An
interview in three parts with G. Amaral
IOL
PortugalDiário – 03/04.08. 2008
IOL Portugal Diario a rencontré l'ex-commissaire Gonçalo Amaral. Ce lundi, l'affaire MC ne sera plus soumise au secret judiciaire et le dossier pourra être consulté par qui en aura fait la demande. IOL PortugalDiário pose à GA quelques questions dont l'objectif est d'essayer de faire la lumière sur certains aspects d'enquête très tôt mise en question.
Q - In your book, you write that you believe that Maddie died in the apartment, on the 3rd of May. When did you form the conviction that the child was dead?
A - It was with the dogs'
work. That was when we were most convinced.
Q - But when did you sum "two plus two"?
A - That is part of the
investigation work and the logics of the investigator. He joins
things throughout time. There was atypical behaviour from the
witnesses right away, which then transforms into indicia.Then one
realises that people are lying. How can anyone who has the obligation
to cooperate with the police, not do so?! All the person wants is to
receive information and all that the person says is a lie?! Then it
was necessary to understand why they lied. Were they afraid of the
police? Of its reaction? Of the exposure and abandonment of the
children? But when we asked, they said no, and insisted that the
little girl had been abducted. This immediately caused strangeness
and suspicion.
Q - According to your book, the body was preserved and you have already stated that you suspect it was frozen. If it were so, were could it have been hidden ?
A - Any investigator
knows that when there is a group of people that is on holidays,
foreigners or not, it is necessary to discover what means they had
available to, for example, move the body. But the McCanns and their
friends, at that point in time, only knew the route between the beach
and the resort. To us, taking into account how little they knew the
area, it would be normal that if they did anything, they would move
towards the beach. Later on there is the Irish family, which
guarantees that they saw a man walking towards the beach, carrying a
child. It was something that matched our suspicions.
Q - Does that mean that from your point of view, the body may have remained on the beach?
Q - Does that mean that from your point of view, the body may have remained on the beach?
A - Yes. But how long was
it there for? It is unknown. It is true that the area was searched by
the dogs. But some people say that the smell of salted water may lead
the dogs not to indicate where the body was. There is also the
possibility that the body was taken to another location on that very
same night. It is materially possible. The body may have been moved
three or more times.
Q - In your book, you also mention political and diplomatic pressures. Was the PJ ever contacted by the British government?
A - There was an
intervention from the British government, even though it was somewhat
clumsy. Mainly from the present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He
spoke with Kate and with the English authorities that were involved
in the investigation. And he also spoke with José Sócrates
[Portuguese Prime Minister]. As far as I know, he never spoke
directly with the PJ.
Q - But where did the alleged power of the couple, which you have been suggesting, come from?
A - On the first night, a
dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities
never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that
emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever
confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also
mentioned.
Q - Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends?
Q - Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends?
A - No. They never sent
the information that we requested. In fact, they did send only once,
financial information. They stated that the couple had a mortgage and
that there was no knowledge of any credit or debit cards. How didn't
they have any? The registration of the rental car mentions the card
numbers. Concerning the other members of the group, the information
was also only that.
The former inspector speaks about what could have been done in the investigation and says that making Murat an arguido was not a mistake.
Q - The PJ's report
dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say
they saw the person with the child…
A - It cannot be that
way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened.
The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know
for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the
restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting
up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way
that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was
held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly
not. It is information that has to be worked further.
Q - When you were removed from the case, they were planning to return to Portugal. But they desisted from the diligence…
A - The family should
have come to Portugal and they didn't. It was not done on purpose,
but a person cannot be left waiting to be heard over five months.
That allowed for, according to what I have heard, the Irish family to
be contacted and the target of coercion. Several people went there
and they were not from the police. He even had to get himself a
lawyer to try to get things into order. Before the police arrived to
hear them, several persons had tried to speak to them. And they were
not the only ones.
Q - In the book "Maddie Truth of the Lie" you mention a Polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…
A - Nobody cares about that. We
should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish
police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and
we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the
photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know
what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of
Maddie.
Q - Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn't there be a possibility that this couple "dispatched" the child within a few hours?
