THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN:
CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION
TRANSLATION OF PART TWO
Presenter (P): We are now resuming this “Maddie Special” and, as we do we now return to one of the many questions posed by this disappearance and its interrupted investigation.
A British tourist, who was near Praia da Luz when the child disappeared, happened to work in England for the Child Protection Services. This woman recognised David Payne – the McCanns’ friend - as a man who appeared in some report to the Child Protection Services in connection with inappropriate behaviour towards children.
(VO): The day following Maddie’s disappearance a British tourist in Algarve switches on her TV on an English channel. The news comes in direct from the Ocean Club. The news travels round the world. The woman is moved by the suffering of the couple and decides try and help the shattered parents.
She is not an ordinary tourist. The woman who rushes to the village of Luz is Yvonne Martin. She works in England for Child Protection Services. She is conscious of her duty to give all assistance she can to this couple who living through the pain of their child’s disappearance – but she is not welcomed by the McCanns.
The English social worker tries to find out if the parents need help. She wishes to know the situation in which the children were left alone and expresses interest in knowing details of their regime of scheme of checking - but Kate and Gerry’s response frustrates her initiative.
Kate seemed much tenser than the others. Yvonne tries to talk with her alone, but Kate, brusquely, puts a stop to their conversation. Disappointed, Yvonne Martin abandons the Ocean Club.
During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she stared at the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a ‘close friend’ of the family - but Yvonne knew that face. It rang a bell.
She was sure that she had seen that friend of the McCanns before. Then she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. Apparently David Payne had been reported in England as being suspected of inappropriate behaviour towards children!
A case that involved Dr David Payne occurred during a holiday on the island of Majorca in September 2005. Towards the end of that summer, the McCanns went on a holiday with some friends – three other couples; among them David and Fiona Payne. They rented a spacious villa. One evening, at the dinner table, one of the women of the group, a medical doctor [Dr Katarina Gaspar], heard a bizarre comment of David Payne to Gerry McCann.
Apparently referring to Maddie, David asks Gerry if she “would do this” - demonstrating what he meant by this by sucking one finger and sliding it in and out of his mouth. While doing this with one hand, he made circles in the region of his nipples with the fingers of the other hand.
On another occasion, the same witness saw David Payne repeat these gestures as he spoke about his own daughter. Until the end of their holidays in Majorca, this doctor and her husband never again allowed David Payne to come close to their one-and-half-year old daughter.
After Maddie’s disappearance, the couple, once again, reported the suspect behaviour of David Payne to the English police. But the English authorities. for some strange reason, do not disclose this to the Portuguese police at the time.
(The programme returns to the studio and the conversation resumes)
(P): So, these allegations, which were reported to the police in England, were never taken into account in the Portuguese investigation?
(GA): Hmmm, this very interesting. No, they were not taken into account, and I will tell you why…
(P): (interrupts) …this was never investigated!?
(GA): I will elaborate on it, if I may, for your benefit and for those who are watching the programme.
From May 2007 onwards, we became aware of information coming in from our British colleagues about something very odd that had happened within that group during some holiday in Mallorca - but they never told us specifically what it was. We knew it was something to do with Madeleine but they never gave us any details.
Sometime later – and by then I had already left the investigation and been reassigned to the Faro office - and for no specific reason, except it reminded me of the “we can’t tell you” attitude of the British, a fax arrived in Portimão from the UK, ostensibly about some other matter – and this, by the way, is all clearly stated in the investigation file…and attached to this fax, which was quite clearly about some other matter, were the two statements of Dr. Katherina Gaspar and her husband – the very allegations you were referring to just now, allegations which had been made to the British Police months before!
Oddly enough, these two statements by the Gaspars were not even referred to in this communication (either in the heading or the text of the fax).
We could well take an educated guess and say that the Gaspars’ statements entered the investigation process by the good grace of a British colleague who was probably fed up with hiding what he had been told to conceal!
And it is very strange not to see anyone on behalf of the family - I mean the family of the missing child – becoming concerned with showing any interest in such allegations! And I don’t see anyone from the British police, like Scotland Yard, becoming interested in clarifying these allegations (either).
They were talking recently about paedophile networks in Albufeira (in the Algarve) and I ask – could there have been a paedophile in the middle of it of this group? I do not know if the Gaspars’ evidence is relevant! I have no idea if the gentleman is a paedophile or not, but if we ask if his behaviour was very odd, we certainly have to concede it was!
