SMITHMAN 9 - Is Goncalo Amaral sticking to his original conclusions re Smithman?

On 19 November 2013, Goncalo Amaral, together with his supporters Moita Flores, Carlos Anjos and Eduardo Dâmaso were interviewed by Portuguese TV company, CMTV.

The subject matter was the controversial BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, transmitted on 14 October 2015.

Below is a transcript of the interview, put up by Joana Morais on her site soon afterwards.

The main point at issue is whether, having become aware of DCI Redwood’s making Smithman ‘the centre of our focus’, and his publication of the two controversial e-fits of him, Amaral still believed that the claimed ‘sighting’ by Martin Smith nd his family was genuine. Or not.

The issues are discussed at paragraphs 15 to 21 below.

At paragraph 15, the narrator points out that two Tapas employees said that Gerry McCann was ‘not that the Tapas bar table at 10.00pm’.

That may well be true. He (and the others) may well have left the table some time before then. It is a major leap, however, from a statement that he was not at the table at 10.00pm, to then saying that he carried his dead child through the streets of Praia da Luz at about the same time – based solely on the ‘Smithman’ sighting.     

At paragraph 16 below, Amaral answers with scepticism about the ‘Smithman’ sighting, pointing out – he says – that:

“As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m., the time of the payment at the restaurant by the Irish family, which is at 9.22 or 9.27 p.m., and the time of the phone call to GNR, which is at 10.47 p.m. From there on, nothing is certain”.

I must part company from Amaral on his dogged insistence that “the time at which ‘they’ pick up Madeleine from the crèche is accurately recorded as 5.30pm”.  

It is evident that he has not read and considered the analyses of the contradictory statements made about this alleged event - of which Lizzy HideHo’s is AFAIK by far the most comprehensive.

Four people have given evidence about this alleged high tea:

1 -  Gerry McCann, in witness statements and in the media

2 -  Kate McCann, in witness statements and in the media, and in her book, ‘madeleine’

3 -  The Lobster group creche nanny, Catriona Baker, in two witness statements, and

4 -  Another crèche nanny, Charlotte Pennington, in media articles.
 
People can choose what to believe about this alleged event, but I suggest that if anyone reads and analyses all of the highly contradictory statements about this alleged high tea, they would inevitably reach the conclusion that it never happened.
 
But back to what Amaral says in paragraph 16 below, clearly he does not endorse any of the times of the ‘Smithman’ sighting.  
 
In paragraph 19 below, Amaral responds to a question about the Smithman sighting as follows:
 
“ It makes all kind of sense to even bring him, and the family, it’s 3 or 4 people more, to Portugal, even to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant, how long they remained in Kelly’s Bar, because there is no payment, the payment was not made with a card, we found out the exact time of the payment, not the exit from the restaurant, through the payment, because the payment was made with a bank card. At the bar, it was made in cash, so we don’t know. We don’t know how long they took having their drinks. We don’t know at what time the sighting takes place. It would have been around ten, a bit earlier, a bit later, at around that time, we don’t know exactly at what time it was”.
 
I suggest that his statement is positively dripping with scepticism about the ‘Smithman’ sighting. In this answer, Amaral says:  
 
A  He wants the Smiths to be taken back to Portugal to answer questions

B  He wants to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant

C  He wants to ask them exactly how long they were in Kelly’s bar

D  He points out that there is no definite record of them having made a payment at Kelly’s bar

E  He points out that they definitely did not pay any bill at Kelly’s bar by credit card

F  He notes that although the PJ have the exact time he paid his bill in the restaurant, this doesn’t prove what time they actually left the restaurant     

G  He says he doesn’t know how long the Smiths were in Kelly’s Bar

H He says he doesn’t know what time the alleged ‘sighting’ happened.
 
That’s eight different aspects of the Smithman sighting on which he says more information is needed.
 
In another place, a poster known as ‘Dee Coy’ has made this statement:

QUOTE

“Picked this link up…It's from November 2013, so Goncalo appears to be sticking to his original conclusions, certainly with regard to GM being Smithman…It's one of the few references I've seen regarding Tapas workers commenting that Gerry was not at the table at 10pm. Wish we had access to the actual statements. Perhaps they are in the files?” 

 UNQUOTE


I will add a poll to test members’ opinion on Dee Coy’s comment that  “Goncalo appears to be sticking to his original conclusions, certainly with regard to GM being Smithman…”

================================

 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


20 November 2013 | Posted by  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 

1. Anchor - After CMTV screened a reconstitution about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, there were many reactions, that multiplied themselves, mainly because of the various contradictions in the witnesses’ statements.

2. Voiceover – The case dates back to the 3rd of May of 2007. Six years later, several inconsistencies and contradictions are counted, which contribute to the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine. After the screening of CMTV’s reconstruction relating to the little girl’s disappearance, there were many reactions that multiplied themselves, mainly about the various contradictions that were raised.

One of the inconsistencies has to do with the time of the visit that was done by a friend to the McCann couple. David Payne would have met Gerry at 6.30 p.m., and only afterwards went to see Kate. Until today, it is not known how long the visit took: According to Gerry, Payne was at the location for over half an hour; according to Kate, the visit lasted little over 30 seconds.

3. Gonçalo Amaral – This is a figure that, I use to say, that is enigmatic, and who was not well investigated. Not a lot is known about this person.

4. Voiceover – A mysterious man with a profile that is linked to indications of inadequate behaviours towards children. He even used to bathe the daughters of the friends that he spent holidays with.

To CMTV, Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores, former Judiciary Police inspectors, state that this is one of the gaps in the process.

5. Moita Flores – It is strange, in a group of friends, that one friend bathes the other friends’ children. And that all of this is natural, and nobody questions this from the investigation’s point of view.

6. Gonçalo Amaral – What weight did it have in the disappearance, if it had any weight at all, and what was going on there with that individual. One is this one, the 30 minutes or the 30 seconds, what he went there to do. The other one is the fact that he always cared to bathe the other people’s daughters.

7. Voiceover – There is even a concrete episode, which took place on the island of Mallorca, in 2005. David Payne, in the company of Gerry McCann, would have been seen making obscene gestures, while referring to Maddie.

8. Gonçalo Amaral – Then there is the other moment, that of the obscene gestures he made, in Spain, in Mallorca, where there is a denunciation in May 2007, ten days after the disappearance, by another doctor, who was also on holidays, who knows him and tells the English police about said obscene gestures in the presence of the father.

9. Voiceover – For Eduardo Dâmaso, joint editor at Correio da Manhã, these indications should have been explored.

10. Eduardo Dâmaso – All of those indications are much stronger to explore, that enigma that is installed within that group, than the thesis of the abductor. The feeling that I have is –

11. Voiceover – Some statements by Gerry McCann are also contradictory. To the police, Maddie’s father told different versions about the way that he entered the Ocean Club apartment at 9 p.m. In a first statement, Gerry said he had entered through the front door; later, he changed the statement and said he had entered through the back window. Despite everything, the key was inside the apartment.

For the former Judiciary Police inspector Carlos Anjos, the change in the depositions is an attempt by Gerry to adjust to the facts.

12. Carlos Anjos – I think he has no certainty whatsoever. That is the big problem. And hence the difficulty, the contradictions they had, all of the contradictions they had, which were verbalized when they gave statements, even the changing of depositions… We at the police use to say that when the depositions start to be changed, it’s an attempt by the witness to adjust the deposition to the fact.

