Transcription in English, with huge thanks to Joana Morais:
CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'
Debate panel from left to right: Tânia Laranjo, CM journalist; Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ inspector; João Ferreira, CMTV news anchor; Gonçalo amaral, former PJ inspector & Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs
Anchor João Ferreira - This special by CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to focus on the book that I hold in my hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie". It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The man that was at the forefront of the investigation during the first months of the case, a case that has been dragging on for the past nine years. It's the book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his truth about the mystery of the Maddie Case, a truth for which he was removed from the investigation and the reason why he requested an early retirement from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26 years of service. A truth, according to which the little girl died accidentally. Following that death, an unwanted and accidental death, the parents concealed their own daughter's cadaver. This is the truth that we are going to analyse in this special, where the man that wrote this book - and has just been acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon and absolved of having to pay a compensation of 500,000 euro to the McCann couple - will break the silence. A special where we are going to ask uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo Amaral, where we will confront his truth with other possible truths. Right now, let us have a look to the truth revealed in this book that is now allowed to see the light of day.
News Segment 1
Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in Portuguese) Please, give our little girl back.
(in English) Please, give our little girl back.
Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction, defend the McCanns. Accident and concealment of the cadaver is the belief of Gonçalo Amaral.
Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) - If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I doubt the body still exists. In that church there was a coffin with the cadaver of an elderly British lady which in the following day was going to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It was possible for the body of a child of that age and size to be concealed underneath that cadaver.
Voice Over - After six months of investigation, the former PJ inspector is removed from the Maddie Case, and this is one of the issues that was the object of his reflection. In the book that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie", there is a chapter dedicated to that topic: the removal of a coordinator from an investigation, conspiracy or subservience?, questions the former PJ inspector. And it is precisely due to the 220 pages written by Amaral and a DVD with a documentary about Maddie, that the PJ inspector became the target of a lawsuit, a legal process that has been dragging for numerous years. In 2009, the McCann couple went to justice, demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a compensation of 1,2 million euro. The McCanns considered the publication and the documentary defamatory, they alleged to have suffered moral damages. The British couple considered that their rights, liberties and guarantees of the family were violated. The defence of the McCann family considered that Gonçalo Amaral could not have revealed information that appeared in the process of the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance. The defence also alleged that the book was ready three days after the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e Menezes, redacted the dispatch that archived the process against the McCann couple, which had the date of 29 of July of 2008. In the book, the former criminal investigation coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the thesis that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and in the concealment of the 3-year-old girl's body. The McCann's defence lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued that the author, Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized documents from the process, documents that were prohibited. This was a process that dragged in court for years, with successive postponements of court sessions and an attempt to an extra-judicial settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.
Kate McCann (archive footage, press conference 2014) - We took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our children.
Gerry McCann - We want to get justice for Madeleine.
Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil court, ended up condemning Gonçalo Amaral to pay to each one of the members of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry, the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro plus interest, counting back from January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment, the civil court also decreed the prohibition of sales of new editions of the book and DVD, as well as the negotiations to transfer the copyright of both book and documentary. Gonçalo Amaral appealed, and there was a turnaround in this process. The Court of Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the PJ inspector and revoked the sentence. The judges understood that Amaral acted within the framework of the legitimate right to exercise an opinion. The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were, some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in numerous interviews all over the world. Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the indemnification of 250,000 euro to each member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo Amaral's book will soon return to the bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have already stated that they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and Gerry, who have always maintained that Madeleine was abducted, were constituted as arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 for lack of evidence to sustain the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the alleged accidental death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just a few days before of her fourth birthday. The English girl disappeared from this apartment (image of apartment is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings.
Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral, former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV commentator and Minister of Internal Affairs at the time of Maddie's disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former chief inspector of the Judiciary Police and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV journalist, who followed closely the investigations to the Maddie case. Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening madam, it's a pleasure to be here with you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with you, good-evening, thank you for being here.
Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you for the invitation.
Anchor João Ferreira - Did this investigation destroy your career?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my career. I had a dignified professional path in terms of work and progress in the hierarchy, I was an officer, an inspector, then chief-inspector, then I was a coordinator and could have gone a bit further, in fact at the time of the disappearance, when the case happened, I had applied for the role of superior coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it was a matter of time. So, that was the interruption, the life change, the career change, if I had stayed maybe I could have been in another professional position.
Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I begun to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...
Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...
Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to.. I couldn't stand it any longer.
Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.
Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug from under your feet?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one pulled the rug from under anyone's feet. There were a series of circumstances that lead to this outcome. A colleague of mine is present here today, and he knows that it's very unlikely for the PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe with another director, I'm recalling Dr. Marques Vidal - to whom I express my gratitude for his support since the very outset, right from when the book was published, he presented the book - maybe it would have been different, maybe the protection of the officers would have been another. But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique case, a director of the Judiciary Police that we will never have again.
Anchor - A leader more brave than others?
Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great understanding of the officers, he was a very humane man, and defended those that risked, that worked at times almost without a net, he was there, present. I could tell you several stories, from the time of the Cavacos, the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave to the men on the ground. These are facts that can be verified, but we're digressing from the topic. I would like to add, that I have nothing against Dr. Alípio Ribeiro.
Anchor - But do you think that Alípio Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe that... For example, in this issue of requesting to the Direction of the PJ to speak in our defence or to allow me to speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the directorate of the Judiciary Police, addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later, I learned that that letter never reached his hands, he never read it. The letter stopped at his assistants, therefore I can't accuse him of anything, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the structural machine that exists, additionally the PJ direction does not usually come out in defence of its officers. Note that we're talking about the direction of the Judiciary Police but we could equally talk about the ASFIC (Association of the Criminal Investigation Officers of the Criminal Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for the officers, for its members, that were on the field, then and after? For example, right now, until now, what did they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any time - regarding myself, a retired officer with success on the work I did - ever called me? Either to congratulate, at this point in time or whatever. Nothing at all.
Anchor - Why do you think is that, Gonçalo?
Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture, of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe because I'm no longer in the police, have nothing to do with the PJ.
Anchor - Are you saying that there is fear from the people in the Judiciary to come out in your defence?
Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I find it strange, a very odd situation. Those who have congratulated me at this point in time, for this decision - a decision that has not yet been rendered final, and may still be the target of an appeal - but those who have congratulated me were colleagues that are retired, not colleagues in active functions. Not even a single colleague on the active congratulated me. On the other hand, I had the support of colleagues in the active from the British police, who also have been present along the years.
Anchor - Let us move now to your truth, the truth that is here in this book...
Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another issue. That is not my truth...
Anchor - It's the factual truth.
Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that book represents the elements of the Judiciary Police...
Anchor - So, it's the material truth of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that the book is the opinion of the Judiciary Police until September 2007. Not my truth alone.
Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo Amaral, describes a scenario where the little girl Maddie suffered an accidental death...
Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is described in the PJ report written by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.
Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the parents and in face of that death the parents concealed the cadaver.
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an infringement. What that means is...
Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents should be behind bars? Should they be punished for these crimes?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have to do with that. For us to read and understand that book, we also have to understand the moment, the progress of the investigation. And we need to understand that an investigations as a beginning, a middle and an end, as my colleague Moita Flores says an investigation is always zigzagging and he's right about that. At that point in time of the investigation, when the archival was decided, the archival was decided in early October of 2007... Whomever lead the process after me, was there to adjust the process so it could be archived. Any colleague of mine can see that it is the adjustment of the process so it can be archived; all of us have at some point in time archived processes when reaching a dead end and we all know what to do so no investigative leads are left unfinished. So, at that point in time of the investigation that was the line of reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not my line of reasoning alone, it's of the whole team, of the Judiciary Police as an institution. I will go further, after that, nothing was done concerning that line of investigation that...
Anchor - Of the accidental death.
Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the probable responsibility of the parents in the mysterious disappearance of the child, with all that entails, but this is the essential. Yet, that line of investigation was set aside. Even the Scotland Yard investigation and so on, never explored that line of investigation, and now they've reached a dead end. They constituted, derided in my opinion, - this is what this is all about, opinion and freedom of expression - in my opinion as coordinator, as an investigator, that increase, that creation of numerous arguidos was a derision of that institution. There were two or three arguidos - the English didn't even know the meaning of arguidos was - and they decided to constitute even more arguidos, and now we have an ocean of arguidos. Before we had a few drops and now we have an ocean where virtually nothing can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.
Anchor - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.
Anchor - ... in this book...
Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there isn't anything concerning what we just saw me saying on the news piece that was shown. Because these are elements, these are information that appeared afterwards and were never investigated. It's just an hypothesis, and when considering that hypothesis...
Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's body could have been hidden, could have been incinerated, right?
Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information here, in the police, that mentions that. That in a night, three figures were seen carrying a bag, entering the church...
Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.
Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a coffin of a woman, a woman from the United Kingdom...
Anchor - Of a British woman.
Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the following day that coffin was transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to be incinerated. But no one is saying that the parents did that, or saying who did that. It's something that someone who is on the field investigating has to ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.
Anchor - But you concede that hypothesis, that possibility of Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the church, and then incinerated is a plausible hypothesis...
Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically starting by the end, first is the disappearance, if you allow me to explain, to explain to the viewers... [overlapping speech]
Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not to lose this train of thought, is this hypothesis plausible for you?
Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I say plausible in this sense, that that body would fit underneath the cadaver that was already there.
Anchor - And it would fit?
Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the time, when I was already out of the Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion of people that dealt with that, of funeral agencies, and they said that it was a possibility. It's an opinion that is not officialized but it's a possibility. If it happened like that or not, we don't know, there are several hypotheses to make a body disappear.
Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What are the indications, post-disappearance that helped construct the material truth that appears here in the book?
Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed, I would have to look at the book pages and explain them to you in detail. There were several indicia, the contradictions, the discrepancies in the statements of those people, other witness statements that said they saw the father carrying the child at a certain hour, there are a series of indications that point towards that. To give you a full report on that would be tiresome, I believe most people know or are already aware. That was talked about numerous times throughout years. So, indicia and some evidence, evidence in inverted commas, concerning the vestiges that were collected and sent to the English forensics laboratory for analyses, it is said that there could have been a manipulation of all that data, it's still not clear what happened. I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann. And when the report arrived, it was no longer like that. It was said at the time that the profile with a series of alleles matched Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone in that laboratory could have contributed to that profile. So, why did it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to the US president profile? There's something very strange about that analysis, something that should be questioned, verified, investigated. I believe that when forensic analyses are done, the laboratory technician has to keep a record of what he is doing. I don't know if that was destroyed or not, but it should exist along side the report.
Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral before I'll return to you, let us now pay close attention to the next news segment. The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann was since the start embroiled in mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a few days before her fourth day. Let us now watch a reconstitution of that fateful Thursday.
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 Rui Pando Gomes - On that Thursday of 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.
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.
Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.
To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.
One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.
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.
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.
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 book (activities & stickers).
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.
(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.
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 (…)
More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio.
Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation to the Maddie case pursued several lines of inquiry. There were political pressures that marked the beginning of the investigation, which, during a first moment, shielded the parents from becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis.
News segment 2
Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - 3 of May of 2007, just a little before midnight the Judiciary Police was alerted, a four-year-old English girl disappeared from a tourist resort in Praia da Luz. The parents dined in a near-by restaurant. It was necessary to proceed with caution, these were doctors, unsuspicious, victims of an abduction, of a hideous crime. Portimão was still living with the hangover of the Joana Case, Leonor Cipriano was condemned but the delay at the start of the investigation turned out to be tragic, the remnants of the little girl were never found. The Judicial condemnation didn't erase the doubts. In Praia da Luz, on that night, moments of tension were felt. When the PJ arrived on the scene, dozens of people had already been inside the apartment. They had contaminated vestiges, moved what could have been evidence, destroyed indicia that no one knows what they could have clarified.
The English government acted swiftly so the parents wouldn't be investigated, to focus on the search for the abductors. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed other pressures. On the morning of the 23rd of May, 20 days after the Maddie's disappearance, before leaving to Fátima's sanctuary, Kate and Gerry left a voice message to Gordon Brown. Maddie's mother described it as a way to increase the political pressure, she disclosed that Tony Blair's successor called back only three hours later. He spoke with Gerry, was very sympathetic and gave them strength, said Kate, who described the visit to the catholic sanctuary as overwhelming, powerful and emotional.
Apart from the contacts with Gordon Brown, Kate's diary also revealed other important allies. From the hiring of Clarence Mitchell as an advisor, who was working for the government at the time, to the conversations with the wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mitchell, in fact, had a pivotal role in the propaganda machine that was set up by the McCanns within a few days. They counted on the assistance from the British diplomacy in all the trips that were carried out. The first trip and the one with the most intense media coverage was the trip to Rome. They were received by the Pope Benedict XVI, the trip had been suggested by their advisor on the 27th of May, after speaking to Francis Campbell, the British ambassador at the Vatican. The visit to Rome was described by Kate as being very emotional, positive and important, and that loads of journalists and photographers had appeared, this was an ongoing concern present in the couple's lives. After Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Morocco followed, trips made with the objective to divulge Madeleine's face, followed by visits to consulates or receptions given by British ambassadors or by political representatives of the respective countries.
Amidst all that, was an investigation marked by breakthroughs and setbacks. Kate and Gerry started as victims, four months later Maddie's mother was constituted as an arguida for negligent homicide. The British dogs, requested by the couple, found the little girl's trace inside the boot of the car. A vehicle that was rented after the disappearance, where DNA vestiges were also found which suggested that Maddie had been transported in there. The genetic markers weren't sufficient. The doubts grew, the mystery thickened. Nine years later the narrative of the pressures remain, of a failed investigation, of a little girl who, dead or alive, has never been found. Where is Madeleine McCann? - the answer never came.
Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).
Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.
Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.
Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?
Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...
Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.
Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.
Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?
Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion that was always present and present in the investigations.
Anchor - So there were members of the British police whose opinions agreed with this thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one of the officers, a former police officer, that was present when the preliminary reports were known, what he said about the results was that back in England they would already have been arrested. The issue was that report was just a preliminary one and we needed the data of the official report, which arrived at the PJ as it did. That was his opinion, affirmed in front of several people who can testify to that.
Anchor - I'll return to you soon Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening, thank you for being here.
Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.
Anchor - Let me issue you a challenge, suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral and as a PJ investigator you have to assess the truth presented by Gonçalo Amaral, which is the material truth. Is it factually sustainable or is there a possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral being obsessed by the belief that he formed and of him valuing more certain indicia that give substance to his belief and undervalue others?
Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll try to play this game with you, and answer with the utmost honesty possible. The truth of an investigator has to do with something, that in all likelihood the common citizen is far from understanding. That is, when a real investigator starts an investigation, when he starts to have the perception of the facts and events, following leads, and elaborating his belief resulting from the findings and indicia that appear, it's obvious that he believes in them, but he can also keep its distance and is able to evaluate all the possible solutions available and diverging paths that may arise. I believe that all the work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and by the team at the time covered all those hypotheses and for doing so, they were able to reach determined conclusions, conclusions that he expressed in his book. If we pay attention and want to be honest, we can verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo Amaral in his book or in other situations, accuse the couple of homicide. He accused that an accidental death took place in that apartment, that they are suspects of concealing the cadaver, that the death is likely to have occurred as a consequence of a tragic accident, I stress there never was an accusation of homicide, and that there exists clear evidence of negligence in the guardianship of the children. Therefore, before this, what can I say - it should never be believed that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one truth. The truth before him is one which results from the indicia that he investigated, that is why he refuted the abduction thesis, which they also investigated until they reached a dead end and returned to the beginning, believing that the thesis of what really happened was an accidental death followed by the concealment of the cadaver. there's nothing else to be said about that. This question that you made, if you allow me, implicates another - is this investigation a failure or can it be considered otherwise? I would say that in a normal process, maybe we could say that this investigation was a failure. However due to what happened, with the pressures that were felt, with the press involvement, with the involvement of advisors from the English government, with all the manoeuvres done by the parents of the child who were always advised by press and image assistants. The whole theatre created around this, may to an extent signify that this investigation was a failure. I would add, that at that time, this investigation wasn't able to reach conclusions due to all the theatre that surrounded it, which effectively prevented the police to work as it should, in a tranquil atmosphere, following leads and constituting as arguidos those who needed to be constituted, carrying out the reconstitutions that should have been done, obtain results that would not be altered, and finally a series of situations that if you wish I can later detail.
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add, just to reinforce, that is not my truth, those are the conclusions of the investigation of the Judiciary Police and of the British police.
Anchor - You're not obsessed with this truth that is here(book)?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed, and I'll tell you why. What is in there is a specific time of the investigation, as I had said. A line of investigation that was being followed and was never resumed, and should be resumed. That line of investigation was not concluded, it did not reach a dead end, do you understand? If it had been concluded, then we would know what the results were. Now the issue here is that line of investigation is not allowed to be pursued.
Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly in your opinion?
Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't allow it.
Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese government, the Judiciary Police, the direction of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese government nor the Judiciary Police, it's the British police. At this moment, Scotland Yard who is doing the investigation in one direction.
Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you, we have a man here who was the Minister of internal Affairs at the time...
Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A bit later on.
Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.
Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.
Anchor - It should be said that tutelage of the Judiciary police belongs to the Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was the government pressured?
Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm going to tell you the following, and please João allow me to contextualize it.
Anchor - Yes, of course.
Rui Pereira - I remember very well seeing in the English newspapers, right in the middle of the investigation, Portugal described as an exotic country, where the inspectors of the Judiciary Police were bushy moustached people...
Anchor - Exotic in what way?
Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing from a news article of a daily English paper, it described the Judiciary police inspectors as people that had bushy moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and red wine. Exactly like this! What was it that happened in this process? - and please give me some latitude to explain this. What happened in this process was that there was an initial error that caused a lot of damage to the investigation and this not to blame anyone...
Anchor - What was the error?
Rui Pereira - The error? Was not constituting the parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment (article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code). Because, without delay at the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory, in my perspective, that said that the English have very peculiar cultural costumes and therefore was natural for them to leave the two-years-old twin siblings and the other 3-years-old child alone in a bedroom, for the parents to go out a few hundred meters away, to socialize with their friends.
Anchor - Professor I'll give you back the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo please be very brief, why wasn't this measure taken?
Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of constituting them as arguidos? I would even go as far as to ask why weren't they constituted for abandonment as it should?
Anchor - For abandonment.
Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment, exactly.
Rui Pereira - That was given some thought at the time.
Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping speech, impossible to discern what is said)
Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.
Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, that is the distinction between what is a Judiciary authority and a bodie of Criminal police. So, he can't answer that.
Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely right.
Rui Pereira - I can answer your question.
Anchor - Here enters the pressure.
Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is this, we have a legal order - this is not to blame anyone, it's describing what should have happened - we have a legal order that makes the clear distinction...
Anchor - But you can say who was responsible if you wish Professor.
Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear distinction between Judicial authorities and bodies of Criminal Police. What matters for an inspector, an experienced one and with good reputation like inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover the material truth, with all the difficulties that existed in that case. Hence, there should have been a direct intervention of the Judicial authority that is in charge of the process, and that is the Public Ministry (public prosecution) to outline a procedural strategy.
Anchor - And there was no intervention then, in your opinion?
Rui Pereira - Clearly not, as far as I know...
Anchor - But why not? The Public Ministry "washed its hands" from it, like Pilate?