Now, concerning the British senior social worker, Yvonne Martin), what she says is this: that the person she saw in Praia da Luz, when trying to assist the McCanns’, and whom she recognised afterwards from a photo shown to her by the police), had already been seen by her in a previous investigation about behaviour toward a child in England. This was either as a witness or a suspect. Notwithstanding, when the British police were questioned by the PJ about Dr David Payne), they replied the gentleman had no records relating to an investigation about a child in their files).
The fact is, this gentleman was the one who organised their trip to Praia da Luz). It was this gentleman who, for years, had been bathing the children of the group, including the little girls of the other couples and – as is contained in the investigation files.
He had gone that afternoon to the apartment of Kate McCann to see if help was needed - to bath the children. Furthermore, it was he who, that same afternoon, had helped to bath to his own two daughters while his wife went for a jog on the beach.
In summary, he is the one who, over the years, had a preoccupation about bathing the children of the other couples. I do not know if this is normal, if it is part of British culture or not, but I do not think it is.
The gestures he made in Majorca are potentially very serious allegations, particularly since these gestures related to Madeleine. The gestures – according to the report of Dr. Katarina Gaspar – herself a medical doctor… so, if in this case we have to pay respect to the McCann couple and their friends because they are doctors - well, she, Katarina Gaspar, is a medical Doctor as well - and her husband too!...
…the gestures made by David Payne were aimed at Madeleine, and Dr. Katarina Gaspar was shocked when she witnessed them – it was not just the gestures he made but the very question he posed to the father, Gerry McCann, right in front of him!
This evidence, from the Gaspars, has never been denied by anyone, anywhere – not least by any of those concerned. It is as if it never happened and then, much later, it suddenly arrives in the process in the manner in which it did.
It does not even arrive in time to be included in the rogatory letters which were drafted for the British government around October/November 2007, nor, for that matter, was it later included in the amended round of rogatory letters that the PJ tried to carry out in England.
The Gaspars are, in my opinion, a couple that should be heard in the investigation – particularly since this was a state of affairs they promptly contacted the police in England about when they saw David Payne on TV just ten days after the fateful event.
I repeat that when Dr. Kaarina Gaspar sees Payne) on the TV screen, she realises who this person was - and she felt, very strongly, that she simply had to report him to the police. But all this information was witheld from the Portuguese police)
(P): (to Francisco Moita Flores): Francisco Moita Flores, an allegation of this type, with these characteristics and, moreover, witnessed by members of their own profession - medical doctors - should have been investigated, surely!
(FMF): Of course it should! In fact almost everything that has resurfaced in this reconstruction is of such gravity that I think the only rightful thing for the PJ and the Public Prosecutor to do, would be to request this film from CMTV – and while they are at it, examine the reconstruction done by BBC’s ‘Crimewatch’ as well and, then, try to explain how so many questions, questions like these, were left unanswered!
Questions of such gravity! Questions that could involve paedophilia, sexual abuse and again, going back to that Irish gentleman’s sighting…that could be decisive for us to know, by the manner of his description, if that child was dead or alive.
(P): Particularly since such a possibility was available - certainly the Smiths were very willing to come over to Portugal.
(FMF): (continuing his train of thought) From the position of her hanging arms, her hanging legs, and other indicators, it might have been possible to find out if the child that the stranger was carrying was dead or alive; whether we were dealing here with a kidnapping or a homicide…
(GA): (cuts in to add) …and remember! In this instance we have more than a witness! We have a family, and … (unclear)
(P): (interrupts) Forgive me interrupting! I am going to follow on what you have just said, and invite our viewers to review the reconstruction – or for those who are only watching us now, to view it for the first time.
NOTE: What follows is a simple repeat of the film shown at the beginning of PART ONE
We refer to the little girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on the 3rd of May 2007 – a disappearance that remains shrouded in mystery, and beset by various contradictions.
(Images of the crime scene, inside and outside apartment 5A, appear on the screen; also of Madeleine McCann and her twin brother and sister. These are followed by the caption “Where is Maddie?” then the programme starts)
Voice-Over (VO): On that Thursday, 3rd May, the McCanns do 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, they never leave the holiday compound but, even so, they do not take 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 hours, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.
The crèche staff take the children to the beach. Madeleine plays on the beach with other children between 10:30 and 11 hours. Kate collects the children from the crèche at 12:25 and returns them to the crèche at 14:50 hours.
A few hours later, at 16:00, Kate is jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she returns to the crèche, to pick up her three children, and take them back home to Apartment 5A.
At the same time as Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends – that is, the other three couples - drink on the terrace of the Paraíso Restaurant in Praia da Luz – that’s at about 17:35 hours on the video. The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in an up-beat mood. Their children are with them. It looks like a tranquil end to their afternoon.
