THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN: A CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION (Part Two)
by Zizi & Paula
For the original CMTV link click here
TRANSLATION OF PART TWO
Presenter (P): We are now resuming this “Maddie Special” and (as we do) we return to one of the (many) questions posed by this (child’s) disappearance and its (interrupted) investigation.
A British tourist who was near Praia da Luz when the child disappeared, happened to work in England for the Child Protection Services. This woman, seemed to have recognized David Payne (the McCanns’ close friend) as a man who appeared in some report (to the Child Protection Services) in connection with inappropriate behaviour towards children.
(VO): The day following Maddie’s disappearance, a British tourist in Algarve switches on her TV on an English channel. The news, in direct from the Ocean Club, travel around the world. The woman is moved by the suffering of the couple and decides to try and help these shattered parents.
The woman who rushes to the village of Luz is Yvonne Martin . She is not an ordinary tourist. She works in England for the Child Protection Services. She is conscious of her duty to give all assistance she can to this couple, who are living through the pain of their child’s disappearance (but) she is not welcome by the McCanns (…)
The English social worker tries to find out if the parents need help. She wishes to know the circumstances in which the children were left alone, and expresses interest in knowing details of their scheme (regime) of vigilance (checking) but, Kate and Gerry response thwarts her initiative.
Kate seemed much tenser than the others. Yvonne tries to talk to her alone, but Kate, brusquely, puts a stop to their conversation. Desolated, Yvonne Martin abandons the Ocean Club.
During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she fixed (retained) the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a “close friend” of the family but, Yvonne knew that face (it rang a bell).
She (thought) she had seen that friend of the McCann’s before. Then, she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. (As) it transpired later, David Payne had been reported in England as suspect of inappropriate behaviour towards children!
The case that involved David Payne, occurred during a (period) of holidays in the island of Mallorca in September 2005. Towards the end of that Summer, the McCanns’ went on a holiday with some friends – three other couples; among them David and Fionna Payne. The group rented a spacious villa (in Mallorca).
(One evening) at the dinner table, one of the women of the group (Katherina Gaspar), also a medical doctor, overhears a (bizarre) comment David Payne makes to Gerry McCann.
Obviously referring to Maddie, David asks Gerry if she “would do this” – (demonstrating what he meant by “this”) by sucking one finger and sliding it in and out of his mouth. While demonstrating this with one hand, he makes circles in the region of his nipples with the fingers the other hand (…)
On another occasion, the same witness, saw David Payne repeat the same gestures as he spoke about his own daughter.
Until the end of their holidays in Mallorca, this doctor and her husband, never again allowed David Payne to come close to their one and half year old daughter.
After Maddie’s disappearance the couple, once again, denunciate (report) the suspect behaviour of David Payne to the English police but, the English authorities (for some strange reason) do not disclose this (to the Portuguese police investigators) until much later.
(Program returns to the studio and the conversation resumes)
(P): So, these allegations which were reported to the police in England, were never taken into account in the investigation …
(GA): Hmm, this is very interesting. No (they were never taken into account) and I will explain (why) …
(P): (interrupts) This was never investigated !?
(GA): I am going to elaborate on it if I may, for your benefit, and for those who are watching the programme.
From May (2007) onwards, we became aware of information (coming in) from our British colleagues about something (very odd) that had happened within that group during a holiday (in Mallorca). They never told us specifically what . (We knew) it was something to do with Madeleine but, they (British colleaagues) never gave us any details.
Some time later – and by then I had already been removed from the investigation and reassigned to Faro (police headquarters) – and for no specific reason, except it reminded me of the “we can’t tell you attitude” (of our British partners); a fax (from the UK police) arrived in Portimão (PJ headquarters) ostensibly about some other matter – and this, by the way, is all (clearly stated) in the process; this is all clearly stated in the investigation process files – and, attached to this fax, (which was conspicuously about some other subject) were the statements of Dr. Katherina Gaspar and her husband – which had been made to the British Police (months before)!
