CMTV debate on Operation Grange's “new suspect” by Joana Morais 19 days ago

Short debate on Operation Grange's “new suspect”. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV, presented by Sara Carrilho, where criminal and current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs.

Sara Carrilho - Scotland Yard is searching for a former Ocean Club worker, the tourist resort in Praia da Luz from where Madeleine McCann disappeared in May 2007. The British authorities wish to question this man who they believe may provide for new leads concerning the disappearance.

News segment (unknown voice over) - After nine years there's a new suspect in the Maddie McCann case. This time, the line of enquiry of the British authorities pursues a former employee of the Ocean Club, the resort in Praia da luz, in the Algarve, where the English family were holidaying when Maddie disappeared in 2007. Scotland Yard wants to question again the former worker who may be of Portuguese nationality and hasn't yet been located. However, this man had already been questioned by the Judiciary Police (PJ) in 2007, this, because the man in question took part in a burglary in the ocean Club at the lunch time, on the same day that Madeleine disappeared. Even though this man is not being investigated as the abductor he may provide new leads concerning this case. The investigation that would have ended in April will be extended until September. The Sun tabloid advanced that for the investigation of the British authorities to continue a new fund of 96 thousand euros was granted. This new lead is considered to be the last opportunity in the investigation to find Maddie McCann, an investigation of the British authorities that has been ongoing for the past nine years (Op. Grange started in 2011), whose costs have surpassed 14 million euros.

Sara Carrilho - Carlos Anjos, this may be the last opportunity to do something in this investigation opened by the English authorities. Yet this man, this former worker the British police are seeking now had already been questioned in 2007.

Carlos Anjos - What new lead, opportunity? We are 10 million citizens, they have plenty of suspects to find here in Portugal, this is only just one more. I'm not even going to say that this is playing with the investigation, it's just shocking. At the time the police identified a series of people, over two dozen, to establish why they were there and this man was one of them. People that didn't have to be in there, that weren't from that area, or didn't live there and this was done using various techniques, there was a wide-sweeping search of cell phones of people that were in that area, everything was tried, then the police arrived to those individuals. This man worked at the Ocean Club, it is said (referring the news segment) that it's not known whether he is Portuguese or not, actually he is Portuguese, and it is not true either that he has vanished, he might not have a fixed address because he might be without a home, given the miserable life that he has. This man committed a crime of burglary in the morning, close to noon, at a time the child was in the beach with the mother, and the father. The disappearance takes place in the night, when the parents were, excuse my expression, soaking at the table, emptying bottles of wine. So, they want to connect a man who burgled a handful of things from a bedroom, a theft of opportunity since the tourists had left the door unlocked, if not mistaken German tourists, when they were all in the beach - any one of us was lucky to not have been there that day, in the Ocean Club, otherwise Scotland Yard would easily, just because we had red socks or something equally absurd, constitute us as arguidos and make us suspects of the death. This investigation is a tragedy, is a bottomless bag (endless supply), and it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy that we don't know what happened to Maddie, but above all is the careless way they say they have a new suspect. But what new suspect? The man as already been heard, he has already explained...

Sara Carrilho - What is certain is that vast amounts of money are given to this investigation.

Carlos Anjos - ... Worse than that, it is already known where he was at the time of the crime. That is, even though he committed the burglary, he was eliminated because at that time - this is something that I don't understand, I don't understand this investigation, it has nothing to do with a criminal investigation, but what should be considered is the time frame. The last time Maddie McCann was seen alive was at 17:30, that's the hour she leaves the children's playground area and returns home with her mother, from then on she never appears. Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours. At that time the man was somewhere else, actually far away from there. They cannot justify, that just because the man committed a crime of burglary at noon and since they don't have anyone else the guy of the noon robbery will do, this is wanting to place the suspect at the crime scene, this is wanting to forcefully place the blame. I just don't understand this investigation... What is certain is that this is a horn of plenty, where several millions have already been spent, this latest 96.000 euros will no doubt allow for another team of brilliant investigators to be lodged at a 5 star hotel because there's money to pay for that, and when this man is discarded... The PJ investigation spoke of three dead men, and all those were investigated, so there are no more dead men left to be accused as suspects because those would be the ideal suspects since they cannot defend themselves. Now, this man will surely give the same explanations he gave in the process (case files), that are already there in fact. Curiously, up to today, Scotland Yard was unable to identify a single suspect that hadn't been already identified by the PJ, they look at the process and likely say, we've already spoken with this one, next one, and so on. From the perspective of a criminal investigation this reveals an extreme ineptitude, even intellectually. The crime that man committed was at noon, the other was at night time, it doesn't matter, anything goes. This is playing, more than with the investigation, with people's feelings.

Sara Carrilho - Professor Rui Pereira, we are getting closer to the 10th anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, and there is no credible lead. This suspect committed a crime of burglary during the morning but nothing links him directly to the disappearance.