(Short break of the VO with more images)
(VO): 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 terrace. Later, about 15 minutes or so after their husbands leave the restaurant at around 6:30 hours, they get up from their chairs. By that time, their husbands have arrived back at the Ocean Club.
At 6:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry, who is already playing tennis on the courts. He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him that 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, David, 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 in her witness statement states emphatically that she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment, and that the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.
One thing is certain. The McCanns’ first-floor neighbour, Mrs Pamela Fenn (now deceased), 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 will 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 28 April. They do not take their children with them – a baby a few months old and seven young children are left asleep unattended in their apartments, while their parents, relaxed and apparently without a care, dine until around midnight - about one hundred metres away from their children.
On the evening of the 3rd of May 3, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 8:35 hours.
The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 8:45 hours, they are all sitting at the table: Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachael Oldfield and Dianne Webster - Fiona’s mother.
Kate, for example, has her usual “daiquiri” (a rum cocktail) as an apéritif. The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine every evening – four red and four white.
That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned away from the apartments; but even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges are in the way and would not allow them to see 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. In addition, the window of the room where Maddie and the twins sleep faces the external side of the apartment block.
The McCanns and their friends assured the police that they had a regular 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 with the children.
According to the members of the group, the ‘checking round’ took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes. But the truth is: exactly what they 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 provided the police with a schedule of the checking done on the children that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of the cover he tore off from a children’s activity & sticker booklet.
Days later, the police found among Kate’s documents a manuscript with the hours that the checking was done written on it – except that this one differed from the one her friend, Russell, supplied the PJ.
There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends as they give their account of events and, worse, there are contradictory versions of the same alleged events. The police never knew with any degree of certainty, what the movements were of each of the group of friends during that dinner. Nonetheless, there are just four moments that coincide; these four are the only movements ones corroborated by various 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 to check on their respective children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk about 20 metres down a dimly-lit street to reach a small access gate to his apartment - referring here to the sliding patio doors on the balcony.
After checking on the children, and on the way back to his dinner at the Tapas restaurant, 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 young baby son back to sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a little 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 in order to look for him.
Later, she guarantees the police that between 21:00 and 21:05 hours, she sees a stranger carrying a child in his arms, at the top of the very same narrow street she was walking up, and at the same time Gerry was stood there chatting to Jeremy Wilkins. Neither 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 22:00 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains that his older daughter had vomited, that he had given her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.
At 21:55 hours (9.55pm), as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives back at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.
Five minutes later, around 22:00 hours, she shouts from one of the apartment’s verandas facing the restaurant: “They’ve taken her! They’ve taken her!” - or: “We have let her down! We have let her down!“- depending on the source. No one from the group is able to see her; they can only hear her; then they all get up from the table and run towards the McCanns’ apartment.
(More suggestive images followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?”)
(Back to the studio and the discussion)
What now follows is a new discussion about other matters raised by the reconstruction
(VO): On the 27th May – 24 days after the disappearance of Maddie - the McCanns rented a grey, Renault Scenic saloon. The rental contract authorised another person, besides Gerry, to drive the car. This was Michael Wright, married to a cousin of Kate McCann. He had arrived in Praia da Luz in the meantime, from England.
It is in this car that in August 2007, the dogs of the British police alerted to an odour of cadaver and traces of dried blood and other body fluids.
(Images now show one of the dogs (Eddie) detecting cadaver odour in the car’s door)
The saloon car is given to Gerry McCann on the 27th of May with 3114 kilometres [1,935 miles] on the clock. Seven days later it had already done another 744 kilometres [462 miles].
The rental contract was renewed for another month. Between the 27th of May and the 3rd of July, in just over a month, the Renault had been driven 2750 kilometres [1,708 miles – around 50 miles a day]. The car seems to have been driven most of the time by Michael Wright – the husband of Kate McCann’s cousin.
For most of this period, the McCanns were away from the Algarve. They travelled what seemed like ‘half the world’ - and to reach the airports of Faro and Lisbon they hired taxis. The cadaver odour detected in the car contributed to the suspicion that Maddie’s corpse had been transported in that Renault.
(Back to the studio)
(P): Right up to this very day, nothing has been known about what Kate and Gerry McCann have said in private about their daughter’s disappearance. In spite of suspicious traces having been found in the clothes and the car hired by the couple, the phone-tapping and electronic surveillance of the parents were never authorised by Portuguese judges.