Rui Pereira - I cannot make a process of intention (accuse), but I do know what happened. I know that..
Anchor - And what happened for you was that there was no intervention?
Rui Pereira - No, not for me! What factually happened was that in the first interrogatory the PJ police was the only authority present. The Public Ministry, at odds to what should have been done never defined a procedural strategy, and the procedural strategy, obviously meant to play with certainty. And what was certain, was that the parents in an irresponsible manner...
Anchor - But why didn't the Public Ministry do that?
Rui Pereira - I don't know...
Anchor - But do you have any suspicion, do you have any explanation for that? Were they afraid?
Rui Pereira - No, nothing like that. Do you know why? Because sometimes in our relations with the foreigners, you know that racism is a very curious phenomena, and sometimes we almost have an inferiority complex in relation to some foreigners. When I saw reporting with a certain bonhomie in the Portuguese media, now it's not on the English media, that the English truly have very specific cultural costumes and it was natural to dine and drink..
Anchor - So you're saying the Public Ministry had an inferiority complex before the case, before the British authorities?
Rui Pereira - João, let me give you another example. Give me another minute please.
Anchor - Please professor, just answer my question before that.
Rui Pereira - But I'm going to answer you. Answers sometimes aren't a simple yes or a no. I'll give you a more subtle answer, in a recent case at the Expo (Tagus river area in Lisbon), when a Chinese child fell from a building (21st floor), what happened to the parents? They were constituted as arguidos.
Tânia Laranjo - They were arrested.
Rui Pereira - And no one said that it was natural, according to the cultural costumes of the Chinese, to leave the child alone and go gamble at the casino.
Anchor - So, I can infer from your words that the Public Ministry has failed. Tânia did the public Ministry fail?
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to say one thing, in this case, it wasn't only this parents (McCann couple) who left their children.
Anchor - Did you feel lack of support from the Public Ministry?
Gonçalo Amaral - No, I wouldn't say that. I'm telling you something different, the other couples' children were also abandoned, and it wasn't just for one night, it was for a whole week. In order to constitute arguidos them (McCann) for abandonment, the whole group (Tapas7) of friends would have to be constituted.
Gonçalo Amaral - No, we don't usually have a constant presence of the Public Ministry in investigations. The Judiciary Police advances normally with the investigation, which is supervised by the Public Ministry, and it also has to propose and suggest investigative steps to the Public Ministry. In this case in particular, someone from the Public Ministry, should have made the decision to be present since the first hour, which didn't happen.
Anchor - Tânia did the Public Ministry fail from what you could gather when you followed the investigation?
Tânia Laranjo - What was visible from the interpretation of the process and of the investigation that I followed during those months, those first months, was that the Public Ministry was completely absent, that is an undisputed truth, for better or for worse. Success or failure would always be of the Judiciary police and not of the Public Ministry, it was always completely absent of the investigation. Allow me to go back to one point. Gonçalo Amaral a while ago spoke of that meeting with the British ambassador, minutes later a press statement was read at the door of the PJ headquarters, the truth is that moment changed everything, from then on the Judiciary Police undertook a thesis, undertook the abduction thesis, and went into the investigation absolutely restricted. There, it would have been pivotal, like Professor Rui Pereira said, for the Public Ministry to be present, even more so to provide the guarantee and freedom for the police to be able to follow all paths. We have two elements of the Judiciary Police here that will naturally say this, that all investigative paths need to be followed and that (freedom to investigate) cannot be restricted. As to the parents, they would have to be considered suspects, naturally. The professor gave the example of the Chinese, but years before that, and in the Algarve as well, we had the Joana case where the mother was considered a suspect, in the majority of these situations the parents are naturally considered suspects from the first moment and are investigated.
Gonçalo Amaral - In that case the Public ministry was present.
Anchor - In the Joana case?
Tânia Laranjo - In the Joana case. Rui Pedro's mother, that is a case of disappearance that has not been solved so far, she was investigated in a first moment, and that is how it should be. With all the pain that a mother that has nothing to do with the disappearance of its own child must feel for being investigated. And naturally, here, we had an inferiority complex before the English.
Anchor - When you say 'we', are you saying the Public Ministry?
Tânia Laranjo - We, the Portuguese. We, Portuguese police; we, Public Ministry; we, Portuguese government and we, Portuguese journalists ourselves, because we also accepted at a certain moment for the English to impose upon us an initial thesis, the thesis that it would be impossible for those parents to have anything to do with the disappearance. The fact is, during those first moments, in one or another circumstances, if the parents had not been doctors and English, the Portuguese media would have gone for the jugular. I remember, let me just say this.
Anchor - Please be fast because we need to go on to a commercial break.
Tânia Laranjo - My daughter was about the same age at the time, when I was in the Algarve, those parents, like Gonçalo Amaral said, sat every night in that restaurant and they never had any viewing angles, it was not possible. No Portuguese parent would ever leave a child sleeping alone in the bedroom.