A - That is already
speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying.
Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie's. We
cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal
anymore.
Q - Could you have gone further with this couple?
A - We could. And if they
were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the
route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.
Q - Was it a mistake to
make Murat an arguido?
A - No, it was not. A
mistake would have been if we had not acted in the manner that we did
and he would always remain a suspect without being able to defend
himself. Now he has even received compensation. Have you noticed that
nobody has requested the instruction of the process? He could have
done that.
Q - Did the Joana case contribute to your removal?
A - It cannot have
contributed. The national director knows that the issue are two
social psychopaths – considered by the IML [national institute for
forensic medicine] – that lie. The issue is my word and the word of
a psychopath.
Q - May the noise of the case have had some influence?
A - When the first news
came out I called for the attention of the director in Faro. What I
said at that time was: maybe it's best for the process to leave
Portimão, or for me to step aside from the investigation.
Q - Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case?
Q - Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case?
A - I did. And the
feedback that I got was that I had full support.
Q - Don't you regret that you did not go to the location [on the night of the events]?
A - There are several
ways to coordinate. And one of them is over the phone. No, I have no
regrets.
Q - Don't you think that
the result might have been different?
A - It is possible. At
least there would have been someone, and I have a good memory, who
would remember how they were dressed that evening.
IOL PortugalDiário allowed its readers to ask questions from the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral. Among several that were received, here are the ones that were chosen by the editor.
Q - Could the tests have been made at another laboratory, like for example the FBI's? (question from Michael Williams)
A - That is another group
decision. And it is decided in order to somehow compromise the other
side. There was already that "bad posture", let's put it
that way, from the English tabloids. The idea was for them to be
compromised with the results. But yes, it could have been done at
another lab, it didn't even need to go to the United States, there
are some very good ones in Europe.
Q - Were the diligences the same in the cases of Joana and Maddie? (question from Luís Nogueiro)
A - The first diligences
were the same.
Q - How do you comment on the statements from the former President Jorge Sampaio? (question from Fernando Moura das Neves)
A - I think it is a
concern. Deep down, he is not against the publication of the book.
Maybe what he meant is that it was not necessary to go this far.
Q - Was anything done about the church where the McCanns spent so much time and to which they had the key? (identified reader)
A - There were never any
motives to question the Catholic church. There is no indice that
points towards the child being there, at least up to the moment when
she was transported in the car. Even because there are no freezers
there, or cold spots that would allow for the body to be kept at that
location.
Q - Was no cadaver odour or other indicia ever found on the father's clothes? (identified reader)
Q - Was no cadaver odour or other indicia ever found on the father's clothes? (identified reader)
A - No. We don't know
what he was wearing on the night of the disappearance. If it was him
who was seen carrying the child, those clothes may even not exist
anymore. He went to London and he might have washed it. As a matter
of fact, we never knew what anyone of the group was wearing on the
evening of the facts.
IOL PortugalDiário remembers that the process of the disappearance of Maddie was archived and that Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, stopped being arguidos on the 21st of July. Maddie's parents have made it known that they intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral, following the publication of the book "Maddie: Truth of the Lie".
Gonçalo Amaral interview
'El Mercurio' –
10.08.2008
Portuguese Gonçalo
Amaral, ex-Chief Inspector on the case, insists on his theory of
2007:
"There is strong
evidence that Maddie is dead"
Traces of blood and of a
body detected by dogs in the belongings, flat and car occupied by the
couple were part of the proof collected during the period of time
when Gonçalo Amaral was in charge of the search for Maddie.
Last October, one month
after the McCanns were declared suspects, he was removed from the
case – "without any explanation" he says – and two
weeks ago he published the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie",
wherein he considers it proved that the British girl died and that
her parents are lying.
Q - Who supports your
theory that Gerry and Kate McCann are the guilty parties in
Madeleine’s disappearance?
A - In September 2007,
the investigation, Portuguese and British police, reached the
conclusion that Maddie had died and that the parents were responsible
and were involved in the crimes of hiding a body and simulating a
kidnapping and potentially the crime of abandonment.