(VO): At no stage during the investigation did the police place the McCanns and their friends under surveillance – nor did they exercise any effective control of their actions. The McCanns and their friends were always able to use their ’phones in complete privacy – there was no ’phone tapping – and they free to move around where they wished. Gonçalo Amaral himself recognises that this absence of surveillance was an error.
Only at the beginning of August 2007, when the English police dogs detected the odour of a corpse in Apartment 5A – for example on a pair of trousers and a blouse belonging to Kate, a pink soft toy belonging to Madeleine, as well as their (rented) car - did the investigators realise that they had committed a serious error by not monitoring the McCanns and their friends. But by then, it was too late.
Only after the dogs had found those compromising traces of a corpse did the Judiciary Police request the Public Ministry permission to bug the villa rented by the McCanns. It would have been useful to the investigation to hear what the McCanns’ had to say to each other in private about the mysterious disappearance of her daughter.
The Attorney-General of the Public Ministry agreed with the surveillance but the procedure needed to be authorised by the Judge in charge of the preliminary enquiries. Unfortunately, the request was made during the Portuguese judicial break and the judge on duty refused to grant the request of the Public Ministry. Their surveillance was not authorized.
And, with such a decision, this possibility was lost - the possibility of the PJ knowing exactly what Gerry and Kate said to each other about the disappearance of their child, when well away from the microphones and TV cameras.
(Back to the studio)
(P): We are back to our conversation in the studio with Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores. (addressing FMF) Concerning the tapping and surveillance during those initial critical hours – surely this must have been a crucial error of the investigation!
(FMF): It was a crass error. This would have been decisive! Gonçalo Amaral, please forgive me, but I cannot change my opinion about this! This should have been done in the hours immediately following the event!
This is standard procedure. It is in all the investigative protocols. It is procedure in the history of homicides and kidnappings of children all over the world! The principal suspects are always the persons who are close to the children! – irrespective of whether it’s their parents, their friends, their uncles or cousins! It doesn’t matter!
I reiterate! It is always the people who are close to the child. This must be the basic, initial hypothesis – the a priori starting point for any investigation of crimes of this nature – not just for this particular case, but for all of them!
This was a decision that should have been taken immediately. That’s besides taking witness statements from all of them! Members of the staff of the Ocean Club, people who had access to the apartment – all those people should have been placed under surveillance!
For now we know exactly what he was up to. Well, I knew it from way back, when I was invited to work on another TV station to comment on the case directly from the Algarve. There we had a situation where the views of the couple, their family and friends were organised, pre-selected in terms of their relative importance - according to some kind of strategy or schedule by the media monitor [Clarence Mitchell]. He dealt with the McCanns’ public image.
We can see from this reconstruction, that there seems to exist a mystery within a mystery - a mystery which for years has unsettled investigators world-wide. It certainly disturbs me personally, for the solution for this case, ought to pass through this kind of analysis that we have been carrying out tonight.
And I believe that a reconstruction on the one hand, and the surveillance and ’phone-tappings on the other, would have made a decisive contribution to the case and perhaps have brought this soap opera to a closure.
This is a soap opera that has often been performed throughout the whole world - with more or less shambolic claims of kidnappers here, there and everywhere – and always, it seems, kidnappers who have died! This is stupid! No one has yet found a kidnapper who is alive! They are all dead! And this most recent one is also dead! Not one of them seems to be alive! (In the background, GA smiles and suppresses a laugh) (FMF): (continuing) …and as a result of all these missing elements, what we have now is like an act, a play, almost a staged soap opera – because those things which should have been addressed by the criminal investigation have been interfered with by politicians, thus creating a situation where the public, through all kinds of media speculation, have come to accept a scripted version of events that lacks credibility. It appears to be nothing but reputation management).
In my opinion, this CMTV reconstruction should be kept as a reference point, as a source of potential circumstantial evidence). It deals with very important questions which are crying out to be heard!
(P): Before we return to the subject of the surveillance and ’phone-tapping. which is just as important - I am going to ask just one more question, Francisco…Since we have been talking here about various images, do you think that it would have been important to collect - to gather up all those CCTV images from surveillance cameras up to a certain radius, a certain distance, from the scene of the crime?
(FMF): On the subject of images - the data which I think would be of paramount importance is the one which relates to the Irish family’s sighting.
The point at issue here – the crucial problem Gonçalo brought to this discussion - is the question of time-frames. Those would be decisive. From the point of view of an objective search for the truth, all these elements cannot be brought together properly and analysed in the context of things like reputation management, juridical rhetoric or indeed TV studio discussions, which are also a form of rhetoric. What we have been doing tonight here is not part of an investigation. We are discussing a case…
(P): But at the very least there are contradictions - that is a fact!
