Maddie Special
CMTV - Interview avec Gonçalo Amaral - 03.05.2014
traduit par Astro
(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.
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : What happened?
GA : 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”.
Il s'agit d'une pure spéculation de la part de GA et elle n'est guère plausible. Il est probable que, peu après la disparition et à la demande du LC, Crecheman ait fait ou envoyé une déposition en joignant une photo du pyjama et de la couverture (détail troublant puisque Jane TB n'en voit aucune) de sa fille. DCI Redwood a fini par tomber là-dessus et a décidé que le père en question devait être Crecheman, ménageant ainsi Jane TB et Smithman.
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 10,
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.
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : Who suggested that to
you?
GA : It was suggested to
me.
CMTV : 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 (…)
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?
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : 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…
CMTV : 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.
D'où cela sort-il ? Martin S a clairement déclaré que son témoignage n'avait pas varié d'un iota. Il est vrai que sa certitude était dans une fourchette 60-80%
GA : That is no
contradiction. When he speaks to us, he says it is that person.
Mais quand aurait-il parlé avec GA ? Au téléphone ? When
the statements to the British police appear, 85 or 90% is mentioned,
so it’s a probability percentage. GA a la mémoire courte. The way that he identifies him is
not due to the physionomy, it’s the way he walks, the way he holds
the child. C'est un manque d'aisance à porter l'enfant. 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.
Ce n'est pas le pyjama observé par Tad (manches longues). Et puis Smithman ne revient pas de la crèche de nuit. Enfin il existe un registre des enfants qui étaient à la crèche de nuit ce soir-là (pas dans les PJFiles).
CMTV : 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.
CMTV : 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?
CMTV : 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.
