McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

 

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

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

LK = Lorraine Kelly
KM = Kate McCann
GM = Gerry McCann

LK: They join me now, three years. I can’t believe it’s been three years. It’s extraordinary isn’t it?

KM:  I know, it’s incredible really; it just doesn’t feel like three years to me. Sure.

GM: Mmmm. Last year in particular has gone particularly quickly.

LK: I know...I just wondered if you in anyway can have any sort of normal life three years on. Can you...does it...it...it must always, it’s just always there isn’t it, all in the forefront of your mind.

KM: I mean it is always there and obviously Madeleine’s in our life every day, but we do have, you know, periods of normality, in fact I’d say we just .. it’s just change and that’s a different kind of normality now, I mean we still  have...Gerry obviously works full time erm you know, we still have to do the cooking and washing, we’ve got Sean and Amalie and we have lots of time with them, we go on trips, they go swimming

LK So you do...you’re able to do this normal family things, you know, you have gone back to work as as you said, but there ...there’s almost this thing ...sometimes do you feel almost guilty about enjoying yourselves sometimes, you know, or laughing or having fun with the twins ... you ...is..is..do you sometimes feel like that?

KM: Yeah definitely, I think erm, sometimes you can be having a really good time, and... suddenly you realise it’s actually tinged and it will suddenly stop yer and you know, we had a lovely day last week and erm...you know it was really sunny and we can smell the grass and it’s been cut and I thought, oh it’s really nice and then it just kinda...kinda ...gets yer know...Madeleine’s still not here.

LK (talking to GM) And you’ve gone back to work, was that difficult for you? Did you sense people’s awkwardness around you or did that dissipate quite quickly?

GM:  Ye...er...it was a little bit awkward at the beginning  but at that time I think...I found it much easier when I’m mentally active when I’m doing things, both from a campaign point of view and work wise as well, erm...and...it was actually difficult when we were arguido and wasn’t so much happening, er..it’s...you felt you almost had your hands tied behind your back somewhat, so it was definitely the right decision for me to go back I went back part-time and then erm, built up and filled time and to be honest most people were just really glad to see me and most of the patients initially have been quite reserved or just left messages with er the staff.  But it was awkward in those early months when I went back and I was doing ward rounds and quite often here would be Madeleine on the front page of the newspapers or ourselves and various other things erm, so that was a little bit awkward but generally it’s not been a problem.

LK: Because sometimes people don’t really know what to say to you, you know, there’s that, that sensible {?} they’re not quite sure ... you know, they want to say how sorry they are or they’re thinking of you but they don’t quite know how to broach the subject, it’s quite difficult it’s...

KM: I think it is difficult, I think it, you know, it depends on the person really, erm, some people feel comfortable coming and asking yer how it’s going, other people are just kinda tap you on the arm and say thinking of you and other people feel they shouldn’t invade your privacy bu...

LK: Does it help when people....

KM: It does. I ..I mean, I’ve said all along really, actually makes me feel better when people acknowledge Madeleine essentially ermm...

LK: Yeah, that’s true

GM: I think it’s very important as well that er  a lot of times people want to skip around it, don’t know to mention it or not and of course we live with this everyday of our life and it’s a huge part of it and er...and...and that even applies to friends and people as well who you know, you haven’t seen for a while erm, and also we spent so much of our  our time outside particularly when the kids are in bed actually thinking about ways how we can improve the search and keep it going.

LK: Mmm...Because that’s really what this is all about and the search has to keep going on – What sort of stage is the investigation at or what sort of stage is the campaign at right now?

GM: From an investigation point of view erm, I think it’s fairly important to say that from law enforcement they’re not doing anything actively and haven’t been for a long time and that’s incredibly frustrating so we’ve had our small team working away in the background and erm, in terms of new leads I think we’ve put out most of the important information that we had this time last year, we had a very good response and most of those leads have been worked probably er as much as we can with Dave and his team. So at this point what we’re really trying to do is to get the government to review everything and it’s very difficult because a lot of information held in, in with British police there’s a lot in Portugal, it’s not all in one file whereas other information we’ve got we’re happy to make available but there hasn’t been a comprehensive review, there hasn’t been anything about which lines of enquiry er...(unintelligible)... for the investigation and that’s just something we feel is fundamental and should happen and it’s not right that an innocent , you know, vulnerable British citizen is, is essentially given up on, and I don’t think it’s right that as parents that we have to drive the search – Of course we will but yer know, not everyone has had the same resources and support that we’ve had to be able to do that and I think it’s pretty cruel.

LK: very frustrating, for, for both of you and another aspect of  it is the kind of criticism that you’ve come in for as well, erm, there’s been a lot of that and that must be very, very difficult to deal with, I mean you’ve got a lot at the start about the fact that you, you left the kids and you’d gone off and had a meal and all of that had happened and then you know, even to this day you know, there are people who are convinced are convinced that you had something to do with it, how on earth do you deal with that?

KM: I think, I mean I think it’s changed erm, certainly we don’t get the same level of criticism that we did and even then, to be fair, it was the minority really I think most people even if, you know, they don’t agree with, with, you know, what we did then they wouldn’t feel it right or fair to add to our suffering erm

LK: Because it does doesn’t it, it does add to your suffering...

KM: Absolutely and particularly in the early weeks and months, you know, I wasn’t expecting it because all I can see, you know, our daughter’s been taken and she’s been subjected to something terrifying and that’s the most important thing so for people to start you know, shouting as us when really we needed to keep the focus on Madeleine ...

LK: Of course, absolutely

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...

GM: That’s very interesting I think anyone who’s in the public eye for whatever reason gets criticised and early on when we were campaigning er you know, you would say Oh my goodness we’re getting criticised for doing this and doing that and you start to let that influence what you’re doing but then you realise you get criticised for whatever you do from some quarter

LK: Yes

GM: and what you need to do is make decisions for the right reason and do it with the best intention and really stick to yer guns, take advice but ultimately we make our own decisions but I think probably more than anything I’d say is, you know, after ... if we could turn back the clock and change what happened obviously we wouldn’t have done it, we can’t and what I would  say is you know, people have got to put themselves  into your positions. What would you do if it was your daughter? Afterwards what would you do? {{The following was a bit confusing because Lorraine Kelly kept talking over what Gerry McCann was saying}} LK: You’d move heaven and earth (GM: Yeah so that’s what...)  and you’d do everything you possibly could, everything you possible could (GM: that’s what we’re trying to do ) just what you’re doing of course (GM: as much as possible)  yeah

GM...and er, er, trying to er think of ....just constantly ways where we could improve things or, or get additional things done.

LK: You did this pack (holds up a holiday pack of Madeleine) that is specifically aimed at people going on holiday anywhere, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t have to be Portugal it can be absolutely anywhere and in the pack there’s posters people can put up, there’s a stickers, there’s bookmarks, there’s all of this so again this is about you being pro active and you try to do as much as you can. They can get this on your website can’t they?

GM: yeah

KM: yeah

LK: Yeah, so they can get a hold of that and hopefully that’s again just going to keep everything in the public eye, that’s what you want to do, keep her name there

GM: It comes...er...a lot of what we’ve done is er, taking advice from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington and it’s very much about keeping her image out there, that’s really important Madeleine so there’s an age progression photograph there which was released last year, just other things, car stickers and it’s simple things, who knows who will end up seeing her er, but if you don’t have her image out there then it’s less likely.

LK: Yooouuu...er...like I say, is very, very, very, very, difficult for both of you, it’s been absolutely horrendous...you’ve, you’ve stayed at home haven’t you Kate, you’ve stayed at home looking after the twins. How much do the twins know? How much are they aware of because they’re five now

KM:  Er, they know quite a lot, we’ve kind of...it’s changed a little bit initially for them they’d say where’s Madeleine, Madeleine’s lost...erm...then as they got older and started to ask more questions then obviously the picture’s unfolded a little bit for them and basically, I think it was last year wasn’t it (glances at Gerry) erm, Amalie said to me you know, has Madeleine run away mummy? And erm, she kept asking me in a public place (LK: Awww) so it was a bit tricky at first, and she said: because it’s not nice to run away. And that, that really upset me because I thought because I didn’t want her to think that Madeleine’s at fault here, so probably (glances at GM) about the third time she asked me, when we were at home rather than in a supermarket, erm, we just explained really that someone had taken Madeleine but we tried to obviously make them understand it in as gentler way as possible so... (LK:  you don’t want to frighten them do you, you don’t want to make them scared) ...so it was a little bit like you know, stealing really, (LK: right) so we said, just because you really want something or you really like something, if it belongs to somebody else you shouldn’t take it, so that’s how they understand it, so that they know somebody’s taken her and they actually, they know it’s wrong you know.

LK: Can you still, do you still have a, I mean  three years is a long time, you’ve still got her image in your head, can you still hear her?

KM: Yeah, I mean obviously the image we have of is, you know, the Madeleine that we knew, so Madeleine at four days...you know...four years minus nine days, erm (glances at Gerry) and I can still hear her voice and obviously we have video film (LK: of course) of her and you know, every so many months we sit down and we’ll watch that really and ...

LK: Oh that must be...en...(unintelligible)... someone’s comfort thing and (unintelligible) very, very difficult to do that.

GM: Sean and Amalie like watching the stuff of us and they’ve watched old video’s of us and they’ve put it all together now you know...the temporal sequence of events and they know about, they went to Portugal, they went to bed and Madeleine was taken and just to expand a bit on what Kate says they know, they believe that, you know, it, it was a man that took her and it’s a naughty man and we need to try and find him so it’s part of what they say that mummy’s working er to help find Madeleine

KM:  Er Sean said to us his little friend in school, she said, she said: Kate you a doctor? And Sean just came in and said: mummy was a doctor but her doc..er...job now is to find Madeleine, you know, kind of, erm, he was just straight, and er, so they understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and they understand that we’ve got a lot of support, you know, they’ll constantly spot things like a car sticker or a luggage tag or a wristband and they’ll point it out and you know, say look they’re helping mum too ....so...

LK: Are you convinced she’s still out there somewhere?

KM: Certainly, in my heart I feel she’s out there and there’s, there’s...I mean I know there’s nothing to say that she isn’t and so we have to carry on working and thinking like that, I mean logically, you know, I mean, I can’t say, none of us can say for definite other than the people involved, but erm, I know we can’t give up because there’s no evidence to say she’s not so.....

LK: that’s what I was going to say to you. Do you think there’ll ever be a time when you say enough is enough, we’ve done all we can,  there’s no more we can do.

KM: We can’t. I mean if they haven’t found Madeleine, if we don’t know what’s happened, you haven’t done enough, I mean there’s obviously more that can be done and it might just be time, you know, it might just be, you know, there could be a group of people out there who are sitting with this on their conscien...you know ... with this on their conscience and every time Madeleine is mentioned or every time there’s an image, again it’s just pricking their conscience and it might just be, you know, as I say, a question of time until they come forward, the situation might change and they may then feel comfortable to come forward so...just keep going...

GM: As hard as it is there are lots of examples, particularly from the States, of children who have been abducted at a younger age and kept for a long time. I think the key thing is you (shouldn’t that be ‘we’?) don’t know who’s taken her and what the motive is and until we find that person, it’s very hard but, you’ve just gotta keep going and keep working away but more importantly we need to have a proper review of all the information, that’s how we’ll move the investigation forward  and at the end of the day, the person that’s taken Madeleine is still out there they’re er, a potential danger to other children so they need to be brought to justice.

KM: We do this, you know, in medicine, you know, if there’s a case you don’t seem to be getting a diagnoses someone will come in and review it, they’ll go back to square one, they’ll go through all the information or the data or the results that you’ve got and work through it and that’s when you find out what else needs to be done and it will help point you in the right direction so ...

LK: And its...will be her birthday soon. What will you do that day?

KM: I was just explaining to someone before, her birthday is actually a much more difficult day for us than, you know, the 3rd of May. The 3rd of May really is just, it’s another day without Madeleine erm but the 12th is obviously a day when we should be celebrating Madeleine, celebrating with Madeleine erm, I mean, last year we had a little tea party, we had close family and Madeleine’s friends round, erm and I guess we’ll probably do something similar. It’s a little bit different this year because Sean and Amalie are in school but after school we can have a little tea party or something

LK: Thank you both for coming in and talking to us. Erm, like, you know, like everyone else I just hope for a happy ending one day. Thank you very much indeed and we’ll be thinking of you. Thank you so much.



[Acknowledgement:  pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

Gerry McCann speaks at IBA Annual Conference, Madrid - 9th November 2009

Gerry McCann, father of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, was the keynote speaker at an IBA Annual Conference session of the Media Law Committee. He spoke about his relationship with the media and media law over the past two years.

Other high profile speakers at the session included Herman Croux, Roger Mann, Julian Porter, Kelli Sager, Paul Tweed and Adam Tudor.
The session was chaired by Mark Stephens and Nigel Tait.

Nigel Tait, session co-chair: I’m delighted to introduce our panel of speakers to you, all of whom are acknowledged experts in the field of media law. First we have Herman Croux from Brussels in Belgium. Herman has acted as an adviser to the Belgian Government on constitutional and judicial reform and was an assistant professor at the University of Lervin. Herman is a regular speaker at international conferences and is chair of the Copyright and Entertainment Law Committee of the IBA. He has been involved in many notable cases including the constitutionality of The Protection of Journalists’ Sources Act before the Constitutional Court.

Then we have Doctor Roger Mann from Hamburg in Germany. Roger is a specialist in defamation litigation and acts for national magazine and newspaper publishers as well as for politicians and chief executive officers. Recently he’s acted for the Quant family and Susan Clatton, who are the main shareholders in BMW, over reports about an attempted blackmail.

From Toronto in Canada, I’m pleased to introduce Julian Porter QC who was called to the bar in 1964 and has practised litigation ever since. Julian has defended many of Canada’s leading writers, publishers and magazines and has acted for a large number of plaintiffs, suing newspapers and television stations. Julian has also produced two excellent conference papers which can be found on the IBA in Madrid conference website; one on the libel case brought by Richard Desmond against Tom Bauer and one dwelling on the deadpan humour of a British judge in the privacy case of Max Mosley against the News of the World.

Our next panellist is Kelli Sager from Los Angeles in California. Kelli is one of the only two lawyers in the United States to have been given the prestigious star ranking by the Chambers USA guide in the field of first amendment law and she represents the whole spectrum of media defendants including claims for libel, breach of privacy, reporters’ shield laws and internet law.

Next from Belfast and Dublin we have Paul Tweed. Paul has practised as a media lawyer for over 30 years and is well known in the United Kingdom for acting for high profile Hollywood personalities such as Britney Spears and Harrison Ford, who on one view instructed Paul to clear their names of false allegations, well, but on another view represent libel tourists who exploit claimant friendly UK libel laws. But one sure way of telling that Paul is an accomplished lawyer is the fact that he also represents the selfsame journalists and newspapers that he has sued on behalf of claimants, but not at the same time!

Also joining us today is Adam Tudor who successfully represented our key note speaker today, Gerry McCann, against the British press, and who can tell and talk about legal aspects of the case. My co-chairman today is one of the most well known lawyers in the United Kingdom. When I suggested to The Times newspaper that they write an article on what has happened to all the great characters in the British legal profession, we struggle to think of anyone other than Mark Stephens who could lay claim to such a title. Mark is a highly experienced lawyer, having won the case of Jameel and the Wall Street Journal, Europe, in the House of Lords for the defendant; a case on responsible journalism which most, if not all of us who practise in this area in the law, thought was a sure-fire winner for the claimant, but Mark nevertheless won for the defendant.

Our keynote speaker today is Mr Gerry McCann whose daughter, Madeleine, so tragically disappeared from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. Four months later, Madeleine’s parents were named as arguidos or persons of interest by the Portuguese police, sending the British media, in particular, into a frenzy of wild speculation and such speculation continued even beyond 21 July, 2008 when the Portuguese police lifted the McCann’s arguidos status and confirmed that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

We so often hear, and rightly so, about the importance of a free press and our friends in the United States jealously guard the First Amendment protection given to the press and to their citizens, but seldom do we hear from those caught in the spotlight of publicity and I’m extremely grateful to Mr McCann for agreeing to be our keynote speaker today. Mr McCann will stay for questions but now I would like him to tell you his story. Thank you very much.

Gerry McCann: Thank you, Nigel, and I’m very glad to see that the title says I’m the keynote speaker because this certainly isn’t a lecture. I don’t have any specific knowledge of the law in the United Kingdom and any other jurisdiction although I’ve had more than a lifetime’s worth of dealing with lawyers over the last two and a half years. So I’m very much speaking regarding our own personal experience of the trauma that we’ve been caught up in.

I think Nigel’s already pointed out some of the main facts. We were on holiday on the 3 May 2007 when Madeleine was abducted from the apartment we were sleeping in. The world media really had descended on Praia de Luz within 24 hours and generally during those first two to three, four months or so, it was incredibly supportive and I’ll touch on that in some detail. Towards the end of August, in particular around the time when we were declared arguidos, then we had some of the most vile media reporting probably, certainly in the history of British journalism. And in 2008 we had several libel claims for defamation, and invasion of privacy. Later that year, as Nigel says, the file was closed and the Portuguese judiciary concluded that there is no evidence to support any of the allegations against us and we have continued and ongoing action within Portugal, which I’m not going to speak of very much because it’s still in the judicial process.

This is a brief outline of the talk, and I’ll probably speak for about 20 minutes. I want to first of all talk about decisions and whether to interact with the media or not. It’s not compulsory. I’ll talk about a strategy which we tried to employ. We’ll show some of the supportive press coverage and I will show you some of the front page headlines which caused us to take action and the results of that legal redress. And I’ll conclude with just a few minutes really about some thoughts and our experiences and recommendations or suggestions which is up to the legal profession and the judiciary whether they act on of course.

Interacting with the media

The first thing to say is that you know, it’s not compulsory; I think most people feel that when they’re caught up in a trauma, that they should interact with the media. Any parent in this audience will understand the complete devastation that we felt when we discovered Madeleine was gone, and particularly within the first few hours when the search around the vicinity of Praia de Luz found no trace of her, and we felt completely devastated. And in the early hours of the morning we phoned family and close friends to tell them of what happened. And I think the feeling of helplessness that Kate and I had was magnified by the distance of our loved ones and what they felt, that they couldn’t do anything for us. And actually several people independently contacted the media to tell them what had happened and in fact a very close friend was already distributing photographs of Madeleine to all the major news outlets in the early hours of the morning, which we didn’t know.

One thing we were discussing last night over dinner; it was interesting that the only news organisation that actually refused to publish the photograph was the BBC who came back saying ‘how do we know this is true, and who are you to distribute the photograph?’ Every other news outlet took it straight away and by the early hours of the morning it was already on our breakfast television in the UK. By the time Kate and I returned from the police station about 9 o’clock at night, there were approximately 200 journalists in Praia de Luz.

I can’t say for certain what factors were influencing this intense media interest within 24 hours of her abduction. I think the fact that it was a foreign child abducted on holiday certainly played a key part. The only other case we can think of in the United Kingdom was of Ben Needham, who was abducted in 1991 on a Greek island. And we don’t know of any other cases involving British children taken whilst on holiday, so that certainly played a part. The fact that we were doctors seemed to influence things and that this had happened to professional couple and I think Madeleine’s picture herself that she was such a beautiful innocent young girl who was taken and clearly many of the journalists involved felt a great deal of empathy with us as well.

Clearly the holiday company saw this media needed to be managed and engaged Bell Pottinger straight away and they sent out their head of crisis management, Alex Woolfall, to deal with the media. They also provided to us trauma counselling, which was very, very important in how we dealt with the situation. And we had counselling sessions within 36 hours of this happening and I have to say it played a tremendous part in helping me cope with the situation and try to do things to influence the outcome. I’d like to play a video, if we can get this.

Video: ‘One cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter, Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine’s disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their investigation. Thank you.’

Gerry McCann: That video’s from about 9.30 pm on the 4th of May and I wanted to show it because I think even at that stage when I saw the media it filled me with dread about the potential intrusion of privacy, but I also saw it as an opportunity of helping the search, and the salient point, I haven’t seen that video for at least 18 months, and it brought back to me, the salient points of which we were trying to achieve; to get information into the investigation, which we still strive to do, as Madeleine is still missing, secondly, to let as many people as possible, know that Madeleine is missing, and thirdly, even though in that first night we were already concerned about intrusion of privacy, and I think I’ll show you in the following slides that we had very good reasons to be concerned.

So the primary objectives were to get the best possible investigation so when I put the slide up showing that we were talking about the campaign strategy, much of it was not media related, and so we had very early contact with the UK foreign office and other government officials striving to get the best possible investigation. We had to look at getting information into the enquiry and after the first few days when Madeleine was not discovered in the vicinity of the Algarve, then we had to think okay, where could she have been taken, and that influenced the decisions in which countries to visit and try and target so Spain’s a neighbouring country to Portugal, so one of the first things that we did was we got a message to David Beckham, asking him to do an appeal. He was playing for Real Madrid in this very city at the time and he agreed to that and did a very emotional appeal. And that had an amazing effect on the overall campaign because he was such a worldwide superstar and it seemed to have a snowball effect.

We took advice from the crisis management team and Alex Woolfall was absolutely brilliant. What he said to us was that for any media that you do, you must clearly define what your objective is from doing the media and secondly, ask yourself the question, how is it going to help, and that helped us tremendously with our future press conferences, statements and photo calls. We also did a number of TV and magazine interviews, I have to say, mainly at the request of the media, and that is one of the times where Alex would say you’re just feeding the beast. We subsequently had a public audience with the Pope and we had visits to Spain appealing for information and help and also we went to Germany and the Netherlands who make up the largest group of tourists to the Algarve, after the British and Irish, and we also visited Morocco which is obviously not far across the Mediterranean.

This early media coverage was generally very, very supportive. The largest weekly newspaper in the United Kingdom, the News of the World, had got a number of celebrities to agree to contribute to an award and £1.5 million was pledged. Additionally we had a businessman from Scotland who pledged another £1 million. There was, without doubt, unprecedented public interaction.

There were a huge amount of posters put up all over the United Kingdom and further afield and generally there was a focus on trying to find Madeleine and/or her abductors. The poster in the middle was released with JK Rowling’s last Harry Potter book and at the time, particularly in those first few weeks, I would say that the normal media rivalry between different organisations was put to one side and there was a real feeling that people would not let such tragic crimes happen again and that we really were going to make a difference and try and find Madeleine.

I think, I don’t expect you to read all of this, but this was an editorial in a larger selling daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, The Sun, which was printed the day after we did our first TV interviews which was more than three weeks after Madeleine was abducted and I would just like to point out the very bottom line and it says The Sun is proud, with other newspapers, to play our part in their hunt, meaning Kate and I’s hunt, for Madeleine and that summed up the general feeling at the time.

However, we even early on, realised there were a number of drawbacks of having such intense media coverage. There was a voracious, almost insatiable appetite for new stories in relation to Madeleine and actually the media were generally operating in a vacuum because of Portugal’s judicial secrecy laws and that the police weren’t allowed to speak directly to the media. We didn’t want to give too much information regarding exactly what happened and the timeline, for two reasons; one, fear of breaking the judicial law and secondly, we didn’t want the abductor to know information or put it in the public domain that only that other person could know.

Within weeks we already saw that there was a focus in the media coverage. There was a switching of attention away from Madeleine and it started to become the Kate and Gerry show. There was intense pressure to do media, which I have to say would have been for media sake, which we tried to resist. And it also became clear to us that Madeleine stories were selling newspapers and that there had to be a Madeleine story and she was becoming a commodity and people were starting to forget that she was a real child.

In June 2007, after we completed our visit, we tried to signal a change in our strategy. We appointed a campaign manager and her role was not directly a spokesperson. We anticipated that the media interest would naturally dwindle and the role was really about ensuring that we could maintain a search in the long term. We also signalled that Kate and I would not be making regular press statements or conferences and we asked the media to no longer photograph our two-year-old twins. We hadn’t asked for that immediately, primarily because I just didn’t think it was enforceable, given the huge amount of media attention and particularly in another country. We might have managed it in the UK but even I doubt it there.