Q - You have said that
the child died when she fell from a sofa – why are you so sure of
this?
A - First of all, there
is strong evidence that Maddie is dead. When I left the case, the
investigation was pointing at the sofa, due to the cadaver odour and
blood tracked on the floor behind this piece of furniture.
Q - Which are the clues
that indicate that the McCanns simulated a kidnapping?
A - The thesis of the
kidnapping was based upon two issues. The first, the testimony of
Kate's friend Jane Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a child,
while none of the other witnesses mentioned this fact.
Q - However, one of the
suspects was the man recognized by Tanner, Robert Murat.
A - I involved him
because of his behaviour. Later, Tanner said she recognized him
during that night. And also according to statements from other
friends in the group holidaying at Praia da Luz.
The second issue…
That Maddie's mother is
the only person who says that the window was open. When she calls to
the other members of the group, she goes out leaving her twins,
exposing them once again, to danger. Further proof is Kate's finger
prints that describe the movement when she opened the windows – we
know that the window was cleaned the previous day -. However, Kate
says she never opened the window. And most importantly, there were no
signs of breaking in.
Q - You have been under
pressure from the McCann family lawyers.
A - I felt strong
pressure from the British press. I think that nobody has ever seen
such a tendentious campaign such as this one, with the sole purpose
of denigrating the Portuguese police and myself.
Q - After publishing the
book, have you received any threats?
A - Before publishing it,
I received some warnings. Afterwards, these became legal threats. In
any case, I am not afraid, because this book presents only data and
facts.
Q - This week, the
McCann's accused the Judicial Police of having withheld crucial
information at the time you were Director, regarding a witness who
said she had seen Madeleine last June.
A - It appears that the
McCann family is playing their part defending the thesis of a
kidnapping. The Dutch police evaluated this evidence, which proved to
be ridiculous. We are aiding the marketing of a kidnapping which,
obviously, does not fit within a modern law system.
Q - Do you believe that
what happened that night was an accident?
A - When I left the
investigation, all evidence was leading us in that direction.
Focus magazine – João Vasco Almeida and Frederico Duarte Carvalho – 13.08.2008
The inspector of the
McCann case demolishes the abduction theory: "The sightings are
marketing". He explains, for the first time, what remains to be
done in order to find the body
Gonçalo Amaral has
already sold 140 thousand copies of his book 'Maddie: The Truth about
the Lie'. The former coordinator of the investigation into the case
that shocked the country explains his theory to Focus.
Focus – A newspaper
reported that your book could be summed up as "murder, the dog
wrote", given the fact that it was the cadaver odour and the
blood that were found that led you to sustain the theory that
Madeleine McCann died. What do you actually know beyond the dogs?
Gonçalo Amaral – That
comment only reveals the ignorance of the person who wrote it. The
technique of residue collection using special dogs like these, CSIs,
is usual in England, in the United States and it has already led to
more than 200 condemnations. The laboratory where the samples [of
blood, cadaver odour and DNA from Maddie] were analysed has
corroborated these experts' work.
F – It has corroborated
it, but it does not specify that they belong to Maddie McCann.
G.A. – They can only
match that from Madeleine McCann, because the lab had the twins' DNA
and it was not a match. Those are 15 out of 19 markers that match.
F – What else sustains
the theory?
G.A. – There is
evidence from indicia, which is possible in this country, as long as
the prosecutor possesses the conviction and the elements that
indicate that, in court, there will be a condemnation. The Public
Ministry has to value this evidence that was collected. This time,
the Public Ministry considered that the indicia are not sufficient
and archived the process.
F – And what are those
indicia that you understand as sufficient?
G.A. – The atypical
behaviour of the parents: The fact that the lady says that she had
three children sleeping in one room, that she arrives and one is
missing, the window is open, she mentions it's a cold night, the
shutter is up… and she goes away, leaving two children asleep, with
a possible abductor around. I know that [the reports from the PJ and
from the Public Ministry] didn't give any relevance to the
contradictions and didn't expose the falsehoods and the false
testimonies that exist there from all the persons who intervened.
That, deep down, is the evidence that indicates that everyone is
lying and those lies cannot be understood.