(Oddly enough) these statements (Gaspars’) were not referred to in the main communication (either in the heading or the text of the fax).
(I could well take an educated guess and say) the Gaspars’ statements entered the process by the grace of a (British) colleague who was probably fed-up of hiding what he had been told to conceal …
And it is very strange not to see anyone on behalf of the family – I mean the family of the missing child – showing any concern, any interest in these allegations ! And I don’t see anyone from Scotland Yard preoccupied in clarifying these, either!
Recently, they were talking about paedophile networks in Albufeira (Algarve) and I ask: What if there was a paedophile in the very middle of this group?
I do not know if the Gaspars’ denunciation is relevant! I have no idea if the gentleman in question is a paedophile or not , but if we ask ourselves if his behaviour was odd, we have to admit it was very odd!
Now concerning the British senior social assistant (Yvonne Martin) what she said was, that the person she saw in Praia da Luz (when trying to assist the McCanns’) had already passed through her hands (been seen by her in some files) either as a witness or a suspect. She recognized him afterwards from a photo (shown to her by the police).
In spite of this, when the British police was questioned by the PJ about David Payne, they replied (insisted) this gentleman had no records (on their files).
The fact is, this gentleman was the one who organized the group’s trip (to Praia da Luz); it was he who, for years, had been bathing the children, (including) the little girls of the other couples and – as is contained in the investigation files – had gone to the (McCanns’) apartment that afternoon, to see if Kate needed help with the children. Furthermore, it was he who that (very same) afternoon, (helped to) gave bath to his own daughters, while his wife went for a jog on the beach (…)
(In summary), he is the one who, over the years, had the preoccupation about bathing the children of the other couples (…) I do not know if this is normal, if it is part of British culture or not, but I do not think it is.
The gestures he made in Mallorca were (potentially) very serious (leads) particularly since these gestures related to Madeleine!
The gestures – according to the report of Dr. Katherina Gaspar , who (by the way) is herself a medical doctor so… if in this case we have to show respect to the couple and their friends because they are doctors (least we are found guilty of lèse majesté), then we should remember (this witness) is a medical doctor as well – and her husband too!
The gestures (made by David Payne) were aimed at Madeleine, and Dr. Katherina Gaspar was shocked when she witnessed them – it was not just the gestures, but the very question he (David Payne) poses to the father (Gerry McCann) right in his presence!
This evidence (the Gaspars denunciation ) has never been denied by anyone, anywhere – not least by any of those concerned. It is as if it never happened and then, (much later), it arrives in the process (unexpectedly) in the manner in which it did (…)
And these (statements), do not even arrive in time to be included in the rogatory letters which were drafted around October-November (2007)! Nor (for that matter) were they later included into the amended round of rogatory letters the PJ tried to carried out in England.
In my opinion, the (Gaspars) are a couple that should have been heard in the investigation – particularly since this was something (a state of affairs) about which they promptly contacted the police in England – exactly when they see that person (David Payne) on TV (just) ten days after the (fateful) event.
(repeats) When Dr. Katherina Gaspar sees him (David Payne) on the TV, she realizes who this person was – and she felt very strongly, that she simply had to report him to the British police – but all this information was withheld from the Portuguese police (…)
(P): (addressing Francisco Moita Flores) Surely a suspicion (an allegation) of this type, with such characteristics and, moreover, witnessed by members of their own profession should have been investigated!
(FMF): Of course they should! In fact (almost) everything that has resurfaced in this reconstruction is of such gravity, that I think the only (rightful) thing for the PJ and the Public Prosecutor to do, would be to request this footage from CMTV – and while they are at it, examine the reconstruction done by the BBC “Crimewatch” as well – and, then, try to explain, how so many questions like these were left unanswered! Questions of such (gravity) critical importance! Questions that could involve paedophilia, sexual abuses …
But going back to that Irish gentleman’s sighting … it could have been possible for us to know, by the manner of description, if that child was dead or alive.