Towards the end of August and September 2007 there was really quite a dramatic change in the media coverage. We were declared arguidos, which the closest thing in UK law is a person of interest and what that allows you to do is have a lawyer present during interviews. And it means that the police have to ask you questions in which your answers may incriminate yourself and as witnesses you’re not allowed to have a lawyer present and you must answer all questions. So being given the status of arguidos is actually to protect your own legal interest, and whereas that was just translated as suspects, and very much led to a number of damaging headlines.

There were multiple headlines that accused us either of directly killing Madeleine or being involved in disposing of her body and you can imagine how distressing this was when we were trying to ensure that there was an active and ongoing search and clearly we felt if people believed these stories, particularly in Portugal and further afield, then there could be no search, if people believed Madeleine was dead.

I’m just going to spend a minute or two showing you some of the front page headlines that were printed in the United Kingdom press. I would also like to point out that Amelie, who’s being carried by Kate here’s face is not pixelated so suddenly as we were declared arguidos it was okay to have our children’s photographs published on front page of newspaper again with millions of circulation, put on the internet: the multiple references to DNA in the cars, hair.

So when we came back to United Kingdom we felt that we had to do that to protect ourselves from the intrusion. We did try and combat these negative stories and really we had a trial by media at this point. The criminal lawyers who were appointed to defend us had multiple visits to the editors of all the national newspapers along with our spokesperson. And I can tell you that they assured the editors that there was not a shred of evidence to back up these wild allegations. There was a letter from the chief constable of Leicestershire police who was leading the investigation from the United Kingdom end, urging restraint in the coverage and emphasising that many of the stories that were published, had no grain of truth to them.

We also had further discussions with the Press Complaints Commission about how we may stop such coverage but despite these actions, the front page headlines continued and the previous ones all happened within a week of us coming back from Portugal. These ones are later. We are now into October and DNA reference once again; further ones in October. Now into the end of November and getting increasingly bizarre and ultimately in the space of five days, there were three front page headlines in January of 2008, that were regurgitating the same stories and for us, we come to breaking point. And at that point, although we’d had discussions earlier with Carter Ruck and Adam Tudor who’s here today, we felt enough is enough and we agreed to issue complaint letters against the worst offender and we also got an agreement from Carter Ruck that if the case did go to court, then they would represent us on a conditional fee arrangement, which was very important to our decision to press the button. The letters of complaint requested the removal of online versions of the articles, full apologies and we asked for damages and of course costs.

After an initial short wrangle, the newspapers did not defend these complaints and they did not argue for defence of truth of responsible journalism, which we were advised would have stood very little chance in a court of law. The complaints were settled out of court to our satisfaction and I have to say that we had unprecedented front page apologies and additionally a statement was read out in front of the judge in the London’s High Court.

A total of £550,000 paid in damages by one publisher alone, which was at our request, paid directly into Madeleine’s fund. This is the fund that we set up to help the search and we were told that the sum reflected the amount of damages the distress would have caused us. And there were certainly discussions that if this had gone to court, we could have argued for exemplary damages and to be honest the QC whose counsel we took, suggested that the damages we could have got would have been much, much higher than what we accepted but the most important thing for us was to get this out and to stop the coverage. And that was a main motivation for doing it. Additionally the seven friends who were on holiday with us, who had many similar allegations of being involved in a cover-up, were awarded £375,000 which they agreed also to pay into Madeleine’s fund, and we had a further small settlement with one other publisher.

Without a doubt there was an effect of these successful complaints. There was massive TV coverage and in some of the news channels it was the main news item that day. Although there was lots of press present at the High Court reading, there was rather less coverage in the newspapers, which is not surprising. Subsequent to that, I would have to say there was a dramatic effect with much more cautious and responsible reporting. And one of our concerns was obviously whether we would have burned our bridges with the media and we would no longer get co-operation when we wanted them to put information out but that has not been the case. There is still tremendous amount of appetite when we helped the media to help us get messages to the general public.

We mentioned invasion of privacy and clearly we couldn’t stop being photographed. On the very first night, the tour operators asked us if we wanted to go to a villa and I said I felt that would be worse. We’d be completely hemmed in with all the media at the end of a drive and we did stay in a holiday complex and it did allow us to move around. However when we returned home, we had news journalists and paparazzi at the end of our drive for several months, ramming cameras into the car, including when the twins were in it.

Even early on there seemed to be a complete blurring of what would be considered our public persona, doing things that related to Madeleine, and what was private so we were followed around, followed on the beach. The children were being followed and photographed, and even when we tried to get away from it all, there were surreptitious journalists trying to obtain photographs on us on our first holiday without Madeleine and they did manage to find us at the airport when we were returning home.

The Press Complaints Commission in the UK generally have been helpful in enforcing protecting the privacy of our children and that’s something that I’m not sure exists in other countries as well. The greatest violation of our invasion of privacy was the publication of Kate’s, translation of Kate’s journal, which was seized during the initial police investigation. And actually there is a judge’s order in the Portuguese file which ordered the destruction of all copies of the journal as being of no interest to the investigation. And this article, front page, with several pages, word for word of the journal was published inside, was done without our consent, and we very rapidly complained. That journal was written for Madeleine and for our other children and I cannot tell you how distressing it was for Kate to be told that it had been published. That complaint was settled, I have to say quickly, with the publishers who had been supportive up to that point generally.

I’d just like to finish with a few thoughts: If I was asked to go back and would I have interacted with the media in the same way then the answer would have been almost completely yes. We did it with the best intentions. Our hope was to get the best possible search and in fact we will continue to interact with the media if it’s appropriate. With hindsight, I would have made a clearer boundary and withdrawn from allowing the media to photograph us doing anything that was not Madeleine related in public. And again with hindsight, although we were absolutely certain when it came to it, that we were ready to take action, with hindsight we should have taken action earlier, against the newspapers in the UK for publishing these stories.

These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.

So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.

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

Kate (McCann) speaks publicly for the first time outside the church

Sunday 6th May 2007 - Mother's Day Service

This is the transcript from BBC 6 May 2007

Under cloudless skies the villagers of Luz came to pray for a family they have taken to their hearts. Today is Mothering Sunday in Portugal, a day when daughters bring flowers for their mothers, Kate and Gerry McCann joined the congregation to seek strength and to join those prayers.

Mrs McCann clasping the soft toy that is her daughter's favourite. The village priests have spent many hours with the McCanns they prayed not only for Madeleine but also for those working day and night to find her. So many people have been touched by the McCanns anguish, their support means a great deal to a family clinging to hope.



Kate - Gerry and I would just like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to everybody particularly the local community here who have offered so much support, I couldn't ask for more, I just want to say thank you, please continue to pray for Madeleine, she's lovely.



Gerry - from today's service the thing we are going to take from this is strength and courage and hope

Robert Hall: Publically at least the Police have said nothing to fuel that hope and across the search area we saw only limited activity. I've been driving now for the greater part of two hours in an area that extends four to five miles out of Luz, I have seen isolated Police units but as yet no sign of a concentrated search. Perhaps it is this face that will help provide fresh leads, the last picture of Madeleine on what should have been a perfect holiday. Robert Hall BBC News Portugal

The mother of three year old Madeleine McCann wept and prayed for her missing daughter at an emotional mother's day service in the Portuguese resort Prai da Luz. After mass Kate and Gerry McCann made these emotional statements.

Kate - Gerry and I would just like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to everybody particularly the local community here who have offered so much support, I couldn't ask for more, I just want to say thank you, please continue to pray for Madeleine, she's lovely.

Gerry - from today's service the thing we are going to take from this is strength and courage and hope and we continue to hope for the best possible outcome from this for us and for Madeleine. Thank you.

The search continues for Madeleine three days after her apparent abduction from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve. The McCann's had put her to bed and were dining 50 metres away when she was seized. Portuguese police say they have a suspect and believe Madeleine is alive.

[Acknowledgement pamalam of gerrymccannsblogs]

Interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann 3rd November 2010

CHANNEL 4 INTERVIEW with the McCanns

Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.

Gerry McCann I think the first thing to tell the general public is that the authorities haven't been doing anything proactive in the search for Madeleine for well over two years now and we think it is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to look at all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the enquiry.

DS You say that they have been doing nothing proactive. What have they been doing for the last two and a half years' People might be surprised to hear that.

GM Well'

Kate McCann Well I think if information comes in, certainly to the British authorities, if they are able to they will have a look at it and if they feel its necessary they will send it over to Portugal. But they are actually waiting for information to come in rather than trying to bring information in that could find her.

DS Do you think it makes it difficult for them, though, because you have got your own private investigators looking for your daughter' Does that make your relationship with the police difficult'

GM It shouldn't. I mean its not competition. They should be working together if anything. The fact if there wasn't private investigators there would be absolutely no-one looking for this so I don't see why' Its not a threat. We don't have the resources. They don't have statutory powers. There's a lot more the authorities can do. We do have people, though, on the end of a phone line, looking at emails, interviewing witnesses and generally following up new lines of enquiry and they've passed a number of those on to the authorities. But, you know, this is an unsolved serious case and particularly given the profile we think that a full case review should be undertaken and that has to be collaborative with the Portuguese authorities.

DS Leicestershire Police have said to us that they haven't shelved the investigation because it was never their investigation to shelve because it was being led by the Portuguese. What more would you expect Leicestershire Police to do'

KM I mean I think it is important to say although Portugal has primacy with regards to the investigation it doesn't mean that there isn't things the British authorities can do. And certainly a review is one of the crucial, significant things that they can take part in.

GM I mean I think what we are asking for today is for the governments to do more. Leicestershire have, you know, largely played their part and they have done that to the best of their ability. But this needs to be done at higher level. It needs to be done between the governments and there has to be an agreement and err' parameters set in terms of the review, how it is going to be done and what it leads to. And the last Home Secretary, Alan Johnston, ordered a scoping exercise that was undertaken by CEOP and as far as we can see, after six months nothing has been done with that scoping exercise and we just don't think that's acceptable.

DS So the previous Home Secretary looked into the feasibility of having a review. Has there been a change in the attitude of the new government now that we have a change of government.

GM Well it is difficult to know because we are not getting any metrics to measure what the government are doing against so there's no time lines, there's no deliverables and time's just ticking on. We were told that we would be told the contents of that report. We haven't seen it. We haven't been told. And really although the government say there are sensitivities, we fully understand that but they should be doing more and they are, should be responsible for ensuring that Madeleine gets the best investigation possible.

KM We are not aware of any progress since the CEOP report was handed in to the government at the end of March. And even allowing for a change of government in the last six months we're not aware of anything that has carried on from that report being given in.

DS When you met with Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, what promises did she give you' Did she tell you what was in that scoping report'

KM Well, I think that's just it. There weren't any promises. In fact she said, 'I don't want to make any commitments'. But, basically, what we need to know is what are they doing, what are they going to do with that report, have they read the report'

DS Do you think she had even read it'

KM Well she hadn't when we met her. She said that which was a bit disappointing. Hopefully now she has but we need to know where are we going now because we truly believe its going to help the search for Madeleine. We know its not easy but it doesn't mean its not possible.

DS I just wanted to ask you. You've chosen to do the interviews now three and a half years on. People will be wondering how on earth you keep going and how you keep this story in the news after such a long time.

GM Well we don't '(Slight laugh') Although we offered to do things like this really I think it is a reflection that the public are very interested and'

KM I think the public care about Madeleine and that's why its still a story for want of a better word. Which is great because without the public support I don't know where we'd be, erm'

GM I think that's crucial, you know. The government won't do anything without pressure and its the public. The government are accountable to the public who elected them and that's what we're asking for is the public to ask our government to do more and to work with the Portuguese government as well and we should be putting pressure on both of them to solve this. We can't stop doing what we do. We need to find Madeleine. We are living a life that's somewhat in limbo between our previous life which was very, very happy and somewhere now where we've got a different life but without Madeleine in it. And we can't really get off that treadmill until we find her or at the very least what's happened to her.

DS And how do you keep going' How do you keep hoping' There must be days when it is very, very difficult.

KM Well we've worked so hard. I mean, understandably, we're Madeleine's parents and we are going to do everything that we can and we work really hard. And there are days when it feels that obstacle after obstacle is thrown in your way and obviously the clock keeps ticking, the calendar keeps turning. And there's days that we just look at each other and think 'God I wish it was all over', you know erm. But basically we wish Madeleine was back with us. Full stop.

GM You know, '

KM You know, but we can't stop while we are in this situation we just have to keep going. It doesn't matter how tiring it is. It doesn't matter how many blocks are put in our way. We have to keep going because a little girl is still out there missing. You know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there, there's a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him. You know, so that's another reason why the governments and the authorities should be doing more.

GM I was just going to say one of the simplest things is Sean and Amelie's attitude because they talk about Madeleine all the time and when we are having one of those days when you just want to opt to go away and you are exhausted and they just say, 'When Madeleine comes home' and there's no reason why she can't come home that we know of and its happened for other children and they know how hard we are working and they want Madeleine home as well and that really does give us renewed energy and vigour to carry on what we are doing.

KM In Sean and Amelie's words, 'Madeleine's missing. We need to find her.' And its quite simple when you put it like that, you know.

DS So you still believe that your daughter is alive and out there somewhere'

KM Certainly, we know there's a good chance that she's still alive. I mean at the minute she's just missing, you know. I mean, so you have to assume she's alive cos there's nothing to say otherwise. There's many cases, as you know, that have hit the media of children and many cases that haven't hit the media of children who've been found years down the line so you just have to keep going.

GM I mean you could imagine if we just gave up and years down the line we found her. There's no justification for giving up.

DS And so you will keep on searching for as long as it takes.

GM Yeah. And we can't stop. I don't think any parent could stop.

KM I don't think you could live comfortably. I just don't think physically that you could, or mentally you could actually reach that decision, you know.

DS When you mentioned the public support and how important it is to you. How do you feel about the fact that there are still people who feel that you had something to do with it and there are web sites set up to (''''''''')' It must be quite hurtful still after all this time.
GM I think the key thing is that the motives of people who wish to persuade others that Madeleine is dead without any evidence to suggest that have to be questioned. You know, we are here to try and make sure that there is as good a search as possible and that's as far as I can see the way the vast majority of the public want to see it happening. And I think they'll be shocked to find that the authorities have not been doing anything. Our focus is in making sure there is a good search not stopping one for a missing child

CHANNEL 4 INTERVIEW with the McCanns (Part 2 of 2

Link to full article UTV-03-11-10



DS So are you still quite hurt by some of the things you read'

KM Well a lot of the rubbish I don't read, to be honest. Because, as Gerry said, you have to question the motives of people like that. People who want to insist on something without evidence. People who want to bring, you know, more pain and suffering to a family who are already vulnerable, who are already suffering. You really have to question those people and I don't value their opinion because, you know, I wouldn't behave like that so, you know, you can't be, you know, detracted, distracted from what is important which is Madeleine by people like that. The majority of people are good people. They're the quiet majority and I strongly believe they are the ones who want to find Madeleine.

DS And you are appealing for more funds. What happened to the money that you had previously' There's around, I understand, '350,000 left. What happened to the previous money that was donated'

GM OK. I think the first thing to say is that the priority today is very much about asking the public to help us with the petition to get the government to do more. We have been fortunate, although its not helped us get where we want, by having a fund. And the fund was set up in response to people offering money and it was set up properly and the fund is very accountable and it has independent auditors and we have a fund administrator who's got lots of experience. The vast amount of. The vast majority of the money in the fund has been spent directly on search fees. Its obviously supported other things, awareness campaigns, we have a part-time co-ordinator now. We have media liaison to deal with things like this here and in Portugal in trying to get our messages across, but the most of the money, the vast majority of it has been spent'

KM we've had to fund an investigation for two years now which as you can imagine with several more than that personnel, it costs money'

GM Staff, expenses, interviewing. We run a 24hr help line which is available. We run a web site. That costs money, updating it. Communications. You know, all of these things do add up and without having the fund there wouldn't be a meaningful search today.

DS You've also spent money on your own investigators as you've said. There have been reports that some of these detectives have taken money but then not delivered. They are dodgy detectives if you like. How can you reassure people that money won't be spent on people like that in the future.

GM Well we've very much had for the last two and a bit years, we've had Dave Edgar who is a very experienced detective who was near retirement. He's been working with us. He's very much accountable for the spend. He feels he can justify every penny. But at the same time I hope the public realise as well as directors of the fund in particular when we were arguido and there was no search going on that it was incumbent upon us to continue a search in very, very difficult circumstances. So we have made decisions along the way which have always, we felt, been in the best interest of the search to find Madeleine and we are very accountable. All the expenses are there err, receipts and we've got quite a tight-knit team working on this but we need them. Without it there would be no-one there to go and interview people and follow up leads.

DS What about the, some people might say, the judgement of the trustees is sometimes questionable because you have had people like Halligen who is now facing extradition'

GM Well, you know, we are doing the best in very, very difficult circumstances. I think that's key. We always take advice, due diligence is done, references are sought and, you know, the fund is accountable and as directors we are responsible for making those decisions.

DS There are also reports that you have fallen out with some of the trustees, with your brother and your boss who have resigned'

GM That's nonsense. That's absolute nonsense. Why do you say we have fallen out' I mean the fund has changed over three years, three and a half years. Its very different, ermm, initially we weren't on the board because we were based in Portugal'

KM Nobody thought, you know, three and a half years ago that we would be in this situation today. Its a big commitment, you know, and things have changed. We've got different phases in the last three and a half years so inevitably there's going to be changes.

DS So its not that you've had differences over the way the money was spent or''

GM No, not at all.

KM Absolutely not.

GM In fact any of the changes we have made recently are to make the fund more efficient and more responsive. Kate and I always feel, you know, there's still an urgency. It doesn't get easier and we don't need a large board as such. We are trying to run the fund like a small business in many ways so that its focused and the directors by and large are hands on and responsible for certain areas. Kate and I are integral to all the parts of it. We've got legal advice. We've got specialist media liaison etc. We've got a retired accountant, and, you know we've got Kate's uncle who is there and is a good governance sort of person. So all of these are taken on board and we've got a very experienced fund administrator as well.

KM Have you talked about the petition'

DS Yeah, I was just going to ask you about that. So, I mean, you have mentioned the petition already. Just how many signatures are you hoping to collect' What are you asking people to sign for' What is the point of the petition'

GM Well the whole point is to call on the governments, both the UK and the Portuguese government to do more in the search for Madeleine and the first thing we feel that's fundamental is that they undertake a complete review of the case preferably it should be independent and we want transparency as well and we are asking the public to help us in that regard.

DS In terms of, you only have '350,000 left now, how can you, how long do you worry that you can keep going (if you dont get donations'''')'

GM Well we are always as directors of the fund, we are always looking at that because one of.., the remit is for us to fulfil the objectives of the fund and the fund is to try and find Madeleine and bring those responsible to justice so there's always an agenda item about finances and we need to look at that. We've done other fund raisers in the past and we'll keep looking at that. We've been very fortunate from the point of view of having so many of the public make donations and a large part of the money we've spent, as you know, has come from libel damages which were paid into the fund. So we'll continue to explore it. We certainly need to be looking at income generation over the next months.

DS There must be huge pressure on you knowing you've always got to look ('''''''').

GM Well, I mean, we'd love nothing more to find Madeleine. And then we wouldn't have to worry about that. You're absolutely right. Our focus is on the search for Madeleine and without the authorities conducting that then the onus is on us and we don't think that's right. The onus should be on the governments to do more. We'd love to give that pressure away. You're right.

DS And you mention the money from the trials. How do you feel now that Amaral's book is going to be on the shelves here'

GM Yeah, so. Well, you know, we've already alluded to it. Anyone who wants to convince people that Madeleine is dead without evidence to support it then will just have to be questioned. But today the focus is on asking the public to help us petition the governments to do more.

DS Do you feel that you should be chasing libel actions' Some people might say why don't you just leave libel stuff to one side' Why try and silence your critics'

KM Well obviously we've talked about this in great detail previously. The reason why we had to take actiion was because we strongly felt it was damaging the search to find Madeleine and as Gerry has just said, that is our ultimate goal, is to find Madeleine.

DS I just wonder, can you update people' Where are you now' I mean recently you went over to Germany. You translated all your literature into German. So can you update people' Where are you now' Have you got any new leads' What's happening (''''''')'

GM I would like to say to you that we did have some hot leads but the very fact that we are calling for a complete review to identify further areas for investigation is telling you that, you know, more needs to be done. All the information needs to be put onto one database because that may be the way that we find the key bit of information, the missing piece of the jigsaw.

DS So at the moment you are worried that there isn't even a central database so the information might not be getting cross referenced (''''')'

KM Yes, I mean there's information in lots of centres that hasn't been brought together and there could be two key bits of information that individually don't seem key but put together could give you some valuable information that could take you one step closer to finding Madeleine so it just seems an obvious and crucial thing to do. And this is why reviews are done time and time again in this country on major investigations.

DS So you must be frustrated that the government has carried out a scoping into whether there should be a review and no action has been taken'

GM Yeah, I mean that's what we're asking for. We want to see what action. We want metrics. We want deliverables. And we want the government to do more. Madeleine is a British subject and the government should be doing more to look out for her interests.

DS And I was just wondering. How can people sign the petition'

GM Its on the ipetitions website. So its [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] then forward slash petitions but its quite a complex link.

DS We'll put it on our website.

GM Thank you.

ITV INTERVIEW WITH THE MCCANNS - 2nd November 2010

Presenter Three and a half years on, Kate and Gerry McCann refuse to give up hope of finding Madeleine alive but that's exactly what they think the authorities in Portugal and in Britain have done.

Kate McCann I do, if I'm honest I do. And I expected more, and whether my expectations were higher than they should have been. I don't believe so because we are British citizens and even opening Madeleine's passport on the front page it says that we will provide you with assistance and protection and I feel she could have a lot more.

Presenter The McCanns believe its two and a quarter years since either the Portuguese or British police did anything proactive to search for Madeleine. They're sure there's information to be found and pieced together and are asking for a full case review.

Gerry McCann I want to make it absolutely clear we don't want to have a review to look over mistakes and saying apportion blame. Its nothing to do with that. Its about identifying areas for further investigation.

Presenter The public is being asked to sign an online petition to lobby the two governments. Kate and Gerry McCann say they have met three Home Secretaries but need more than worthless words now

Kate McCann Thoughts and words are not good enough, particularly when they are in a position that they can actually do something about it.

Gerry McCann For the authorities now, if Madeleine was found, it would almost be by chance, and it shouldn't be right that this crime is solved by another child being abducted.

Presenter The Find Madeleine Fund which pays for investigators and an internet campaign is due to run out of money next spring. The McCanns say there are bad days when it is Madeleine's twin brother and sister who are now five who keep them going.

Kate McCann They're unbelievable. They really are amazing Erm, and they still talk about when Madeleine comes home, you know. How will they share the bedrooms' Will the three of them be together, well you know' What colour bedroom will we have, you know' They keep us going and this would be so much harder, or unbearable in fact, if it wasn't for Sean and Amelie.

Sky News interview with the McCanns: Martin Brunt 3rd November 2010

Martin Brunt The McCanns say all they want is the Home Office to persuade the Portuguese authorities for a joint review of all the evidence. They believe it would justify a new investigation into their daughter, Madeleine's, disappearance. Why do you think that isn't being done'

Gerry McCann Right at the minute we don't know why it its not being done'

Kate McCann Its a good question isn't it'

Gerry McCann We've asked'

Kate McCann I mean, as you'd be aware reviews are done of all major investigations in this country anyway. So they are obviously felt to be of benefit. So you do have to ask the question, why then, what is the block in doing a review of Madeleine's situation'

Martin Brunt But when you asked the Home Secretary that, two months ago, what did she say'

Kate McCann Well we don't often get answers to be honest. I mean there's a lot of words but nothing concrete.

Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won't tell the McCanns what's in the CEOP report.

Gerry McCann I don't see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We've been very clear all along the way that we'll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don't see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn't be given it. As Madeleine's parents I think it is wrong.

Martin Brunt Madeleine was nearly four when she vanished from the family's rented holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. The Portuguese police abandoned their investigation fifteen months later without any evidence of what happened to Madeleine. Today her parents are launching an online petition for support in their campaign for more government help.