F– And who took the
child from her bed?
G.A. – That is the
question that we were investigating on the 2nd of October 2007, when
I left. From that moment on, little investigation was carried out in
that apartment. The parents should have come over for a
reconstruction and they didn't. That was necessary to understand what
happened.
F – Which was…
G.A. – The death of the
child in the apartment. The Public Ministry even mentions homicide.
The abduction theory has been dismissed due to everything that has
been made public.
F – How do you defend
the "accidental" death?
G.A. – There is indicia
behind the sofa [of the McCanns' living room]. The sofa is under a
window that looks onto the street, which is three or four metres
high. It is normal behaviour, and justice deals with normal
behaviour, that the parents would have moved the sofa away from the
window, given the fact that they had small children and alone at
home. The window was easy to open and the shutters were not
functioning…
F – But why
"accidental"?
G.A. - I don't say it's
accidental. Up to that moment, we could only reach an accidental
death, because we had not worked on the rest yet. We had yet to
understand what had happened there. Cadaver odour and blood from the
child appear next to the sofa. Death has presumably taken place
there. There are no doubts that it is a death and that it took place
on that spot. We are not going to say that the mother did this or
that, that would really be speculating, the only hypothesis is the
accidental death. In the continuation of the investigations is where
we could go further or not.
F – You said that the
mother can't be accused of having done this or that… How far can
you deduct?
G.A. – As far as we
could deduct on the 2nd of October. I believe, and so did my
colleagues in the investigation, that if we had continued into the
same direction of the investigation, we might eventually have gone
further. We might even have reached a point where we dismissed any
suspicion concerning the parents. Investigations that only go half
the way is what leaves things as they are now.
F – Are Madeleine
McCanns' parents responsible for their daughter's death?
G.A. – No. There is a
neglect in the guard [of the children]. There are no doubts that
those children were not safe, because if they were, one of them
wouldn't have disappeared. Now, saying that "the responsibility
of the death belongs to…" We had to understand, to collect
data about what happened from there on. The reconstruction is
essential. I did not understand, but I accepted the decision from a
hierarchical team that I was part of, why the reconstruction was not
done right away. The possibility of trying to make a new
reconstruction was opened, but the arguidos had already left
Portugal. A thing like this is only done with arguidos. The ideal is
to have everyone, but even only with the couple, that were arguidos
at that point in time, the reconstruction could have been carried
out.
F – And with actors?
G.A. – No. It would be
enough to tell them: 'You say that you did this and that, then do it,
where did you enter, were you having dinner, weren't you having
dinner, what did you order for dinner…? Where did you touch and
where didn't you?' All of this. It was important for Kate and Gerry
McCann to come over, but the Irish witnesses could also come…
F – Those who say that
they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child, down the street, on the night
of the disappearance.
G.A. – Yes, those who
assert that they saw, with a certainty of seventy, eighty percent,
Gerald McCann carrying a child, walking in the street, it was already
night-time.
Focus – You suggest
that the little girl was frozen or conserved in the cold. How do you
reach that?
G.A. – There is a
bodily fluid, inside a car boot, above an "embaladeira"
[note: metallic piece of the car that reinforces the lower part of
the doors], from a child that presumably died on the 3rd of May. The
car was rented 20 days later and was even new. It had been rented two
or three times. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the
climate, the temperature, the decomposition of a body… A body, in
order to leak a fluid in that manner, a body with more than a month
of decomposition had to be preserved.
F – Did it have to be
close by?
G.A. – And why?
F – It could have been
taken to Lisbon, Oporto, Badajoz…
G.A. – That was what we
were taking care of at that time. The body could have been moved, but
nobody knows when the body was transported in the car. The car ran
several kilometres [around 3000, according to the process]. And given
the fact that it is not known when the body was transported,
according to the analysis of the fluids, we have to attend to where
the car went through. The McCann couple and their relatives. For
example, the relatives later state that they transported garbage, a
package with meat from the supermarket, but the dogs can tell those
things apart very well.
F – There is a
contradiction in the valuation of the dogs' evidence.