13. Voiceover – Another inconsistency has to do with the visit of another friend of the couple to the Ocean Club apartment. Matthew Oldfield entered the room, looked to where Maddie and her siblings were. Later on, he said he wasn’t sure whether or not the little girl was in the apartment.

14. Eduardo Dâmaso – We return to another aspect which, from my point of view, proves that all the indications that exist, which point towards an enigma that is installed within that group, is much stronger than what exists about the possibility of an abduction.

15. Voiceover – Another question that remains unanswered is the place where Gerry was at 10 p.m. Two Tapas Bar employees said that Gerry was not at the restaurant. According to Gonçalo Amaral, there are only three moments that the authorities are able to locate in time. This is not one of them.

16. Gonçalo Amaral – As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m., the time of the payment at the restaurant by the Irish family, which is at 9.22 or 9.27 p.m., and the time of the phone call to GNR, which is at 10.47 p.m. From there on, nothing is certain.

17. Voiceover - Contributing to the mystery of Gerry’s location at 10 p.m., a statement by a family of Irish tourists, four adults and five children, appears. According to the Smiths, that evening, the family left Kelly’s Bar and headed home at around 10 p.m. Five minutes later, Kate raises the alarm to the disappearance. At the same time, the family crosses ways with a man that carried a blonde child, aged approximately four, wearing a pink pyjama.

18. Martin Smith, one of the group’s members, gives the police a detailed description. Four months later, already in the United Kingdom, the Smith family sees images of Gerry McCann carrying one of his children. When he sees the image on television, Martin remembers the same man that he had seen in Praia da Luz.
The denunciation was made to the Judiciary Police and the PJ decides to bring him to Portugal. At that time, Gonçalo Amaral, the coordinator, is removed from the investigation, and the new coordinator, Paulo Rebelo, considers that the trip of the Irishman to Portugal is useless.

Six years later, Gonçalo Amaral remains certain that it is important to listen to the witnesses’ statement.

19. Gonçalo Amaral – It makes all kind of sense to even bring him, and the family, it’s 3 or 4 people more, to Portugal, even to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant, how long they remained in Kelly’s bar, because there is no payment, the payment was not made with a card, we found out the exact time of the payment, not the exit from the restaurant, through the payment, because the payment was made with a bank card. At the bar, it was made in cash, so we don’t know. We don’t know how long they took having their drinks. We don’t know at what time the sighting takes place. It would have been around ten, a bit earlier, a bit later, at around that time, we don’t know exactly at what time it was.

20. Voiceover – For the former Judiciary Police inspector, the question of the e-fit that appeared at the time ended up taking importance away from the deposition.

21. Gonçalo Amaral – This family, which is not only one person, says that the person that they saw that night is a certain person. They say it is. Then they say it’s 80%. And then the e-fit – someone appears that looks like a certain person. While they never said it was a person that looked like Gerald McCann. The e-fit has that effect, the effect of devaluating the statement itself.

22. Voiceover – These are contradictions and inconsistencies that remain unanswered to this day. And adding to all of these questions, a new issue appears: That of the crime of exposure or abandonment [child endangerment], that would have been committed by Kate and Gerry McCann when they left Maddie alone during the night.

23. Moita Flores – You can be absolutely certain that if this couple was Portuguese, the Public Ministry would have immediately triggered the child protection measures against them. Have no doubts about that. Because in our culture, this is not reasonable nor explainable. And I don’t know if I can even be explained under the light of the Anglo-Saxon culture.

24. Rui Pereira – At the beginning, the McCanns were obviously suspected of a crime of exposure of abandonment. Obviously. It is evident that it was not easy to make them arguidos right away. Why? Because investigators are also human. And the most immediate sentiment that was experienced was that of a certain compassion towards the parents.

25. Moita Flores – I understand, with some effort, but I understand that it’s a cultural trait that is different from ours, to leave children far away from the place where we are, and to enjoy ourselves until midnight, from 8.30, 9 p.m. until midnight. I find this hard to believe, for our Latin culture, in which the children are very directly controlled, I find this very difficult.

26. Voiceover – For Carlos Anjos, all the participants in the case tried to find a way not to be implicated in this crime.

27. Carlos Anjos – They all knew that they were at stake because of exposure and abandonment, and all of them somehow tried to find a story that would not harm them much, that would not mistreat them much in that situation.

28. Voiceover – These are reactions that are raised after the exhibition of CMTV’s reconstruction about the disappearance of Maddie. A job that was never done by the Portuguese police.

29. Gonçalo Amaral – The reconstruction was never done because one awaited the best moment. At the time when everything happened, one thought about the reconstruction, which is normal in such a situation. There were many journalists in Praia da Luz, it was not convenient to do it at that time, due to the apparatus and the spectacle that would be given, it was almost as someone said, necessary to close the air space to make a reconstruction.

30. Moita Flores – This was decisive. And I don’t know how the police could do it, I understand the difficulties of this media circus that was built there, but it would have been necessary and decisive. Because as can be seen from this reconstruction, and one understands that it follows the statements from the participants in the process, one realises that it is full of contradictions.

31. Voiceover – For Francisco Moita Flores, the reconstitution by CMTV is more accurate than the one that was shown by the English Crimewatch programme.

32. Moita Flores – What CMTV just did, I saw the reconstitution that was made by Crimewatch and this one, and one understands that it is like day and night, in terms of accuracy.

33. Gonçalo Amaral – One has more red wine and the other one shows empty glasses.

34. Moita Flores – This one has the wine, it has the party, it has the disposition of the people, it has the relationship with the physical space, which is important.

35. Voiceover – These are reactions that appear after the exhibition of the reconstitution of the moments before and after the disappearance of Madeleine, a case that still prompts much discussion.

36. Carlos Anjos – This is the most verified case that I can recall in the history of criminal investigation. Countless CDs were made, they were distributed to all of the newspapers, to all of the detective agencies, to all of the policemen. And one thing is objective at this moment in time, just like Gonçalo said: Today we are exactly the same as when the case was closed. This is to say that we are, today, just like we were in 2007. The entire investigative community, that read the process from beginning to end, possibly all of us read it already, there was nobody who said – some have said that this or that could be done, but those are diligences that could hardly have any other result than the one that is there [in the case files].

37. Voiceover – The doubts remain. The uncertainties about what really happened to Madeleine McCann remain.

from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Tony, I have voted option 1 - that GA was sticking to his original thoughts on the Smithman sighting.

As per a previous post, I am a bit on the fence re-smithman, but I don't find this interview particularly damming against the smiths.

My reading of the post, and particularly paragraph 19, is that GA would like to know more about the movement of the Smiths in order to be more precise about the timing of the smithman sighting, but not with a view to discrediting it.

I am 100% with you that the 5.30pm sighting cannot be trusted. I have long thought that MBM met her fate much earlier than 3rd May and the brilliant recent research on tis forum has cemented my view. Despite our disagreement a few weeks ago, I still consider that GA may now be privately think along those lines.

My own current thinking is that the smiths genuinely saw the 'abductor' carrying a sedated decoy child. I cannot for the life of me think why Martin Smith would embroil his immediate family in concocting a total fabrication, which if exposed, would have such serious consequences.

Just my thoughts.

 I am certain I have read more than once that Gerry was spotted running around the pool at around 10pm.   Was it a waiter who saw him, can't be sure who, but have read this.  joyce1938

High Tea

Still got an inkling that it is KM on the beach at the back in the Paraiso photo’s at 17.38.08 and 17.46.07.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Would love to see the full CCTV tape and any holiday photos of her and what she was wearing that afternoon.
 
