by Zizi & Paula


Dr. Gonçalo Amaral

Prof. Paulo Sargento



If you have seen the reconstruction – posts 1 and 2 – you may wish to click here and jump to the studio discussion that followed

Let us now have a look at the reconstruction of the day the child disappeared.

This reconstruction by CMTV is unique. It has never been attempted before in Portuguese television! All of the inconsistencies found in the testimonies (which the McCanns’ and their friends gave to the police and/or the media) are highlighted and analysed.

Female Voice Over (FVO): The Portuguese authorities failed to carry out this procedure in the first place. What the Police left undone, CMTV showed (its viewers) how it should have been done.

By reporting from the crime scene, CMTV provided a valuable service to the public. Soon after Maddie disappeared, Correio da Manhã had access to the apartment, to her room, and filmed the scene of events – the place where everything happened; (the place) where Maddie was left alone, unattended, with her brothers. These are real images of that room – a room which guards within its walls, untold secrets. These images (showed in the background) are the exclusive of CMTV (…)

Male Voice Over(MVO): Maddie aged three, and the twins Amelie and Sean, aged two, spend their day at the Ocean Club’s children’s day care centre.

(FVO): CMTV addressed the scene of events – the Ocean Club, the Luz beach, the famous 5A apartment and pointed out the contradictions (…)

(MVO): David Payne heads to Kate’s apartment. No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

(FVO): CMTV raised questions and initiated a public discussion about the case Maddie.

(MVO): Gerry Mc Cann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate Mc Cann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

(FVO): CMTV aired the unexplained, addressed the mysteries (…)

(MVO): To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne testifies she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and that the couple – both Gerry and Kate – were at home. One thing seems certain; the (Mc Canns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the Mc Canns’ balcony below.

(FVO): CMTV was in the restaurant where the British couples dined. Extras, hired to the effect, played the role of each one of them that night, on their dinning table (…)

(MVO): A few months old baby and seven toddlers are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents without a care, dine until around midnight – the children well out of their sights.

(FVO): CMTV noted what these couples ate and drink (…)

(MVO): 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.

(FVO): CMTV determined what could and could not be seen from the exact spot where they sat, dinning (…)

(MVO): As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against the building; (but) even if they were facing their apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see the ground floors where some of their children are sleeping – alone.

(FVO): CMTV also investigated the vigilance scheme they had in place to check on their children and there too found inconsistencies (…)

(MVO): Russell O’Brien provided 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 booklet. Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers another draft with the hours of the (checking) rounds written on it – except this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

(FVO): Details + omissions = mystery.

In Portugal, this was the first time a re-enactment was made of the day this child disappeared from the village of Luz, in the Algarve. CMTV takes credit for the initiative. The day was  the 3td of May 2007 – an event which later became known world-wide as the Maddie Case.

(MVO): 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 (Mc Canns’) apartment (…)

(FVO): After our reconstruction reactions followed, multiplied (…)

(P): We return now to the studio and rejoin our guests tonight in this special edition dedicated to the Maddie Case (then addressing Prof. Paulo Sargento).

Paulo Sargento, I shall give the word to you first, if I may. You have participated in an earlier reconstruction of what may have happened that night – a research undertaken under the auspices of  Lusófona University .

My question is; in that reconstruction – the first non-televisual assessment (of the crime scene) if we may put it that way – did you reach the same conclusions and detected the same incongruences we have just outlined?

Professor Paulo Sargento (PPS): These and a few others besides!

Our reconstruction took place towards the end of September, or beginning of October 2007. What we had then in terms of media-tization of this case was a set of (prevailing) discourses originating from those involved (and some other testimonies) that had been dragging on for months.

The actions of this group were characterized along lines such: “they (group) were sitting nearby – about fifty meters from the apartment”; “they could see the apartment perfectly” and so on but, such views immediately generate a contradiction because, if “they were sitting nearby” just “50 meters away” as they put it, then it would have been just as easy for them to spot anyone attempting to enter their apartments – obviously!

As we have seen in this reconstruction – and we had already noted that before – the edges and the wall that stood in between would not have allowed anyone from the so-called Tapas Seven to see anything “50 meters away”.

Well, 50 meters is begging the question, for they would have to walk (on water) over the swimming pool. In reality, they had to go around the pool and that amounted to 158 meters – from where they were sitting until the entry to…

(P): (interrupts) That is three times more!