G.A. – What happens is
that the Public Ministry devalues it. In Portugal, we are all very
skeptical towards this form of collecting indicia.
F – You state that you
have not told everything that you know.
G.A. – And I haven't.
F – Why?
G.A. – Because I am a
jurist, too. Let's see how the situation evolves.
F – And how can the
situation evolve?
G.A. – The things that
are missing are important in terms of the investigation, but they are
ours… When it is said: these are your convictions… This is the
understanding of a work team and even with the English police. And
with documents. It's this kind of thing, for any action that may be
coming. I don't believe, but who knows.
F – Does the English
police agree, then, with that "understanding" about what
you are saying?
G.A. – The work with
the English police went very well. Then, certainly due to a mere
coincidence, when the McCann couple leaves, all the English policemen
leave as well…
F – You are convinced
that someone made the process reach the hands of the English.
G.A. – I have that
idea. I think that it even fits into that marketing campaign that is
saying that the little girl is alive.
F – But don't you admit
you may have doubts if there is a sighting?
G.A. – How many
sightings have there been? Thousands. It's been a year. I stopped
giving them a lot of importance on the day that the dogs confirmed
the cadaver odour and the blood.
F – But you did start
with the abduction hypothesis.
G.A. – If you look
closely, right in my first document, the process mentions "abduction"
followed by two question marks.
F – Then, you were
thrown out…
G.A. - … that is a good
expression…
F – … because of the
reports that mention that you drink whiskey at lunch or because, in
your work, you believe that there is a death?
G.A. – I don't drink
whiskey. I drink beer at lunch time, if they had written that, they
would have been right. Before I left, a weekly magazine says: "That
person does not last beyond October as the head of the
investigation." This happened a month or two before. And then I
was given a speech like that one from the Attorney General: 'Not all
investigations can be successful, or the authors of the crimes are
not always discovered…' What may have hurt many people was my will
to discover the material truth. And when I left, I was naturally
closer to the truth. Two examples: Apart from our need to know who
the friends of the McCann couple were, or if they knew anyone in
Portugal, or who drove the car… if they eventually visited another
apartment, if they used to meet someone, if they deposited someone…
just for us to understand. Towards the end, I was informed that they
had visited people at a villa in Praia da Luz. We went to check it
out. Then, we were informed that the McCanns had visited an apartment
block near the cemetery. And we were working on that, in order to
confirm whether it was them or not. This was how we were trying to
understand where the body was. And there are many persons who were
not investigated, who were not in the process.
F – So are you going to
let this entire case pass into the clear? Don't you at least want to
be sued by the McCanns over everything that you leave in the air…
G.A. – So we can have a
chat…? (smiles)
F – Are you going to
sue the McCanns?
G.A. – No, as far as I
know the McCann couple has not been speaking, the one who has been
speaking is their press advisor, Mr Clarence Mitchell.
El Mundo – Silvia Taulés – 08.09.2008
* The apartment window
always stayed shut, in spite of what Kate McCann said
* The girl might have
fallen from the sofa; there could have been an accident because of
the sleeping pill (sic: solution)
MADRID - He arrives late,
with a certain 'star' look. His book (Esquilo, 2008), which will be
officially presented on the 9th of September, has sold 120,000 copies
in two weeks, a record in Portugal.
This, once begun, was
unstoppable. Gonçalo Amaral, the visible head of an investigation
that had thousands of people in suspense, tells why he remains
insistent that it was Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, who were
responsible for her disappearance.
Question – You defend
the theory that the parents are responsible for what happened to
Madeleine McCann.
Answer – No. That is
not in the book.
Q - However that is the
theory that one can understand from reading it.
A - The summary also
draws the same conclusion of the book.
Q - What are the points, that you believe, implicate the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter?
A - The first thing is
that they always defended the theory of the abduction. The mother
said that the window of the room was open when she saw that the girl
was not there. That is not correct, the window was closed and it is
impossible for the girl to have left that way. We worked in the
apartment and the window was closed. The parents have always argued
that the girl was alive and they were the first to raise that Maddie
could be dead.
Q - Other evidence?