Gerry McCann We are asking the people who elected the government to petition them to do more. They are not doing anything proactive. Madeleine's a British citizen. She's innocent. She's vulnerable and our government should be doing more to find her.

Martin Brunt Your hope, belief that Madeleine is still alive is as strong as ever'

Kate McCann Well the hope's definitely there. I mean it has to be, you know. With nothing to the contrary, you know, Madeleine's still out there and alive, you know, and to give up on her, just, I mean I can't get my head round that really, how a government or authorities can do that. We certainly can't give up on her.

Martin Brunt The McCanns say its scandalous that they and their small team of investigators are the only ones still looking for Madeleine. Martin Brunt for Sky News in Leicestershire.

Madeleine's family come together:  9th May 2007 BBC News video

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


John McCann has just returned from Portugal where his niece Madeleine was kidnapped.



Transcript by Nigel Moore



BBC: We'll speak now to Madeleine's uncle, John McCann. Now, John - just returned from Portugal late last night - joins us from his home in Glasgow. We're very grateful for you to, errr... to be speaking to us this morning, John. Thank you, so much. The thoughts of everyone watching are with you and your family. What are they like, errm... Gerry and Kate, this m...? How... how are they feeling?

John McCann: Well, they've moved along since what happened last Thursday/Friday. Errm... Obviously we were all devastated then and, you know, there was a... a feeling of helplessness but in the last few days they've had a lot of support and they've been buoyed by that support, both in Portugal and at home, and, errm... they're much more positive about things that can be done to get Maddie back.

BBC: Yes, what... what were you able to do out there? Obviously, you were off... able to offer a lot of support to your brother. Are the family very close?

JM: Errm... (laughs) I suppose that's all relative, errr... yeah, we... we get on really well. We've got a good dynamic amongst us all and it was amazing actually to, errm... to realise how strong the extended family is, errm... some fantastic people, like, errr... Mike and Nicky who are still out there, errm... helping Gerry and Kate with some of the... the handling with the twins, you know, so it's... some good stuff has come out of a very adverse situation.

BBC: Yes, I mean, and they'll need an awful lot of support because you... you just wonder how they're able to cope with looking after the twins as well, when all this is going on and there's so much media attention on them.

JM: You're right, it... it is very difficult and you guys have been pretty good actually in terms of, errm... you've not been too intrusive, errr... and been very helpful at getting people to... to rally round and support us and to get information back to the police because, at the end of the day, that's what we need is... is leads to be followed, so that Maddie can get back to us.

BBC: What are your thoughts, John, on how the police have handled this investigation so far? Because you'll know that in the newspapers a lot of them this morning are calling the Portuguese police 'clueless'.

JM: I... I don't think that's a... a useful avenue to explore. I'd rather take it forward in a different way and get people saying, 'Right, let's move on. What can we do now? What... what's the best way to tackle this now?' And I think Gerry and Kate want us to focus like that as well, so, please, you know, let's focus on what can be done now. Any information; let's get on with working on that.

BBC: Yes, okay, so you're quite happy and... and the family are quite happy with the way the police are investigating this, so far?

JM: Everybody's working to the same end, you know, nobody... nobody's trying to stop us getting Maddie back. Everybody wants Maddie back and everybody is working, as far as I could perceive out there, to... to get that wee girl back to us.

BBC: Of course. What's Maddie like? What's she like as a character? What's she like as an individual?

JM: Errm... (laughs) She's, errr... she's a mixture of her parents. She's very bright, very quick, very energetic, a right wee individual. Errm... My two kids love her to bits, errr... her and the twins, errm... she's so fun, errr... she can be... she can be a bit stroppy at times, errr... but what... what interesting kid can't be? Errm... She's a wee darling, errr... really fantastic wee girl.


[color:014d=000000][Acknowledgement:  gerrymccannsblogs]

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

BBC NEWS: FRIDAY 30 APRIL 2010

Madeleine McCann parents say some don't want their daughter found
BBC World Service

Madeleine McCann went missing from her family's holiday apartment in the town of Praia de Luz in Portugal nearly 3 years ago.

She was days away from her fourth birthday.

Her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, tell the BBC's Mike Williams why they still believe their daughter is alive.

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

Transcript
By Nigel Moore

Kate McCann: If this was a... a murder inquiry there'd be an active investigation but, as it stands, we have a perpetrator who's still at large and therefore puts other... potentially other children at risk and we have a missing child. So why is there no active investigation?

Gerry McCann: Officially, for 18 months, law enforcement are not pro-actively doing anything to find Madeleine and who took her. And I just think that is fundamentally unacceptable. Now, we've been assured that if new information comes in, it will be followed up. In fact, the information that's come to light, during the recent court case, has shown that almost every single piece of information that's gone to Portimao - the police station in the Algarve, where the investigation is based - has been treated in exactly the same manner; which is being declared as 'not relevant'.

KM: I mean, I think it is a farce.

GM: There have been, errr... very poor elements of the Portuguese investigation and at the same time it's probably been one of the biggest investigations ever in Portugal. So we aren't, errr... tarring everyone. There have been individuals, who, for whatever reason, have not, errm... seemingly wanted to find Madeleine; that's what it appears to us. So there are people who are clearly making it more difficult and there are others within this country, errm... for whatever motives, want to make it more difficult and, you know, there are many people trying to derail what we are doing along the way.

KM: I also think there'll be some people that'll be greatly embarrassed if Madeleine was found and that... that scares me... that scares me that that might affect their want, or not, for Madeleine to be found.

Mike Williams: You've got two other children to raise. What do the twins, errr... know of what happened to their sister?

GM: Their recognition that what's happened is morally very, very wrong and that their sister should be at home with them and needless to say Sean, in particular, talks about having an aeroplane and flying all over the world and looking for that man that's taken Madeleine and when he gets him he's going to rescue her and put... take his sword out.

MW: Kate, you devote your time to the campaign to find your daughter?

KM: My day is very much, kind of, partly investigation; largely campaign now. We've started this holiday pack - which is posters and car stickers.

MW: So you're hoping that people will take these overseas with them when they travel; put their stickers up and...

KM: So it just means the image is out there constantly as a reminder to people that she's still missing.

MW: What do you hope happened? What's the best scenario that you can find comfort in?

KM: You just hope that it's somebody who is looking after Madeleine; that she is now... that she's not at harm and that she's getting love and happiness. You know, that's all I can hope for.

GM: And that isn't some sort of dream. At the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in the United States - with the most experience in child abduction - is that the younger the child, the more likely that they have been taken to be kept.

MW: What's the worst case?

GM: I mean, early on we couldn't think of anything else but the worst case; that she'd been taken, abused and killed and dumped - or maybe left seriously injured and dumped out in the freezing cold.

MW: You believe that she's alive? Not hope for it, do you believe it?

KM: You know, in my heart I feel she's out there; I mean, I really do. And that together with the feeling I have of this not being over, you know, that her still being there. The hardest thing, obviously, is how do we find her?

BBC 5 Live. Stephen Nolan interviews Clarence Mitchell, 07 January 2011

Transcript

By Nigel Moore

Stephen Nolan: Our last story, errr... of tonight. Nearly four years since their daughter disappeared, Kate and Gerry McCann have written a book about their ordeal. Tonight, I've been talking to the man charged with keeping the hunt for Maddie in the public eye. A hard job these days for Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesman.

Clarence Mitchell: Well that's the fickle nature of the news media, isn't it, and the attention span of news desks. I mean the... the situation with Madeleine is still very much continuing and I'm still very much working on it on behalf of Kate and Gerry and all of the people who are... are helping them looking for Madeleine. Errm... I now work for a firm in London, Lewis PR, errm... but I'm still very much, as I say, active for Kate and Gerry and media enquiries still come in from around the world every day, in one form or another. Errr... All sorts of enquiries, interview requests, suggestions for features, sightings of possibly Madeleine. All sorts of things. They all have to either be passed on to the private investigators or we take decisions as to how we deal with them. So although I, and Madeleine, and the whole situation may not be in the news as much as it was, its still very active for me.

Stephen Nolan: And, of course, it... it's by the very nature of how news works that you're going to have that period that you've got to exploit, for want of a better word. You've got to get the maximum publicity because, you know, it will go away and it's gone now.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, I would argue that it hasn't gone completely. Kate and Gerry and myself are very grateful to the international news media, not just the UK, around the world for the continuing interest in Madeleine and whether she will be found. Errm... many, many families around the world of missing people have not had that luxury, if you like, where the media visit them at the start of their situation and then go away for good. That hasn't quite happened in Madeleine. I mean, look, here we are, nearly four years on, and still here we are discussing her on national radio. For that I'm grateful to the BBC and to you and your programme producers.

Stephen Nolan: How possible do you think it is though, Clarence, because you're a journalist at heart and you... you understand the amount of publicity you got; you understand that was exceptional. How... how possible is it that Madeleine is still alive given that level of publicity'

Clarence Mitchell: It is still possible that she is alive because there is no evidence to suggest that she isn't and that's the whole basis on which the investigation, the private investigation, continues to this day. In the absence of anything to suggest that she has been harmed or, as you suggest, has been killed, and there is no evidence to suggest that, then not only Kate and Gerry but everybody working with them will continue to keep going until an answer is found.

Stephen Nolan: Did the campaign cost a lot of money'

Clarence Mitchell: The campaign has cost a lot of money and continues to cost a lot of money and it's only happening because of the vast generosity of people around the world. If you remember an awful lot of money came in very quickly due to that publicity level that we were discussing. People responded and Kate and Gerry, everybody associated with them are immensely grateful to this day for every penny of it. It was all spent in terms of the investigation and running a private investigation in two countries, sometimes in several continents where if things have to be followed up around the world, is a very expensive business. All of that's been spent on various contracts, on various private agencies, errm... since... since it happened. At the moment, a small team led by Dave Edgar, a former RUC officer, errr... are... are still investigating and they are funded by the Find Madeleine Fund. We also, if you remember, had a number of settlements against certain newspaper groups, not least the Express, and all of the monies that were raised through that in settlement to Kate, Gerry and their friends went back into the fund and have been ploughed back into it. So the money is still there but it... it ebbs and flows as the investigative needs require.

Stephen Nolan: I want to talk to you, Clarence, about how the newspapers, errr... errr... dealt with Gerry and Kate in... in the context of what's happened in... in the Jo Yeates murder, as well, errr... of... of recent times. But before we do that, errm... what is your gut instinct because you've seen all the information and all the leads coming in' What's your gut instinct now as to what's happened' Are you comfortable sharing that'

Clarence Mitchell: My instinct has been, and remains, that there is a chance that she's alive and that's the basis we're all doing this. We wouldn't... if we thought there was no hope, you know, what would be the point of going on' But, because there is that absence of anything to suggest what's happened, it is just as logical to keep going. That's certainly what keeps Kate and Gerry going. Obviously, as her parents, they will maintain that. But for all of their supporters, people who are trying to help them, myself included, I honestly don't know what happened and therefore I've got to keep going, and as long as they want me to keep helping them then I'm happy to do that.

Stephen Nolan: Oh look, Kate and Gerry have recently said that they may need to face the fact that they may never face... they may never find their daughter.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, in their darker moments, of course, it was perfectly human, perfectly natural, to think that, but equally they're very rational and they think that until they know, they will keep ploughing all of their efforts into it. It's for Madeleine, it's their daughter for goodness sake and, of course, you or I would do the same, I would think. They've been very fortunate in having the resources and having the support because so many people have been kind enough to back them.

Stephen Nolan: When you get that world-wide attention, you see all different types of humanity because lots and lots of people are... are contacting you with information. And indeed some... some crazy people are contacting you with crazy information.

Clarence Mitchell: Anything that develops a profile, errr... as high as this case has, does attract all sorts of people. You're quite right. Errm... most of them, the vast majority, are well meaning and if information can be checked out and is credible or potentially credible then it goes through, not only to the British police, it goes through to the Portuguese police, and it goes through to the private investigators to be assessed; prioritised. It's very much a police operation. It's former British policemen that are working on it and then they will act upon it. Now amongst those, of course, there are the occasional slightly more lunatic things that are said.

Stephen Nolan: Did you get much nasty stuff'

Clarence Mitchell: There was a certain amount, errm...

Stephen Nolan: And what... what was that' People... people gloating that she'd been killed or what... what type of stuff was it'

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to talk about things that will lead inevitably, even now, to tabloid headlines about ghouls saying X, Y or Z. Some of the things that were said were awful, hurtful and, in cases where there was a direct threat, or any suggestion of anything happening, it went straight to the police and, in certain cases, which have never received publicity, police took action to stop it. To this day there is a very small but highly vocal minority online; the joys of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing but it has its downside, as we all know. There is a very vocal but very small minority of people who believe Kate and Gerry were negligent and to this day they rail and rant against them. They are powerless, they know nothing and it... it's totally irrelevant. But we keep a... a weather eye on what they're saying and if action needs to be taken, in certain cases, then it is.

Stephen Nolan: So, share with me, what it is like for Kate and Gerry when there is this media onslaught suggesting that they might have killed their own children. What is that like'

Clarence Mitchell: Well... it... what do you think' It is just appalling. Errr... It is hurtful in the extreme but it... it is just dreadful. And, of course, what makes it all the more frustrating for them was that they knew that much of the coverage was based on either falsehoods, misunderstandings, deliberate leaks from certain quarters, that were then mistranslated, either through mistake or through deliberately. A story that would appear on a Monday in Portugal, saying something was possibly the case - which we knew wasn't true - would then become hardened up as fact on the Tuesday in the British press and then, on Wednesday, it would be repeated, 'as reported by the illustrious London paper X or Y'.

Stephen Nolan: And presumably, Clarence, you're on the phone to the editors of those newspapers warning them about legal threats. The lawyers are on the phone. You're on the phone trying to stop them doing this and continuing to do this'

Clarence Mitchell: I was trying to brief the reporters on the ground. There were three packs, if you like, of journalists at the height of it. There were journal... journalists on the ground in Praia da Luz - where we were - wanting... almost in tears some days, demanding lines because they were under pressure from their news desk to deliver a front page splash. And certain days we didn't have anything to say, or the police had asked us not to say anything, and I couldn't help them but the whole thing was a nonsense but it was driving sales of papers. I had a second group of journalists in Leicestershire, and in the UK, trying to get to Kate and Gerry's relatives, trying to dig up stories about them and what was going on back here. And then, I also had all the columnists who had... it had become, if you remember, almost the dinner party topic of choice, for a couple of summers. You know, obviously there were legitimate questions about child safety and, errr... parental responsibility. Absolutely fine for discussion, no problem with that at all. But occasionally the odd commentator would overstep the mark and say hurtful things. We would talk to journalists on the ground and we would talk to editors. It made a difference sometimes. Overall, in certain cases, it made not jot... not a jot of difference.

Stephen Nolan: I know... I know you'll understand the... the limitations as to how much we can talk about... about the... the Jo Yeates, errr... murder at the moment but there has been, errr... a... a man, Mr Jefferies, who has not been found guilty; is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. He's been released on bail. He has not been charged, and you will have seen the front page coverage on him, and he has not been found guilty. What are your thoughts'

Clarence Mitchell: I think, from a journalistic point of view, a lot of the coverage, in certain papers which I won't name, was... was very near the mark, in terms of breaching the Contempt of Court Act. The basic standard in law, quite rightly, is that any person is innocent until proven guilty and that is a matter for the police to prove.

Stephen Nolan: So, why is our media getting... doing this, and how are they getting away with it, Clarence'

Clarence Mitchell: There... there is this insatiable desire now to be first, to be fastest. The 24/7 machine, the monster that I used to work in, and you still work in, needs feeding all the time. And news desks, I'm not saying the BBC... the BBC, thank goodness, is one of the... is one of the most responsible organisations but some news desks almost fall over themselves and almost forget the law. At the end of the day, no matter what deadlines and yawning spaces of coverage you... you need to fill, there are still basic tenets of fairness and justice in this country and I'm very grateful they... they exist. They serve everybody's interest, not just the defendants but the journalists as well.

Stephen Nolan: It... it... it is his legal right that Mr. Jefferies is presumed to be innocent. That is his legal right. Do you feel sorry for him given the coverage that he has endured'

Clarence Mitchell: I feel sorry for anyone who finds themself, for whatever reason, at the centre of the media firestorm these days. It's always been bad. You don't... wouldn't want journalists on your door step, and that would have happened in the forties or the fifties, if necessary, but it was much more at a leisurely pace and was nothing like the onslaught that it is now with the competition.

Stephen Nolan: So, Clarence, what... what needs to happen' Does... does the PCC work, the Press Complaints Commission' Errr... Does there need to be a change of legislation' What needs to happen'

Clarence Mitchell: Well, we... we tried to resort to the PCC, at times, and they were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping photographers away from the McCann's home. There were photographers camped outside their house, at the end of their drive, for six months. We even had paparazzi photographers, who normally do celebrity jobs in... in Los Angeles, turning up looking for them. And, you know, we had to patiently explain the McCanns were not celebrities, they didn't warrant this sort of intrusion and these photographers needed to be moved. Now the PCC were fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of making the news desks and the editors in certain papers sit up and really listen, I'm afraid we had to, reluctantly, pick up the rather large hammer of defamation action and say, 'You will apologise, you will settle this, errr... on our terms, or we will go further'. And thankfully, after a lot of discussion - the Express group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errm... But it was a reluctant action. You know, it shouldn't have got to that stage. But it wasn't of our making.

Stephen Nolan: It's interesting you talk about defamation because, of course, we see Nick Clegg very much pushing, errr... a bill and a proposal at the moment. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, obviously, in terms of relaxing, changing the defamation laws, errr... in... in this country.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, personal view, I... I think if anything there's... there's... there should be some argument for them to be slightly tightened up.

Stephen Nolan: Tightened up in the UK'

Clarence Mitchell: Well, because people... these days... or certainly there needs to be some sort of statutory reminder, not just to journalists but to all of your bloggers who are now online. These days a lot of people think, wrongly, that they can write what they like on a website. They are publishing that. It is a newspaper in all but name, an electronic version of it and the person responsible for distributing that material is legally responsible, certainly under British jurisdiction, for what they say in it.

Stephen Nolan: How on earth do you control the Internet' How does an Internet service provider know everything that's going onto their site and onto their channel' They don't, and that's the problem.

Clarence Mitchell: They don't.

Stephen Nolan: You can't control this beast.

Clarence Mitchell: This is... this is... this is the problem and this is what the politicians need to work out.

Stephen Nolan: So what would you do'

Clarence Mitchell: Well... hah... I... I would...

Stephen Nolan: Because you have been in the middle of one of the most high... prolific Internet campaigns that... that there will have been. So what would you do, given the experience you've had'

Clarence Mitchell: I would make it clear, if it's a... if it's a story around an... a crime. I would make it clear that the police, I think, from the first instance, have a remin... have a duty to remind journalists much more forcibly and clearly than they have done so far. In the Yeates case you mention, we saw the Attorney General having to come out and... and issue a warning around the coverage of Mr. Jefferies. Well, that's fine and absolutely proper but he should have done... that should have been done beforehand. A lot of young journalists are coming up through the ranks now who have not necessarily and this makes me sound like a bit of an old dinosaur but they have not necessarily come up through the... the traditional route of local newspapers, sitting in courts, watching juries, listening to verdicts. They don't necessarily know the finer points of defamation law, contempt of court, and I think a general reminder both in the journalistic industry, better training, errr... of the basic tenets of law and for the police, perhaps, in a high profile case, to sit down right at the outset and remind all of the covering media of their responsibilities. That won't stop online gossip. It won't stop tittle tattle. You're right. That can't be controlled. We watch what's said about Madeleine only when it enters the real world and goes beyond the keyboard and the screen in the middle of the night, then do we act. But in the... with responsible mainstream media I think there's a time for a reminder of some of the basics here that have... that have served journalism so well for generations.

Stephen Nolan: Just finally, Clarence, we... we understand that the McCanns obviously are releasing this book. Is this going to be, errm... a summary of everything we already know'

Clarence Mitchell: No, it's going to be Kate's story. Kate is writing it. Gerry, of course, is... is helping her but essentially it will be Kate's work. For... virtually from the first day it happened, errr... I was coming under pressure from various publishers, some of them very polite, but very persistent, saying they should write a book, or it should be ghost written. Kate and Gerry always said they didn't want to do that, they didn't feel the time was right, they had far more important things to do in the search for their daughter. They've now decided, and it's largely been driven by the need for funds for the... for the search to continue, that the time is right for the book to be written. Kate has been writing it for some months. She's probably finished about sixty to seventy thousand words and, errm... it's coming out on May 12th which is Madeleine's eighth birthday. It is designed to keep the search for her going. That is the simple reason.

Stephen Nolan: That's Clarence Mitchell talking to me earlier on tonight. That's it from the Nolan team for tonight. Thank you so much for your company. We'll be back tomorrow night, Saturday night, ten o'clock when you and I will talk about the big news stories of the day.

Met Comissioner: Madeleine McCann investigation could end soon

Transcript

Unknown caller - Hi, hi, good morning, my question is regarding to Madeleine McCann...

Nick Ferrari (host) - Oh yes.

Unknown caller - ...what chances can we find this girl?

Nick Ferrari - This is I think another additional 95,000 pounds that has been earmarked by the Home Office, I think, for Scotland Yard Sir Bernard, and that would mean around six months the investigations can continue.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Yeah, Michael (the caller) as you know there's been a lot of investigation time spent on this is, it's a terrible case isn't it, it's a child who went missing and everybody wants to know if she is alive if she is, where is she, and if suddenly she is dead then we need to give some comfort to the family, so it needed us to carry out an investigation together with the Portuguese and other countries have been involved and there is a line of inquiry that remains to be concluded and it's expected in the coming months that will happen. The size of the teams came down radically, I think we're now down to two or three people in that team, at one stage was about 30 officers in it, ahm, essentially it's a Portuguese inquiry...

Nick Ferrari - What do thirty people do all day Commissioner?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, the first steps they had to do was to actually review and look at all the things the Portuguese had done, to see whether or not there was anything we could offer that, you know, might help with that investigation, had they missed anything, now we do that for ourselves and the Portuguese review. So we thought, well, we were asked by the Prime Minister before I arrived, to see whether or not there was anything we could do to help that investigation. Our review...

Nick Ferrari - It takes thirty officers?!

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, err, yep, but just bear in mind what happened there, so you got thousands of pages, I went in to one of our police stations back in 2011 and there was a whole room full of documents that this inquiry had produced, you know, from the hundreds of witnesses statements, to all every card they checked out, from all, you know, these inquiries for those who don't get involved in them don't realize just what they generate, huge amounts of material, and of course, these all have to be translated.

Nick Ferrari - Yes.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - This didn't start out in English.

Nick Ferrari - Sure.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - They were translated into English.

Nick Ferrari - Have you moved forward in any way?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - I, well, that's what I'm indicating, is that first of all we had to extinguish the possibilities that existed in terms of inquiry, I think some of those have been stopped and there is a line of inquiry I think is, well, everybody agrees, is worthwhile pursuing.

Nick Ferrari - How long will this go on? When will you finally be prepared to stand down operation, I think it's Operation Grange, isn't it?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, really at the moment it will be the conclusion of this line of inquiry, unless something else comes up.

Nick Ferrari - So, you'd spend more money, again? Another 95,000 pound?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, if somebody comes to me, if somebody comes forward and gives good evidence we'll follow it.

Nick Ferrari - Yes.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - We always say that, ahm, you know, a missing child inquiry is never closed.

Nick Ferrari - Yes, but there are a hundred eighty-seven missing children in Britain, not all fortunately of the circumstances of Madeleine McCann. How come this one attracts so much attention and indeed funding?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, of course, you know, this was a decision of the government, that in this case they wanted to fund the Metropolitan Police to make this inquiry. If you remember, of course, this poor girl came from Leicestershire area, and was obviously aboard in Portugal at the time. So, we went, the Home Office, the government asked the Met to get involved and we have done our best as anybody humanly can, to try and find this girl, and that's surely the thing that drives us all. Newspapers have got involved, private investigators got involved..

Nick Ferrari - So, you don't see any standing down in the near future of Operation Grange?