(FMF): (continuing) From the point of view of the Police (PJ) and the Public Ministry, all the questions that have been raised here, in this programme, form a serious and important document. This is my opinion.
This programme tonight is in effect is a document which, by its objectivity, compels a thorough re-reading of the investigation material. That much seems obvious. This reconstruction is based on actual documents, written and signed by those who were involved in this case. This document deals with all of the missing time-frames, to try and effectively arrive at the truth of what really happened then.
(P): (addressing Goncalo Amaral) Essentially, what we have been doing here tonight is also an exercise in memory, a reconstruction as it were, and so, if I may come back to the question of the ’phone taps and the surveillance - why were these not authorised, bearing in mind, as Francisco was saying, they would have been crucial in this investigation?
(GA): They were not authorised because diplomacy overrode the freedom of the investigators. In this country, our diplomacy is submissive to British power, cultural ideology and hegemony.
Let me give you an instance, if I may. I was introduced to the British ambassador who, just a little after 24 hours after the event, was already in situ, meeting with the investigation team, using diplomacy to suggest that we should be treated this a kidnapping.
Not surprisingly, the Director of the Judiciary Police immediately afterwards issued a communiqué along the same lines. From then on, the question of surveillance of the couple would not have been viable nor authorised - bearing in mind the police’s focus had in effect been officially diverted to the kidnapping hypothesis.
Perhaps the idea of that communiqué was to try and ease the pressure on the couple, to alleviate the burden of the media on them, but things did not work out as they intended - they evolved exactly in the opposite direction for them, in the most unfavourable manner).
We believed then that a moment would arrive in the investigation when it would have been possible to carry out various covert techniques, but it turned out that surveillance was not possible.
(P): But for an investigation with such dimensions, certainly it would have been a much more sensible approach?
(GA): That is easy to say with hindsight. That we should have done this or done that; of course it is logical we should have, but, you know…
(P): Of course.
(GA): You see, there were a number of constraints. Besides all that we know today about the investigation, there were a while host of restrictions on us that limited our work, constrained our decision-making – and that is, in fact, what happened. And what happened was the imposition of restrictions by politicians. And that interference in the political sphere continues to this day.
Now, concerning the CCTV images, all those images in the area around the crime scene were all collected - with the exception of one that was missing. Someone who was in charge of that task, of finding those cameras, fell short. We checked ATM cash machines, pharmacies which had a system of video-vigilance in place, petrol stations, and so on. We kept widening the perimeter (of the search). Unfortunately, there was one camera, as we later found out, that was not detected. When we realised that there was a camera in that place - and tried to get those images - it was a bit late [NOTE: A reference to a CCTV camera at the Estrela da Luz complex, where the Smiths were on holiday].
(P): The (footage) was no longer available …
(GA): You know, walking the streets, with your head up, looking for surveillance cameras, seems like an easy task but, it is easy and yet it is also not so easy. In this instance, the camera was not detected. As I just said, the officer who was given that task found several cameras, but missed that one - one that was perhaps right there in front of his nose. But there you are).
(P): (wrapping up the programme) Gonçalo Amaral, I thank you for your presence in this “Maddie Special” and Francisco Moita Flores as well. Thank you for both coming here to our studio.
I would remind our viewers that tonight they had an opportunity to see the reconstruction of the evening Madeleine McCann disappeared - the little English girl that went missing in the Algarve in May 2007. Good night.
Again, many thanks to “Xklamation“ (Joana Morais) for her anticipation by preserving such an important video-document and making it available all over the world on YouTube. This is especially important since the original CMTV link cannot always be accessed] The above programme was transmitted by Portuguese CMTV – appropriately a month after the much-publicised and much-criticised BBC ‘Crimewatch’ Madeleine McCann special on the 14th of October 2013. The BBC programme featured the missing child’s parents and a senior detective, Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood from the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange, an operation originally ordered by David Cameron to review the original investigation by the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) – the nationwide Portuguese crime specialist force. CMTV’s programme titled: “The Maddie Case”: A Reconstruction of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann”, was broadcast in Portugal on the 16 November 2013.This much more objective and factual crime scene investigation by CMTV featured Dr. Gonçalo Amaral – the former PJ senior detective who co-ordinated the original investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Portuguese University Professor and criminologist - Francisco Moita Flores.
This transcript edited by CMOMM, 7 January 2014