A - The witnesses, there
were several inconsistencies between their statements. Those that had
dinner with the McCanns that night, their friends, invented the
system of monitoring of the children. Why? There are many details
that lead one to think about the culpability of the parents. There
are two different lists about the monitoring system.
Q - You talk about
inconsistencies in the statements about the monitoring system. The
book also indicates that the nine people who had dinner together
drank an average of eight bottles of wine, four of red and four of
white. Isn't there the possibility that, between the disappearance
and the alcohol, they were confused and that they did not remember
the exact minutes in which they watched the children?
A - Okay, but then there
is the window where we found Kate's finger prints, the mother of the
girl. She said that she had never touched that window, and the
cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it on the previous day.
And above all she said that the window was open when it was closed,
it doesn't add up.
Q - Would it be possible
that the mother or the father closed the window later, when returning
to the room to search for the girl?
A - There are three
people who say that they walked in front of the apartment and saw the
window closed. They did not state that it was open? Which left? And
there are other things. The mother says that she entered the room and
the windows were open and the shutters were raised. No one else saw
that. They simulated an abduction. They wanted us to say that someone
entered the apartment with the intention of theft and when they saw
the girl they killed her.
Q - That could have
happened?
A – It is very
complicated.
Q - Why?
A - Let us return to the
people who passed in front of the apartment. Nobody saw anything
strange. We investigated all the people who were involved in theft in
the area. There were no unknown fingerprints in the apartment, of
course they could have used gloves, that is true, but that could not
be. In addition, the parents were the first to talk about death. And
it is normal to think that their daughter could have died, but they
have never admitted this in public. But I do not believe that the
parents killed her.
Q - So, what are we
talking about?
A - About an accident.
The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident
with Calpol (a sleeping pill (sic: solution)). We never had access to
the girl's medical history, so we don't know whether she was healthy
or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.
Q - What do you think
could have happened that night?
A - Both the British and
Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed
his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not
murder. In the room, blood and cadaver odour was found just below a
window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just
outside that window for a while. The girl was not a heavy sleeper,
that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and
climbed to the sofa below the window. But the parents, for the girl
not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have
fallen.
Q - The girl falls from
the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.
A - The mother. It is the
mother who finds the girl dead.
Q - But I am trying to
think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter
dead on the floor decide to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the
corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can find it?
A – This is what we
were investigating when I was dismissed from the case. I want to
recall that there is an Irish man who claimed to have seen Gerry
McCann with a girl in his arms, on his way towards the beach that
same night. That testimony has been hidden. The dogs specialised in
finding traces of blood and odour of cadaver, found both on the wall
of the apartment and in the boot of the car that the McCanns rented
23 days later.
Q - Did Gerry McCann bury
his dead daughter on the beach and then unearth her and put her in
the boot 23 days later?
A - We do not know. The
Irish [witness] that I have told you about saw Gerry on television
with a child in his arms arriving in the UK and stated that it was
the same image they had seen back in May in Portugal. That man spent
two days without sleeping when he realised what he had discovered,
but nobody has talked about them. And what one of the Irish has said
is logical, a man with a child in his arms toward the beach.
Q - But this implies that
the whole group, the nine people who ate dinner that night, had
agreed to lie.
A - All of them. Because,
if you do not know, the British law regarding negligence and child
welfare is very strict. They left their children alone in the
apartments. In the UK, if you leave a child alone for half an hour,
you lose custody. After Madeleine's death, if it had been made public
that it was an accident, everyone could have lost custody.
Q - So you consider that
one of the reasons for the parents and friends to have lied is
because they feared losing their children's custody.
A - Yes, yes. Nobody has
opened legal proceedings for what happened, for the negligence, and
we have asked the British authorities why. Have they answered? Of
course not.
Q – Let's go to the day
of the disappearance. 17h30 is the last time that neutral witnesses
saw Maddie alive. At 20h30, her parents sit down, composed, at the
table for dinner with friends. In the middle, Gerry even plays
tennis. Is there enough time for the girl to fall from the sofa,
killing herself, for the parents to realise, to decide to conceal
her, for the siblings to be sleeping, and for them to arrive
undisturbed and sit at the table as if nothing had happened? Even
more, for them to sit down at the table after having convinced the
rest of the group that they mustn't report the death of the girl?