Rui Pereira - What if there had been a fire, what if there had been a tragedy? Not to say anything further, but really for exposure to abandonment there could have been other consequences...
Tânia Laranjo - At least that situation, that crime existed.
Anchor - They should have been constituted as arguidos. Gentlemen, madam, let us now take a very short break. After the break we'll see the lines of investigation that still exist and should be followed in this process. See you soon.
Anchor - The Maddie process was reopened in 2013. At this time, all hypotheses remain open, from abduction to accidental homicide committed by the child's parents. The English have an independent investigation.
News segment 3
Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - Almost 9 years after Madeleine McCann disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, all hypotheses remain open. The process was archived in 2008, re-opened in 2013. From the negligent homicide they moved to the abduction thesis. The suspect was a man that had already died. He would have abducted and murdered Maddie, buried the body in the proximities of the tourist resort. The new thesis surfaced after a thorough examination carried out by another team of investigators. Elements of the Judiciary Police from Oporto spent months reviewing the process. They searched for loose ends, abandoned the thesis defended by the team of Portimão. After all it hadn't been Kate, Madeleine's mother had not been responsible for her death. It hadn't been an accident. The thesis was never confirmed, the Judiciary police investigated, searched but found nothing. At the same time they kept a close cooperation with the English, who, in turn, continue to ask for more investigative steps to be carried out via the letters rogatory. They have already been on the field, asking for more excavations to be done, but found nothing. Breakthroughs and setbacks, absence of answers, Madeleine has never been found. There is no body, ransom note, any solid evidence to indicate what effectively happened on the night of May 3, 2007. After 9 years the process remains open, at least until its limitation period, which will happen in 2027, twenty years after Madeleine disappeared.
Anchor - Gonçalo, do you believe things at this moment are being routed for the process to be archived here in Portugal?
Gonçalo Amaral - I have no doubts whatsoever, what was done by Scotland Yard is practically at an end. What they wanted to do was basically to, and I had said this before, was to in a certain way to give credence to the couple and remove all suspicions that existed concerning the couple. They did a reconstitution here in Portugal, not with the couple but with actors; constituted a series of arguidos that have nothing to do with the case, just for the sake of constituting arguidos; they followed a number of false leads. Now they have reached an end, after having spent a lot of money, maybe there isn't any more money to spend, perhaps the British public fund may not support such expenditure. And it will be archived, I can't see the Judiciary Police resuming the investigation when Scotland Yard ends theirs. In the end, the process was re-opened almost only and by the Scotland Yard, and when they leave the process will be archived just like before.
Anchor - Help me here in this line of reasoning, just a little while ago you said that there are still lines of investigation that remain open.
Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, remain open.
Anchor - ...if the Judiciary Police follows those lines of investigation...
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to recall something, in brief, this court decision that has not yet become final (res judicata/passed into matter adjudged), there are still a few days left for it to become final, but I can give you an idea of what was...
Anchor - The decision of the Court of Appeals?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it's new, the deadline for the appeal is taking place.
Anchor - Of course.
Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you what in essence is concluded, is that the line of investigation that is here (book) and remains open, is a plausible one. And we can conclude that from this decision like we could conclude from the decision of the temporary injunction.
Anchor - That's included in the decision of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon that acquitted you from paying the indemnification?
Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, and in the temporary injunction they go further, they actually said that it even though the Public Ministry had archived the process, with another Public Ministry another result could have occurred. Even so, this line of investigation isn't followed and nothing is done relatively to it.
Anchor - But by not following it, what does that mean? That the actual direction of the Judiciary Police doesn't want this case to progress?
Gonçalo Amaral - That's not the question. This is a case that appears to be traumatizing several people, right? Maybe someone completely neutral has to appear in face of all this, that decides to advance with the investigation. In all the lines of investigation and this one that is missing. (overlapping speech)
Anchor - But is the Judiciary Police afraid of the truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - There's something that the Public Ministry says in the archival dispatch in respect to the reconstitution that wasn't carried out because the friends of the couple didn't wish to return to Portugal. They said the ones who lost with that, the ones who are jeopardised are the couple. We could reach the conclusion that what they said - that we believe to be contradictions or lies - where truthful. The reconstitution could be good for them. Usually that is what happens, it can have a good or bad result and this investigation...
Anchor - Gonçalo please, just answer this question...
Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to conclude. If this line of investigation reaches an end, with what is left to be done, and if at the end of all that is concluded that after all the parents could not be, in any way, held responsible for the disappearance of the child, that would only help the couple.
Anchor - Of course. Isn't the Portuguese Judiciary Police interested in finding the truth?
Gonçalo Amaral - The Portuguese Judiciary Police is likely more interested at this moment for no one to speak about the case. Because it's a case that has left several people distressed, it seems that there is a series of people traumatized with the situation. People that want, for example, to be able to prove that parents don't murder their own children, I'm not saying that this ones did that of course. It seems that there is a whole culture, a way of thinking that has existed until recently and needs to be changed because we are all upset by it.
