influence the course of the investigation into the case of Maddie's disappearance?
The negative aspects are related to the natural pressure on the investigation. The PJ wants evidence, the journalists want news. Those are different things. But the publicizing of the problem was positive because it caught the attention of so many people about children’s rights, about the duties of protection towards the minors.
What measures should be taken to diminish the abductions of children and adolescents?
Abductions are hard to predict and to prevent. The only way to avoid them, or at least to reduce the possibility, is to watch the children directly.
Do you consider Portugal to be a safe country?
It’s the safest country within the European Union.