From ‘madeleine’:
 
‘I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area,
where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their
tea with Gerry. The others had decided to feed their kids at
the beachside restaurant, the Paraíso. Madeleine was
sitting on the Tapas terrace, eating. She looked so pale
and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was
all right. Had she been OK at the club when Ella left to go to
the beach? Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and
wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the
five of us went back to our apartment’.
 
I’d like to think that the PJ know.

In the following interview for Spanish TV (RTVE) dated the 15 October 2013, Amaral seems to make it clear that he believes Smithman and GM are one and the same person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

RTVE reporter Maria Ona, states the following:
'The police inspector (Amaral) maintains that the principle suspect continues to be (el padre) the father (alternatively - the parent)'.

Amaral then states:
'If you take the 'photofit' (el retrato robot/ico) and put it on top of the father I believe (creo) that they are the same person (la misma persona)'.

Amaral then goes on to describe a witnesses statement regarding the TV footage of the Mc's returning to the UK and the link to the person seen carrying Madeleine 'on that night' (i.e. the siting near to Kelly's Bar).

skyrocket wrote:In the following interview for Spanish TV (RTVE) dated the 15 October 2013, Amaral seems to make it clear that he believes Smithman and GM are one and the same person: 

The TV company narrator states: "The police inspector (Amaral) maintains that the principal suspect continues to be parents..."

Amaral states: ''If you take the 'photofit' and put it on top of the father I believe that they are the same person"

@ skyrocket     Thank you for finding that. I was aware of the broadcast but wasn't aware that Amaral's words could be heard (the Portuguese narrator's voice speaks over him nor that someone had provided a translation and English transcript.

In summary, therefore, if his words have been accurately recorded, then - on the day after the BBC Crimewatch broadcast - and taken together with the transcript I provided in the OP of Amaral confirming that in his view the parents collecting Madeleine from the high tea at 5.30pm was one of only three accurately timed events during that whole evening, Amaral's position on the night's events are as follows:

1. Kate & Gerry McCann collected their three children from the 'high tea' at 5.30pm

2. Madeleine was dead some time after (probably as the result of an accident, such as falling off the sofa

3. It was probably Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10.00pm that evening, and

4. One of the e-fits looks very much like Gerry McCann, and probably that means that Martin Smith did see him.


I can only say that if that is still his view today on those four specific issues, then I profoundly disagree with his view, based on all the available evidence.          


If Amaral were called on to defend those four points today, he would have very many difficult questions to answer. Among them would be these:

A. How does he explain the massive contradictions about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3rd May?

B. How does he explain Martin Smith delaying reporting his sighting for 13 days?

C. How does he explain the Smiths giving FIVE different and contradictory reasons for why the Smiths delayed reporting their sighting for 13 days?   

D. How does he explain two very different-looking efits?

E. Why are the Smiths' descriptions of 'Smithman' absolutely IDENTICAL in 17 different respects to Lourenco's description of 'Sagresman' and Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman', even down to the exact same description of the man as 'didn't look like a tousist'?     

F. How does he explain any of the Smiths being able to draw up - ONE YEAR LATER - credible e-fits of a man they only saw for a few seconds at most, in the dark, with poor street lighting, and not being able to see his face clearly...and after all telling the PJ that they would be totally unable to recognise him if they saw him again?

G. Why did it take Martin Smith FOUR months and 17 days to tell anyone that the man he had seen looked like Gerry McCann?

H. Why, if Martin Smith really did see Gerry McCann, would he then tell the world in a newspaper article that they should look for the abductor?    

I. Why, if Martin Smith really did see Gerry McCann, did he subsequently co-operate fully with the McCann Team's promotion of that sighting - in the Mockumentary, on their 'Find Madeleine' website, and in Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'?


Frankly, I doubt if any member here, let alone Goncalo Amaral, could give a convincing answer to even ONE of those nine questions.

joyce1938 wrote: I am certain I have read more than once that Gerry was spotted running around the pool at around 10pm.   Was it a waiter who saw him, can't be sure who, but have read this.  joyce1938

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:39 pm



Just been google earthing pdl, where smithman was sighted, tapas bar etc.  [switched to satellite image] distances don't look that far, for someone who's fit, a trip one way with "something" and an unburdened return journey.  Even at night by street lighting.  To come back up around the tennis courts "puffing and panting/ distressed" at the right moment, not that hard.

Once more with feeling!

Tony Bennett wrote:

skyrocket wrote:In the following interview for Spanish TV (RTVE) dated the 15 October 2013, Amaral seems to make it clear that he believes Smithman and GM are one and the same person: 

The TV company narrator states: "The police inspector (Amaral) maintains that the principal suspect continues to be parents..."

Amaral states: ''If you take the 'photofit' and put it on top of the father I believe that they are the same person"

@ skyrocket     Thank you for finding that. I was aware of the broadcast but wasn't aware that Amaral's words could be heard (the Portuguese narrator's voice speaks over him nor that someone had provided a translation and English transcript.

In summary, therefore, if his words have been accurately recorded, then - on the day after the BBC Crimewatch broadcast - and taken together with the transcript I provided in the OP of Amaral confirming that in his view the parents collecting Madeleine from the high tea at 5.30pm was one of only three accurately timed events during that whole evening, Amaral's position on the night's events are as follows:

1. Kate & Gerry McCann collected their three children from the 'high tea' at 5.30pm

2. Madeleine was dead some time after (probably as the result of an accident, such as falling off the sofa

3. It was probably Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10.00pm that evening, and

4. One of the e-fits looks very much like Gerry McCann, and probably that means that Martin Smith did see him.


I can only say that if that is still his view today on those four specific issues, then I profoundly disagree with his view, based on all the available evidence.          


If Amaral were called on to defend those four points today, he would have very many difficult questions to answer. Among them would be these:

A. How does he explain the massive contradictions about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3rd May?

B. How does he explain Martin Smith delaying reporting his sighting for 13 days?

C. How does he explain the Smiths giving FIVE different and contradictory reasons for why the Smiths delayed reporting their sighting for 13 days?   

D. How does he explain two very different-looking efits?

E. Why are the Smiths' descriptions of 'Smithman' absolutely IDENTICAL in 17 different respects to Lourenco's description of 'Sagresman' and Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman', even down to the exact same description of the man as 'didn't look like a tousist'?     

F. How does he explain any of the Smiths being able to draw up - ONE YEAR LATER - credible e-fits of a man they only saw for a few seconds at most, in the dark, with poor street lighting, and not being able to see his face clearly...and after all telling the PJ that they would be totally unable to recognise him if they saw him again?

G. Why did it take Martin Smith FOUR months and 17 days to tell anyone that the man he had seen looked like Gerry McCann?

H. Why, if Martin Smith really did see Gerry McCann, would he then tell the world in a newspaper article that they should look for the abductor?    

I. Why, if Martin Smith really did see Gerry McCann, did he subsequently co-operate fully with the McCann Team's promotion of that sighting - in the Mockumentary, on their 'Find Madeleine' website, and in Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'?


Frankly, I doubt if any member here, let alone Goncalo Amaral, could give a convincing answer to even ONE of those nine questions.