(P): Particularly since such possibility was available – certainly the Smiths’ were very willing (to come over to Portugal) …
(FMF): (continuing his train of thought) From the position of her hanging arms; her hanging legs and other indicators, it might have been possible to find out if that child (the stranger was carrying) was dead or alive; whether we were dealing here with a kidnapping or a homicide …
(GA): (cuts in to add) … and remember! In this instance we have more than one witness! We have a whole family! And … (unclear)
(P): (interrupts) Forgive me to interrupt! I am going to follow on what you have just said, and invite our viewers to review the reconstruction – or, for those who are only watching us now, to view it for the first time.
This was the first time a reconstruction of the case Maddie was done in Portugal. The little girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz on the 3 of May of 2007. A disappearance shrouded in mystery and beset by various contradictions.
What follows is a simple repeat of the reconstruction footage translated at the beginning of Part One! To skip this part please click here !
(Images of the crime scene, inside and outside apartment 5A, appear on the screen; also of Madeleine McCann and her twin brother and sister, followed by the caption “Where is Maddie?” – then the programme starts.)
(Voice Over): On that Thursday (the 3rd of May, 2007), the McCanns’ decide not go to the beach with the other three couples – their friends. Instead, Gerry and Kate spend their day at the Ocean Club.
That day, the couple never leaves the holiday compound but, even so, they do not keep their children with them. Maddie aged three, and the twins Amelie and Sean, aged two, spend their day at the Ocean Club’s crèche (the children’s day care centre).
At 9:10 AM, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.
The crèche staff take the children to the beach. Between 10:30 and 11 hours, Madeleine plays on the beach with other children . Kate collects the children from the crèche at 12:25 and returns them (to the crèche) at 14:50 hours.
A few hours later (around 16:00) Kate is jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she returns to the crèche to pick up her three children and to take them back home to apartment 5A.
At the same time Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends (that is the other three couples) drink on the esplanade (terrace) of the restaurant Paraíso, in Praia da Luz (17:35 hours on the video caption).
The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in a buoyant mood. Their children are with them. (It looks like) a tranquil (and enjoyable) end to their afternoon.
(Short break in the voice-over with more images shown)
At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.
The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.
At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.
No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.
One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.Translators’ note: we could not find the source of the last two statements in the translated, on-line versions of the PJ files. It is therefore possible CMTV had access to inside information on these two counts but – from whom? We do not know. Journalistic sources are often unnamed and invariably protected (…)
David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”
Dinner time approaches.
The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.Translators’ note: the building is “only 100 meters away” from the restaurant, but the view to its rear is greatly concealed – click here to form a better idea. Also important to note, Madeleine’s room is on the other side of the building – at the front, not at the rear. To compound the risk, the McCanns, for convenience, leave the sliding doors of their apartment’s lounge, unlocked. These doors open to a patio with easy access from a public road! An “open invitation” to thieves and wannabe be kidnappers (if any)!
In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.
The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.
Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)
That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.Translators’ note: click here to form a better idea. Same link as above. For other related photos of their apartment – both inside and outside – see here.
The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).
According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.
But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.
After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s jotter (probably Madeleine’s).
Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.
There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.
At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.
They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.Translators’ note: Referring here to the street’s access gate to the back patio’s sliding windows which, for convenience, the McCanns’ were in the habit of leaving unlocked (…)
(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.
It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.
(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).
Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)
Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.Translators’ note: In this context, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral says, at least two staff members of the restaurant state, Gerry McCann only returns to the restaurant moments before Kate McCann gives the alert – that is between 22:00-22:30 and not 21:30 hours (…) These statements are in the witness records . Sounds like a spanner in the works of Scotland Yard’s crack team but please read on.
At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.
Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)Translator’s note: perhaps the most reliable account of events both of the time (22:30 and not 22:00 hours) and of what Kate McCann actually shouted “We let her down!” is that of the late Mrs. Pamela Fenn – the McCanns’ upstairs neighbour.The expression “They have taken her!” seems to have been introduced by nanny Charlotte Penning or, to be precise, from an interview she gave to the British tabloid “Daily Mail” – a notoriously biased and unreliable journalistic source.