A - In those three hours
there are inconsistencies between witnesses. Some said that the
checks lasted half an hour, others said 30 seconds...
Q – It is obvious that
they contradict each other, but did they have time to do everything
you say they did?
A - Yes, of course they
had time. Some say that Gerry had a strange behaviour at the table.
Q – Did they?
A – They said that he
spoke too much, gesticulated a lot, quite the opposite from the
previous days. For me this is a very real hypothesis.
Q - You have a long
career as an investigator, years in which you have faced criminals
and innocents. What do you see when facing the McCanns?
A - They are two persons
with much fear. I do not know if they fear to be discovered or fear
the police of an unknown country.
Q – It was said that
Kate was very cold. But I've seen her cry.
A - So did I. She is not
cold. There was a moment, in a meeting with them, when we set out the
sofa theory. Kate put her head down, looking distant, and, after a
few seconds, she looked up again as if nothing had happened. She
looked like she was escaping from the role that she was interpreting.
Q - When you raised the
hypothesis that the girl might have died after falling off the sofa,
did Kate McCann answer?
A - She did not answer,
she just dropped her head for a moment, as if she was about to faint.
She had an emotional collapse that lasted just a moment.
Q - And Gerry McCann?
A – He is a very strong
person, dominant. He's a surgeon, a man capable of making decisions
very quickly. That was good for him to be able to decide over
Madeleine. If you have to hide the body, you must decide quickly. And
it could only be hidden on the beach, and you have to take her on
foot. This is where the statements from the Irish witness is
important, the one that no one has taken into account.
Q - What is your opinion?
A - To me, Gerry hid
Madeleine's body on the beach. And after a few days he moved her with
his car. We work following this lead. Trying to find out the date of
the switch, some details, but we were on the way. The Irish [witness]
was about to arrive in Portugal, but everything was delayed too much,
he even received external pressures. In the end, he didn't testify
for the Police.
Q – They [McCanns] have
appeared in all the media to announce the disappearance of their
daughter and if it ends up that they have done it, what are they,
psychopaths?
A – No, they are human.
If the McCanns admit that their daughter is dead, they can no longer
collect money from the Maddie fund, and that's a lot of money, over
one million pounds. That's why they say that the girl was abducted.
Q - What if they do not
want to lose hope? It all seems very morbid.
A - It is. If they admit that she is dead they will lose their style of life. They are human, not psychopaths.
A - It is. If they admit that she is dead they will lose their style of life. They are human, not psychopaths.
Q - You said that the
girl was frozen.
A - For there to be
vestiges in the boot of the car rented 23 days later, they must have
preserved the corpse in some way. I believe that when they put it in
the boot, with the heat of those days in the Algarve, a similar
situation happened with that of shopping bags, which melt, and then
the water is transferred to the car.
Q – Couldn't the traces
be transferred from the room to the parents clothes and after to the
car?
A - But if you have blood
on your clothes it is because you've seen it. And the blood that the
dogs found was washed blood, it was remains not clear spots.
Q - Neither you nor
Alípio Ribeiro (former director of the Judicial Police), nor
Olegário Souza (former police spokesman), are still on their posts.
You have even pre-retired.
A - There were too many
pressures. The McCanns have many contacts and nobody was interested
in knowing the truth.
Q - Is it the British
Empire against Portugal?
A - Yes, it seems so.
TRACES OF DNA IN THE
CAR'S BOOT
The Scotland Yard dogs
detected, in the boot of the car rented by the McCanns 23 days after
the disappearance of the girl, traces of DNA which could belong to
the girl; for the Portuguese Police more evidence, that Maddie was
not abducted but that she died in the Ocean Club apartment.
Note: Mr Amaral does NOT
actually describe Calpol as a 'sleeping pill'. It is El Mundo who
describe it as such: Firstly, in the headline teaser and secondly, in
brackets to describe to Spanish readers what Calpol is, after Mr
Amaral has simply mentioned it by name.