Anchor - Manuel Rodrigues, the Judiciary Police doesn't want to find the truth?
Manuel Rodrigues - I appreciate that you made me that question because I don't agree with Gonçalo in this aspect, likely the only one. I don't think that that is the situation, it's not the 'not wanting to', what I think is that, like I said earlier, this process was subject to a blockade in such a way, that at this moment it's extremely difficult to escape from this. That is, what I want to say is that I agree because I am obliged to agree with Gonçalo when he says that the British police set out an investigation where they decided to constitute a series of arguidos in order to credibilize the couple, to take them from one looking at the process and the only arguidos in there that one sees is the couple, seeing that they are responsible for what happened. For that, they constituted six more, or eight or nine arguidos to divert attentions and diminishes the possible responsibility. Now, to be able to move forward, in a process like this, the timings have all been lost, everything disappeared, we need to have this notion that it's very difficult at this time to recover a body, it's very difficult to retrieve, even making a reconstruction, a credible and exact idea of what took place yet it was imperative for this to have been done.
Anchor - That attempt was indispensable.
Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, and I don't understand why it was never achieved, certainly not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police.
Anchor - Not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police?
Manuel Rodrigues - Certainly not.
Anchor - By whom then?
Manuel Rodrigues - Someone has prevented that reconstitution, and that is why that those couples, friends of the McCann...
Tânia Laranjo - Inclusively, the friends themselves refused to come back.
Anchor - But who is that someone?
Manuel Rodrigues - Don't make me name things...
Anchor - The English police, the English government?
Manuel Rodrigues - We've already talked here about the direct assistance given to the couple by English governmental aids...
Anchor - The English government and the English police, is that what you are trying to say?
Manuel Rodrigues - Obviously. I cannot say anything else differently. I cannot have a different interpretation when in a first exam that was done in an English laboratory, because the Portuguese had the honesty of sending them the evidence, they weren't even analysed here - 'let's send it to England so they can carry out the tests so no doubts remain', in a first moment...
Anchor - Honesty or naivety?
Manuel Rodrigues - Pure naivety. In a first moment 15 alleles of a series of 19 appear, that constituted Maddie's DNA, and in a second report those 15 alleles had completely vanished, there was no longer any DNA of the girl present in there.
Anchor - So, what you are saying is that the probabilities for the "Guilt to die single" (Portuguese saying, no one get's blamed for it) are high.
Manuel Rodrigues - Extremely high.
Rui Pereira - It's a certainty.
Anchor - So, the "Guilt dies single" then professor?
Rui Pereira - Yes, it will, it absolutely will. Now, what I would like to tell you João is that...
Anchor - But the Judiciary Police, in your opinion Professor, is doing everything they can or they want to archive the case?
Rui Pereira - The Judiciary Police was under great pressure by the huge media coverage of the case, it was very active then and at a certain point in time it short-circuited, and why? Because what happened in the Algarve was that negligent parents left their children helpless, who could not defend themselves from natural or human threats, all alone! And in the sequence of that, which initially was a crime of abandonment, the child disappeared - there are no doubt about this.
Tânia Laranjo - And that was everyday.
Rui Pereira - For the English media what happened was that in an exotic country in the south of Europe, in a tourist resort, one child disappeared, full stop. And that the English police is unable of finding out why, full stop. This second story, is a narrative that is totally detached from reality. Thus, what failed in there, and I insist, was the first moment. In the Portuguese Penal code, the Public Ministry who is considered to be the "Master" of the inquest (process), but rarely intervenes. Let me add, that I feel most reassured because the Court of Appeals produced a balanced decision, and even though the case isn't over yet, it's a civil process and there is still an appeal to the Supreme, it seems to me that what the Court of Appeals concluded is correct. It doesn't say that the investigation of the Judiciary Police is truthful but says that what is revealed in the book corresponds to the investigation, and therefore, within the freedom of information, within the freedom of the press, can be made public.
Anchor - That is a plausible line of investigation. Gonçalo Amaral are you going to sue the McCann couple?
Gonçalo Amaral - At this moment I'm not thinking about that. There is always a reckoning of the numbers, the case has not yet ended, there are still appeals, let's see what will happen from now on, and then I'll decide.
Anchor - But you suffered damages, well, you obviously suffered moral damages, and you suffered material damages as well?
Gonçalo Amaral - And others. We have to wait. I don't think that is essential at this moment. What is essential now is to wait for this deadline to end, that the couple has to make an appeal, verify, to know the basis of their appeal, and only then react.
Anchor - What is going to be necessary for you to take that step? To make that decision to eventually sue the McCann couple.
Gonçalo Amaral - If at the end of this appeal..
Anchor - Did you not think about that yet?
Gonçalo Amaral - I thought about that, yes, but to affirm that I'm going to sue, let's take it slowly. I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people.
Rui Pereira - Inspector please allow me to say something very briefly, just to complement. What in fact is curious in the process, is that when the couple gave their Statement of Identity and Residence, they used an address in England, isn't it true?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, that's true.