Rui Pereira - Well, this is completely out of step with reality. If I believed in conspirational theories I would say that this is the reaction of the English authorities to Gonçalo Amaral's aquittal. It's a curious way to approach this situation but nothing else really explains that a new lead was followed now, when is in fact an old lead, where the indicia are incompatible with the practice of a crime committed against the child. In reality there is an assumption that is vexatious for us, that is a sort of insinuation, or presumptuousness, that our police authorities are incompetent, that our criminal police bodies don't know how to investigate this case and so on. Well, that is not in question, what is in question in this case, and we always have to return to the beginning, is: parents that were not sufficiently diligent with securing their children, toddlers practically, parents that left them to their own fate, who could have been eventually persecuted for the crime of exposure and abandonment (neglect) and weren't. Then, in question is an investigation that was extremely difficult due to lack of leads, lack of concrete evidence. Sadly not all cases are solved, for them to be solved it's necessary that one acts with some rationality. A case should be reopened if there is new indicia, but indicia should be never be fabricated by any means. Sadly, it doesn't seem there is anything new in this situation. Each time we speak about this case, I always express my wish the child would appear alive, and if that is not possible because the child is no longer among us, then at least the truth should be known, that is very important.

Carlos Anjos - I am in complete agreement. I too believe this is a reaction to the aquittal since the Supreme Court practically dismisses the abduction thesis, so something had to be created, a sort of game. Then the incompetent authorities, they do think like that, ironically, every suspect identified so far was done by the incompetent authorities, because so far they weren't able to have the necessary incompetence to identify a suspect, they have to pick up from those who had already been identified. Then, the issue of British chauvinism is always present. If we rewind the film, who was the main suspect, the one that had the strongest suspicions against him? It was Robert Murat, unjustly, the ground had been disturbed...

Sara Carrilho - He was constituted as an arguido.

Carlos Anjos - ... He was constituted as an arguido.

Rui Pereira - He had some pornographic material on his computer.

Carlos Anjos - ... Exactly, searches were done to his home. Did the English authorities, in their investigation, ever suspect Robert Murat? No, because he is a fellow countryman.

Rui Pereira - Precisely.

Carlos Anjos - In other words, who are the suspects the English authorities pursue? A drunk man, or a.. They've came after all the unfortunate persons, Portuguese, that could not even afford to defend themselves legally, and we only didn't have more people persecuted because those had nothing whatsoever to do with the case.

Rui Pereira - Carlos that expresses, and I'm not an expert of criminal investigation, but that expresses a systematic error by the British authorities, which is, they pay greater attention to the area, to those who were in the area instead of the close circle of family and friends. It is there in my perspective....

Sara Carrilho - That's an issue that was also pointed out by the Supreme.

Carlos Anjos - But that is exactly where they don't want to focus. What the British authorities clearly want is to exonerate the circle that was close to the child, to protect them of being accountable for what has happened to Maddie, for the way they've treated her, that is the crime of exposure and abandonment of the children. That is why they are trying to get an “abductor”, so they can assign the blame to a poor fellow, irrespectively if he is alive or dead, regardless if they find the child or not, whilst clearing all the others from the circle. I firmly believe that is an impossibility.

Sara Carrilho - But the fact is that they have 96 thousand euros to continue the investigation.

Firstly, thanks to Joana Morais for taking the time to translate this for us.

This part jumped out at me : "Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours."

Has the timeline changed? 

Thanks to Joana.

It's good to see that the Portugese are watching what is being printed here in UK and discussing it in their own country.   Not so easy to say what they like these days with social media.

Patience wrote:Firstly, thanks to Joana Morais for taking the time to translate this for us.

This part jumped out at me : "Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours."

Has the timeline changed? 

Hi he spook "... the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30..."

anna13 wrote:

Patience wrote:Firstly, thanks to Joana Morais for taking the time to translate this for us.

This part jumped out at me : "Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours."

Has the timeline changed? 

Hi he spook "... the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30..."

I understand what you are saying but surely being so familiar with the case he would know that 10:00pm is the time stated for Kate McCann's return to the apartment? 

I would have expected accuracy and not 'roughly about'........... 

Patience wrote:Firstly, thanks to Joana Morais for taking the time to translate this for us.

This part jumped out at me : "Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours."

Has the timeline changed? 

I don't think so. He probably means up until the time that the police were notified?

suzyjohnson wrote:

Patience wrote:Firstly, thanks to Joana Morais for taking the time to translate this for us.

This part jumped out at me : "Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours."

Has the timeline changed? 

I don't think so. He probably means up until the time that the police were notified?

He refers to the alert given by the mother. I took this to mean when Kate McCann ran to the tapas restaurant to say that Madeleine was missing, rather than the alert to the police?

ETA: It's not important in the grand scheme of things - it simply niggled me.