(PPS): Yes, three times more! Afterwards, what we did was to use the timelines published in four newspapers of record… The Times… Publico… roughly, two creditable national sources and two international ones …

I must point out, that we only worked with timelines that coincided – for we did not have access then to information from the police files, nor did we know the timeline drafted by Russell O’Brien (available much later).

However, what is interesting – even accepting that we had less timelines to work with – is that when we applied the theorem of conditioned probability to  events, the visits and their timings – how long people said they had taken to do their checkings – we reached the conclusion there was no window of opportunity!

(I mean) for anyone to have entered the child’s bedroom without being seen, then exit – and, to complicate matters, probably exiting through that window – given such criterion, a kidnapping would not  have been a practical proposition!

The windows of opportunity (no pun implied) were of a ratio inferior to 5 minutes – and this not taking into account the period of nearly half an hour that Gerry said he took to do his checking plus the time he spent indulging in a chat with…(Jeremy Wilkins).

(P) (interrupts) And for you, these incongruences are a sign of what?

(PPS): They are a sign that things do not fit (their testimonies do not make sense).

I explain. If I say this was a kidnapping, then how can I rationalize such scenario by supplying so much information that in the end makes such thesis untenable?

In order for me to assume there was a kidnapping, I must provide a timeframe  for the kidnapper – obviously. If there is no window of opportunity for the kidnapper to creep in, then (…)

Also bear in mind they all said they were ever so mindful with their children but, if that was the case, then it would have been practically impossible for anything to have happen to them!

Firstly, because they could see them; secondly because they could reach them quickly and thirdly because the consecutive checking (visits) they made, assured everything was OK. Under such circumstances, the kidnapper would not have had a chance to do his job!

Now add to this equation the fact some said, they went to check  not just on their children’s  but some of their friends’ as well!

Then there is another factor that grabs one’s attention even more (…)

Personally, I am not so sure Kate only shouted from her patio’s balcony (when she allegedly found Maddie missing). I am more inclined to think she went shouting all the way to the tapas bar. Then, as she arrived, they all got up from the table and ran together towards the McCanns’ apartment (…)

If this was the case, then Kate left the door open immediately after her daughter had been (allegedly) kidnapped – leaving behind her two other children asleep (at the mercy of circumstances).

Afterwards, as other material became available to us, our suspicions that this had not been a kidnapping, increased.

Then, we have their behaviour in front of the authorities – and I think Gonçalo Amaral here will be able to describe that much better – for example, their continuous preoccupation in verifying if the twins were breathing – which was another piece of information that travelled the world then (…) that was also thought provoking.

Surely, it could have been nothing more than maternal preoccupation! And I am prepared to admit a person under such circumstances may become so terrified that becomes prone to such erratic behaviour.

(P): And that may indicate what?

(PPS): Well – there is something I think we are talking about here …

We are talking about a pact between them; because if there were not a pact within the group, then where would have been the need – before anything was asked of them – for one of them to tear up a page of a notebook (a children’s activities book that belonged to Maddie) and volunteer a timeline of the checkings?

(P) (You are referring to) the sketch drawn by Russell O’Brien …

(PPS): Yes, exactly! That can only be understood in terms of the framework (pact) we have just suggested. People have in their minds (an idea) of the legal order of their own country, which of course is not necessarily the same as in others. Clearly, if this tragedy had happened in England – leaving all these toddlers at home alone – that would have been very problematic.

(P): No doubt!

(PPS): But in our country was not so problematic, because here the crime of propensity to abandonment” is conditioned by some legal rhetoric, which in this particular case might not have applied.

The point we’re making here is;  people have a tendency to transport within themselves, a sui-generis mind-set of cognitive assumptions.

(P): I see. There is another thing that comes to mind. Let us presuppose – as a mere academic exercise – the parents of Maddie and their friends were in some way implicated in what happened to this child. As a psychologist yourself, I ask:

Does it not look rather strange that seven years on, these parents have not given up the search for their daughter?

(PPS) These parents I don’t know but, it would not have looked so strange for some parents or some people, not to give up searching for something they know no longer exists; something that  is no longer there, and to go on pretending it is.

These sort of people would intuitively know maintaining appearances was a must. I am not saying this is the case here, but – just to answer your question – contrary to what you might expect, such attitude is not as uncommon as you might think – it is well documented.

(P): All this in order to maintain an alibi?

(PPS): Often we have people that behave this way to keep up an alibi but, please note, I don’t think the pact (we are talking about here) exists between them because of what may have happened to Maddie McCann.