Snipped from your post Tony,

29. Gonçalo Amaral – The reconstruction was never done because one awaited the best moment. At the time when everything happened, one thought about the reconstruction, which is normal in such a situation. There were many journalists in Praia da Luz, it was not convenient to do it at that time, due to the apparatus and the spectacle that would be given, it was almost as someone said, necessary to close the air space to make a reconstruction.

..................................................

As a senior investigating officer, Goncalo Amaral could have cleared/cordoned off the streets. The McCanns' private detectives cleared the streets to do their own 'reconstruction'. Was GA ineffective or was he completely duped and overwhelmed?

Operation Grange (which I believe to this day is a whitewash) didn't do a reconstruction on Portuguese soil and yet they have produced a media extravaganza with their 'digs, dogs and helicopters' in Portugal alongside two fake reconstructions (why 2?) to send out to different countries in Europe?

The only people who have performed any semblance of a of a reconstruction in Portugal are the McCanns and their team.

Where does Madeleine fit into all of this?

Tony Bennett wrote:On 19 November 2013, Goncalo Amaral, together with his supporters Moita Flores, Carlos Anjos and Eduardo Dâmaso were interviewed by Portuguese TV company, CMTV.

The subject matter was the controversial BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, transmitted on 14 October 2015.

Below is a transcript of the interview, put up by Joana Morais on her site soon afterwards.

The main point at issue is whether, having become aware of DCI Redwood’s making Smithman ‘the centre of our focus’, and his publication of the two controversial e-fits of him, Amaral still believed that the claimed ‘sighting’ by Martin Smith nd his family was genuine. Or not.

The issues are discussed at paragraphs 15 to 21 below.

At paragraph 15, the narrator points out that two Tapas employees said that Gerry McCann was ‘not that the Tapas bar table at 10.00pm’.

That may well be true. He (and the others) may well have left the table some time before then. It is a major leap, however, from a statement that he was not at the table at 10.00pm, to then saying that he carried his dead child through the streets of Praia da Luz at about the same time – based solely on the ‘Smithman’ sighting.     

At paragraph 16 below, Amaral answers with scepticism about the ‘Smithman’ sighting, pointing out – he says – that:

“As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m., the time of the payment at the restaurant by the Irish family, which is at 9.22 or 9.27 p.m., and the time of the phone call to GNR, which is at 10.47 p.m. From there on, nothing is certain”.

I must part company from Amaral on his dogged insistence that “the time at which ‘they’ pick up Madeleine from the crèche is accurately recorded as 5.30pm”.  

It is evident that he has not read and considered the analyses of the contradictory statements made about this alleged event - of which Lizzy HideHo’s is AFAIK by far the most comprehensive.

Four people have given evidence about this alleged high tea:

1 -  Gerry McCann, in witness statements and in the media

2 -  Kate McCann, in witness statements and in the media, and in her book, ‘madeleine’

3 -  The Lobster group creche nanny, Catriona Baker, in two witness statements, and

4 -  Another crèche nanny, Charlotte Pennington, in media articles.
 
People can choose what to believe about this alleged event, but I suggest that if anyone reads and analyses all of the highly contradictory statements about this alleged high tea, they would inevitably reach the conclusion that it never happened.
 
But back to what Amaral says in paragraph 16 below, clearly he does not endorse any of the times of the ‘Smithman’ sighting.  
 
In paragraph 19 below, Amaral responds to a question about the Smithman sighting as follows:
 
“ It makes all kind of sense to even bring him, and the family, it’s 3 or 4 people more, to Portugal, even to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant, how long they remained in Kelly’s Bar, because there is no payment, the payment was not made with a card, we found out the exact time of the payment, not the exit from the restaurant, through the payment, because the payment was made with a bank card. At the bar, it was made in cash, so we don’t know. We don’t know how long they took having their drinks. We don’t know at what time the sighting takes place. It would have been around ten, a bit earlier, a bit later, at around that time, we don’t know exactly at what time it was”.
 
I suggest that his statement is positively dripping with scepticism about the ‘Smithman’ sighting. In this answer, Amaral says:  
 
A  He wants the Smiths to be taken back to Portugal to answer questions

B  He wants to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant

C  He wants to ask them exactly how long they were in Kelly’s bar

D  He points out that there is no definite record of them having made a payment at Kelly’s bar

E  He points out that they definitely did not pay any bill at Kelly’s bar by credit card

F  He notes that although the PJ have the exact time he paid his bill in the restaurant, this doesn’t prove what time they actually left the restaurant     

G  He says he doesn’t know how long the Smiths were in Kelly’s Bar

H He says he doesn’t know what time the alleged ‘sighting’ happened.
 
That’s eight different aspects of the Smithman sighting on which he says more information is needed.
 
In another place, a poster known as ‘Dee Coy’ has made this statement:

QUOTE

“Picked this link up…It's from November 2013, so Goncalo appears to be sticking to his original conclusions, certainly with regard to GM being Smithman…It's one of the few references I've seen regarding Tapas workers commenting that Gerry was not at the table at 10pm. Wish we had access to the actual statements. Perhaps they are in the files?” 

 UNQUOTE


I will add a poll to test members’ opinion on Dee Coy’s comment that  “Goncalo appears to be sticking to his original conclusions, certainly with regard to GM being Smithman…”

================================

 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


20 November 2013 | Posted by  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 

1. Anchor - After CMTV screened a reconstitution about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, there were many reactions, that multiplied themselves, mainly because of the various contradictions in the witnesses’ statements.

2. Voiceover – The case dates back to the 3rd of May of 2007. Six years later, several inconsistencies and contradictions are counted, which contribute to the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine. After the screening of CMTV’s reconstruction relating to the little girl’s disappearance, there were many reactions that multiplied themselves, mainly about the various contradictions that were raised.

One of the inconsistencies has to do with the time of the visit that was done by a friend to the McCann couple. David Payne would have met Gerry at 6.30 p.m., and only afterwards went to see Kate. Until today, it is not known how long the visit took: According to Gerry, Payne was at the location for over half an hour; according to Kate, the visit lasted little over 30 seconds.

3. Gonçalo Amaral – This is a figure that, I use to say, that is enigmatic, and who was not well investigated. Not a lot is known about this person.

4. Voiceover – A mysterious man with a profile that is linked to indications of inadequate behaviours towards children. He even used to bathe the daughters of the friends that he spent holidays with.

To CMTV, Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores, former Judiciary Police inspectors, state that this is one of the gaps in the process.

5. Moita Flores – It is strange, in a group of friends, that one friend bathes the other friends’ children. And that all of this is natural, and nobody questions this from the investigation’s point of view.

6. Gonçalo Amaral – What weight did it have in the disappearance, if it had any weight at all, and what was going on there with that individual. One is this one, the 30 minutes or the 30 seconds, what he went there to do. The other one is the fact that he always cared to bathe the other people’s daughters.

7. Voiceover – There is even a concrete episode, which took place on the island of Mallorca, in 2005. David Payne, in the company of Gerry McCann, would have been seen making obscene gestures, while referring to Maddie.

8. Gonçalo Amaral – Then there is the other moment, that of the obscene gestures he made, in Spain, in Mallorca, where there is a denunciation in May 2007, ten days after the disappearance, by another doctor, who was also on holidays, who knows him and tells the English police about said obscene gestures in the presence of the father.