(More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio)
(P): One of the mysteries that shrouds this case, concerns the car the family rented after the disappearance of their child. Searches were made on this vehicle (by British forensic dogs) and odour of cadaver was found in it.Translators’ note: For the dog trainer’s rogatory statements see here
(Back to reconstruction mode)
(VO): On the 27th May – 24 days after the disappearance of Maddie, the McCann’s rented a grey, Renault Scenic saloon. The rental contract authorized another person besides Gerry, to drive the car. This person was Michael Wright (married to) a cousin of Kate (McCann) who, in the meantime, arrives from England (…)
It is in this car that in September (2007), dogs from the British police encountered cadaver’s odour and traces of dried blood (body fluids).
(Images show one of the dogs (Keela) detecting cadaver odour on the car‘s door)
The saloon is delivered to Gerry McCann on the 27 May with 3114 kilometers on it. Seven days later it had already done 744 kilometers.
The rental contract is renewed for another month. Between the 27th of May and the 3td of July, in just over a month, the Renault had been driven 2750 kilometres. The car seems to have been driven, most of the time by Michael Wright , Kate McCann cousin’s husband (and close childhood friend).
For most of this period the McCanns’ were away from the Algarve. They travelled “half the world” and, when they had to reach the airports of Faro or Lisbon, they hired taxis. The cadaver odour detected in the car contributed to the suspicion that the corpse of Maddie had been transported in that Renault.
(Back to the studio)
(P): Right up to this very day, nothing has been known about what Kate and Gerry McCann said in private about their daughter’s disappearance. In spite of suspicious traces having been found in their clothes (Kate) and the car hired by the couple, the phone-tapping and electronic surveillance of the parents were never authorized (by Portuguese judges).
(short revert to reconstruction mode)
(VO): At no stage during the investigation did the police place the McCanns’ and their friends under surveillance – nor did they exercise any effective control of their actions. The McCanns’ and their friends were always able to use their phones in complete privacy (there was no phone-tapping) and they free to move around where they wished.
Gonçalo Amaral (himself) recognizes that the absence of surveillance was an error.
Only at the beginning of August (2007) when the English police dogs detected the odour of a corpse in apartment 5A – for example in a pair of trousers and a blouse belonging to Kate McCann, a pink soft toy (belonging to Madeleine) as well as their (rented) car – did the investigators realize they had committed a serious error by not monitoring the McCanns’ and their friends. But, by then, it was too late.
Only then (after the dogs had found those compromising traces of a corpse), did the Judiciary Police request the Public Ministry permission to bug the villa rented by the McCanns’.
It would have been useful to the investigation to hear what the McCanns’ had to say to each other about the mysterious disappearance of her daughter.
The Attorney-General of the Public Ministry agrees with the surveillance, but the procedure needs to be authorized by the Judge in charge of the preliminary enquiries. (Unfortunately) the request is made during the Portuguese judicial break and the judge on on duty, refuses to grant the request of the Public Ministry. The surveillance is not authorized (…)
And, with such (dubious) decision, that possibility sunk – (namely) the possibility of the PJ knowing exactly what Gerry and Kate said (to each other) about the disappearance of their child when well away from the (media’s) microphones and TV cameras.
(Back to the studio and the discussion)
(P): We are back to our conversation in the studio with Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores. (Addressing FMF): Concerning the tapping and surveillance during those initial, critical hours – surely this must have been a crucial error of the investigation!
(FMF): It was a crass error! This would have been decisive! Gonçalo Amaral forgive me, but I cannot forsake my opinion! This should have been done in the hours immediately following the event!
This is standard procedure (it is in all of the investigative protocols) – it is (the standard procedure) in the history of homicides and kidnappings of children all over the world!