I think the Tapas Seven pact – the concordat among the elements of the group – is linked to the fear they must have felt for being implicated in a situation that in England, would have been construed as a crime. Of course, at the time of the event, they were not aware their carelessness may not have been a crime in Portugal and so we have the genesis of this powerful pact.

I am not saying that hmm (…) First, because I do not have the certainty if this was a kidnapping, or if the little girl died and her corpse was concealed but, let us presuppose the latter.

I am not implying all parties must have known there had been a death by accident or that the body had been concealed! Only two or three of them could have known it!

Nonetheless, they all became implicated because they acceded, they became part of that scenario – not because they wanted a part in it but, because they feared something! Namely the legal consequences of what might have happened to them all (for leaving their children unattended).

I think this is what has generated such a strong pact among them and this was clear to see during their interviews and in the successive unavailability – this is important to stress, I repeat, the successive unavailability, the unwillingness of these gentiles to coöperate with the Justice.

Well, they did coöperate a little more with the English authorities over there but, I am not sure if this was because they feared the translators here or something else (…)

(P): You’re referring to the possibility of them participating in a reconstruction, of course.

(PPS): Yes, I was.

(P): (now addressing Gonçalo Amaral) Does it not sound strange to you, as an investigator, that seven years on these parents, assuming they had anything to do with their daughter’s disappearance, would still be searching for her daughter by all means at their disposal?

Gonçalo Amaral (GA): How do we know they are searching for their daughter?

My own analysis suggests – and I have the constitutional right to my opinion – that they are, always have been, running a campaign to defend themselves!

A campaign to sell their image; a campaign to raise funds; a campaign that has helped them to pay for the house they live in; a campaign during which they destroyed the lives of a number of people; a campaign which placed into question the employment (of staff) at the Ocean Club leading to their unemployment; a campaign during which they have not shown much care for others; a campaign which has been all about their front-stage images. This is of course my analysis of the situation. I am entitled to it!

(P): What about Scotland Yard? Have they jumped on the (McCanns’) bandwagon too?

(GA) Look! While Scotland Yard does not disclose that mystery within The Mystery and investigates David Payne’s; the substance of that complaint (against him by two of his medical colleagues – the Gaspars’); a complaint highly suggestive of paedophilia, then (…)

I mean it is not someone, a burglar intent on stealing – as it has been assumed – who then lies next to (…) and (…)

We are talking here of someone, asking the father of the child, Mr. Gerald Mc Cann, both in words and accompanying obscene gestures, if Madeleine did certain things!

There are reputable witnesses for this! Witnesses who as early as the 12 of May (2007) reported what they saw to the English police! The very same police who then failed to report this to us – it was only much later, in October that year, that an odd fax reached us but (I digress) that story has already been told.

So, let us try to understand whom we are dealing with here!

Is it just the fear of having abandoning their children that led to their pact – having left their children alone throughout the week at their own account and risk? Is it just that or was there something else? That is what needs to be (probed into and) understood.

Ask yourself what kind of impact this could have on British Society? What kind of damage it could inflict? I have no idea, but surely, this is something that…

(P): (interrupts) But what motives would Scotland Yard have to condone, to side with the parents?

(GA): Let us try to find out why! Let Scotland Yard come forward and explain to us why they do not investigate this report (against David Payne) – for example.

Let they come out and deny such complaint ever existed or (if they prefer), let them come out, and confirm such report did exist and then, explain why they do not investigate it. May be this individual is above the law! I don’t know.

(P): And while they are at it, all the other anomalies too.

(GA): This person was the one who besides the language and gestures reported to the police, was in the habit of bathing the children of others – mostly toddlers (…)

Let me tell you just one more thing, I think is important in the midst of all this.

Seven years have since elapsed and we are talking now about Scotland Yard’s “Crimewatch” appeal and the great response it has received and is receiving from this and other follow-up appeals. Apparently, people are only now phoning Scotland Yard and call centres (…) yet no one is reporting that we have done all that seven years ago!

Seven years ago, the PJ launched the same appeal and the British set up a call centre over there. People who were or had spent holidays at the Ocean Club; who had been or were holidaying in the Algarve; they all had the opportunity to have their saying and contribute to the investigation yet there is no mention of this at all!

Now, seven years later, these “revelations” start to surface and we are back to the same old charade.

First, it was the laundering of Ms. Jane Tanner testimonies; then they tried to clean-up the statements from the Smith’s family and that too was a flop – flop is the proper term!