9. Voiceover – For Eduardo Dâmaso, joint editor at Correio da Manhã, these indications should have been explored.

10. Eduardo Dâmaso – All of those indications are much stronger to explore, that enigma that is installed within that group, than the thesis of the abductor. The feeling that I have is –

11. Voiceover – Some statements by Gerry McCann are also contradictory. To the police, Maddie’s father told different versions about the way that he entered the Ocean Club apartment at 9 p.m. In a first statement, Gerry said he had entered through the front door; later, he changed the statement and said he had entered through the back window. Despite everything, the key was inside the apartment.

For the former Judiciary Police inspector Carlos Anjos, the change in the depositions is an attempt by Gerry to adjust to the facts.

12. Carlos Anjos – I think he has no certainty whatsoever. That is the big problem. And hence the difficulty, the contradictions they had, all of the contradictions they had, which were verbalized when they gave statements, even the changing of depositions… We at the police use to say that when the depositions start to be changed, it’s an attempt by the witness to adjust the deposition to the fact.

13. Voiceover – Another inconsistency has to do with the visit of another friend of the couple to the Ocean Club apartment. Matthew Oldfield entered the room, looked to where Maddie and her siblings were. Later on, he said he wasn’t sure whether or not the little girl was in the apartment.

14. Eduardo Dâmaso – We return to another aspect which, from my point of view, proves that all the indications that exist, which point towards an enigma that is installed within that group, is much stronger than what exists about the possibility of an abduction.

15. Voiceover – Another question that remains unanswered is the place where Gerry was at 10 p.m. Two Tapas Bar employees said that Gerry was not at the restaurant. According to Gonçalo Amaral, there are only three moments that the authorities are able to locate in time. This is not one of them.

16. Gonçalo Amaral – As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m., the time of the payment at the restaurant by the Irish family, which is at 9.22 or 9.27 p.m., and the time of the phone call to GNR, which is at 10.47 p.m. From there on, nothing is certain.

17. Voiceover - Contributing to the mystery of Gerry’s location at 10 p.m., a statement by a family of Irish tourists, four adults and five children, appears. According to the Smiths, that evening, the family left Kelly’s Bar and headed home at around 10 p.m. Five minutes later, Kate raises the alarm to the disappearance. At the same time, the family crosses ways with a man that carried a blonde child, aged approximately four, wearing a pink pyjama.

18. Martin Smith, one of the group’s members, gives the police a detailed description. Four months later, already in the United Kingdom, the Smith family sees images of Gerry McCann carrying one of his children. When he sees the image on television, Martin remembers the same man that he had seen in Praia da Luz.
The denunciation was made to the Judiciary Police and the PJ decides to bring him to Portugal. At that time, Gonçalo Amaral, the coordinator, is removed from the investigation, and the new coordinator, Paulo Rebelo, considers that the trip of the Irishman to Portugal is useless.

Six years later, Gonçalo Amaral remains certain that it is important to listen to the witnesses’ statement.

19. Gonçalo Amaral – It makes all kind of sense to even bring him, and the family, it’s 3 or 4 people more, to Portugal, even to understand how long they took after leaving the Dolphins restaurant, how long they remained in Kelly’s bar, because there is no payment, the payment was not made with a card, we found out the exact time of the payment, not the exit from the restaurant, through the payment, because the payment was made with a bank card. At the bar, it was made in cash, so we don’t know. We don’t know how long they took having their drinks. We don’t know at what time the sighting takes place. It would have been around ten, a bit earlier, a bit later, at around that time, we don’t know exactly at what time it was.

20. Voiceover – For the former Judiciary Police inspector, the question of the e-fit that appeared at the time ended up taking importance away from the deposition.

21. Gonçalo Amaral – This family, which is not only one person, says that the person that they saw that night is a certain person. They say it is. Then they say it’s 80%. And then the e-fit – someone appears that looks like a certain person. While they never said it was a person that looked like Gerald McCann. The e-fit has that effect, the effect of devaluating the statement itself.

22. Voiceover – These are contradictions and inconsistencies that remain unanswered to this day. And adding to all of these questions, a new issue appears: That of the crime of exposure or abandonment [child endangerment], that would have been committed by Kate and Gerry McCann when they left Maddie alone during the night.

23. Moita Flores – You can be absolutely certain that if this couple was Portuguese, the Public Ministry would have immediately triggered the child protection measures against them. Have no doubts about that. Because in our culture, this is not reasonable nor explainable. And I don’t know if I can even be explained under the light of the Anglo-Saxon culture.

24. Rui Pereira – At the beginning, the McCanns were obviously suspected of a crime of exposure of abandonment. Obviously. It is evident that it was not easy to make them arguidos right away. Why? Because investigators are also human. And the most immediate sentiment that was experienced was that of a certain compassion towards the parents.

25. Moita Flores – I understand, with some effort, but I understand that it’s a cultural trait that is different from ours, to leave children far away from the place where we are, and to enjoy ourselves until midnight, from 8.30, 9 p.m. until midnight. I find this hard to believe, for our Latin culture, in which the children are very directly controlled, I find this very difficult.

26. Voiceover – For Carlos Anjos, all the participants in the case tried to find a way not to be implicated in this crime.

27. Carlos Anjos – They all knew that they were at stake because of exposure and abandonment, and all of them somehow tried to find a story that would not harm them much, that would not mistreat them much in that situation.

28. Voiceover – These are reactions that are raised after the exhibition of CMTV’s reconstruction about the disappearance of Maddie. A job that was never done by the Portuguese police.

29. Gonçalo Amaral – The reconstruction was never done because one awaited the best moment. At the time when everything happened, one thought about the reconstruction, which is normal in such a situation. There were many journalists in Praia da Luz, it was not convenient to do it at that time, due to the apparatus and the spectacle that would be given, it was almost as someone said, necessary to close the air space to make a reconstruction.

30. Moita Flores – This was decisive. And I don’t know how the police could do it, I understand the difficulties of this media circus that was built there, but it would have been necessary and decisive. Because as can be seen from this reconstruction, and one understands that it follows the statements from the participants in the process, one realises that it is full of contradictions.

31. Voiceover – For Francisco Moita Flores, the reconstitution by CMTV is more accurate than the one that was shown by the English Crimewatch programme.

32. Moita Flores – What CMTV just did, I saw the reconstitution that was made by Crimewatch and this one, and one understands that it is like day and night, in terms of accuracy.

33. Gonçalo Amaral – One has more red wine and the other one shows empty glasses.

34. Moita Flores – This one has the wine, it has the party, it has the disposition of the people, it has the relationship with the physical space, which is important.

35. Voiceover – These are reactions that appear after the exhibition of the reconstitution of the moments before and after the disappearance of Madeleine, a case that still prompts much discussion.

36. Carlos Anjos – This is the most verified case that I can recall in the history of criminal investigation. Countless CDs were made, they were distributed to all of the newspapers, to all of the detective agencies, to all of the policemen. And one thing is objective at this moment in time, just like Gonçalo said: Today we are exactly the same as when the case was closed. This is to say that we are, today, just like we were in 2007. The entire investigative community, that read the process from beginning to end, possibly all of us read it already, there was nobody who said – some have said that this or that could be done, but those are diligences that could hardly have any other result than the one that is there [in the case files].

37. Voiceover – The doubts remain. The uncertainties about what really happened to Madeleine McCann remain.

from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting and informative post, but I think you've lost me on this bit - "People can choose what to believe about this alleged event, but I suggest that if anyone reads and analyses all of the highly contradictory statements about this alleged high tea, they would inevitably reach the conclusion that it never happened."

Why would high tea not have happened that day?