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - Well, I thought it was clear(?), which is first of all, the line of inquiry that is being pursued, that obviously is important, it's important in the coming months that is resolved and I think it will be, if something new comes forward of course we'll investigate it, but that line of inquiry probably is, at the moment, is the conclusion of this inquiry.

broadcast by LBC radio, April 26, 2016

CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Debate panel from left to right: Tânia Laranjo, CM journalist; Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ inspector; João Ferreira, CMTV news anchor; Gonçalo amaral, former PJ inspector & Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs

Anchor João Ferreira - This special by CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to focus on the book that I hold in my hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie". It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The man that was at the forefront of the investigation during the first months of the case, a case that has been dragging on for the past nine years. It's the book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his truth about the mystery of the Maddie Case, a truth for which he was removed from the investigation and the reason why he requested an early retirement from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26 years of service. A truth, according to which the little girl died accidentally. Following that death, an unwanted and accidental death, the parents concealed their own daughter's cadaver. This is the truth that we are going to analyse in this special, where the man that wrote this book - and has just been acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon and absolved of having to pay a compensation of 500,000 euro to the McCann couple - will break the silence. A special where we are going to ask uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo Amaral, where we will confront his truth with other possible truths. Right now, let us have a look to the truth revealed in this book that is now allowed to see the light of day.

News Segment 1

Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in Portuguese) Please, give our little girl back.
(in English) Please, give our little girl back.

Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction, defend the McCanns. Accident and concealment of the cadaver is the belief of Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) - If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I doubt the body still exists. In that church there was a coffin with the cadaver of an elderly British lady which in the following day was going to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It was possible for the body of a child of that age and size to be concealed underneath that cadaver.

Voice Over - After six months of investigation, the former PJ inspector is removed from the Maddie Case, and this is one of the issues that was the object of his reflection. In the book that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie", there is a chapter dedicated to that topic: the removal of a coordinator from an investigation, conspiracy or subservience?, questions the former PJ inspector. And it is precisely due to the 220 pages written by Amaral and a DVD with a documentary about Maddie, that the PJ inspector became the target of a lawsuit, a legal process that has been dragging for numerous years. In 2009, the McCann couple went to justice, demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a compensation of 1,2 million euro. The McCanns considered the publication and the documentary defamatory, they alleged to have suffered moral damages. The British couple considered that their rights, liberties and guarantees of the family were violated. The defence of the McCann family considered that Gonçalo Amaral could not have revealed information that appeared in the process of the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance. The defence also alleged that the book was ready three days after the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e Menezes, redacted the dispatch that archived the process against the McCann couple, which had the date of 29 of July of 2008. In the book, the former criminal investigation coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the thesis that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and in the concealment of the 3-year-old girl's body. The McCann's defence lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued that the author, Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized documents from the process, documents that were prohibited. This was a process that dragged in court for years, with successive postponements of court sessions and an attempt to an extra-judicial settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.

Kate McCann (archive footage, press conference 2014) - We took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our children.

Gerry McCann - We want to get justice for Madeleine.

Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil court, ended up condemning Gonçalo Amaral to pay to each one of the members of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry, the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro plus interest, counting back from January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment, the civil court also decreed the prohibition of sales of new editions of the book and DVD, as well as the negotiations to transfer the copyright of both book and documentary. Gonçalo Amaral appealed, and there was a turnaround in this process. The Court of Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the PJ inspector and revoked the sentence. The judges understood that Amaral acted within the framework of the legitimate right to exercise an opinion. The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were, some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in numerous interviews all over the world. Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the indemnification of 250,000 euro to each member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo Amaral's book will soon return to the bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have already stated that they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and Gerry, who have always maintained that Madeleine was abducted, were constituted as arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 for lack of evidence to sustain the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the alleged accidental death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just a few days before of her fourth birthday. The English girl disappeared from this apartment (image of apartment is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings.

Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral, former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV commentator and Minister of Internal Affairs at the time of Maddie's disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former chief inspector of the Judiciary Police and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV journalist, who followed closely the investigations to the Maddie case. Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening madam, it's a pleasure to be here with you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with you, good-evening, thank you for being here.

Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you for the invitation.

Anchor João Ferreira - Did this investigation destroy your career?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my career. I had a dignified professional path in terms of work and progress in the hierarchy, I was an officer, an inspector, then chief-inspector, then I was a coordinator and could have gone a bit further, in fact at the time of the disappearance, when the case happened, I had applied for the role of superior coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it was a matter of time. So, that was the interruption, the life change, the career change, if I had stayed maybe I could have been in another professional position.

Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I begun to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...

Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...

Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to.. I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.

Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug from under your feet?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one pulled the rug from under anyone's feet. There were a series of circumstances that lead to this outcome. A colleague of mine is present here today, and he knows that it's very unlikely for the PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe with another director, I'm recalling Dr. Marques Vidal - to whom I express my gratitude for his support since the very outset, right from when the book was published, he presented the book - maybe it would have been different, maybe the protection of the officers would have been another. But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique case, a director of the Judiciary Police that we will never have again.

Anchor - A leader more brave than others?

Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great understanding of the officers, he was a very humane man, and defended those that risked, that worked at times almost without a net, he was there, present. I could tell you several stories, from the time of the Cavacos, the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave to the men on the ground. These are facts that can be verified, but we're digressing from the topic. I would like to add, that I have nothing against Dr. Alípio Ribeiro.

Anchor - But do you think that Alípio Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe that... For example, in this issue of requesting to the Direction of the PJ to speak in our defence or to allow me to speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the directorate of the Judiciary Police, addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later, I learned that that letter never reached his hands, he never read it. The letter stopped at his assistants, therefore I can't accuse him of anything, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the structural machine that exists, additionally the PJ direction does not usually come out in defence of its officers. Note that we're talking about the direction of the Judiciary Police but we could equally talk about the ASFIC (Association of the Criminal Investigation Officers of the Criminal Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for the officers, for its members, that were on the field, then and after? For example, right now, until now, what did they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any time - regarding myself, a retired officer with success on the work I did - ever called me? Either to congratulate, at this point in time or whatever. Nothing at all.

Anchor - Why do you think is that, Gonçalo?

Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture, of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe because I'm no longer in the police, have nothing to do with the PJ.

Anchor - Are you saying that there is fear from the people in the Judiciary to come out in your defence?

Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I find it strange, a very odd situation. Those who have congratulated me at this point in time, for this decision - a decision that has not yet been rendered final, and may still be the target of an appeal - but those who have congratulated me were colleagues that are retired, not colleagues in active functions. Not even a single colleague on the active congratulated me. On the other hand, I had the support of colleagues in the active from the British police, who also have been present along the years.

Anchor - Let us move now to your truth, the truth that is here in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another issue. That is not my truth...

Anchor - It's the factual truth.

Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that book represents the elements of the Judiciary Police...

Anchor - So, it's the material truth of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that the book is the opinion of the Judiciary Police until September 2007. Not my truth alone.

Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo Amaral, describes a scenario where the little girl Maddie suffered an accidental death...

Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is described in the PJ report written by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.

Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the parents and in face of that death the parents concealed the cadaver.

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an infringement. What that means is...

Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents should be behind bars? Should they be punished for these crimes?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have to do with that. For us to read and understand that book, we also have to understand the moment, the progress of the investigation. And we need to understand that an investigations as a beginning, a middle and an end, as my colleague Moita Flores says an investigation is always zigzagging and he's right about that. At that point in time of the investigation, when the archival was decided, the archival was decided in early October of 2007... Whomever lead the process after me, was there to adjust the process so it could be archived. Any colleague of mine can see that it is the adjustment of the process so it can be archived; all of us have at some point in time archived processes when reaching a dead end and we all know what to do so no investigative leads are left unfinished. So, at that point in time of the investigation that was the line of reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not my line of reasoning alone, it's of the whole team, of the Judiciary Police as an institution. I will go further, after that, nothing was done concerning that line of investigation that...

Anchor - Of the accidental death.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the probable responsibility of the parents in the mysterious disappearance of the child, with all that entails, but this is the essential. Yet, that line of investigation was set aside. Even the Scotland Yard investigation and so on, never explored that line of investigation, and now they've reached a dead end. They constituted, derided in my opinion, - this is what this is all about, opinion and freedom of expression - in my opinion as coordinator, as an investigator, that increase, that creation of numerous arguidos was a derision of that institution. There were two or three arguidos - the English didn't even know the meaning of arguidos was - and they decided to constitute even more arguidos, and now we have an ocean of arguidos. Before we had a few drops and now we have an ocean where virtually nothing can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.

Anchor - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.

Anchor - ... in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there isn't anything concerning what we just saw me saying on the news piece that was shown. Because these are elements, these are information that appeared afterwards and were never investigated. It's just an hypothesis, and when considering that hypothesis...

Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's body could have been hidden, could have been incinerated, right?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information here, in the police, that mentions that. That in a night, three figures were seen carrying a bag, entering the church...

Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a coffin of a woman, a woman from the United Kingdom...

Anchor - Of a British woman.

Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the following day that coffin was transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to be incinerated. But no one is saying that the parents did that, or saying who did that. It's something that someone who is on the field investigating has to ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.

Anchor - But you concede that hypothesis, that possibility of Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the church, and then incinerated is a plausible hypothesis...

Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically starting by the end, first is the disappearance, if you allow me to explain, to explain to the viewers... [overlapping speech]

Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not to lose this train of thought, is this hypothesis plausible for you?

Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I say plausible in this sense, that that body would fit underneath the cadaver that was already there.

Anchor - And it would fit?

Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the time, when I was already out of the Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion of people that dealt with that, of funeral agencies, and they said that it was a possibility. It's an opinion that is not officialized but it's a possibility. If it happened like that or not, we don't know, there are several hypotheses to make a body disappear.

Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What are the indications, post-disappearance that helped construct the material truth that appears here in the book?

Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed, I would have to look at the book pages and explain them to you in detail. There were several indicia, the contradictions, the discrepancies in the statements of those people, other witness statements that said they saw the father carrying the child at a certain hour, there are a series of indications that point towards that. To give you a full report on that would be tiresome, I believe most people know or are already aware. That was talked about numerous times throughout years. So, indicia and some evidence, evidence in inverted commas, concerning the vestiges that were collected and sent to the English forensics laboratory for analyses, it is said that there could have been a manipulation of all that data, it's still not clear what happened. I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann. And when the report arrived, it was no longer like that. It was said at the time that the profile with a series of alleles matched Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone in that laboratory could have contributed to that profile. So, why did it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to the US president profile? There's something very strange about that analysis, something that should be questioned, verified, investigated. I believe that when forensic analyses are done, the laboratory technician has to keep a record of what he is doing. I don't know if that was destroyed or not, but it should exist along side the report.

Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral before I'll return to you, let us now pay close attention to the next news segment. The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann was since the start embroiled in mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a few days before her fourth day. Let us now watch a reconstitution of that fateful Thursday.

Continued..

At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.

The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”

Dinner time approaches.

The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.

In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.

Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.

The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).

According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.

But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.

It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.

(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).

Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)

Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio.

Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation to the Maddie case pursued several lines of inquiry. There were political pressures that marked the beginning of the investigation, which, during a first moment, shielded the parents from becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis.

Continued..

News segment 2

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - 3 of May of 2007, just a little before midnight the Judiciary Police was alerted, a four-year-old English girl disappeared from a tourist resort in Praia da Luz. The parents dined in a near-by restaurant. It was necessary to proceed with caution, these were doctors, unsuspicious, victims of an abduction, of a hideous crime. Portimão was still living with the hangover of the Joana Case, Leonor Cipriano was condemned but the delay at the start of the investigation turned out to be tragic, the remnants of the little girl were never found. The Judicial condemnation didn't erase the doubts. In Praia da Luz, on that night, moments of tension were felt. When the PJ arrived on the scene, dozens of people had already been inside the apartment. They had contaminated vestiges, moved what could have been evidence, destroyed indicia that no one knows what they could have clarified.

The English government acted swiftly so the parents wouldn't be investigated, to focus on the search for the abductors. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed other pressures. On the morning of the 23rd of May, 20 days after the Maddie's disappearance, before leaving to Fátima's sanctuary, Kate and Gerry left a voice message to Gordon Brown. Maddie's mother described it as a way to increase the political pressure, she disclosed that Tony Blair's successor called back only three hours later. He spoke with Gerry, was very sympathetic and gave them strength, said Kate, who described the visit to the catholic sanctuary as overwhelming, powerful and emotional.

Apart from the contacts with Gordon Brown, Kate's diary also revealed other important allies. From the hiring of Clarence Mitchell as an advisor, who was working for the government at the time, to the conversations with the wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mitchell, in fact, had a pivotal role in the propaganda machine that was set up by the McCanns within a few days. They counted on the assistance from the British diplomacy in all the trips that were carried out. The first trip and the one with the most intense media coverage was the trip to Rome. They were received by the Pope Benedict XVI, the trip had been suggested by their advisor on the 27th of May, after speaking to Francis Campbell, the British ambassador at the Vatican. The visit to Rome was described by Kate as being very emotional, positive and important, and that loads of journalists and photographers had appeared, this was an ongoing concern present in the couple's lives. After Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Morocco followed, trips made with the objective to divulge Madeleine's face, followed by visits to consulates or receptions given by British ambassadors or by political representatives of the respective countries.

Amidst all that, was an investigation marked by breakthroughs and setbacks. Kate and Gerry started as victims, four months later Maddie's mother was constituted as an arguida for negligent homicide. The British dogs, requested by the couple, found the little girl's trace inside the boot of the car. A vehicle that was rented after the disappearance, where DNA vestiges were also found which suggested that Maddie had been transported in there. The genetic markers weren't sufficient. The doubts grew, the mystery thickened. Nine years later the narrative of the pressures remain, of a failed investigation, of a little girl who, dead or alive, has never been found. Where is Madeleine McCann? - the answer never came.

Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).

Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.

Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.

Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?

Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...

Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.

Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?

Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion that was always present and present in the investigations.

Anchor - So there were members of the British police whose opinions agreed with this thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one of the officers, a former police officer, that was present when the preliminary reports were known, what he said about the results was that back in England they would already have been arrested. The issue was that report was just a preliminary one and we needed the data of the official report, which arrived at the PJ as it did. That was his opinion, affirmed in front of several people who can testify to that.

Anchor - I'll return to you soon Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening, thank you for being here.

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.

Anchor - Let me issue you a challenge, suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral and as a PJ investigator you have to assess the truth presented by Gonçalo Amaral, which is the material truth. Is it factually sustainable or is there a possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral being obsessed by the belief that he formed and of him valuing more certain indicia that give substance to his belief and undervalue others?

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll try to play this game with you, and answer with the utmost honesty possible. The truth of an investigator has to do with something, that in all likelihood the common citizen is far from understanding. That is, when a real investigator starts an investigation, when he starts to have the perception of the facts and events, following leads, and elaborating his belief resulting from the findings and indicia that appear, it's obvious that he believes in them, but he can also keep its distance and is able to evaluate all the possible solutions available and diverging paths that may arise. I believe that all the work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and by the team at the time covered all those hypotheses and for doing so, they were able to reach determined conclusions, conclusions that he expressed in his book. If we pay attention and want to be honest, we can verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo Amaral in his book or in other situations, accuse the couple of homicide. He accused that an accidental death took place in that apartment, that they are suspects of concealing the cadaver, that the death is likely to have occurred as a consequence of a tragic accident, I stress there never was an accusation of homicide, and that there exists clear evidence of negligence in the guardianship of the children. Therefore, before this, what can I say - it should never be believed that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one truth. The truth before him is one which results from the indicia that he investigated, that is why he refuted the abduction thesis, which they also investigated until they reached a dead end and returned to the beginning, believing that the thesis of what really happened was an accidental death followed by the concealment of the cadaver. there's nothing else to be said about that. This question that you made, if you allow me, implicates another - is this investigation a failure or can it be considered otherwise? I would say that in a normal process, maybe we could say that this investigation was a failure. However due to what happened, with the pressures that were felt, with the press involvement, with the involvement of advisors from the English government, with all the manoeuvres done by the parents of the child who were always advised by press and image assistants. The whole theatre created around this, may to an extent signify that this investigation was a failure. I would add, that at that time, this investigation wasn't able to reach conclusions due to all the theatre that surrounded it, which effectively prevented the police to work as it should, in a tranquil atmosphere, following leads and constituting as arguidos those who needed to be constituted, carrying out the reconstitutions that should have been done, obtain results that would not be altered, and finally a series of situations that if you wish I can later detail.

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add, just to reinforce, that is not my truth, those are the conclusions of the investigation of the Judiciary Police and of the British police.

Anchor - You're not obsessed with this truth that is here(book)?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed, and I'll tell you why. What is in there is a specific time of the investigation, as I had said. A line of investigation that was being followed and was never resumed, and should be resumed. That line of investigation was not concluded, it did not reach a dead end, do you understand? If it had been concluded, then we would know what the results were. Now the issue here is that line of investigation is not allowed to be pursued.

Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly in your opinion?

Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't allow it.

Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese government, the Judiciary Police, the direction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese government nor the Judiciary Police, it's the British police. At this moment, Scotland Yard who is doing the investigation in one direction.

Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you, we have a man here who was the Minister of internal Affairs at the time...

Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A bit later on.

Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.

Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.

Anchor - It should be said that tutelage of the Judiciary police belongs to the Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was the government pressured?

Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm going to tell you the following, and please João allow me to contextualize it.

Anchor - Yes, of course.

Rui Pereira - I remember very well seeing in the English newspapers, right in the middle of the investigation, Portugal described as an exotic country, where the inspectors of the Judiciary Police were bushy moustached people...

Anchor - Exotic in what way?

Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing from a news article of a daily English paper, it described the Judiciary police inspectors as people that had bushy moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and red wine. Exactly like this! What was it that happened in this process? - and please give me some latitude to explain this. What happened in this process was that there was an initial error that caused a lot of damage to the investigation and this not to blame anyone...

Anchor - What was the error?

Rui Pereira - The error? Was not constituting the parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment (article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code). Because, without delay at the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory, in my perspective, that said that the English have very peculiar cultural costumes and therefore was natural for them to leave the two-years-old twin siblings and the other 3-years-old child alone in a bedroom, for the parents to go out a few hundred meters away, to socialize with their friends.

Anchor - Professor I'll give you back the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo please be very brief, why wasn't this measure taken?

Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of constituting them as arguidos? I would even go as far as to ask why weren't they constituted for abandonment as it should?

Anchor - For abandonment.

Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment, exactly.

Rui Pereira - That was given some thought at the time.

Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping speech, impossible to discern what is said)

Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.

Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, that is the distinction between what is a Judiciary authority and a bodie of Criminal police. So, he can't answer that.

Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely right.

Rui Pereira - I can answer your question.

Anchor - Here enters the pressure.

Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is this, we have a legal order - this is not to blame anyone, it's describing what should have happened - we have a legal order that makes the clear distinction...

Anchor - But you can say who was responsible if you wish Professor.

Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear distinction between Judicial authorities and bodies of Criminal Police. What matters for an inspector, an experienced one and with good reputation like inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover the material truth, with all the difficulties that existed in that case. Hence, there should have been a direct intervention of the Judicial authority that is in charge of the process, and that is the Public Ministry (public prosecution) to outline a procedural strategy.

Anchor - And there was no intervention then, in your opinion?

Rui Pereira - Clearly not, as far as I know...

Anchor - But why not? The Public Ministry "washed its hands" from it, like Pilate?

Rui Pereira - I cannot make a process of intention (accuse), but I do know what happened. I know that..

Anchor - And what happened for you was that there was no intervention?

Rui Pereira - No, not for me! What factually happened was that in the first interrogatory the PJ police was the only authority present. The Public Ministry, at odds to what should have been done never defined a procedural strategy, and the procedural strategy, obviously meant to play with certainty. And what was certain, was that the parents in an irresponsible manner...

Anchor - But why didn't the Public Ministry do that?

Rui Pereira - I don't know...

Anchor - But do you have any suspicion, do you have any explanation for that? Were they afraid?

Rui Pereira - No, nothing like that. Do you know why? Because sometimes in our relations with the foreigners, you know that racism is a very curious phenomena, and sometimes we almost have an inferiority complex in relation to some foreigners. When I saw reporting with a certain bonhomie in the Portuguese media, now it's not on the English media, that the English truly have very specific cultural costumes and it was natural to dine and drink..

Anchor - So you're saying the Public Ministry had an inferiority complex before the case, before the British authorities?

Rui Pereira - João, let me give you another example. Give me another minute please.

Anchor - Please professor, just answer my question before that.

Rui Pereira - But I'm going to answer you. Answers sometimes aren't a simple yes or a no. I'll give you a more subtle answer, in a recent case at the Expo (Tagus river area in Lisbon), when a Chinese child fell from a building (21st floor), what happened to the parents? They were constituted as arguidos.

Tânia Laranjo - They were arrested.

Rui Pereira - And no one said that it was natural, according to the cultural costumes of the Chinese, to leave the child alone and go gamble at the casino.

Anchor - So, I can infer from your words that the Public Ministry has failed. Tânia did the public Ministry fail?

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to say one thing, in this case, it wasn't only this parents (McCann couple) who left their children.

Anchor - Did you feel lack of support from the Public Ministry?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I wouldn't say that. I'm telling you something different, the other couples' children were also abandoned, and it wasn't just for one night, it was for a whole week. In order to constitute arguidos them (McCann) for abandonment, the whole group (Tapas7) of friends would have to be constituted.

Anchor - Did you feel alone, without the support of the Public Ministry, in the conduction of the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, we don't usually have a constant presence of the Public Ministry in investigations. The Judiciary Police advances normally with the investigation, which is supervised by the Public Ministry, and it also has to propose and suggest investigative steps to the Public Ministry. In this case in particular, someone from the Public Ministry, should have made the decision to be present since the first hour, which didn't happen.

Anchor - Tânia did the Public Ministry fail from what you could gather when you followed the investigation?

Tânia Laranjo - What was visible from the interpretation of the process and of the investigation that I followed during those months, those first months, was that the Public Ministry was completely absent, that is an undisputed truth, for better or for worse. Success or failure would always be of the Judiciary police and not of the Public Ministry, it was always completely absent of the investigation. Allow me to go back to one point. Gonçalo Amaral a while ago spoke of that meeting with the British ambassador, minutes later a press statement was read at the door of the PJ headquarters, the truth is that moment changed everything, from then on the Judiciary Police undertook a thesis, undertook the abduction thesis, and went into the investigation absolutely restricted. There, it would have been pivotal, like Professor Rui Pereira said, for the Public Ministry to be present, even more so to provide the guarantee and freedom for the police to be able to follow all paths. We have two elements of the Judiciary Police here that will naturally say this, that all investigative paths need to be followed and that (freedom to investigate) cannot be restricted. As to the parents, they would have to be considered suspects, naturally. The professor gave the example of the Chinese, but years before that, and in the Algarve as well, we had the Joana case where the mother was considered a suspect, in the majority of these situations the parents are naturally considered suspects from the first moment and are investigated.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that case the Public ministry was present.

Anchor - In the Joana case?

Tânia Laranjo - In the Joana case. Rui Pedro's mother, that is a case of disappearance that has not been solved so far, she was investigated in a first moment, and that is how it should be. With all the pain that a mother that has nothing to do with the disappearance of its own child must feel for being investigated. And naturally, here, we had an inferiority complex before the English.

Anchor - When you say 'we', are you saying the Public Ministry?

Tânia Laranjo - We, the Portuguese. We, Portuguese police; we, Public Ministry; we, Portuguese government and we, Portuguese journalists ourselves, because we also accepted at a certain moment for the English to impose upon us an initial thesis, the thesis that it would be impossible for those parents to have anything to do with the disappearance. The fact is, during those first moments, in one or another circumstances, if the parents had not been doctors and English, the Portuguese media would have gone for the jugular. I remember, let me just say this.

Anchor - Please be fast because we need to go on to a commercial break.

Tânia Laranjo - My daughter was about the same age at the time, when I was in the Algarve, those parents, like Gonçalo Amaral said, sat every night in that restaurant and they never had any viewing angles, it was not possible. No Portuguese parent would ever leave a child sleeping alone in the bedroom.

Rui Pereira - What if there had been a fire, what if there had been a tragedy? Not to say anything further, but really for exposure to abandonment there could have been other consequences...