It was a flop because people (citizen journalists) on the Internet immediately noted that the person on those identikits (made from the Smiths’ sighting) had a striking resemblance to Mr. Gerald McCann himself!

These, if you recall, were the e-fits put together by those ex-MI 5 agents contracted (and sacked) by the Mc Canns’.

This is what we are at now so, when you ask me if they are looking for her daughter, I have to say I have doubts! In fact, I seriously doubt they are!

(P): You just mentioned the Smiths’ family. We are going to see exactly what happened that night, with this family, the night Maddie disappeared.

Several elements of the same family, an Irish family (holidaying in the Luz village) saw a man carrying a child on his lap. Martin Smith recognized the man as Gerry McCann.

At first, the police considered this Irishman a key witness but later devalued his testimony.

CMTV has reconstructed what the Smiths’ may have seen that night and today, seven years on, we have finally managed to speak with Martin Smith’s daughter. More of it later.

(MVO): That evening around 21:50 hours, the Smiths’ – an Irish family comprising four adults and five children holidaying in Praia de Luz, leave the Kelly’s Bar and head to their apartments in the Estrêla da Luz complex – not far from the Ocean Club.

A few minutes later, Kate Mc Cann will alert others to her daughter’s disappearance.

Meanwhile, not far from the Kelly’s Bar, in the Escola Primária Street, the Smith family crosses paths with a man who walks in the opposite direction towards the beach. The time is (around) 22 hours.

Martin Smith, the eldest of the group, describes the man to the police as white, 1,75 or 1,80 meters tall ( 5′ to 5′ 11″) and a normal physical complexion. His hair was brown and cut short. His skin seemed tanned by the sun. He wore plain trousers – colour beige.

The man, Smith says, carried in his arms a blonde child. The child was wearing pink pyjamas, her feet were exposed; her arms were hanging down by her body. Her head was lying on the left shoulder of the man.

The child appeared to be four years of age and about one meter in height (3′ 3″). Martin Smith was unable to see the face of the suspect because the man turned his face as they cross paths with him…

Back in Ireland, four months later (on the 9th of September 2007) Martin Smith is watching on TV the news of the arrival of the McCanns’ back in England.

As Gerry (McCann) comes down the stairs of the plane with Sean (his son) in his lap, (Martin) Smith (immediately) remembers the shape, gait and countenance of the stranger he crossed paths with in a street of the village of Luz. He seems to have recognized his physique (and) his way of holding (the child).

Martin Smith is convinced the man he saw in Escola Primária Street could have been Gerry McCann and (subsequently) informs the Polícia Judiciária of his conviction.

The PJ wants to hear him  and Smith expresses his readiness to travel to Portugal. The PJ National Directory authorizes the financing of his passage, accommodation and other expenses. Everything is set for Martin Smith to come.

Then, unexpectedly, Gonçalo Amaral is removed from the investigation and substituted by a special team coordinated by Paulo Rebelo. The new co-ordinator of the investigation, considers Martin Smith’s trip to Algarve as “pointless”.

A report written later by Paulo Rebelo’s team states that at the time Martin Smith sees his suspect, Gerry McCann may have been sitting at the table of the Tapas’ restaurant.

Its choice of words is an ambiguous one. It does not say yes; it does not say no. “May have been” does not necessarily imply Gerry McCann was or, for that matter, that he was not (sitting at the table). It merely states there is no absolute certainty of Gerry McCann’s whereabouts on that evening, around 22:00 hours.

(FVO): (These are important) missing details that remain unknown, seven years on, and numerous attempts by CMTV to contact the Smiths’ they still refuse to speak about the case.

Example of a recent attempt by CMTV to engage the Smiths

Journalist: I have tried to speak to you several times last month. It is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (…)

Martin Smith’s daughter: Erm, you know erm I don’t wish to talk about it at all, erm, it was my dad erm (unclear) but erm, anyway, my family does not want to talk about it so, erm I don’t wish to talk about it at all so erm, sorry, I have to go.

(FVO): This is just another loose end in a case overridden by mystery. In spite of these, Scotland Yard in their new investigation, reinforces the assumption the McCanns’  had nothing to do with their daughter’s disappearance (…)

Back to the studio

(P) We return now to the conversation with Gonçalo Amaral – one of our guests in tonight’s special edition of the CMTV dedicated to Maddie’s Case.

(addressing GA) Gonçalo Amaral, please correct me if I am wrong. When you were very close to collect the testimony of this Irish person – who allegedly identified Gerry McCann – you were, suddenly, removed from the investigation.