Madeleine missing from that high tea goes straight into conspiracy theory.  No high tea that day = massive conspiracy theory.

sar wrote:

Just been google earthing PdL, where 'Smithman' was sighted, Tapas bar etc.  [switched to satellite image] distances don't look that far, for someone who's fit, a trip one way with "something" and an unburdened return journey.  Even at night by street lighting.  To come back up around the tennis courts "puffing and panting/ distressed" at the right moment, not that hard.

@ sar   No problem with that as it stands.

But anyone, Goncalo Amaral included, if they truly believe that Madeleine died after 5.30pm, and that Gerry McCann took his dead daughter in pyjamas through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm at night and was (more or less) identified by the Smiths, must answer all these questions with a convincing answer or hypothesis:

First of all these...

1.  All the questions I raised earlier about the massive contradictions about what really happened at that alleged 'high tea', and
2.  All the dozens of issues I've raised about the 'Smithman' sighting    

..but in addition, all of these questions...

3. What kind of death could Madeleine possibly have suffered after 5.30pm that evening
4. Would the twins have been present and seen her die?
5. How could the McCanns and all their friends sit down together for a meal at about 8.30pm/8.45pm that night, with Madeleine just having died
6. If the death happened after 8.30pm/8.45pm, how come there was cadaver scent left for the dogs to pick up three months later
7. If the McCanns wanted to hide Madeleine's death, why in heaven's name would Gerry carry the recently-dead body through the streets of PdL?
8. Why, especially, would he do this at the very time that the rest of the group were raising the alarm?
9. Where could he have possibly hidden Madeleine's body so that no-one could find it?
10. How come no-one else apart from the Smiths saw him either on the way to the beach (or wherever) or on the way back?


I have asked these kinds of questions many times in the past in the Smithman debates, but never, ever, have I seen any answer to such questions that is remotely satisfactory.

I would welcome someone, anyone, trying to do so now.                

Elca Craig wrote:  QUOTE >>> Interesting and informative post, but I think you've lost me on this bit - "People can choose what to believe about this alleged event, but I suggest that if anyone reads and analyses all of the highly contradictory statements about this alleged high tea, they would inevitably reach the conclusion that it never happened." Why would high tea not have happened that day? Madeleine missing from that high tea goes straight into conspiracy theory.  No high tea that day = massive conspiracy theory.  >>> UNQUOTE

REPLY: You would have to re-read Lizzy HideHo's impressive list of outright contradictions about this alleged event. If you would like to do so once again, you'll hopefully see why I suggest that the proposition that there was a high tea that day, around 5.30pm to 6.00pm with the McCanns and all three children present, simply cannot be sustained 

I could indeed read LH's list.  But my question was very simple.

Was there or was there not a high tea that day?  Forget the conjunctions - around 5.30pm to 6pm - and with the McCanns - and all three children present.

Simplest of questions.  Was there, or was there not, high tea on 3 May 2007?

Elça Craig wrote:I could indeed read LH's list.  But my question was very simple.

Was there or was there not a high tea that day?  Forget the conjunctions - around 5.30pm to 6pm - and with the McCanns - and all three children present.

Simplest of questions.  Was there, or was there not, high tea on 3 May 2007?

The 'conjunctions', as you put it, or the main elements of what is claimed to be true about that 'high tea' that day (as I think is more accurate), are what is challenged.

Goncalo Amaral says that he can be 'certain' that Madeleine was collected from the high tea at 5.30pm.

SIX separate claims are made about this high tea, by:

1. Gerry McCann - statements
2. Kate McCann - statements
3. The crèche records
4. Kate McCamn - book
5, Cat Baker
6. Charlotte Pennington.

All say almost completely different things about what happened.

My proposition is that the contradictions about that 'high tea' mean that:

"There was no high tea...around 5.30pm to 6pm...with the McCanns...and all three children present".

I have invited members to agree or disagree with that proposition. I believe that 'Carrry On Doctor' fully agrees with me, as do many others.


I am not quite sure why you raise a totally separate question about whether there was a high tea at all that day. I am not persuaded that there was, as it happens. But if you show me good evidence by witness testimony of where this high tea took place, when it took place, and who exactly was there. I will believe it.

As far as I can see there WAS a high tea and the 5.30pm time would be the time Kate signed Madeleine out of the creche/High tea.



Catriona does not mention seeing Maddie at high tea

Catriona EARLY Statement:
Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. 

ROGATORY statement 
Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. 

It was around 15h25/18h00. 

I think that Gerry was playing tennis. '




QUESTIONS & CURIOSITIES


1) Why does Catriona not mention seeing Madeleine? Only the twins and Kate.

CATRIONA wrote:Catriona EARLY Statement:
Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. 

ROGATORY statement 
Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. 

Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. 

It was around 15h25/18h00. 

I think that Gerry was playing tennis.

2) Why would Catriona say she 'WENT to the tapas bar area?  Was Catriona there?  If so, why wouldn't she say she CAME to the tapas bar area?


3)  WHY would Catriona claim she thinks Gerry was at tennis?  


Was it because Kate had told her? Odd because both Kate and Gerry claim to have been there!

4)  WHY would both Gerry and Kate claim to have gone to the apartment using different doors?

Kate was (supposedly) carrying Madeleine.  Why would Gerry say he went in through the front door and left Kate to walk up the steps carrying Maddie and having the twins as well? (in his statement from the following day)

Kate claims to have gone in through the front door and carrying Madeleine would be easy to remember the following day.

HiDeHo wrote:As far as I can see there WAS a high tea and the 5.30pm time would be the time Kate signed Madeleine out of the creche/High tea.

What I think is probable is this:

There was a high tea and Gerry only collected the twins from the high tea.

That in turn might explain this convoluted and unlikely tale of what Kate says happened:

“Madeleine was sitting on the Tapas terrace, eating. She looked so pale and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was all right. Had she been OK at the club when Ella left to go to the beach? Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the five of us went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted, we skipped playtime that evening”.


The bit that has always stood out for me about this is where she says "I was carrying Madeleine". A grown-up hulk like Gerry allowing his wife to carry a chid weighing well over two stone all the way back from the Tapas bar to the apartment on her own? It hardly seems likely.

Moreover, Madeleine being so 'really tired, pale and worn out' that she needed to be carried all the way back to the apartment - and put to bed early -and had to 'skip playtime - hardly sounds like the chirpy girl who a few minutes later is said to have exulted: "Mummy, this has been the best day of my life!"

I don't believe that Dr. Amaral was ever 100% about any of the detail during the early stages of his brief engagement as case coordinator.  In his book 'The Truth of the Lie'  (the title speaks for itself) he writes of his concern on 4th May about the apparent contradictions in the Tapas groups witness statements.  Without prior intelligence, a criminal investigation can only commence with available information, in this case the very people at the core of the mystery it would appear.  Apart from that, all they had to further the investigation was the witness statements of Ocean Club employees, holidaymakers and/or local residents such as Pamela Fenn.  All of which could only recall events as their memories allow - presuming they are telling the truth.  I doubt very much if the Ocean Club employees etc. were clocking the McCann family's every move, their testimonies can only be used as a vague guideline.  For example - would he have continued to be guided by the testimony of Catriona Baker if he knew that she was previously acquainted with the McCanns or any of their friends, or in the case of Charlotte Pennington that she is a fantasist?

The investigation into MBM's disappearance was a work in progress, being developed, until it was hampered by outside influence.  The opinions of Dr. Amaral and his team no doubt evolved dramatically as the investigation progressed.  In fairness to Dr. Amaral, it would have been extremely unprofessional, even as a retired officer, to publicly speculate, opine or disclose confidential information relative to an investigation - be it active or archived.