Tânia Laranjo - At least that situation, that crime existed.

Anchor - They should have been constituted as arguidos. Gentlemen, madam, let us now take a very short break. After the break we'll see the lines of investigation that still exist and should be followed in this process. See you soon.

Anchor - The Maddie process was reopened in 2013. At this time, all hypotheses remain open, from abduction to accidental homicide committed by the child's parents. The English have an independent investigation.

Continued..

News segment 3

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - Almost 9 years after Madeleine McCann disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, all hypotheses remain open. The process was archived in 2008, re-opened in 2013. From the negligent homicide they moved to the abduction thesis. The suspect was a man that had already died. He would have abducted and murdered Maddie, buried the body in the proximities of the tourist resort. The new thesis surfaced after a thorough examination carried out by another team of investigators. Elements of the Judiciary Police from Oporto spent months reviewing the process. They searched for loose ends, abandoned the thesis defended by the team of Portimão. After all it hadn't been Kate, Madeleine's mother had not been responsible for her death. It hadn't been an accident. The thesis was never confirmed, the Judiciary police investigated, searched but found nothing. At the same time they kept a close cooperation with the English, who, in turn, continue to ask for more investigative steps to be carried out via the letters rogatory. They have already been on the field, asking for more excavations to be done, but found nothing. Breakthroughs and setbacks, absence of answers, Madeleine has never been found. There is no body, ransom note, any solid evidence to indicate what effectively happened on the night of May 3, 2007. After 9 years the process remains open, at least until its limitation period, which will happen in 2027, twenty years after Madeleine disappeared.

Anchor - Gonçalo, do you believe things at this moment are being routed for the process to be archived here in Portugal?

Gonçalo Amaral - I have no doubts whatsoever, what was done by Scotland Yard is practically at an end. What they wanted to do was basically to, and I had said this before, was to in a certain way to give credence to the couple and remove all suspicions that existed concerning the couple. They did a reconstitution here in Portugal, not with the couple but with actors; constituted a series of arguidos that have nothing to do with the case, just for the sake of constituting arguidos; they followed a number of false leads. Now they have reached an end, after having spent a lot of money, maybe there isn't any more money to spend, perhaps the British public fund may not support such expenditure. And it will be archived, I can't see the Judiciary Police resuming the investigation when Scotland Yard ends theirs. In the end, the process was re-opened almost only and by the Scotland Yard, and when they leave the process will be archived just like before.

Anchor - Help me here in this line of reasoning, just a little while ago you said that there are still lines of investigation that remain open.

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, remain open.

Anchor - ...if the Judiciary Police follows those lines of investigation...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to recall something, in brief, this court decision that has not yet become final (res judicata/passed into matter adjudged), there are still a few days left for it to become final, but I can give you an idea of what was...

Anchor - The decision of the Court of Appeals?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it's new, the deadline for the appeal is taking place.

Anchor - Of course.

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you what in essence is concluded, is that the line of investigation that is here (book) and remains open, is a plausible one. And we can conclude that from this decision like we could conclude from the decision of the temporary injunction.

Anchor - That's included in the decision of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon that acquitted you from paying the indemnification?

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, and in the temporary injunction they go further, they actually said that it even though the Public Ministry had archived the process, with another Public Ministry another result could have occurred. Even so, this line of investigation isn't followed and nothing is done relatively to it.

Anchor - But by not following it, what does that mean? That the actual direction of the Judiciary Police doesn't want this case to progress?

Gonçalo Amaral - That's not the question. This is a case that appears to be traumatizing several people, right? Maybe someone completely neutral has to appear in face of all this, that decides to advance with the investigation. In all the lines of investigation and this one that is missing. (overlapping speech)

Anchor - But is the Judiciary Police afraid of the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's something that the Public Ministry says in the archival dispatch in respect to the reconstitution that wasn't carried out because the friends of the couple didn't wish to return to Portugal. They said the ones who lost with that, the ones who are jeopardised are the couple. We could reach the conclusion that what they said - that we believe to be contradictions or lies - where truthful. The reconstitution could be good for them. Usually that is what happens, it can have a good or bad result and this investigation...

Anchor - Gonçalo please, just answer this question...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to conclude. If this line of investigation reaches an end, with what is left to be done, and if at the end of all that is concluded that after all the parents could not be, in any way, held responsible for the disappearance of the child, that would only help the couple.

Anchor - Of course. Isn't the Portuguese Judiciary Police interested in finding the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - The Portuguese Judiciary Police is likely more interested at this moment for no one to speak about the case. Because it's a case that has left several people distressed, it seems that there is a series of people traumatized with the situation. People that want, for example, to be able to prove that parents don't murder their own children, I'm not saying that this ones did that of course. It seems that there is a whole culture, a way of thinking that has existed until recently and needs to be changed because we are all upset by it.

Anchor - Manuel Rodrigues, the Judiciary Police doesn't want to find the truth?

Manuel Rodrigues - I appreciate that you made me that question because I don't agree with Gonçalo in this aspect, likely the only one. I don't think that that is the situation, it's not the 'not wanting to', what I think is that, like I said earlier, this process was subject to a blockade in such a way, that at this moment it's extremely difficult to escape from this. That is, what I want to say is that I agree because I am obliged to agree with Gonçalo when he says that the British police set out an investigation where they decided to constitute a series of arguidos in order to credibilize the couple, to take them from one looking at the process and the only arguidos in there that one sees is the couple, seeing that they are responsible for what happened. For that, they constituted six more, or eight or nine arguidos to divert attentions and diminishes the possible responsibility. Now, to be able to move forward, in a process like this, the timings have all been lost, everything disappeared, we need to have this notion that it's very difficult at this time to recover a body, it's very difficult to retrieve, even making a reconstruction, a credible and exact idea of what took place yet it was imperative for this to have been done.

Anchor - That attempt was indispensable.

Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, and I don't understand why it was never achieved, certainly not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police.

Anchor - Not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police?

Manuel Rodrigues - Certainly not.

Anchor - By whom then?

Manuel Rodrigues - Someone has prevented that reconstitution, and that is why that those couples, friends of the McCann...

Tânia Laranjo - Inclusively, the friends themselves refused to come back.

Anchor - But who is that someone?

Manuel Rodrigues - Don't make me name things...

Anchor - The English police, the English government?

Manuel Rodrigues - We've already talked here about the direct assistance given to the couple by English governmental aids...

Anchor - The English government and the English police, is that what you are trying to say?

Manuel Rodrigues - Obviously. I cannot say anything else differently. I cannot have a different interpretation when in a first exam that was done in an English laboratory, because the Portuguese had the honesty of sending them the evidence, they weren't even analysed here - 'let's send it to England so they can carry out the tests so no doubts remain', in a first moment...

Anchor - Honesty or naivety?

Manuel Rodrigues - Pure naivety. In a first moment 15 alleles of a series of 19 appear, that constituted Maddie's DNA, and in a second report those 15 alleles had completely vanished, there was no longer any DNA of the girl present in there.

Anchor - So, what you are saying is that the probabilities for the "Guilt to die single" (Portuguese saying, no one get's blamed for it) are high.

Manuel Rodrigues - Extremely high.

Rui Pereira - It's a certainty.

Anchor - So, the "Guilt dies single" then professor?

Rui Pereira - Yes, it will, it absolutely will. Now, what I would like to tell you João is that...

Anchor - But the Judiciary Police, in your opinion Professor, is doing everything they can or they want to archive the case?

Rui Pereira - The Judiciary Police was under great pressure by the huge media coverage of the case, it was very active then and at a certain point in time it short-circuited, and why? Because what happened in the Algarve was that negligent parents left their children helpless, who could not defend themselves from natural or human threats, all alone! And in the sequence of that, which initially was a crime of abandonment, the child disappeared - there are no doubt about this.

Tânia Laranjo - And that was everyday.

Rui Pereira - For the English media what happened was that in an exotic country in the south of Europe, in a tourist resort, one child disappeared, full stop. And that the English police is unable of finding out why, full stop. This second story, is a narrative that is totally detached from reality. Thus, what failed in there, and I insist, was the first moment. In the Portuguese Penal code, the Public Ministry who is considered to be the "Master" of the inquest (process), but rarely intervenes. Let me add, that I feel most reassured because the Court of Appeals produced a balanced decision, and even though the case isn't over yet, it's a civil process and there is still an appeal to the Supreme, it seems to me that what the Court of Appeals concluded is correct. It doesn't say that the investigation of the Judiciary Police is truthful but says that what is revealed in the book corresponds to the investigation, and therefore, within the freedom of information, within the freedom of the press, can be made public.

Anchor - That is a plausible line of investigation. Gonçalo Amaral are you going to sue the McCann couple?

Gonçalo Amaral - At this moment I'm not thinking about that. There is always a reckoning of the numbers, the case has not yet ended, there are still appeals, let's see what will happen from now on, and then I'll decide.

Anchor - But you suffered damages, well, you obviously suffered moral damages, and you suffered material damages as well?

Gonçalo Amaral - And others. We have to wait. I don't think that is essential at this moment. What is essential now is to wait for this deadline to end, that the couple has to make an appeal, verify, to know the basis of their appeal, and only then react.

Anchor - What is going to be necessary for you to take that step? To make that decision to eventually sue the McCann couple.

Gonçalo Amaral - If at the end of this appeal..

Anchor - Did you not think about that yet?

Gonçalo Amaral - I thought about that, yes, but to affirm that I'm going to sue, let's take it slowly. I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people.

Rui Pereira - Inspector please allow me to say something very briefly, just to complement. What in fact is curious in the process, is that when the couple gave their Statement of Identity and Residence, they used an address in England, isn't it true?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, that's true.

Anchor - Are you going to publish this book in English?

Gonçalo Amaral - I'm planning to do that, yes. I know that the couple said that if anyone buys the book in England they would sue them. So? The couple does not own the English language and the book can be published in any language, namely in English. In any country where English is spoken or even via the internet. Now, what's going to happen, I'll still need to talk to my publisher, that still hold copyrights on the book. But I do have the intention of divulging the book even because there are some copies going around and inadequate translations online, and people have the right to know what my opinion is, and the opinion of others, and know them through in the official work.

Anchor - Gentlemen, madam, thank you so much for being here in this special broadcast by CMTV. We conclude with another news piece. In just one single day, in the exact same day Maddie was seen in the Brazil, in Canada, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte (Huelva, Spain) and even in Syria. The thesis multiply but of Maddie there is not a single trace.

News Segment 4

Voice Over - 3 of May 2007, a British little girl, 3-years-old, disappears from the hotel's (sic, apartment) bedroom where she slept with her twin siblings, in the Ocean club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Algarve. This, whilst the parents dined with friends in a restaurant, less than fifty (sic, only in a straight line) meters away from the apartment. Two days later the Judiciary Police of Faro says that they could now state that the daughter of the McCann couple had been abducted. A theory that continues to be alive in the memory and on newspaper pages that every year tell about another suspect, of another search carried out by the Portuguese authorities or English in Praia da Luz, or of another statement by someone that guarantees to have seen the girl, whom, if still alive, is now 12 years-old.

Anna Stam, a 42 years-old Dutch, was working in a shop when a blonde and blue eyed little girl asked her 'Do you know where my Mummy is?', convinced her mother was the woman that was with her, Anna pointed in the woman direction. 'She is not my Mummy, they took me from my holiday', said the child who according to the description was 4 or 5 years-old and spoke in a perfect English with a French accent (sic, the woman had the accent not the child).

This is just one of the sightings that can be found in the over thirty volumes and dossiers of the investigation that is yet to be concluded. The information is so dispersed, that on the same day (11th May 2007) Maddie was seen in Indonesia, in Singapore, in Mozambique, in Brazil, in Canada, in Belgium, at Zurich's airport in Switzerland, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte at the Spanish border and even in Syria. Not all sightings were taken into account, only those which according to the authorities presented solid elements, like one description of a sighting by two British sisters, who assured to have travelled in a bus in Malta with a little girl resembling Maddie who even had a similar eye defect in the right eye and who said to the woman who was with her 'You're not my Mummy'. After Malta it was Morocco, the stage of numerous sightings. First the sighing by a Norwegian woman alleging she had seen a girl similar to the oldest daughter of the McCann couple at a petrol station, followed by dozens of sightings, like one sighting of Madeleine in a mansion, in Massira, on the streets of Agadir or in Marrakech. After Morocco, the little girl that cried 'Help' in Mem Martins, in Amadora (Lisbon suburbs), then a Roma couple with a baby stroller in France, with a child that didn't appear to be theirs. Hundreds of psychic visions and divinations that placed the little girl at a specific street in Sagres or inside a hole in the vicinity of the tourist resort from where she had disappeared. Theories are abundant, of Madeleine Mccann there is not a single trace. Recently, in 2015, the Australian police entered in action, at stake the body of a child, with light hairs, that would have been murdered in 2007 and placed inside a suitcase, a few days later the conclusion - the body found in Australia wasn't Maddie's. Nine years and hundreds of sightings later the mystery remains and the sightings multiply.

Cândido, a former farmer and fisherman, that lives less than 100 meters away of the tourist resort from where the English child disappeared told CMTV why he can't erase the night of May 3, 2007 from his memory.

** Cândido - On the day the girl disappeared, her father, at 1am, was walking around with a bottle of wine in his hand, and he was 'atascado' (drunk), and screaming for the girl near to my door, I live right there close to the main road, and I said 'what's going on, what's all this noise?' and he said 'menina, menina' (girl, girl), 'embora, embora' (gone, gone), and I said 'girl gone, what girl?', and he said 'menina', and I said 'go call the police', 3 hours he said, 3 hours since the girl went missing, and I said 'call the police', and he said 'no police, no'.

Voice Over - Today Madeleine McCann is not the same child that we got used to watch in loop on TV. If she is alive she will be 12 years-old. For now it's the synonym of a perfect crime. No one has seen her, no one knows where she is, much less what happened on that night of 2007.

Anchor - This is the end point of this special broadcast by CMTV, 'Maddie, the Mystery', where we tried to bring new facts into light so this mystery may one day be solved.

[Acknowledgement: Joana Morais]

TRANSCRIPT

AG: I want to issue a very, very warm welcome this morning, to two guests -- to Clarence Mitchell and Janet Kennedy. Clarence -- lots of you will know -- those of you who watch the BBC over the past years will know -- Clarence started his work, I think, as a reporter in Leeds, not so far from here...



CM: …newspapers first, then BBC and Radio Sheffield - and then Leeds.



AG: …Sheffield and then Leeds -- and then moved to London to work on Breakfast television and general reporting including some really significant cases -- Fred and Rose West…



CM: …Millie Dowler -- I was also one of the deputy royal correspondents that did Diana’s death.



AG: And then Clarence you moved from there to work in the government Media Monitoring Unit. Is that correct?



CM: Yes, I -- I joined the Cabinet Office in 2005 and I became Director of The Media Monitoring Unit which is a very small team based within the Cabinet Office - as it was then. It’s now part of COI. And it exists to brief ministers on the day’s media agenda and, you know, how -- how the various story strands of the day are moving through the media and then the special advisors at Number 10 decide - on that - how they deal with it and which ministers are put out to speak.



AG: And then as we know, in September last year Clarence moved from that work to being spokesman for the McCann family. Which brings us to Janet Kennedy -- and really delighted that you’re with us this morning. Thank you so much for coming. Janet, you’re Kate McCann’s aunt - is that right?



JK: Yes, my husband Brian is Kate’s mother’s brother -- is that right? [Laughs]



AG: That’s right. And you live in Rothley?



JK: And we live -- we’ve lived in Rothley for 25 -- 26 years now -- and Kate and Gerry came to live there, I suppose, about 2 years ago -- they’d lived in another village called Queniborough which isn’t too far away -- when Gerry got his job at Glenfield as a cardiologist. So we’ve really been in the thick of it, I suppose you could say, living -- living in Rothley. And it’s been hard - very hard.



AG: What we’d like to do together over the 45 minutes or so that we have, is to look back over what’s happened in the last 13 months. But our theme for the last two days has been questions of values in the new media environment. And so I’m interested to explore with you, what you and the family have done with the media and what the media have done with you - and what your reflections on that are. We come to this as - many of us - professional communicators and we have everything to learn about the impact that the media is making. The first thing I’d want to ask you though - just to begin with is - could you tell us how Kate and Gerry are?



JK: Erm -- Well -- Each day is different I think. They’re sort of buffeted by -- partly you know, what the media has to say, although I think it is quite quiet at the moment and I think those people who’ve seen the documentary, know that erm --

I think they’ve just gathered all their strength together to devote themselves to the twins and to actually be very focussed on the search for Madeleine and anything that will bring about a resolution. And they’re both highly intelligent, articulate, strong people with great love for their children and I think they’re able to channel that, you know, into what they have to do each day. It doesn’t make it easy but I think they’ve got the psychological wherewithal, you know, to give themselves up and just cope with each day as it comes. That’s how I would express it.



AG: Can I take you back to the time when Madeleine disappeared? We know that many children disappear in all sorts of circumstances and it’s of relevance to us, I think, how that particular event became the media story that it did. I mean, my understanding is that, it was somebody in the UK who first approached the media on behalf of the family. Have I got that right?



CM: The -- the story, if you like, began rolling back here, across news desks, in the early hours of the night of the 3rd into the 4th when a number of relatives and friends began sending in pictures of Madeleine - primarily to BBC’s National News Desk. At one point there was so many pictures of her coming in the BBC actually queried this and said, ‘Well who is this girl? We don’t know.’ And a lot of -- a lot of checking, quite rightly, went on in the early hours. This was entirely nothing to do with Gerry and Kate or any of their friends who were actively searching and helping the police to look for Madeleine.

And that’s why the allegation that’s made often and has been repeated so frequently seems like a fact - that somehow Kate and Gerry were manipulating the media from the outset - it’s just totally untrue. In the modern 24/7 online connected era, I would defy any family with friends or relatives, who have images of a missing child, not to get online and use that capacity - and that’s exactly what happened.



AG: We’ve been talking in the last couple of days about just the way that happened. When stories of the -- if you’d like to call them stories -- I mean it’s not a story at one level is it...



CM: No.



AG: …in your life? But when stories begin to happen – now - we’re all reporters, you know. Every – every [one] in the street has a video phone and is sending material out.



CM: Well that has fantastic advantages; the power of the good the net can achieve is wonderful - equally it has its downsides which I’m sure we’ll discuss.



AG: So this story as it were -- the media story -- began to roll without any initiative, at first, from Kate and Gerry and their friends in Portugal. Is that – is that how you recall it?



JK: That’s how I recall it. I mean we had a phone call from Gerry in the early hours of the morning after, you know, the whole thing was discovered - and I would have said that they would have been just too distraught to have had any thought at all about, you know, ‘how we’re going to approach the media?’ -- It would’ve been the last…



CM: Yeah…



JK: …last thing in their minds…



CM: [interjects] But, in fact, two of the detectives on the night -- when they were leaving that night, Gerry said, “Well what about the media?” And they said, “No. No media. No media. We don’t do that.” [Laughs] So, you know, it was just a completely different mindset from the start.



They [K&G] had enough -- more than enough on their plate. They were out searching. They were helping the police. And when they came back from one of their first visits to the police station Gerry was amazed to see the number of journalists that were already outside the apartment. None of that had come from calls from their [beck]. It had come because the wire services were reporting it. Material was coming in from friends and relatives and ‘the machine,’- if you like - had latched unto this as a major story from the -- from the word go.



AG: Now Janet, you must’ve been closely involved with them, at that stage, although you were in England at the time. Was there a point where Kate and Gerry decided that they needed to be proactive with the media - to positively engage with the media?



JK: I -- I’m not really sure myself about that, you know -- at the time -- It’s not something I’ve discussed with them. My own feeling of the first few days was, you know, just try to get in touch with the Foreign Office, you know, to try and get some kind of help in terms of it being a foreign country.



I mean I know that the morning after it happened I -- Kate, you know, had phoned me because -- this sounds terribly trivial -- but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm -- to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.



AG: What -- What happened?



JK: Well, there were just over a hundred people with cameras and reporters -- And they’ve got a sort of gate and then a little driveway and I mean I was -- I suppose I was really daunted, you know, by this sort of complete media intrusion, as I thought, at the time.



AG: What does it feel like?



JK: Well, if I tell you that I sort of knelt on the playroom floor so that I wouldn’t be seen because there was -- I was aware there were long range cameras focussing on the house and there were just flashing lights, flashing cameras, people continually coming up and knocking on the door and I just wouldn’t answer the door. You know, I felt totally imprisoned really and very threatened and, you know, I would think I am quite a mature person who can deal with all kinds of crises. But it was quite overwhelming I have to say -- just this complete takeover of my life, you know, at that time -- and poor Kate and Gerry there, you know, with no Madeleine.



Eventually the police called and they sort of said, you know, that they would liaise with the press. But I think, at that point, I didn’t really just want it to be the police. I felt that we should also have a say in it, you know, sort of over the course of that first day; I thought well perhaps we ought to represent our own point of view and not just have the police, as it were, issuing standard replies, you know, which I assumed perhaps they would do. I don’t think I was very sensible about it at all, you know [Laughs].



AG: …I can’t imagine I’d have been very sensible either…



CM: [interjects] Brian and Janet had to basically run their own media operation from scratch -- out of the blue -- particularly given the fact that Kate, Gerry and the rest of the group were in Portugal. It was -- there was a natural focus of interest at this end but in Portugal we had 40 crews -- TV crews alone on the ground -- up to 300 reporters, if you include all the prints and online and radio as well.



AG: And who was -- Was anybody managing that?



CM: Initially -- Initially -- and this is how I came to be involved -- Initially, Mark Warner, the holiday company concerned, brought in one of their PR people - Alex Woolfall, who’s the crisis manager expert from Bell Pottinger - who works with the company anyway. He came out and the embassy sent a press officer down from Lisbon. As British nationals, in trouble abroad, Kate and Gerry were offered full consular assistance. In this exceptional level of media interest it meant that there had to be an unusual aspect of media handling because there were so many on the ground; they wouldn’t normally send a press officer down but in this case they did. And it became clear, very quickly, that the numbers were so great that extra help was needed from London. And the FCO, through the embassy, was then asked for another press officer to go out and they initially sent out Sheree Dodd - who had to move house that week - and she came back. And because of my active media connections -- and I was working within government at the point -- at that point -- I was asked to basically go out to replace her. So I…



AG: So you were doing that on behalf of the Foreign Office?



CM: …I went out initially for a month - I was told, ‘Oh, this’ll all be over in a fortnight’ and I went out for a month and -- and that was -- that was why I got involved. Now, again, it’s often been said, ‘Oh, why are the McCann’s so special? Why do they need a spokesman?’ I exist because of the media interest. That is the only reason why I did this initially, and it continued the way through the year, as we’ve seen and -- and that’s why I’m still doing it today because the media continue to be interested. It’s not because Kate and Gerry are in any way special, or their case is any more deserving than any other missing child.



AG: So you started Clarence as a representative of the Foreign Office. But Kate and Gerry did actually employ their own media spokesperson at the -- at an early stage didn’t they - Justine McGuiness?



CM: After me -- when the British government element ended and I organised the trip around Europe that we did and we went to visit the Pope - again, largely at the Vatican’s […] behest, although we had to formally apply for that audience. After we had organised that - via the embassies - the government felt it was right that the public aspect of this should come to a close because it had been -- they had been assisted for so long at taxpayer’s expense.



And also, by that stage, a lot of money had come in from the very generous donations from the public. And Gerry, Kate and the wider family felt it was appropriate to bring a campaign manager on board to look at more long term strategic campaign ideas. In my role it’s just fire fighting -- hour – for -- hour by hour -- the media handling-- and so she [Justine McGuiness] came on for that and then I came on to take over from her later.



AG: And Janet, were you involved in discussions with the family about starting a campaign as it were?



JK: No, I wasn’t personally, my husband Brian was, there was a erm -- The fund was started at the Walker Stadium in Leicester -the football club. And my husband Brian was one of the people appointed to the board. Not so much as a family member but a sort of safe pair of hands because he was a retired headmaster and it was thought perhaps somebody like that, you know, would be quite measured -- erm I’m not sure that that’s true. [Laughs]



AG: I don’t know why that got a laugh. [Audience laughs]



JK: But, you know, he was -- There were about -- It was actually set up by Glenfield Hospital by colleagues of Gerry’s who, you know, were utterly helpless and wanted to do something to forward the search for Madeleine. And also there was the whole fact that they were stuck out in Portugal and, you know, weren’t able to come back home.