(GA) That is correct. We already had permission from the police Directorate-General for him to travel to Portugal and we were already dealing with his travelling and other arrangements.Then, suddenly, I was relocated to Faro (another PJ jurisdiction).

Afterwards, my colleague, who took over the case (Paulo Rebelo) decides the testimony of this witness was not relevant to the investigation. He did look  into it thought. Afterwards a contact was made with an Irish liaison officer in Madrid who later went over there and brought his (Smith) testimony from Britain – in other words, they found another way (second-hand) to collect his testimony.

(P): But after speaking with the Irish officer, he contradicts himself…

(GA): Who contradicts himself?

(P): This Irish gentleman.

(GA: No, there is no contradiction. When he spoke to us, he was sure the person he saw was Gerald McCann but then, when he makes his statements to the British police, he tells them he is only 85 or 90% sure. The question then becomes one of chance and percentage.

In addition, we have to bear in mind the manner in which he (Smith) identifies the man. He does not say he is sure the sighting was of a certain person because of its physiognomy. He identifies him by observing his gait and carriage, the child and other details so, in terms of strict evidence, the Smith’s sighting may not have been decisive.

Nonetheless, in terms of the investigation, it was an important element that could have helped us to understand things further; to get to the bottom of this case – (adding with irony) at least until someone else came forward to “clarify” this sighting as well!

It is possible that someone, someday, will come forward to tell Scotland Yard that evening, around that time, he was also collecting his child from such and such nursery, which hands out children as late as 21:30 or 22 hours.

A nursery that has also kept the child’s clothes and the very same pyjamas she was wearing (…) Well, perhaps all children of that age wear the same pyjamas, what do I know?

Incidentally, we also had a sample of those pyjamas, with the same label. The PJ ordered a pair from England from the same chain, for future reference. Nothing is impossible (…)

(P): For you, was it one of the key moments of the investigation?

(GA) Let us say it was important. It is one of those points, which unless clarified does not allow us to make much progress with the kidnapping theory because the description given by the Smiths coincides (somewhat) with the one Jane Tanner paints of the other person – the one which then appears, well, which is said to (unclear) but (unclear) nothing, so far, has been confirmed in Portugal (possibly referring to Andy Redwood dubious Eureka moment!)

What is happening, both in Portugal and in England, is very interesting.

Scotland Yard has had confidential access to information from to the Portuguese police. Then goes ahead, violates the principle of the secrecy of justice, throws a few stories in the air and everyone takes them for granted!

If Scotland Yard says so, then it must be the absolute truth! It is almost like a guarantee! (said with irony).

It is vital to consider the whys and wherefores of such assumptions (balabol).

I was a detective and what I did was to investigate. Likewise, I am aware there are journalists that investigate as well – so-called investigative journalists.

The question I often pose is; why these journalists don’t ask themselves questions such as: “Is this true? Is it possible? Is this conceivable?”

For example – why don’t they go, locate and knock at the nursery’s door and ask if it is possible to pick up a child at such and such time?

Why don’t they go to the PJ, or the GNR for that matter, and ask if in 2002, when the subject of the abuse of children was under the competence of the PJ – when we had the infamous Casa Pia case and the authorities were hyper sensitized to this type of crime – and ask: How come we had here a serial sex predator (prowling around) and only Scotland Yard knew about it? How is that possible?

There are many questions we need to understand; to clarify properly, which brings us back to the subject of David Payne. Sorry to insist for I cannot, possibly, go over there and interview him myself!

(P): Gonçalo Amaral, let me ask you this: Could there have been errors during both investigations?

(GA): Yes, of course! Errors are inevitable during any investigation! The first error in this case – and I am say this without any hesitation – was not to place this couple under immediate surveillance! Closely monitored, phone tapped and so on – whatever the diplomatic pressures, whatever the political consequences.

(P): Which couple?

(GA) The McCanns’! Given that this crime involved a child which was under their supervision. Given the fact the child was their daughter and they were the ones who had the duty to care and look after her. That alone made them number one suspects!

And in case you think I am being insensitive, this is standard procedure with any police, anywhere in the world! When this happens, the parents are always the first to be investigated!

(P) – (addressing Professor Paulo Sargento) Are the parents always the first suspects?

(PPS) Yes they are! There can be no doubt about that!