I'll wager his thoughts today are a whole lot different than they were in the spring of 2007!

OK, folks, if we have now concluded that there WAS a high tea that day

... whether Madeleine was present or absent ...

could we get back on topic ...

about Amaral, and what his views might or might not be?

Elça Craig wrote:could we get back on topic...about Amaral, and what his views might or might not be?

Yes. of course.

I suggest that (and with the very greatest of respect to him) - if Amaral has not already done so, he should:

1. Reconsider the overwhelming evidence that Nuno Lourenco lied about Sagresman/Wojchiech Krokowski nearly kidnapping his daughter

2. Consider the truly remarkable coincidence of Lourenco, hours after Jane Tanner had described Krokowksi to a 'T', coming up with an identical description - and 'phoning the PJ just as Krokowksi's plane was taking off for the return journey to Poland

3. Read the analyses by Lizzy Hideho and others which show that the alleged 'high tea' with Madeleine present never happened

4. Re-evaluate all the evidence which casts doubt on the truth of the 'Smithman' sighting

5. Weigh up the startling fact that the Smiths' description of Smithman was yet another carbon copy of the description of Krokowski 

6. Read the recent articles on CMOMM by Lizzy Hideho and 'Hobs', and then...

...7. Pause and reflect on whether some passages of 'The Truth About A Lie' need updating...

Tony Bennett wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:could we get back on topic...about Amaral, and what his views might or might not be?

Yes. of course.

I suggest that (and with the very greatest of respect to him) - if Amaral has not already done so, he should:

1. Reconsider the overwhelming evidence that Nuno Lourenco lied about Sagresman/Wojchiech Krokowski nearly kidnapping his daughter

2. Consider the truly remarkable coincidence of Lourenco, hours after Jane Tanner had described Krokowksi to a 'T', coming up with an identical description - and 'phoning the PJ just as Krokowksi's plane was taking off for the return journey to Poland

3. Read the analyses by Lizzy Hideho and others which show that the alleged 'high tea' with Madeleine present never happened

4. Re-evaluate all the evidence which casts doubt on the truth of the 'Smithman' sighting

5. Weigh up the startling fact that the Smiths' description of Smithman was yet another carbon copy of the description of Krokowski 

6. Read the recent articles on CMOMM by Lizzy Hideho and 'Hobs', and then...

...7. Pause and reflect on whether some passages of 'The Truth About A Lie' need updating...

Pause and reflect on whether some passages of 'The Truth About A Lie' need updating...

Some of the passages needed updating before the book was published.  Some of the passages in Kate's book needed updating before it was published.

So what is this thread about?

Mr Amaral, and what his views might or might not be?

Possibly Mr Bennett, and what his views might or might not be?

As I said earlier on, you have dredged up some interesting thoughts.  I guess I need to post my thoughts, whatever they might or might not be, elsewhere.

Verdi wrote:I don't believe that Dr. Amaral was ever 100% about any of the detail during the early stages of his brief engagement as case coordinator.  In his book 'The Truth of the Lie'  (the title speaks for itself) he writes of his concern on 4th May about the apparent contradictions in the Tapas groups witness statements.  Without prior intelligence, a criminal investigation can only commence with available information, in this case the very people at the core of the mystery it would appear.  Apart from that, all they had to further the investigation was the witness statements of Ocean Club employees, holidaymakers and/or local residents such as Pamela Fenn.  All of which could only recall events as their memories allow - presuming they are telling the truth.  I doubt very much if the Ocean Club employees etc. were clocking the McCann family's every move, their testimonies can only be used as a vague guideline.  For example - would he have continued to be guided by the testimony of Catriona Baker if he knew that she was previously acquainted with the McCanns or any of their friends, or in the case of Charlotte Pennington that she is a fantasist?

The investigation into MBM's disappearance was a work in progress, being developed, until it was hampered by outside influence.  The opinions of Dr. Amaral and his team no doubt evolved dramatically as the investigation progressed.  In fairness to Dr. Amaral, it would have been extremely unprofessional, even as a retired officer, to publicly speculate, opine or disclose confidential information relative to an investigation - be it active or archived.

I'll wager his thoughts today are a whole lot different than they were in the spring of 2007!

@ Verdi.......my exact thoughts......Dr Amaral (I dislike calling anyone by their surname...very derogatory imo I noticed you gave him respect also) has everything we have to hand, and then some.....to give him a clearer picture of the deceit that was in play at that time, he could never have anticipated this atrocity when he was in charge of the case or what he was up against.  A super hero cop (if any exist) would not have solved this historic case. It was made to be unsolvable.  Dr Amaral was obviously doing very well in his capacity or he would never have been removed..yes he was on to them, but the scale of deception and High Power input has indeed made Madeleine's dissapearance almost fictitious....It is indeed laughable, if it were not about a little child He wrote as he could, but yes, he would definitely write or perhaps rewrite (a very good idea for him) as he sees all laid bare now. I sometime chide myself for following this charade on occasion as when one stands back for a while and reads the whole debacle in the cool light of day what we have been fed by the 'mighty' is actually insulting to ones intellegence to the point 'they' must be having a good laugh at our expense, but, I awaite with  baited breath that something, just 'something' will give us a  turning point for real and not just speculation.  Maybe Dr Amaral will be our redeemer as I think he will have all the correct answers now as time if nothing else has been in his favour and I don't believe he will be working alone, for justice for Madeleine and himself. Just my little opinion.

I guess Mr. Amaral  would be most careful to try to rewrite a book that he needed to at that point. I would say one day it will be done, it's just not the right time for him. He has had to fight law in law courts, enough for now, maybe. I expect he has reviewed some thoughts but will let it lie for now.  joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:I guess mr amaral  would be most carefull to try to rewrite a book ,that he needed to at that point. I would say one day it will be done ,its just not the right time for him . He has had to fight law in law courts enough for now ,maybe ?  I expect he has reviewed some thoughts ,but will let it lie for now.joyce1938

@ joyce1938....yes I agree, the timing to re-write or even comment on anything at present would not be favourable for him. He probably only just has energy to get him through this never ending saga going on in his life.....lets just hope he wins.....celebrates, takes time out and then retaliates.......way to go (in an ideal world) I suppose....can only wish the best for him.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Amaral then states:
'If you take the 'photofit' (el retrato robot/ico) and put it on top of the father I believe (creo) that they are the same person (la misma persona)'.

Which photofit might that be I wonder..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As for Martin Smith recognizing GM as he descended from the aircraft in the UK - broad light of day, summery clothing, four months later?  In May, didn't appear to be a tourist, dressed for a chilly night, only recognizable by the manner in which he carried a child?  No chance!  Besides, according to Jane Tanner's sighting, the one that caused DCI Redwood to have his 'revelation moment' - later to be confirmed (almost) to be a father carrying his child back from the crèche - the child was being carried horizontally, not vertically across the shoulder as GM was photographed doing.

Seems to be some confusion here - lost in translation maybe?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  ... is actually insulting to ones intellegence to the point 'they' must be having a good laugh at our expense...

I've often thought much the same.  Especially when they read some of the bizarre theories created on nothing but wild imaginings.