So certain colleagues all contributed a certain amount of money and obviously once people start donating, you know -- I think it was a thousand pounds each -- some of these people, you know, that, you know -- And also the donations were pouring in and I was going to the house and opening mail and cheques were coming in and people writing supportive letters.



And the whole thing, you know, was just sort of overwhelming and I think it was felt that to --to sort of be accountable and for the money to be channelled in a sort of rational way it was important to set up a trust fund - a Madeleine fund. It couldn’t be a charity because it was for one missing child and of course charities status has got to be, you know, that it’s for a group ,to be say, missing children --



CM: The public good



JK: For the public good -- And this [fund] was just generated because Madeleine’s disappearance generated so much public concern and interest.



AG: In those first days and even weeks, the media attention - although it was absolutely intense - was substantially very supportive, as I recall?



JK: It was. It was. Without a doubt. It was -- it was tremendously supportive. There were one or two people who approached me, who sort of suggested that it would be a really good story if perhaps, you know, they could have access to the house and see Madeleine’s room and what was inside it.



AG: But tell me what actually happens when somebody approaches you like that?



JK: Well…



AG: …I’ve done some dodgy things as a broadcaster but I’m not sure that I’ve done…



JK: Well I mean I had…



AG: … what happens?



JK: …I had made a decision from the word go that the inside of the house was totally off limits because I was just so scared of this whole thing becoming sentimentally slushy and pandering to -- to the worst kind of intrusion.



AG: But did – did somebody ring you at home and say, ‘I’m from The Sun, can I come round your house?’ How does it work?



JK: Yes --Yes they did or…



CM: Letters are put through letterboxes or offers…



JK: And people knock at the door and if I was in the house, you know, people would come to the house and, you know -- and they asked about going inside. And I just said that I thought it was totally inappropriate and that I -- I was absolutely aghast that anybody could even think of -- of doing that, you know.



CM: And that was absolutely the proper response from the family’s point of view. But of course that doesn’t play the media game. There is a stereotypical, kneejerk, news desk reaction - certainly in the tabloid side of things is, ‘We’ve gotta see the grieving. We’ve gotta see the tears. We’ve gotta see the emotion.’ And in -- Sadly in many cases some families go along with that and because McCann’s very firmly said, ‘No this is a private thing and we’ll not -- And that’s a line we will not cross.’ I’m still getting requests to this day and the amount of money they’ve been offering -- I mean, is just ridiculous. They -- they want pictures of Kate in her bedroom crying. It’s just gratuitous, emotive, sentimental rubbish….



AG: …But Clarence you’ve been on both sides of this.



CM: Yes



AG: You’ve been a reporter.



CM: But even as a reporter I would’ve felt uncomfortable



AG: … are you saying that you haven’t done that sort of stuff?



CM: Even as a reporter I would’ve felt uncomfortable asking for that sort of thing.



AG: So were you shocked at what your own trade was doing?



CM: I -- I -- I wasn’t shocked by that sort of thing - that unfortunately is all entirely predictable and it’ll continue for as long as this sort of tragic situation continues. What I was shocked about was the -- the lack of standard of reporting that took place in Portugal -- in that the reporters on the ground did absolutely no investigative work whatsoever. When the police said, ‘Sorry we’re not talking.’ That was it - they accepted that and they just sat in the bar which was offering free white wine -- alcohol. That became the newsroom and every day they would then just translate the Portuguese papers which began to be full of smears - lies in many cases - downright inaccuracies -- they would just lift that.



They’d phone me -- I’d say, ‘this is wrong -- its rubbish -- that’s not true.’ That was it -- ‘Mitchell balances it’ -- piece runs -- ‘thank you.’ It runs the next day in Britain. And then the next day the Portuguese press would run it again - saying the respected British press had confirmed our story - they hadn’t. It was just utter nonsense. The whole thing was just a ridiculous spin cycle… of insanity.



AG: Janet, can you remember when the first negative or questioning stories started to emerge?



JK: Yes, I suppose -- I went out to Portugal a couple of times, before Kate and Gerry came home, just to help look after the children and it was -- it was that end of July, early August, when I think things began to change. I would pinpoint it as that.

Well for one thing they -- they’d moved, you know, out of the Warner apartment, to a small villa which the Portuguese press said, you know, was the height of luxury. You know all these sort of inaccurate descriptions.



And the police attitude changed at that time, as well. And the scenic car was seized and […] at the villa -- the police, who had been very cooperative, you know -- Kate and Gerry had worked with them - they thought really well. And Kate and Gerry tried to be proactive in the investigation and to give as much assistance as possible. And in those few days, August 8th - August 9th, I know that they -- they just suddenly descended without warning and took absolutely every stitch of clothing from the house.



And it was as though it was orchestrated really because the press - at that time - also were, you know, really beginning to be very, very negative and anti the McCann’s and there was suspicion that, you know, that they’d had something to do with Madeleine’s abduction stroke death. And there was a complete sea change that week. And my own impression of being there was that it was also -- almost as though it was a conspiracy - perhaps that’s an over emotional reaction to something. But Kate and Gerry were really at the end of their tether in that week because their search for Madeleine, you know, was totally obstructed.



AG: What happens to you as a person, or you as a family, when you --- you open that newspaper and it’s saying really deeply negative or shocking things about you?



JK: Well I think you sort of -- you’re being destroyed from within if you’re not strong enough to hold on to your own sense of who you are and the fact, you know, that in their case they knew they had absolutely nothing to do, at all, with Madeleine’s disappearance. And I mean I’ve -- I’ve -- you know Kate was my bridesmaid when she was five, when Brian and I were married, and I’ve known her since she was tiny. So I mean I knew myself, you know, that this was all fabricated nonsense. But it was more than nonsense - it was actually evil, you know - I felt a tremendous sense of evil about the place.



AG: Evil is a very strong word to use. What makes you choose a word like that?



JK: Because there were no values, you know. People were acting out lies. There was no integrity. Kate was treated in a really threatening erm -- an absolutely destructive way. But there was also the portrayal -- and it was very much, I felt over the weeks that there was an attempt to demonise Kate. Which interestingly -- I mean, from the sort of distanced point of view -- it’s an interesting thing I’ve observed in the media that often its women who are demonised and are portrayed, you know, as being deeply, deeply devious and, you know… and wicked.

Somehow, that isn’t done in the same way to men. And the fact that Kate’s picture was on the front of so many papers, so many times and they sort of went on about, you know, the fact that she was very, very thin or that, you know, she’d had her hair done, you know -- all those sort of personal comments about her….



CM: I mean again and erm …



JK: …absolutely frightening.



CM: … I need to be careful because there’s still an active police investigation. We have our own private investigation which is firmly running behind the scenes. And elements of what actually happened on the night we can’t -- simply can’t discuss because that would be a breach of Portuguese law.



However-- However-- Janet’s absolutely right. Again, the media has stereotypical expectations in a story of this nature and that one is - that the mother must cry - she must grieve. Kate and Gerry were advised from early on -- we’ve said this on several occasions [to date] -- in the documentary as well -- by the police -- that to show overt emotion plays into the hands of the abductor for all sorts of reasons I won’t go into but fairly obvious at this end. And as a result they were told to try and restrain their emotions in public in the early stages.



And I mean Gerry -- When I first met Gerry when he came over to Rothley a couple of weeks after Madeleine was taken. And as we were going to look at the war memorial with all of the ribbons -- a whole sea of yellow and green, for Madeleine -- he was on the verge of tears and said; ‘[inaudible] is going to see me’ and I said ‘It doesn’t matter you’re her father, if you need to cry, cry.’ As it was, he didn’t.



But Kate has been [inaudible] and she doesn’t recognise herself in some of the early video clips now because she knew what she was going through at the time. She was lambasted and vilified for not showing enough emotion - therefore this must be somehow suspicious. And then when she finally did cry in a Spanish television interview a few weeks later, that was all ‘crocodile tears’ and she was torn apart in discussions over there. So she can’t win. She cannot win, you know. The fundamental fact, as Janet said, is that they are not involved in the disappearance of their daughter. That is the truth.



All of the smears and innuendos started to come out -- appeared they were un-sourced, unnamed; some appeared to be coming from the police direction, some from other directions -- other areas of the system over there. We are not blaming any one individual or any particular officer, other than to say, that some of these smears made their way into print in such a way that they got repeated and repeated and repeated and have now almost become established fact. And that’s one of the hardest things that we have to fight on this. But, you know, we all know the truth of the situation and continue to -- and I continue to represent them on that basis.

I mean I’ve got some of the headlines that I can show you that caused us…



AG: [inaudible]



CM: ….because it was then repeated in the British press and this is why we felt the need to take action as we did against one particular group. I don’t know if we can go to my first slide?



[SLIDES BEGIN]



CM: This was one of the first negative stories that came out. This was a supermarket paper Tal & Qual which basically says - my Portuguese is very thin - but basically it says the police suspect the McCann’s of being involved, in that stage, accidental death of Madeleine. Kate, Gerry, everybody associated with it knew this was absolutely untrue. So we moved initially to take action against that paper it -- it funnily enough, has since folded - but that’s one example.



[PROBLEM WITH SLIDES] Then the more lurid end of the, of the -- sorry of the Portu -- oh no what’ve I done -- excuse me a second -- this’ll come back -- when it wants to play ball. There is a -- there is a healthy tabloid market in erm -- in Portugal as well -- and if I just go to this -- don’t know why its gone like -- bear with me a second -- lets go to … Here we go -- there.



[PRESNTATION CONTINUES]



24 Horas - one of their finer newspapers - makes the Sun look like The Times, [Audience Laughs] ‘Gerry is Not the Biological Father of Madeleine.’ This was another one of the canards that were circulating. Absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever and can be demonstrably proven as such. But no, this was run, front page, colour pictures, all the works, ‘Police are certain this is the case, da da da da,’ Nobody -- Nobody on the record backing it up and when challenged the story just fades away like ice on a summer’s day but nevertheless it enters the mythology around it. We came out and threatened legal action over that one and will continue to do so if it is repeated. But that’s another example of the sort of thing -- and this was happening on a daily basis -- 24 Horas still run this sort of rubbish at the moment. But thankfully, because of what we did with the Daily Express -- the wonderful Express, its -- its moderated some of the behaviour -- some of the attitude at this end, which helps.



Again this is another one - absolutely no truth whatsoever, ‘Syringe Found in Madeleine’s Apartment.’ The sedation just didn’t happen. We’ve done -- or Kate and Gerry have had -- have had independent tests done on Sean, Amelie and Kate to prove beyond categoric doubt -- because of the hair that’s involved -- the length of time your hair takes to grow -- that there were no sedatives administered whatsoever; but this, again, an un-sourced, unsubstantiated claim made in the Portuguese papers becomes almost fact. If you notice there are two little parenthesis around that. Does the reader actually notice those? No, it doesn’t. And in many cases they didn’t even bother to put parentheses on some of these headlines.



And in fact, whenever they talked about blood – which they like to talk about a lot -- there wasn’t any - of any substance, that erm -- that erm, in anyway implicates Kate and Gerry, but nevertheless they like to print that in red at the time - just to make the point.



The Standard then, at different stages -- I’m jumping around slightly chronologically here, but to give you an example of some of the things we’re up against on an almost hourly basis, ‘Police Name McCann’s as Top Suspects.’ Well they haven’t. What is a top suspect? What’s a medium or bottom suspect? It’s just – it’s nonsense but it creates this invidious, insidious feeling of somehow there is guilt by association.



Kate and Gerry are arguido. Now in Portuguese law that simply means, effectively, a person of interest to the inquiry - in the same way that if an officer stops you for a possible traffic offence, and talks to you, you’re a person of interest to him, at that stage. They haven’t been formally accused of any crime; that’s still the case to this day and there is nothing to suggest that they are primary suspects over the other individual in this case who, equally, is in exactly the same status as them. They are, all three of them, of interest to the inquiry and will continue to help the inquiry as-- as and when they need to. But that again, as I say, is the sort of thing that filters into the public consciousness through --



Now this is another winner; on the Tuesday, ‘Madeleine; Parents in the Clear.’ On the Wednesday; ‘DNA Puts Parents in the Frame.’ That was -- that was one particular week. They not only are contradictory on a daily basis - at times they’re contradictory even within the same paper; we had stories that were diametrically opposed on -- in different pages. I highlight the Express because they were the worst offenders but all of the tabloids particularly - and sometimes the broadsheets - were guilty of this as well.



And these were based on un-sourced rumours that were just dropped into the Portuguese press, for whatever reason; whatever the person’s agenda is at the other end - we know that they’re wrong - but, nevertheless, then filtered out into this sort of mainstream coverage here - which then got repeated back in Portugal.



Not just the mainstream papers. Some of the satirical magazines across Europe also felt that they had a chance to have a go at this. This is ‘Find Madeleine’ being used as an advertising brand. Here she is on Kinder chocolate, on nappies, on washing up liquid. This was a German magazine called Titanic - this was their idea of humour. I know there’s a bit of a disconnect between English and German humour at times but this went beyond the pail - and again, we threatened them with legal action. And to their credit the mainstream German press tore into them as well and the magazine, effectively apologised - but in a rather sheepish way.



[SLIDES END]



CM: Talking of apologies -- this is essentially what led us to get to this stage with the Express group. We cited over 100 -- 108 specimen articles that were, in the eyes of our lawyers, Carter-Ruck, who are specialists in this field, grossly defamatory. This is quite apart from things that are just defamatory - these are the really nasty ones. And after a lot of discussion with them -the Express - we basically said these -- we have identified this number of articles across your four titles The Daily & Sunday Express, The Star on Sunday & The Daily Star over the last few months. We have said that they [K&G] would take legal action at a time of their choosing. Well we felt the line had to be drawn -- it was continuing on a daily basis. We were being told by the reporters from the Express group that they were under pressure to put Madeleine on the front page every day, regardless of whether they had a real story or not. It was putting upwards of 50 to 60.0000 copies a day onto their sales. So the whole thing had become a commercially driven imperative for them regardless of the facts, or any fairness or sense of decency, or indeed adhering to British libel law. Carter-Ruck advised us that we had a definite case. The Express -- We sought apologies – damages - for the fund. None of this was done for money. It was done entirely to help the search for Madeleine -- not for Kate and Gerry’s personal benefit -- and front page apologies.



They [The Express] came back initially to say, “Well, that’s all very well, but we’ll give you an exclusive interview with OK magazine in which you can outline all of your concerns.” So we said, “If you think Richard Desmond is going to get an exclusive out of running all this rubbish over the last few months, you’ve got another thought coming,” I wasn’t quite as polite -- our response -- as that. But you -- [Audience laugh] but you get the gist? Their QC then took a look at it and realised that they could not prove one shred of what they had alleged was the truth - and we knew they couldn’t. And as a result he advised them to come forward with these --it’s an over used word -- but these unprecedented front page apologies which we had over the four titles. And the payment of just over half a million went to the fund, as I say.



So, we didn’t want to do it. The media are a fantastic force for good as I said. The mainstream, you know, external media -- quite apart from the whole online debate -- and we didn’t want to effectively damage it. All we -- all we-- our relationship with them -- all we wanted was fair and accurate reporting; responsible reporting, within the parameters of the law that applies to all of us.



Talking about online -- very briefly -- I’m banging through this quite quickly but essentially ‘online,’ as you’ve been discussing throughout the whole conference, is of fundamental importance to the public debate now. And of course the Find Madeleine website is a very, very important vehicle for the family. It acts as our -- a clearing house, if you like, for information on where the campaign’s at. A resource for media -- they can come into it and take pictures, posters and video if necessary. It also, most importantly, is a vehicle for people to give information to our investigation -- we have two new email addresses which is -- it’s recently been revamped and I’ll talk about those briefly in a minute. Gerry also writes a blog on this -- trouble with a blog -- is a monster of course -- you have to keep writing the thing to keep it going and he does update it from time to time, around his current commitments. But the campaign to find Madeleine is as much alive online, through our website -- through the family’s website as it is through some of the external media coverage. So even if we’re not in the papers for a particular reason -- that’s very much a resource that’s moving throughout.



AG: … one of the criticisms that’s been levelled has been, precisely, that Kate and Gerry have been playing such a sophisticated game with the media. Blogging, using the internet…



CM: But who wouldn’t…?



AG… has become a criticism….



CM: But who wouldn’t? What family in this situation which has access and is computer literate - in this day and age….



AG: But many families don’t…



CM: Many families do these days. And I-- I would defy any family to do something different to what they have done. As I say, I exist because of the phenomenal level of media interest -- they would’ve had to do a lot of that themselves - or Janet and Brian would’ve had to cope with it and they have. But in the modern era the only way to engage with the media given its tentacles and its overriding presence -- the way it is now 24/7 is - I would suggest - to actively engage with it. And of course it’s also helped by the fact, and this is not meant in any derogatory way - but from the Media’s perspective, Madeleine’s situation is a huge story for them and there is massive interest in it and that continues -- it works for the media on all sorts of levels.



It’s not just the tragedy of a missing child and her fate and where she is and the search for her, you know. It raises - quite rightly - questions about parenting responsibilities. It raises questions about police cooperation - governmental interest - diplomatic aspects to it. There are lots and lots of different aspects and the public have many differing views on this - for good or bad - and the media is reflecting that. And so they [K&G] find themselves part of a huge monster of a situation. And I would suggest that any other family in that position; with that particular set of circumstances, should and probably would do the same - if they had access to computers and an online capacity these days. It’s not a sophisticated game it’s just dealing with the reality of it.



JK: I mean Kate and I have discussed this, you know, and her response to the criticism is -- the whole point is -- that every child should be sufficiently important for this kind of level of interest -- and trying to find a child. You know out of their loss and their grief, they were spurred on, you know, to actually do research and to find, you know - does this happen? Because in a sense, you know, they said that they were naive to the point where they didn’t realise that this was a danger. They thought it was perfectly safe they were doing the right, responsible thing – like checking on the children every half hour, just about 50 yards away, you know. They were actually being more careful about looking after the children had there been a listening service with Warner’s, you know...



CM: Yes



AG: I wonder if they ever have moments of thinking -- because of the media attention and thinking, ‘Let’s draw a line under the media here - let’s do nothing’…



CM: …A lot of the time -- Well a lot of the -- One, that’s impossible, because the media don’t draw a line under it themselves. They still call. They still ring - About every twist and turn. All it takes is somebody to write an email somewhere - a viral email - and it becomes hard fact in Portugal - I get calls about that. All it takes is someone to assume they might be going on holiday soon - I get calls about that.

So even if we sat back and said nothing and a lot of the time -- and recently we haven’t actually done a lot since the documentary of the anniversary -- the calls still come in. Now do you ignore them? If you ignore them then it becomes, “Oh, McCann’s given up - McCann’s not engaging with the media.” And so it -- you have to monitor quite how much you put out there and what you do - that’s true - because you don’t want it to seem as if its overkill and you’re monopolising things. But nevertheless, if the media continues to offer you a platform, what family would not use that platform to find their missing child. There is no evidence – none whatsoever – that Madeleine is dead. And until her fate is established this will continue. It has to.



AG: That’s a commitment from you?



JK: Absolutely. Yes. You know, in the kitchen there’s a -- somebody’s sent a card, you know, and it’s there prominently, “Never, never, never give up.” And we all feel—feel that very strongly, you know. Leave no stone unturned and never give up. And the evidence seems to, you know -- they’ve been very heartened by the positive support that they got when they went to Washington, you know, from NCMEC -- The National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children -- from people over there. And they have thoroughly supported what they’re doing to keep Madeleine’s profile high and that there’s a greater chance of her being found if there’s no evidence... And one guy -- can’t think of his name at the minute -- the chap whose daughter came back after about nine or ten months -- can’t think of his name, I’m sorry. But he said, “Never let people take your hope away from you.”



CM: Ed Smart.



JK: Ed Smart...



CM: Ed Smart -- his daughter was recovered after…



JK: …And, you know and we still -- we do hold out hope. We have to. Until there is a resolution as you said earlier. And, you know, the statistics in the States seem to prove, you know, that it is possible for children to come back, even after quite a length of time. And they are the people who’ve really supported Kate and Gerry. And Gerry himself said that after that trip, you know, he really had more hope that Madeleine is still alive.



AG: But I have to ask you -- We’ve seen some of those headlines and, I’m, you know, struck by the Daily Express saying thing one thing one day - and the next thing the next day. I have got to ask you, what does that do to you as person? I mean, never mind if you can -- I don’t know if you can separate them in any way -- the experience of losing Madeleine but the attention of the press and the games that they’ve played with you as a family. What does that do to you? And you Clarence, you’ve also had personal vilification too - personal attacks.



CM: Yeah but I’ll -- I’ll answer that -- but let Janet answer



JK: Well, you know, it is terribly, terribly distressing. You know, Brian and I subscribed to a newspaper for 30 odd years that, you know, has very good journalists. Good sort of challenging reading - all that kind of thing, you know. It purports to have values in terms of the integrity of the journalists and so on. And then way back, in the summer, last year, there was a picture of Kate on the front page of this paper and next to it Ann Enright - the Booker prize, you know, ‘Why we all love to hate the McCann’s.’ And then inside an article, that she’d written some time before, but they chose to reprint it. And there was such a denigration of Gerry, you know, who’s a bereaved father; who’s absolutely distraught because his relationship with Madeleine, you know, was so fantastic -- and talking about him, you know; that he’s cold, that he’s controlling, you know, a complete denigration of his character and -- and this...



AG: What does that do to you to see that in a newspaper?



JK: Well I mean -- If I say that we have never -- We don’t have that paper anymore and I wrote to the editor and told him –told him why. Didn’t get a reply I have to say…



CM: That’s the -- That’s the mainstream media if you like. The external online - it’s even worse. Clearly people have views on whether Kate and Gerry were right or wrong to be checking …



JK: Yes that’s fair



CM: … the children as they were. That’s legitimate debate. They made a mistake. They fully accept that. They’ve said that often. And, you know, god forbid, they could pay that price for the rest of their lives - let’s hope not. But where it oversteps the mark is when that debate -- particularly online -- and this is where we talk about values -- and this is the platform that is effectively being given to the modern day lynch mob, in many cases, through this now. It -- it -- Where it almost verges on crim -- incitement to criminality -that’s where it oversteps the mark and our lawyers are looking at that as well. I’m not going to talk about any particular sites or forums because it just satisfies them to think they’ve got us rattled...



AG: But people, when all’s said and done, have said terrible things about you because of your association…



CM: I -- I-- I have been told -- I haven’t read all of it -- but, I have been told, that there have been attempts made to track down my children - to find out what sort of father I am. It’s been alleged that I have been there on the night Madeleine was taken - I was in Britain - utter nonsense. It was alleged that I was buying vast amounts of alcohol for the group on my government credit card - I’ve never had a government credit card - I was not - it’s not true. All total rubbish, lies, rumour, innuendo. But what -- what I’ve gone through is absolutely nothing compared to the vilification that Kate and Gerry have suffered online. They don’t even read it -- its pointless -- doesn’t achieve anything.



AG: Do they read the newspapers?



CM: They used to from time to time it tends to be that I give them an [up…] summary of what’s in it now. But what I’m saying is online -- while it is the, if you like, the 'blogosphere’ for want of a better description -- is incredibly valuable and is a legitimate channel for legitimate public debate. It must surely stay within the bounds of the law and at times some aspects of this haven’t. And as I say, the modern day lynch mob, in effect, have been given voice, and a very high profile voice - and that is disappointing. But frankly we ignore it and we just get on with what we know to be the truth.



AG: What have we learnt about the media and media values over the past 13 months? I mean you’ve come at it from different places. You’ve [CM] played the media game all your life, and for you [JK] it’s been a -- I guess an entirely new experience. What have we learnt?