The records show that in more than 80% of the cases where children are harmed – ranging from being beaten, violated or killed – the guilty part tends to be found within the child’s inner circle – and, of course, the parents are always the main suspects. However, the real question here is this:

A criminal investigation cannot afford to be ruled, constrained by sentiments towards normative social values! Because there are parents who mistreat their children; who kill their own children (…)

There are parents who are perfectly capable to be in the knowing of something for years and yet deny it and tell you something else. I have already addressed this issue earlier on. I am afraid this is the reality of it.

What seems rather strange in this case is that, from the very beginning, the kidnapping thesis was over emphasized. A thesis on which the couple insisted and (legally) persisted, making any other thesis seem taboo.

Every time an attempt was made to address the responsibility of the parents and their close friends, that was made to look like a crime of lèse-majesté!

Then we have something else…

There were 48 questions which the mother refused to answer – and the last one by the way was: “Are you aware that by refusing to answer these questions you are jeopardizing the investigation?” to which she replied: “If that is what the investigation thinks, fine!” – words to that effect.

The problem starts right there and, I am not implying that by not answering the questions she was hiding something – she was within her right not to do so, but she must have understood that by not answering those questions she was derailing the investigation.

Then, there was another thing Gonçalo has been saying which is very true. The first time one single indicia, one specific, acceptable indication appears – and I am not talking about here of a conclusive, unequivocal proof but, a concrete and acceptable sign of a kidnapping – I will shut up once and for all – just one single indication!

But…  if we all stop here and reflect for a minute; where are the indications suggesting we are dealing here with a kidnapping?

If we think about the identikits, those were not e-fits or robot portraits but a series of blunders, of stupidities, which from a scientific standpoint have no other possible description.

Then the “great suspects” – those about who much was said and talked about are, unfortunately, two dead people.

The first, by the time was questioned was, sadly, no longer able to speak because he was dying of terminal cancer; and the other, the last one, the poor man could not even be questioned because he had already died!

Therefore, having to address these kind of questions here, we start to feel an overwhelming scepticism! Gonçalo Amaral probably does not wish to say this but, I am not a police officer and I have no qualms in saying it:

Scotland Yard must be under the orders (following the orders) of someone! It is not possible to understand it in any other way! Unless theirs turns out to be the kind of institution that (…)

(P) – (interrupts) – And who would that “someone” be?

(PPS) – (laughing) Well… there are many theses going around – many, many theses (…)

But one thing is for sure João – from the very beginning, ever since that request our police made to have access to those satellite images – hoping perhaps to find some clues to the case – and they were told the satellite cameras that night were pointing towards Marrocos (…) then when asked “Why?” they replied: “That is a question that concerns only Her Majesty national security!” From then on, I have been prepared to believe anything! Anything whatsoever!

(P) – (addressing GA) – Very quickly. Is this a story without an end?

(GA) I am sure it will have an end. I don’t know when… The “there he goes” (unclear) vanished. Some witnesses have since died; others no doubt will die too. In the short-term, I have no idea of what the future will bring (probably referring to the ongoing trial). No doubt it will all come to pass – the question is when. Let us wait and see.

By the way,  just before the rounding up of the programme, if I may. I must alert you to a situation that is critically important. The English are particularly fond of the scientific side of an investigation. For them it is not just the indicia, the circumstantial evidence, the incongruences but – the scientific bits (…)

And in this latter respect I must point out that we do have the hairs found in that car (the McCanns rented after their daughter’s dematerialization).

(P) The car where they found the cadaver odour?

(GA) Yes, where they found the cadaver odour. These are hairs without roots, which the British laboratory (the defunct FSS) said – by analysing its colour – belonged to Madeleine McCann.

Most importantly, they pointed out that nothing – short of being accidentally transported there – would justify their presence in the luggage compartment of the car where the dog detected cadaver odour.

Therefore, I suggest the Policia Judiciária who, as far as I know, still has those hairs; send them to a laboratory competent enough to determine its DNA profile without the need for the hair roots.

(P) Is it so?

(PPS) It is!

(GA) Yes, there are those who say it is possible so let them, at long last, have those hairs analysed!

Probably they will loose less time and save money, who knows? They might even be able to advance a little bit more with the investigation.

This (farce?) has been going for too long!

Let them send it to Holland or Germany – where I am told there are laboratories perfectly capable to handle this type of analysis. It would be much easier (…)

(P) We have  reached the end of this programme. Gonçalo Amaral and Paulo Sargento – we thank you for your presence in this special edition (about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann). We hope to have addressed several questions that seven years later still remain unanswered (…)

Translators’ note: This is the end of part 2 of 2