I agree with the general tenor of your comments but I do have reservations about Dr. Amaral's ability to write another book  'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann - Warts 'n All', for the simple reason that he has never been privy to the UK side of the case, nor ever will be.  He couldn't even access Madeleine's medical records so chances of him knowing the UKs double dealing is, I fear, non existent. 

He can only now write further detail as regards the investigation during his time as case coordinator but can you imagine the reaction in the UK?  I don't think there is anything to be gained by such a move, frankly I believe the man has more integrity than to lower his reputation by becoming a best selling novelist - because that's how he would appear before the eyes of the world.  A retired cop with an axe to grind..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I refer you to the RTVE interview:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you check it at around 1 min 40 seconds, it is clear which of the 2 photofits Amaral is referring to, although I suspect your comment was rather tongue in cheek!! (No disrespect intended to Snr Amaral [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - in my experience surname usage doesn't imply it unless the context suggests otherwise).

There is nothing lost in translation, as far as I'm aware. At this point the report is in the first person (for 2 sentences up to where the reporter starts the third sentence with "Goncalo") and we have to assume that RTVE (Radio y Television Espana) have managed to translate Amaral's words accurately into Spanish. The Spanish to English translation given in my previous post is accurate.

I am leaning towards the Smith sighting (not photofits necessarily) being genuine, mainly because, despite the many questionable points that @TB has highlighted, I find it almost impossible to imagine that Martin Smith would have sanctioned the involvement of his 12 year old daughter in perjury. Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone would risk involving a 12 year old - I don't know a single teenager (and I have worked with them extensively) who could be relied upon not to talk. What the Smiths actually saw (if they did) and whether it was a staged or 'real' event is another matter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] keeps asking 'why did the 'abduction' have to be discovered at 10pm?' Although several witnesses put the timing back towards 9.30pm, equally several others put it the other way towards 10.15/10.30pm. Smithman was supposedly seen at 10pm. The distance between 5A and the Smith sighting location is only minutes on foot. IF someone was carrying a child around the streets of Luz at night I believe that it had to be a planned action and one which would not be jeopardised by a sighting. Otherwise a bag would be used.

I am also certain that Snr. Amaral and the Portuguese police know a whole lot more than I do.

@ Verdi  You wrote Dr Amaral would appear as a retired cop with an axe to grind


I take your point that Dr Amaral was not privy to Madeleine or anyone elses Health Records etc. etc at that point of time in the case under his charge, I also take your point that the U.K will never part with anything investigatory to him now, especially since he is a civilian of Portugal with no right to endevour to try to gain any information re the case, even when his own legalaties are done and dusted, would be ludicrous to even entertain that thought.......what I gleaned from listening to him speak on a news progamme in Portugal was that he himself spoke of another book that he has already written....now I assumed the book would be regarding the case this is where I suppose one should never assume as the saying goes, however, his daughter was also mentioned by Dr Amararl also as having a lot of material of his for future reference, in case anything untoward should happen to him! (his words) I cannot put a time on when I listened to that interview, I am sure it was before he is on record as saying that he will be taking entities to task whom have libelled him........I didn't feel that by taking these steps he would abandon his intergrity.....I say good on him, and what has he to fear what the prople of U.K think of him, anyone interested in the case know his plight and support him,  anyone not interested, will stay uninterested. His reputation in U K could not be more tarnished.......He is human, If he wants justice for himself, I for one commend that only if he has strength to continue.  His future hopefully will be in his own hands soon.

Sophiebubbles wrote:...what I gleaned from listening to him speak on a news progamme in Portugal was that he himself spoke of another book that he has already written...now I assumed the book would be regarding the case...

Amaral has of course already published a second book on the case, titled 'A Mordaca Inglesa', or The English Gag.

I published a translation of Chapter 6 of that book on this forum, here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Tony Bennett wrote:

Sophiebubbles wrote:...what I gleaned from listening to him speak on a news progamme in Portugal was that he himself spoke of another book that he has already written...now I assumed the book would be regarding the case...

Amaral has of course already published a second book on the case, titled 'A Mordaca Inglesa', or The English Gag.

I published a translation of Chapter 6 of that book on this forum, here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Than

@ Tony Bennett........Thank you for that info, I havn't read it ....had heard of The English Gag, but didn't know he was the author.......... look forward to reading it.

Sophiebubbles wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Sophiebubbles wrote:...what I gleaned from listening to him speak on a news progamme in Portugal was that he himself spoke of another book that he has already written...now I assumed the book would be regarding the case...

Amaral has of course already published a second book on the case, titled 'A Mordaca Inglesa', or The English Gag.

I published a translation of Chapter 6 of that book on this forum, here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Than

@ Tony Bennett...Thank you for that info, I haven't read it...had heard of The English Gag, but didn't know he was the author...look forward to reading it.

The Madeleine Foundation only paid for Chapter 6 to be translated, so that's all that we have on the forum.

AFAIK no-one has yet published an English translation of the rest of the book

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:   If you check it at around 1 min 40 seconds, it is clear which of the 2 photofits Amaral is referring to, although I suspect your comment was rather tongue in cheek!!

No, my comment was most certainly not tongue in cheek - I was deadly serious.  It's quite noticeable how, whenever anyone wants the e-fits issued by Operation Grange to be Gerry McCann, they always select the same one to superimpose.

If Goncalo Amaral believes that GM was seen carrying the body of his child, or a substitute child as some like to think, around the streets of PdL at 10:00 pm then all I can say, he's either listening to the wrong people or he's lost his marbles - neither of which I believe to be true.  The mere suggestion is so ridiculous it's laughable.

As regards the e-fits, if one was inclined towards scepticism, one might be led to think that the e-fit was deliberately made to vaguely resemble GM in order to explain away Martin Smith's embarrassing recognition moment - just the same as DCI Redwood conjured up his revelation moment to explain away Jane Tanner's mystery man.  Now there's a thought..

Sophiebubbles wrote:@ Verdi  You wrote Dr Amaral would appear as a retired cop with an axe to grind


I take your point that Dr Amaral was not privy to Madeleine or anyone elses Health Records etc. etc at that point of time in the case under his charge, I also take your point that the U.K will never part with anything investigatory to him now, especially since he is a civilian of Portugal with no right to endevour to try to gain any information re the case, even when his own legalaties are done and dusted, would be ludicrous to even entertain that thought.......what I gleaned from listening to him speak on a news progamme in Portugal was that he himself spoke of another book that he has already written....now I assumed the book would be regarding the case this is where I suppose one should never assume as the saying goes, however, his daughter was also mentioned by Dr Amararl also as having a lot of material of his for future reference, in case anything untoward should happen to him! (his words) I cannot put a time on when I listened to that interview, I am sure it was before he is on record as saying that he will be taking entities to task whom have libelled him........I didn't feel that by taking these steps he would abandon his intergrity.....I say good on him, and what has he to fear what the prople of U.K think of him, anyone interested in the case know his plight and support him,  anyone not interested, will stay uninterested. His reputation in U K could not be more tarnished.......He is human, If he wants justice for himself, I for one commend that only if he has strength to continue.  His future hopefully will be in his own hands soon.

You misunderstand me Sophiebubbles.  My comment about Dr. Amaral's integrity was confined only to his writing another book about the investigation - or lack of as the case may be which I don't see will achieve anything constructive.  

I certainly wouldn't blame him for standing against the mobsters to clear his name and reputation.  The UK above all has been extremely unfair as regards his character but I believe that on the whole good upright honest UK citizens don't believe a word of it - despite the relentless efforts of McCann supporters to sully his name.