The principal suspects are always the persons who are close to the children! Irrespective of whether it is their parents, their friends, uncles, cousins! It doesn’t matter!
(I reiterate) it is always the people who are close to the child. (By norm) this must be the basic initial hypothesis, the a priori starting point (for any investigation) of crimes (of this nature) – not just for this concrete (specific) case, but for all of them!
This was a decision that should have been taken immediately! That’s besides taking witness statements for all of them – members of the staff (of the Ocean Club), people who had access to the apartment and so on – all those (people) should have been placed under surveillance!
And in retrospect, knowing as we do today of what goes on the backstage (of this case), what about that man who promptly arrived from England? Their communications agent (the couple’s public relations and spokesman); the government official (Clarence Mitchell) sent to assist the couple, to closely monitor the news agenda, to monitor what what newspapers knew, what TV stations were doing!? This (kind of) people should have been placed under immediate surveillance!
For now we know (what he was up to). Well, I knew it from away back, when I was invited to work on (another) TV station – to comment (on the case) directly from the Algarve.
There (we had a situation, where) the views of the couple, their family and friends were organized, pre-selected (in terms of their relative importance); according to some kind of strategy or schedule by this media monitor . I do not know the name of this man who dealt with the (McCanns’) public exhibitions (appearances).
As we can see from this reconstruction, there seems to exist a mystery within a mystery – a mystery which for years has unsettled investigators (analysts) world-wide. It certainly disturbs me personally, for I believe the solution of this case, ought to pass through the kind of analysis we have been carrying out here, tonight.
And I believe the reconstruction on the one hand, and the surveillance and tappings on the other, would have given a decisive contribution (to this case) and brought this soap opera to an end.
A serial drama that has since spread throughout the world – (often) with more or less shambolic claims of kidnappers found here, there and everywhere – and always, stupidly it seems, of kidnappers who have died! No one has yet found a kidnapper who is alive! They are all dead! And this most recent one is also dead! Not one of them seems to be alive!
(GA, can be heard in the background, suppressing a laugh …)
(FMF): (continuing) And so, apparently, what we have now is a stage setting of events (designed) to prevent the addressing of those questions which, would have been critically important from the standpoint of a genuine, no holds barred, criminal investigation.
The (political) mitigation (that took the place of a proper investigation) resulted in an even greater spectacle (and embarrassment) which, in turn, has come to legitimize certain, unreasonable, courses of action!Translators’ note: possibly referring here – among other things – to the prohibitively expensive but immensely lucrative court proceedings that followed, regarded by informed analysts as lucrative gambits but, we pass no judgement.
In my opinion, this reconstruction (CMTV’s) should be kept as a reference, as a source of elements; of (important) questions which are crying out to be heard!
(P): Before we return to the subject of surveillance and phone-tappings which is just as important – I am going to place one more question, Francisco…
(Now) since we have been talking here about images (do you think) it would have been important to collect, to gather up all the footage from CCTV cameras up to a certain radius, a certain distance, (from) the scene (of the crime)?
(FMF): On the subject of images – the data which I think would be of paramount importance is the one that relates to that Irish family’s sighting.
The point at issue here – the crucial problem Gonçalo brought (to this discussion) is the question of time-frames. Those, would be decisive!
From the point of view of an objective search for the truth, all these elements cannot be rationalized in terms of rhetorical, legal (court) exploits or indeed TV studio argumentations (discussions) – which are also (a form of) rhetoric. What we have been doing here is not (part of) an investigation. We were just discussing a case, right?
(P): But at the very least there are contradictions – that is a fact!
(FMF): (continuing) From the point of view of the Police (PJ) and the Public Ministry, all the questions that have been raised here (in this programme) form, in my opinion, a serious and important document! This programme tonight, is in fact a document which, by its objectivity, compels to a through re-reading of the investigation material. That much is evident!
This (reconstruction) is based on the very witness statements, written and signed by those who were involved. This (programme) is a document that attempts to deal with all the missing time-frames, in order to effectively arrive (at the truth of) what really happened.