Anchor - Are you going to publish this book in English?
Gonçalo Amaral - I'm planning to do that, yes. I know that the couple said that if anyone buys the book in England they would sue them. So? The couple does not own the English language and the book can be published in any language, namely in English. In any country where English is spoken or even via the internet. Now, what's going to happen, I'll still need to talk to my publisher, that still hold copyrights on the book. But I do have the intention of divulging the book even because there are some copies going around and inadequate translations online, and people have the right to know what my opinion is, and the opinion of others, and know them through in the official work.
Anchor - Gentlemen, madam, thank you so much for being here in this special broadcast by CMTV. We conclude with another news piece. In just one single day, in the exact same day Maddie was seen in the Brazil, in Canada, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte (Huelva, Spain) and even in Syria. The thesis multiply but of Maddie there is not a single trace.
News Segment 4
Voice Over - 3 of May 2007, a British little girl, 3-years-old, disappears from the hotel's (sic, apartment) bedroom where she slept with her twin siblings, in the Ocean club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Algarve. This, whilst the parents dined with friends in a restaurant, less than fifty (sic, only in a straight line) meters away from the apartment. Two days later the Judiciary Police of Faro says that they could now state that the daughter of the McCann couple had been abducted. A theory that continues to be alive in the memory and on newspaper pages that every year tell about another suspect, of another search carried out by the Portuguese authorities or English in Praia da Luz, or of another statement by someone that guarantees to have seen the girl, whom, if still alive, is now 12 years-old.
Anna Stam, a 42 years-old Dutch, was working in a shop when a blonde and blue eyed little girl asked her 'Do you know where my Mummy is?', convinced her mother was the woman that was with her, Anna pointed in the woman direction. 'She is not my Mummy, they took me from my holiday', said the child who according to the description was 4 or 5 years-old and spoke in a perfect English with a French accent (sic, the woman had the accent not the child).
This is just one of the sightings that can be found in the over thirty volumes and dossiers of the investigation that is yet to be concluded. The information is so dispersed, that on the same day (11th May 2007) Maddie was seen in Indonesia, in Singapore, in Mozambique, in Brazil, in Canada, in Belgium, at Zurich's airport in Switzerland, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte at the Spanish border and even in Syria. Not all sightings were taken into account, only those which according to the authorities presented solid elements, like one description of a sighting by two British sisters, who assured to have travelled in a bus in Malta with a little girl resembling Maddie who even had a similar eye defect in the right eye and who said to the woman who was with her 'You're not my Mummy'. After Malta it was Morocco, the stage of numerous sightings. First the sighing by a Norwegian woman alleging she had seen a girl similar to the oldest daughter of the McCann couple at a petrol station, followed by dozens of sightings, like one sighting of Madeleine in a mansion, in Massira, on the streets of Agadir or in Marrakech. After Morocco, the little girl that cried 'Help' in Mem Martins, in Amadora (Lisbon suburbs), then a Roma couple with a baby stroller in France, with a child that didn't appear to be theirs. Hundreds of psychic visions and divinations that placed the little girl at a specific street in Sagres or inside a hole in the vicinity of the tourist resort from where she had disappeared. Theories are abundant, of Madeleine Mccann there is not a single trace. Recently, in 2015, the Australian police entered in action, at stake the body of a child, with light hairs, that would have been murdered in 2007 and placed inside a suitcase, a few days later the conclusion - the body found in Australia wasn't Maddie's. Nine years and hundreds of sightings later the mystery remains and the sightings multiply.
Cândido, a former farmer and fisherman, that lives less than 100 meters away of the tourist resort from where the English child disappeared told CMTV why he can't erase the night of May 3, 2007 from his memory.
** Cândido - On the day the girl disappeared, her father, at 1am, was walking around with a bottle of wine in his hand, and he was 'atascado' (drunk), and screaming for the girl near to my door, I live right there close to the main road, and I said 'what's going on, what's all this noise?' and he said 'menina, menina' (girl, girl), 'embora, embora' (gone, gone), and I said 'girl gone, what girl?', and he said 'menina', and I said 'go call the police', 3 hours he said, 3 hours since the girl went missing, and I said 'call the police', and he said 'no police, no'.
Voice Over - Today Madeleine McCann is not the same child that we got used to watch in loop on TV. If she is alive she will be 12 years-old. For now it's the synonym of a perfect crime. No one has seen her, no one knows where she is, much less what happened on that night of 2007.
Anchor - This is the end point of this special broadcast by CMTV, 'Maddie, the Mystery', where we tried to bring new facts into light so this mystery may one day be solved.
Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20, CM Special: Maddie, the Mystery, April 23, 2016 - first draft
*Same reconstruction that had been broadcast in the CMTV Special in 2013, see Zizi's full translation with extra notes.
** A fisherman's story, for what it's worth. A very poor news segment riddled with avoidable mistakes to conclude an important debate, a bad editorial decision.