JK: Well, I know Brian my husband - he has been more involved in giving more interviews, I’ve done far less. And on a daily basis he’s was talking to Sky, to AT-- you know, to everybody, in the early weeks and months. And his own opinion - and I would second that - is that you must keep the media onside because we firmly believe they’re a force for good and that communication isn’t just a neutral thing, you know; communication is important to get ones message out there.



But on the other hand, you know, by dint of bitter experience, we’ve learnt that - as in every profession - there are people who do not possess the kind of values that you would associate with journalists, you know. The examples I gave you, you know, intrusive things to do with, you know, sort of going over a story. And people who actually have written lies in the English press, as well, and made up, you know, that ‘family friend’ says this, or ‘source close to the McCann’s.’ And you sort of know the phrase and you know that if they’re saying this – that, you know, it’s probably -- it’s going to be untrue - and it is.



CM: The lack of information coming from any official source in Portugal because police just do not talk -- The lack of that has led to this vacuum that they need to fill. The journalists -- the reporters on the ground I have a great deal of sympathy with; they’re under immense pressure from their desk. The desks are under pressure from proprietors. It’s the biggest story -- human interest story of the decade, etcetera, etcetera. And therefore there is an imperative for them to get something in and that’s when things like that happen. It’s easy to make up a quote because it’s un-sourced - they’ve been running that sort of rubbish from the Portuguese press for weeks anyway - what harm does an extra couple quotes, here or there, make from their point of view. It’s not right, it shouldn’t happen, but it does.



Essentially the -- the desire for the story, in this particular case, has overridden the normal rules; the normal conventions of journalism that would normally take place and I find that depressing. I hope this is a one off case. I hope it doesn’t apply to standards generally in the future.



But in terms of values -- to bring it back to the theme of the debate -- some of the values, I feel at times, have been sorely lacking. Not necessarily through the personal desire of the individual journalist to do the family down or to be nasty or vindictive. It’s more the commercial imperative and the competition that now exists with so many outlets, across so many places now - online, as well as extraterrestrial - that has led to this, if you like, weakening of standards. And I hope that the media themselves can address that in the future and draw some lessons from this.



AG: One last question that I’d like to ask you. To ask you Janet, in a sense, on behalf of the family - and to ask you Clarence, in your own personal capacity - is what keeps you going? What do you draw on?



JK: Well, first of all, just basically, we are a very strong family. There are strong characters in that family and, you know, I think that probably has kept us together - very much - in that there’s been, you know, not just the immediate nuclear family but an extended family of people from, you know, cousins and so on, who’ve given tremendous support. And I have to say, you know, as a catholic, obviously, that I feel you know myself and I think Kate and Gerry feel very strongly that it is really, you know, our faith, you know, that has kept us going. You know right back in Portugal, you know, the three things that they quoted, you know - hope, strength and courage.



AG: Has your faith not been knocked by…



JK: Absolutely -- It certainly has. It wouldn’t be human, you know, if it hadn’t -- if you were questioning, you know, why Lord, you know, have we not got a result? You know why aren’t you telling us where Madeleine is? Why do we have to wait so long? But, you know, quite honestly that’s what we have to say, you know. The psalms are full of questioning. It’s all about questioning. If you didn’t question your faith it wouldn’t be a strong faith in my opinion. I think we do question…



AG: ... believe me that’s not the first time we’ve heard that, even today.



KG: To have a real relationship with God, you’ve got to be absolutely truthful and honest with Him. And He doesn’t want you to just be ‘nicely nicely,’ you know. He wants you to be up front and to really, really challenge Him. That’s what it’s all about. But having said that, both in the village -- with the ecumenical aspect of all the […] -- and the little Catholic Church that we go to -- I mean every Sunday after mass people stay behind willingly to say the rosary and nobody goes, unless they’re visitors and they don’t know. So there’s tremendous support, you know, a thread of support. And the letters that have come as well from, you know, thousands – and boxes and boxes of letters and you just know --

And the Anglican Bishop of Leicester did a walkabout through his diocese some -- about two months ago and we went to meet him, and he said, “I hope you are aware,” which we are, “that there is a circle of global prayer all around you” And I think we feel actually very strongly, I have to say, that there’s strong global prayer everywhere. And even in the darkest moments, you know, there’s just that thread of support and prayer going through. I have to be honest that’s how we cope.



AG: Clarence I’ve no idea whether you come to this from a perspective of faith or not. What keeps you going?



CM: I -- I admit I’m not particularly religious. I’m not a catholic. But I have seen the strength that Gerry and Kate’s faith, indeed the wider family, has given them at times. Yeah, they’ve had wobbles - there’s no doubt about that. They --And, you know, sometimes I walk in full of the latest: “You won’t believe this, this…” and suddenly you sense the mood, it’s changed. And they have good days and they have bad days but nevertheless it is a central focus, very much - for Kate particularly - I think it’s fair to say. And, you know, what it would’ve been like without that for them, I-- I --I dread to think.



AG: What about you?



CM: What about me? What keeps me going is that they were kind enough to ask me to help. As a father of three myself -- one of my girls is two years old; in many respects I see Madeleine in her, in a way -- and I think what on earth can they really going through even though I’m with them on a regular basis and talk to them every day. It’s hard really to understand that. So if a family in that situation is kind enough and generous enough to ask me to help - it is the very least I can do - to continue doing that - and I will continue to support them in any way I can. As long as the media monster is growling at the gate I will keep dealing with it



AG I mean are you in this for the long haul? We know that…



CM: I’m in this for the long haul. I’m in this for -- At the moment I am employed by Brian Kennedy, (no relation to the other Brian Kennedy; there are too many Brian Kennedys in this story) who is one of the backers who kindly stepped in - once Kate and Gerry were made arguidos - to help them on the financial side and he currently picks up my salary. My -- In future whether I stay with him or develop it into a business of my own I don’t know that’s something we will -- we’re having active discussions on at the moment. But I certainly will continue to represent Kate and Gerry for as long as they, and the wider family, want me to.



AG: We need to draw this to a halt. One of my moving moments of this conference happened this morning, when the conference was in session here, and I happened to be out in the lobby where there’s a little display focussing on missing and vulnerable children. And a bunch of 13 and 14 year old school children came through here. They use the sports hall; they’re from the local school and I went out and found them gathered round, on the floor, around the candles in front of this display. And one of the little girls said to me - well not so little, she was about 14 - 15 - she said to me, “Haven’t they found Madeleine yet?” and I said “No.” And she said, “Well, can I light a candle then?” and I said “Yes.” And she did and so did several of the others. And we’ll continue to do that.



That you so much for coming and joining us - and for being so frank, and open, and honest with us. Clarence and Janet thank you very much.

[Acknowledgement Nigel Moore of mccannfiles and pamalam of gerrymccanns blog)

PORTUGAL: Anglian priest urges police to continue searching for Madeleine McCann

13th September 2007

Father Haynes Hubbard, the Anglican priest in Praia da Luz, told reporters on Wednesday (September 12) that he does not believe the body of missing 4-year-old Madeleine McCann is to be found in the area surrounding the local seaside church the McCanns frequented to pray for their daughter's safe return.

Speaking to journalists outside the Our Lady of the Light Church following Portuguese media reports that new police searches are to be made in the area, Father Hubbard also confirmed that he had not been in contact with the McCanns since they returned to Britain last Sunday (September 9).

"I don't have any opinions on searching the church...We just know the church is a place of sanctuary and I hope not a place of anything else," he said.

He added: ""I hope they search it very well -I hope they search really well, I hope they search all of Luz carefully because maybe they will find Madeleine but I don't think any of us think Madeleine is here in Luz. She is somewhere, somewhere else and we need to bring her back. I don't think anybody believes that Madeleine is in Luz. There is no allegation that I know that she is anything other than somewhere else waiting to come home, and we need to keep on saying that loudly. I assume Portuguese police are doing their job but I hope they are looking for Madeleine at the same time."

Portuguese paper Diario de Noticias said on Wednesday that Kate and Gerry McCann had been given keys to the church during their stay in Praia da Luz. The report has not been confirmed by police.

Answering a reporter's question, Father Hubbard said he didn't expect police to summon him for questioning.

"I very strongly suspect that they won't need anything from us," he said.

The new development would come less than 24 hours after Portuguese public prosecutor decided that a dossier outlining the case against missing Madeleine McCann's parents should go before a judge.

Police handed their files to the Algarve-based prosecutor, Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses, for him to decide whether to bring charges against Kate and Gerry McCann.

The forensic evidence may clear up whether Madeleine's DNA was found in a car hired by the McCanns after she disappeared, as several newspapers have reported.

The couple have repeatedly denied any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.

Reuters

The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann

May 2016

Short debate on the news that Scotland Yard is allegedly following a lead that presumes that Madeleine McCann was abducted by three Portuguese men. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV where criminal 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 André Ventura, University Law Professor & book author.

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'

Transcript

Anchor Sara Carrilho - The thesis of abduction of Madeleine McCann by three Portuguese men is back on the table for the British authorities. The Judiciary Police however does not believe in that hypothesis which was already investigated two years ago.

Voice Over Joana Sales (news segment) - It's the last line of investigation concerning Maddie's disappearance. If it doesn't produce any results Scotland Yard will close the case nine (sic, 5) years after it started. The thesis of this new investigation is unknown, but English police sources believe that the possibility that the little 3-year-old girl was abducted during a burglary deserves a fresh look. This hypothesis surfaced in 2014. The Portuguese police constituted at the time three men as arguidos (suspects), José Carlos da Silva, 30 years old (sic, 39), Ricardo Rodrigues, 24 years old, and Paulo Ribeiro, 53 years old. One of the suspects worked at the Ocean Club resort where the McCann family were staying. He was in charge of accompanying the clients up to the apartments in Praia da Luz. The British police believes that this man together with the other two suspects assaulted the McCanns' apartment and upon seeing the little girl decided to take her. The English police suspicions have as basis phone calls records between the three men on that night. The Portuguese police provided at the time the information requested but considers that there are no indicia to incriminate the three suspects. Scotland Yard will carry on with the investigation, as was recently advanced, until they close it in a few months time whether they have conclusions about Madeleine McCann's disappearance or not.

Anchor Sara Carrilho - Carlos, do you think it makes any sense for the English authorities to question these three Portuguese men again, or return to this abduction thesis?

Carlos Anjos - No, nothing makes sense anymore. I would say, from the day the process was reopened or since when the English authorities reopened the case in England and started to investigate, it has never made any sense. It would make some sense if the English authorities had read the Portuguese process and said that there were failures, and then followed alternative lines of investigation. All they did do, what they have limited themselves to, was merely to follow or repeat what was done by the Portuguese, several times. In fact, they are now redoing what they themselves had done, they've already done this step.

Anchor - That they themselves did, they've already investigated this lead.

Carlos Anjos - It has been a series of blunders, even from the point of view.. A few years later they were searching the sewers to see if the girl was still there, if the body had been there the sewers would have blocked and would have likely burst, with all that rained down in Portugal in the past winters there would be no hypothesis. What they have done, from an investigative standpoint, not only was badly done, we cannot also see a line (methodology). Now they want to pursue a thesis of abduction, which is something... They want to talk with three people, it should be said that of these three I can almost guess who they are going to try pin the blame on for the abduction - on the one that died. Of the three men there's one that has already died, and that is always the weakest link since he's not here to defend himself. These Portuguese have been very helpful, even the suspects, because they've always talked to the English. That is, whenever the English want to speak with them, they have accepted to answer their questions and to give them statements. Because they could clam up, they could refuse with the status of arguidos to give any statements. Actually, they are not arguidos1 because the English don't have the capacity for that. There is a curious fact, the only suspect that was an arguido, Robert Murat, who right or wrong was considered initially as the main suspect, the English discarded him immediately, maybe because he is also English, but that one didn't matter for this scenario. We couldn't see a line of reasoning in there.

I believe this process is going to end very soon, after they make this new onslaught in Portugal. They've spent a lot of money, it's one of the most expensive cases in English investigation history. Strangely enough, numerous children disappear in England yet they don't give them any special care, but they have that with Madeleine McCann.

I would applaud them if I saw an investigation done in different way, and if I saw them taking steps that we hadn't taken, if we had failed it would be necessary to do them, and I do think that we failed, this was already said in here, Rui Pereira said that and Manuel (Rodrigues)2 also, that one of the serious errors was not constituting the McCann couple and their friends as arguidos for the abandonment of their children. There were mistakes in the investigation but those errors were repaired. Now, the English have never brought anything new to the investigation, absolutely nothing at all. And we are here today - if people notice, Portugal followed several lines - we don't know of the English investigation a single lead that was different, a single line of investigation that was different, or that it had produced a different type of results.

This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".

Curiously, we heard the process was going to be archived, and I am convinced, it's my personal opinion, that this process wasn't archived now because the Portuguese court decided in favour of Gonçalo Amaral. Since the decision was favourable for Gonçalo Amaral, and the McCanns are very embittered with that decision because they felt that it was unfair - I'm not saying that it was or not, this is just an observation - the English police, at a time when everything pointed to the archival of the case for lack of evidence - there was even a news article on Correio da Manhã and in other newspapers - decided to start new investigations upon the decision of the Portuguese courts. I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann.

[Acknowledgement: Joana Morais]

CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'

Original Source: CMTV Saturday 23 April 20

25 APRIL 2016 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS

With thanks to Joana Morais  for transcript and translation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Debate panel from left to right: Tânia Laranjo, CM journalist; Manuel Rodrigues, former PJ inspector; Joao Ferreira, CMTV news anchor; Goncalo Amaral, former PJ inspector & Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs

Anchor João Ferreira - This special by CMTV 'Maddie, the Mystery', is going to focus on the book that I hold in my hands: "Maddie, the Truth of the Lie". It was written by Gonçalo Amaral, former Judiciary Police (PJ) coordinator. The man that was at the forefront of the investigation during the first months of the case, a case that has been dragging on for the past nine years. It's the book where Gonçalo Amaral reveals his truth about the mystery of the Maddie Case, a truth for which he was removed from the investigation and the reason why he requested an early retirement from the Judiciary Police (PJ), after 26 years of service. A truth, according to which the little girl died accidentally. Following that death, an unwanted and accidental death, the parents concealed their own daughter's cadaver. This is the truth that we are going to analyse in this special, where the man that wrote this book - and has just been acquitted by the Appeals court of Lisbon and absolved of having to pay a compensation of 500,000 euro to the McCann couple - will break the silence. A special where we are going to ask uncomfortable questions to Gonçalo Amaral, where we will confront his truth with other possible truths. Right now, let us have a look to the truth revealed in this book that is now allowed to see the light of day.

News Segment 1

Kate McCann (archive footage 2007) - (in Portuguese) Please, give our little girl back.
(in English) Please, give our little girl back.

Voice Over Mónica Palma - Abduction, defend the McCanns. Accident and concealment of the cadaver is the belief of Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral (archive footage 2014) - If Madeleine McCann is truly dead, I doubt the body still exists. In that church there was a coffin with the cadaver of an elderly British lady which in the following day was going to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated. It was possible for the body of a child of that age and size to be concealed underneath that cadaver.

Voice Over - After six months of investigation, the former PJ inspector is removed from the Maddie Case, and this is one of the issues that was the object of his reflection. In the book that Gonçalo Amaral published, "Maddie, The Truth of the Lie", there is a chapter dedicated to that topic: the removal of a coordinator from an investigation, conspiracy or subservience?, questions the former PJ inspector. And it is precisely due to the 220 pages written by Amaral and a DVD with a documentary about Maddie, that the PJ inspector became the target of a lawsuit, a legal process that has been dragging for numerous years. In 2009, the McCann couple went to justice, demanding from Gonçalo Amaral a compensation of 1,2 million euro. The McCanns considered the publication and the documentary defamatory, they alleged to have suffered moral damages. The British couple considered that their rights, liberties and guarantees of the family were violated. The defence of the McCann family considered that Gonçalo Amaral could not have revealed information that appeared in the process of the investigation to Madeleine's disappearance. The defence also alleged that the book was ready three days after the prosecutor of Portimão, Magalhães e Menezes, redacted the dispatch that archived the process against the McCann couple, which had the date of 29 of July of 2008. In the book, the former criminal investigation coordinator of the PJ, Gonçalo Amaral, defends the thesis that Maddie's parents were involved in the disappearance and in the concealment of the 3-year-old girl's body. The McCann's defence lawyer, Isabel Duarte, argued that the author, Gonçalo Amaral, used unauthorized documents from the process, documents that were prohibited. This was a process that dragged in court for years, with successive postponements of court sessions and an attempt to an extra-judicial settlement between the parties, which never came into fruition.

Kate McCann (archive footage, press conference 2014) - We took on this case because of the pain and distress that Mr. Amaral has brought to us and our children.
Gerry McCann - We want to get justice for Madeleine.

Voice Over - In January 2015, the civil court, ended up condemning Gonçalo Amaral to pay to each one of the members of the McCann couple, Kate and Gerry, the amount of 250,000 euro. 250,000 euro plus interest, counting back from January 5 of 2010. Besides this payment, the civil court also decreed the prohibition of sales of new editions of the book and DVD, as well as the negotiations to transfer the copyright of both book and documentary. Gonçalo Amaral appealed, and there was a turnaround in this process. The Court of Appeals of Lisbon ruled in favour of the PJ inspector and revoked the sentence. The judges understood that Amaral acted within the framework of the legitimate right to exercise an opinion. The court considered the facts presented in the book and DVD, were, some of them, divulged by the McCanns themselves in numerous interviews all over the world. Gonçalo Amaral will not have to pay the indemnification of 250,000 euro to each member of the McCann couple. Gonçalo Amaral's book will soon return to the bookshops, however, Kate and Gerry have already stated that they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. Kate and Gerry, who have always maintained that Madeleine was abducted, were constituted as arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 for lack of evidence to sustain the hypothesis advanced by the investigation to the alleged accidental death of the little girl.
Maddie, disappeared on May 3, 2007, just a few days before of her fourth birthday. The English girl disappeared from this apartment (image of apartment is shown) in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, where she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings.

Anchor João Ferreira - In the studio, in this special, we have Gonçalo Amaral, former PJ coordinator; Rui Pereira, CMTV commentator and Minister of Internal Affairs at the time of Maddie's disappearance; Manuel Rodrigues, former chief inspector of the Judiciary Police and also a CMTV commentator and Tânia Laranjo, Correio da Manhã and CMTV journalist, who followed closely the investigations to the Maddie case. Good-evening gentlemen, good-evening madam, it's a pleasure to be here with you all. Gonçalo Amaral, I'll start with you, good-evening, thank you for being here.

Gonçalo Amaral - Good-evening, thank you for the invitation.

Anchor João Ferreira - Did this investigation destroy your career?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, it interrupted my career. I had a dignified professional path in terms of work and progress in the hierarchy, I was an officer, an inspector, then chief-inspector, then I was a coordinator and could have gone a bit further, in fact at the time of the disappearance, when the case happened, I had applied for the role of superior coordinator of the Judiciary Police, it was a matter of time. So, that was the interruption, the life change, the career change, if I had stayed maybe I could have been in another professional position.

Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I begun to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...

Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...

Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to.. I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.

Anchor - Did Alípio Ribeiro pull the rug from under your feet?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, he did not. No one pulled the rug from under anyone's feet. There were a series of circumstances that lead to this outcome. A colleague of mine is present here today, and he knows that it's very unlikely for the PJ's direction to defend its men. Maybe with another director, I'm recalling Dr. Marques Vidal - to whom I express my gratitude for his support since the very outset, right from when the book was published, he presented the book - maybe it would have been different, maybe the protection of the officers would have been another. But Dr. Marques Vidal was an unique case, a director of the Judiciary Police that we will never have again.

Anchor - A leader more brave than others?

Gonçalo Amaral - He had a great understanding of the officers, he was a very humane man, and defended those that risked, that worked at times almost without a net, he was there, present. I could tell you several stories, from the time of the Cavacos, the support that Dr. Marques Vidal gave to the men on the ground. These are facts that can be verified, but we're digressing from the topic. I would like to add, that I have nothing against Dr. Alípio Ribeiro.

Anchor - But do you think that Alípio Ribeiro didn't resist the pressures?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, I believe that... For example, in this issue of requesting to the Direction of the PJ to speak in our defence or to allow me to speak, I wrote a letter addressed to the directorate of the Judiciary Police, addressed to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro. Later, I learned that that letter never reached his hands, he never read it. The letter stopped at his assistants, therefore I can't accuse him of anything, it's not his fault, it's the fault of the structural machine that exists, additionally the PJ direction does not usually come out in defence of its officers. Note that we're talking about the direction of the Judiciary Police but we could equally talk about the ASFIC (Association of the Criminal Investigation Officers of the Criminal Police), I ask - what did ASFIC do for the officers, for its members, that were on the field, then and after? For example, right now, until now, what did they do? Has ASFIC direction, at any time - regarding myself, a retired officer with success on the work I did - ever called me? Either to congratulate, at this point in time or whatever. Nothing at all.

Anchor - Why do you think is that, Gonçalo?

Gonçalo Amaral - Maybe it's our culture, of the Portuguese, who knows? Maybe because I'm no longer in the police, have nothing to do with the PJ.

Anchor - Are you saying that there is fear from the people in the Judiciary to come out in your defence?

Gonçalo Amaral - I wouldn't say fear. I find it strange, a very odd situation. Those who have congratulated me at this point in time, for this decision - a decision that has not yet been rendered final, and may still be the target of an appeal - but those who have congratulated me were colleagues that are retired, not colleagues in active functions. Not even a single colleague on the active congratulated me. On the other hand, I had the support of colleagues in the active from the British police, who also have been present along the years.

Anchor - Let us move now to your truth, the truth that is here in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, that is another issue. That is not my truth...

Anchor - It's the factual truth.

Gonçalo Amaral - Not even that, that book represents the elements of the Judiciary Police...

Anchor - So, it's the material truth of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - We could even say that the book is the opinion of the Judiciary Police until September 2007. Not my truth alone.

Anchor - And that opinion, Gonçalo Amaral, describes a scenario where the little girl Maddie suffered an accidental death...

Gonçalo Amaral - That is what is described in the PJ report written by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida.

Anchor - ...a death unwanted by the parents and in face of that death the parents concealed the cadaver.

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, there was an infringement. What that means is...

Anchor - So, for you Gonçalo the parents should be behind bars? Should they be punished for these crimes?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, no, it doesn't have to do with that. For us to read and understand that book, we also have to understand the moment, the progress of the investigation. And we need to understand that an investigations as a beginning, a middle and an end, as my colleague Moita Flores says an investigation is always zigzagging and he's right about that. At that point in time of the investigation, when the archival was decided, the archival was decided in early October of 2007... Whomever lead the process after me, was there to adjust the process so it could be archived. Any colleague of mine can see that it is the adjustment of the process so it can be archived; all of us have at some point in time archived processes when reaching a dead end and we all know what to do so no investigative leads are left unfinished. So, at that point in time of the investigation that was the line of reasoning of the Judiciary Police. Not my line of reasoning alone, it's of the whole team, of the Judiciary Police as an institution. I will go further, after that, nothing was done concerning that line of investigation that...

Anchor - Of the accidental death.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...we can say, of the probable responsibility of the parents in the mysterious disappearance of the child, with all that entails, but this is the essential. Yet, that line of investigation was set aside. Even the Scotland Yard investigation and so on, never explored that line of investigation, and now they've reached a dead end. They constituted, derided in my opinion, - this is what this is all about, opinion and freedom of expression - in my opinion as coordinator, as an investigator, that increase, that creation of numerous arguidos was a derision of that institution. There were two or three arguidos - the English didn't even know the meaning ofarguidos was - and they decided to constitute even more arguidos, and now we have an ocean of arguidos. Before we had a few drops and now we have an ocean where virtually nothing can be seen, a way to bury, to obscure.

Anchor - I would like for you to tell us in detail your explanation for the disappearance of the body, you have a thesis..

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I don't have one.

Anchor - ... in this book...

Gonçalo Amaral - No, in that book there isn't anything concerning what we just saw me saying on the news piece that was shown. Because these are elements, these are information that appeared afterwards and were never investigated. It's just an hypothesis, and when considering that hypothesis...

Anchor - An hypothesis that Madeleine's body could have been hidden, could have been incinerated, right?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's an information here, in the police, that mentions that. That in a night, three figures were seen carrying a bag, entering the church...