(P): (addressing Goncalo Amaral) Essentially, what we have been doing here tonight is also an exercise in memory, a reconstruction as it were and (so, if I may come back to) the question of the wire-tappings and surveillance – why were these not authorized? Bearing in mind, as Francisco was saying, they would have been crucial in this investigation?
I give you an instance (if I may). I was introduced to (met with) the (British) ambassador who, in just a little after 24 hours after the event, was already in the terrain, in loco, meeting with the investigation team; using diplomacy to draw our attention to and suggest we should treat this case as a kidnapping.
(Not surprisingly) the directory of the Judiciary Police immediately afterwards issued a communiqué along the same lines (…)
From then on, the question of surveillance of the couple, could not have been implemented (indeed authorized) – bearing in mind the (police’s) focus had been (officially) diverted to the kidnapping hypothesis!
May be the idea of that communiqué was simply to try and ease the pressure on the couple; (to alleviate) the burden of the media on them, but things (did not quite work out as they expected). With their complicity, they evolved exactly in the opposite direction (in the most unfavourable manner).
(At some point in the investigation) we believed a time would arrive when it would have been possible to carry out various diligences but, that particular undertaking (surveillance) was never put into effect.
(P): But for an investigation (a case) with such contours, certainly it would have been a much more sensible approach …
(GA): That is easy to say with hindsight. That we should have done this or done that; (of course) it is logical we should have but, you know (…)
(P): Of course.
(GA): You see, there were a number of conditionings (constraints). Besides all that we known today about the investigation, there were a number of elements; a host of restrictions that limited our work, constrained our decision-making – and that is (in fact) what happened. And what happened, was the imposition of restrictions by the legal and political superstructure which continue to this day!
Now, concerning the CCTV images… all those images in the area (around the crime scene). They were all collected with the exception of one, that was missed. Someone who was in charge of the task of finding those cameras, fell short.
We checked ATM cash machines, pharmacies which had a system of video-vigilance in place, petrol stations, and so on. We kept widening the perimeter (of the search).
Unfortunately, there was one camera, as we later found out, that was not detected. When we realized there was a camera in that place – (and tried to get those images) it was a bit late.Translator’s note: Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is probably referring here to the CCTV camera outside the Hotel Estrela da Luz (complex), in the Rua da Escola Primária where the “Smiths’ suspect” must have walked past. Andy Redwood (“Scotland Yard”) tacitly agrees with Dr. Gonçalo Amaral about the importance of the Smiths’ sighting, but obviously, given his agenda, he does not believe the man was the same the Smiths’ believed they saw – Gerry McCann, himself. Also important to note in this context that Andy Redwood was ordered to review (sic) the Portuguese PJ investigation by David Cameron – the actual British PM and Head of the Conservative Party for which (surprise! surprise!) Clarence Mitchell – the McCanns’ spokesman – is a candidate for the 2015 elections. At the time of Madeleine McCann disappearance, Tony Blair was still prime-minister and Clarence Mitchell director of HMG Media Monitoring Unit – reporting directly to the Cabinet’s office. Soon afterwards Mitchell becomes the McCanns’ spokesperson with an initial “salary of £80,000 per annum“ – more than he earned from Her Majesty Government (a reported £70,000 a year). What inferences do we draw from all this? None whatsoever!
(P): The (footage) was no longer available (…)
(GA): You know, walking the streets, with your head up, looking for surveillance cameras, seems like an easy task but, it is easy and yet not so easy. In this instance, the camera was not detected. (As I just said), the officer who was given that task found several cameras, but missed that one – one that was perhaps right there in front of his eyes but… there you are.
(P): (wraps up the programme) Gonçalo Amaral, I thank you for your presence in this Maddie Special and Francisco Moita Flores as well. Thank you for both coming here to our studio.
I would remind our viewers that tonight they had the opportunity to see the reconstruction of the evening Madeleine McCann disappeared – the little girl that went missing in the Algarve in May 2007.