Anchor - In the Praia da Luz church.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that church was a coffin of a woman, a woman from the United Kingdom...

Anchor - Of a British woman.

Gonçalo Amaral - ... and in the following day that coffin was transferred to Ferreira do Alentejo to be incinerated. But no one is saying that the parents did that, or saying who did that. It's something that someone who is on the field investigating has to ascertain, must investigate thoroughly.

Anchor - But you concede that hypothesis, that possibility of Madeleine's cadaver being taken to the church, and then incinerated is a plausible hypothesis...

Gonçalo Amaral - We're practically starting by the end, first is the disappearance, if you allow me to explain, to explain to the viewers... [overlapping speech]

Anchor - I'll allow you, but just so not to lose this train of thought, is this hypothesis plausible for you?

Gonçalo Amaral - It is plausible, and I say plausible in this sense, that that body would fit underneath the cadaver that was already there.

Anchor - And it would fit?

Gonçalo Amaral - It would, yes. At the time, when I was already out of the Judiciary Police I obtained the opinion of people that dealt with that, of funeral agencies, and they said that it was a possibility. It's an opinion that is not officialized but it's a possibility. If it happened like that or not, we don't know, there are several hypotheses to make a body disappear.

Anchor - Let's go back to the beginning then Gonçalo, on the disappearance. What are the indications, post-disappearance that helped construct the material truth that appears here in the book?

Gonçalo Amaral - Nine years have passed, I would have to look at the book pages and explain them to you in detail. There were several indicia, the contradictions, the discrepancies in the statements of those people, other witness statements that said they saw the father carrying the child at a certain hour, there are a series of indications that point towards that. To give you a full report on that would be tiresome, I believe most people know or are already aware. That was talked about numerous times throughout years. So, indicia and some evidence, evidence in inverted commas, concerning the vestiges that were collected and sent to the English forensics laboratory for analyses, it is said that there could have been a manipulation of all that data, it's still not clear what happened. I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann. And when the report arrived, it was no longer like that. It was said at the time that the profile with a series of alleles matched Madeleine's, yet they said that anyone in that laboratory could have contributed to that profile. So, why did it match to Madeleine's, and not, say to the US president profile? There's something very strange about that analysis, something that should be questioned, verified, investigated. I believe that when forensic analyses are done, the laboratory technician has to keep a record of what he is doing. I don't know if that was destroyed or not, but it should exist along side the report.

Anchor - Of course. Gonçalo Amaral before I'll return to you, let us now pay close attention to the next news segment. The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann was since the start embroiled in mystery. Maddie disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, a few days before her fourth day. Let us now watch a reconstitution of that fateful Thursday.

Continued..

Reconstruction segment*

Images of the crime scene, inside and outside apartment 5A, appear on the screen; also of Madeleine McCann and her twin brother and sister, followed by the caption “Where is Maddie?” – then the programme starts.

Voice Over Rui Pando Gomes - On that Thursday of the 3rd of May, 2007, the McCanns’ decide not go to the beach with the other three couples – their friends. Instead, Gerry and Kate spend their day at the Ocean Club.

That day, the couple never leaves the holiday compound but, even so, they do not keep their children with them. Maddie aged three, and the twins Amelie and Sean, aged two, spend their day at the Ocean Club’s crèche (the children’s day care centre).

At 9:10 AM, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.

The crèche staff take the children to the beach. Between 10:30 and 11 hours, Madeleine plays on the beach with other children . Kate collects the children from the crèche at 12:25 and returns them (to the crèche) at 14:50 hours.

A few hours later (around 16:00) Kate is jogging on the beach. At 17:30, she returns to the crèche to pick up her three children and to take them back home to apartment 5A.

At the same time Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends (that is the other three couples) drink on the esplanade (terrace) of the restaurant Paraíso, in Praia da Luz (17:35 hours on the CCTV video caption).

The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in a buoyant mood. Their children are with them. (It looks like) a tranquil (and enjoyable) end to their afternoon.

Short break in the voice-over with more images shown

At exactly 18:13 hours, the men from the group – David Payne, Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield abandon the restaurant and head in the direction of the Ocean Club.

The women, Fiona Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield remain sitting on the (restaurant’s) esplanade. They get up from their chairs at 18:30 hours – about 15 minutes after their husbands who, by then, have already arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David stays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

David Payne will later tell the Judiciary Police (PJ) that he had gone to the apartment “to find out whether Kate needed help with the children” and that he had seen Maddie and the twins there – a moment he had come to remember as “the vision of three immaculate angels.”

Dinner time approaches.

The four couples dine together at the Tapas Restaurant in the Ocean Club – a routine they had followed since their arrival together, on the 28th of April. They do not bring their children with them – a few months old baby and seven young children (toddlers) are left asleep, unattended in their apartments, while their parents, free from care, dine until around midnight; their children well out of their sights.

In the evening of the 3td of May, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 20:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 20:45 they are all sitting at the table; Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster – Fiona’s mother.

Kate for example, cannot do without her usual “daiquiri” as an apéritif (a rum cocktail). The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine – four red and four white (…)

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they sit and dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned against their apartments; (but) even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges (which were in the way) would not allow them to see (the back of) the ground floor apartments where the children are sleeping alone. An opaque, plastic wind-breaker placed between their table and the apartments, further obstructs their vision. Furthermore, the (ground-floor) window of the bedroom where Maddie sleeps, is located on the other side (front) of the apartment block which (obviously) cannot be seen from the restaurant.

The McCanns and their friends, assured the police, they had a scheme of vigilance (an arrangement for checking on the children). Each one of them, in turn, would get up from the table to see if everything was all right (to check on the children).

According to the members of the group, the (checking) rounds took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes.

But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

(After checking on the children and ) on the way back to his dinner, Gerry encounters Jeremy Wilkins, a BBC producer whom he had met during this holiday.

It is now 21:05 hours. Jeremy is strolling, pushing a pram, trying to lull his baby son into sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a while. The street is deserted.

(Meanwhile) Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O’Brien, worries about his absence from the (dinner) table and gets up (to look for him).

Later, she assures the police that between 21 and 21:05 hours, she saw a stranger carrying a child in his arms at the (top of) the same narrow street (she was walking up) and on which, at that very same time, Gerry stood chatting with Jeremy. (But) nor Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them.)

Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

More images in and around the village of Luz (Light), followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?” and back to the studio.

Anchor João Ferreira - The investigation to the Maddie case pursued several lines of inquiry. There were political pressures that marked the beginning of the investigation, which, during a first moment, shielded the parents from becoming suspects. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed the whole machinery set up by the family to feed the abduction thesis.

Continued..

News segment 2

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - 3 of May of 2007, just a little before midnight the Judiciary Police was alerted, a four-year-old English girl disappeared from a tourist resort in Praia da Luz. The parents dined in a near-by restaurant. It was necessary to proceed with caution, these were doctors, unsuspicious, victims of an abduction, of a hideous crime. Portimão was still living with the hangover of the Joana Case, Leonor Cipriano was condemned but the delay at the start of the investigation turned out to be tragic, the remnants of the little girl were never found. The Judicial condemnation didn't erase the doubts. In Praia da Luz, on that night, moments of tension were felt. When the PJ arrived on the scene, dozens of people had already been inside the apartment. They had contaminated vestiges, moved what could have been evidence, destroyed indicia that no one knows what they could have clarified.

The English government acted swiftly so the parents wouldn't be investigated, to focus on the search for the abductors. Kate's diary, seized a few months later, revealed other pressures. On the morning of the 23rd of May, 20 days after the Maddie's disappearance, before leaving to Fátima's sanctuary, Kate and Gerry left a voice message to Gordon Brown. Maddie's mother described it as a way to increase the political pressure, she disclosed that Tony Blair's successor called back only three hours later. He spoke with Gerry, was very sympathetic and gave them strength, said Kate, who described the visit to the catholic sanctuary as overwhelming, powerful and emotional.

Apart from the contacts with Gordon Brown, Kate's diary also revealed other important allies. From the hiring of Clarence Mitchell as an advisor, who was working for the government at the time, to the conversations with the wife of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair. Mitchell, in fact, had a pivotal role in the propaganda machine that was set up by the McCanns within a few days. They counted on the assistance from the British diplomacy in all the trips that were carried out. The first trip and the one with the most intense media coverage was the trip to Rome. They were received by the Pope Benedict XVI, the trip had been suggested by their advisor on the 27th of May, after speaking to Francis Campbell, the British ambassador at the Vatican. The visit to Rome was described by Kate as being very emotional, positive and important, and that loads of journalists and photographers had appeared, this was an ongoing concern present in the couple's lives. After Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Morocco followed, trips made with the objective to divulge Madeleine's face, followed by visits to consulates or receptions given by British ambassadors or by political representatives of the respective countries.

Amidst all that, was an investigation marked by breakthroughs and setbacks. Kate and Gerry started as victims, four months later Maddie's mother was constituted as an arguida for negligent homicide. The British dogs, requested by the couple, found the little girl's trace inside the boot of the car. A vehicle that was rented after the disappearance, where DNA vestiges were also found which suggested that Maddie had been transported in there. The genetic markers weren't sufficient. The doubts grew, the mystery thickened. Nine years later the narrative of the pressures remain, of a failed investigation, of a little girl who, dead or alive, has never been found. Where is Madeleine McCann? - the answer never came.

Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).

Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.

Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.

Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?

Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...

Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.

Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?

Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion that was always present and present in the investigations.

Anchor - So there were members of the British police whose opinions agreed with this thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one of the officers, a former police officer, that was present when the preliminary reports were known, what he said about the results was that back in England they would already have been arrested. The issue was that report was just a preliminary one and we needed the data of the official report, which arrived at the PJ as it did. That was his opinion, affirmed in front of several people who can testify to that.

Anchor - I'll return to you soon Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening, thank you for being here.

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.

Anchor - Let me issue you a challenge, suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral and as a PJ investigator you have to assess the truth presented by Gonçalo Amaral, which is the material truth. Is it factually sustainable or is there a possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral being obsessed by the belief that he formed and of him valuing more certain indicia that give substance to his belief and undervalue others?

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll try to play this game with you, and answer with the utmost honesty possible. The truth of an investigator has to do with something, that in all likelihood the common citizen is far from understanding. That is, when a real investigator starts an investigation, when he starts to have the perception of the facts and events, following leads, and elaborating his belief resulting from the findings and indicia that appear, it's obvious that he believes in them, but he can also keep its distance and is able to evaluate all the possible solutions available and diverging paths that may arise. I believe that all the work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and by the team at the time covered all those hypotheses and for doing so, they were able to reach determined conclusions, conclusions that he expressed in his book. If we pay attention and want to be honest, we can verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo Amaral in his book or in other situations, accuse the couple of homicide. He accused that an accidental death took place in that apartment, that they are suspects of concealing the cadaver, that the death is likely to have occurred as a consequence of a tragic accident, I stress there never was an accusation of homicide, and that there exists clear evidence of negligence in the guardianship of the children. Therefore, before this, what can I say - it should never be believed that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one truth. The truth before him is one which results from the indicia that he investigated, that is why he refuted the abduction thesis, which they also investigated until they reached a dead end and returned to the beginning, believing that the thesis of what really happened was an accidental death followed by the concealment of the cadaver. there's nothing else to be said about that. This question that you made, if you allow me, implicates another - is this investigation a failure or can it be considered otherwise? I would say that in a normal process, maybe we could say that this investigation was a failure. However due to what happened, with the pressures that were felt, with the press involvement, with the involvement of advisors from the English government, with all the manoeuvres done by the parents of the child who were always advised by press and image assistants. The whole theatre created around this, may to an extent signify that this investigation was a failure. I would add, that at that time, this investigation wasn't able to reach conclusions due to all the theatre that surrounded it, which effectively prevented the police to work as it should, in a tranquil atmosphere, following leads and constituting as arguidos those who needed to be constituted, carrying out the reconstitutions that should have been done, obtain results that would not be altered, and finally a series of situations that if you wish I can later detail.

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add, just to reinforce, that is not my truth, those are the conclusions of the investigation of the Judiciary Police and of the British police.

Anchor - You're not obsessed with this truth that is here(book)?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed, and I'll tell you why. What is in there is a specific time of the investigation, as I had said. A line of investigation that was being followed and was never resumed, and should be resumed. That line of investigation was not concluded, it did not reach a dead end, do you understand? If it had been concluded, then we would know what the results were. Now the issue here is that line of investigation is not allowed to be pursued.

Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly in your opinion?

Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't allow it.

Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese government, the Judiciary Police, the direction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese government nor the Judiciary Police, it's the British police. At this moment, Scotland Yard who is doing the investigation in one direction.

Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you, we have a man here who was the Minister of internal Affairs at the time...

Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A bit later on.

Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.

Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.

Anchor - It should be said that tutelage of the Judiciary police belongs to the Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was the government pressured?

Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm going to tell you the following, and please João allow me to contextualize it.

Anchor - Yes, of course.

Rui Pereira - I remember very well seeing in the English newspapers, right in the middle of the investigation, Portugal described as an exotic country, where the inspectors of the Judiciary Police were bushy moustached people...

Anchor - Exotic in what way?

Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing from a news article of a daily English paper, it described the Judiciary police inspectors as people that had bushy moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and red wine. Exactly like this! What was it that happened in this process? - and please give me some latitude to explain this. What happened in this process was that there was an initial error that caused a lot of damage to the investigation and this not to blame anyone...

Anchor - What was the error?

Rui Pereira - The error? Was not constituting the parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment (article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code). Because, without delay at the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory, in my perspective, that said that the English have very peculiar cultural costumes and therefore was natural for them to leave the two-years-old twin siblings and the other 3-years-old child alone in a bedroom, for the parents to go out a few hundred meters away, to socialize with their friends.

Anchor - Professor I'll give you back the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo please be very brief, why wasn't this measure taken?

Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of constituting them as arguidos? I would even go as far as to ask why weren't they constituted for abandonment as it should?

Anchor - For abandonment.

Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment, exactly.

Rui Pereira - That was given some thought at the time.

Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping speech, impossible to discern what is said)

Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.

Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, that is the distinction between what is a Judiciary authority and a bodie of Criminal police. So, he can't answer that.

Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely right.

Rui Pereira - I can answer your question.

Anchor - Here enters the pressure.

Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is this, we have a legal order - this is not to blame anyone, it's describing what should have happened - we have a legal order that makes the clear distinction...

Anchor - But you can say who was responsible if you wish Professor.

Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear distinction between Judicial authorities and bodies of Criminal Police. What matters for an inspector, an experienced one and with good reputation like inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover the material truth, with all the difficulties that existed in that case. Hence, there should have been a direct intervention of the Judicial authority that is in charge of the process, and that is the Public Ministry (public prosecution) to outline a procedural strategy.

Anchor - And there was no intervention then, in your opinion?

Rui Pereira - Clearly not, as far as I know...

Anchor - But why not? The Public Ministry "washed its hands" from it, like Pilate?

Rui Pereira - I cannot make a process of intention (accuse), but I do know what happened. I know that..

Anchor - And what happened for you was that there was no intervention?

Rui Pereira - No, not for me! What factually happened was that in the first interrogatory the PJ police was the only authority present. The Public Ministry, at odds to what should have been done never defined a procedural strategy, and the procedural strategy, obviously meant to play with certainty. And what was certain, was that the parents in an irresponsible manner...

Anchor - But why didn't the Public Ministry do that?

Rui Pereira - I don't know...

Anchor - But do you have any suspicion, do you have any explanation for that? Were they afraid?

Rui Pereira - No, nothing like that. Do you know why? Because sometimes in our relations with the foreigners, you know that racism is a very curious phenomena, and sometimes we almost have an inferiority complex in relation to some foreigners. When I saw reporting with a certain bonhomie in the Portuguese media, now it's not on the English media, that the English truly have very specific cultural costumes and it was natural to dine and drink..

Anchor - So you're saying the Public Ministry had an inferiority complex before the case, before the British authorities?

Rui Pereira - João, let me give you another example. Give me another minute please.

Anchor - Please professor, just answer my question before that.

Rui Pereira - But I'm going to answer you. Answers sometimes aren't a simple yes or a no. I'll give you a more subtle answer, in a recent case at the Expo (Tagus river area in Lisbon), when a Chinese child fell from a building (21st floor), what happened to the parents? They were constituted as arguidos.

Tânia Laranjo - They were arrested.

Rui Pereira - And no one said that it was natural, according to the cultural costumes of the Chinese, to leave the child alone and go gamble at the casino.

Anchor - So, I can infer from your words that the Public Ministry has failed. Tânia did the public Ministry fail?

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to say one thing, in this case, it wasn't only this parents (McCann couple) who left their children.

Anchor - Did you feel lack of support from the Public Ministry?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I wouldn't say that. I'm telling you something different, the other couples' children were also abandoned, and it wasn't just for one night, it was for a whole week. In order to constitute arguidos them (McCann) for abandonment, the whole group (Tapas7) of friends would have to be constituted.

Anchor - Did you feel alone, without the support of the Public Ministry, in the conduction of the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, we don't usually have a constant presence of the Public Ministry in investigations. The Judiciary Police advances normally with the investigation, which is supervised by the Public Ministry, and it also has to propose and suggest investigative steps to the Public Ministry. In this case in particular, someone from the Public Ministry, should have made the decision to be present since the first hour, which didn't happen.

Anchor - Tânia did the Public Ministry fail from what you could gather when you followed the investigation?

Tânia Laranjo - What was visible from the interpretation of the process and of the investigation that I followed during those months, those first months, was that the Public Ministry was completely absent, that is an undisputed truth, for better or for worse. Success or failure would always be of the Judiciary police and not of the Public Ministry, it was always completely absent of the investigation. Allow me to go back to one point. Gonçalo Amaral a while ago spoke of that meeting with the British ambassador, minutes later a press statement was read at the door of the PJ headquarters, the truth is that moment changed everything, from then on the Judiciary Police undertook a thesis, undertook the abduction thesis, and went into the investigation absolutely restricted. There, it would have been pivotal, like Professor Rui Pereira said, for the Public Ministry to be present, even more so to provide the guarantee and freedom for the police to be able to follow all paths. We have two elements of the Judiciary Police here that will naturally say this, that all investigative paths need to be followed and that (freedom to investigate) cannot be restricted. As to the parents, they would have to be considered suspects, naturally. The professor gave the example of the Chinese, but years before that, and in the Algarve as well, we had the Joana case where the mother was considered a suspect, in the majority of these situations the parents are naturally considered suspects from the first moment and are investigated.

Gonçalo Amaral - In that case the Public ministry was present.

Anchor - In the Joana case?

Tânia Laranjo - In the Joana case. Rui Pedro's mother, that is a case of disappearance that has not been solved so far, she was investigated in a first moment, and that is how it should be. With all the pain that a mother that has nothing to do with the disappearance of its own child must feel for being investigated. And naturally, here, we had an inferiority complex before the English.

Anchor - When you say 'we', are you saying the Public Ministry?

Tânia Laranjo - We, the Portuguese. We, Portuguese police; we, Public Ministry; we, Portuguese government and we, Portuguese journalists ourselves, because we also accepted at a certain moment for the English to impose upon us an initial thesis, the thesis that it would be impossible for those parents to have anything to do with the disappearance. The fact is, during those first moments, in one or another circumstances, if the parents had not been doctors and English, the Portuguese media would have gone for the jugular. I remember, let me just say this.

Anchor - Please be fast because we need to go on to a commercial break.

Tânia Laranjo - My daughter was about the same age at the time, when I was in the Algarve, those parents, like Gonçalo Amaral said, sat every night in that restaurant and they never had any viewing angles, it was not possible. No Portuguese parent would ever leave a child sleeping alone in the bedroom.

Rui Pereira - What if there had been a fire, what if there had been a tragedy? Not to say anything further, but really for exposure to abandonment there could have been other consequences...

Tânia Laranjo - At least that situation, that crime existed.

Anchor - They should have been constituted as arguidos. Gentlemen, madam, let us now take a very short break. After the break we'll see the lines of investigation that still exist and should be followed in this process. See you soon.

(commercial break)

Anchor - The Maddie process was reopened in 2013. At this time, all hypotheses remain open, from abduction to accidental homicide committed by the child's parents. The English have an independent investigation.

Continued..

News segment 3

Voice Over Tânia Laranjo - Almost 9 years after Madeleine McCann disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, all hypotheses remain open. The process was archived in 2008, re-opened in 2013. From the negligent homicide they moved to the abduction thesis. The suspect was a man that had already died. He would have abducted and murdered Maddie, buried the body in the proximities of the tourist resort. The new thesis surfaced after a thorough examination carried out by another team of investigators. Elements of the Judiciary Police from Oporto spent months reviewing the process. They searched for loose ends, abandoned the thesis defended by the team of Portimão. After all it hadn't been Kate, Madeleine's mother had not been responsible for her death. It hadn't been an accident. The thesis was never confirmed, the Judiciary police investigated, searched but found nothing. At the same time they kept a close cooperation with the English, who, in turn, continue to ask for more investigative steps to be carried out via the letters rogatory. They have already been on the field, asking for more excavations to be done, but found nothing. Breakthroughs and setbacks, absence of answers, Madeleine has never been found. There is no body, ransom note, any solid evidence to indicate what effectively happened on the night of May 3, 2007. After 9 years the process remains open, at least until its limitation period, which will happen in 2027, twenty years after Madeleine disappeared.

Anchor - Gonçalo, do you believe things at this moment are being routed for the process to be archived here in Portugal?

Gonçalo Amaral - I have no doubts whatsoever, what was done by Scotland Yard is practically at an end. What they wanted to do was basically to, and I had said this before, was to in a certain way to give credence to the couple and remove all suspicions that existed concerning the couple. They did a reconstitution here in Portugal, not with the couple but with actors; constituted a series of arguidos that have nothing to do with the case, just for the sake of constituting arguidos; they followed a number of false leads. Now they have reached an end, after having spent a lot of money, maybe there isn't any more money to spend, perhaps the British public fund may not support such expenditure. And it will be archived, I can't see the Judiciary Police resuming the investigation when Scotland Yard ends theirs. In the end, the process was re-opened almost only and by the Scotland Yard, and when they leave the process will be archived just like before.

Anchor - Help me here in this line of reasoning, just a little while ago you said that there are still lines of investigation that remain open.

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, remain open.

Anchor - ...if the Judiciary Police follows those lines of investigation...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to recall something, in brief, this court decision that has not yet become final (res judicata/passed into matter adjudged), there are still a few days left for it to become final, but I can give you an idea of what was...

Anchor - The decision of the Court of Appeals?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it's new, the deadline for the appeal is taking place.

Anchor - Of course.

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you what in essence is concluded, is that the line of investigation that is here (book) and remains open, is a plausible one. And we can conclude that from this decision like we could conclude from the decision of the temporary injunction.

Anchor - That's included in the decision of the Court of Appeals of Lisbon that acquitted you from paying the indemnification?

Gonçalo Amaral - Exactly, and in the temporary injunction they go further, they actually said that it even though the Public Ministry had archived the process, with another Public Ministry another result could have occurred. Even so, this line of investigation isn't followed and nothing is done relatively to it.

Anchor - But by not following it, what does that mean? That the actual direction of the Judiciary Police doesn't want this case to progress?

Gonçalo Amaral - That's not the question. This is a case that appears to be traumatizing several people, right? Maybe someone completely neutral has to appear in face of all this, that decides to advance with the investigation. In all the lines of investigation and this one that is missing. (overlapping speech)

Anchor - But is the Judiciary Police afraid of the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - There's something that the Public Ministry says in the archival dispatch in respect to the reconstitution that wasn't carried out because the friends of the couple didn't wish to return to Portugal. They said the ones who lost with that, the ones who are jeopardised are the couple. We could reach the conclusion that what they said - that we believe to be contradictions or lies - where truthful. The reconstitution could be good for them. Usually that is what happens, it can have a good or bad result and this investigation...

Anchor - Gonçalo please, just answer this question...

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me to conclude. If this line of investigation reaches an end, with what is left to be done, and if at the end of all that is concluded that after all the parents could not be, in any way, held responsible for the disappearance of the child, that would only help the couple.

Anchor - Of course. Isn't the Portuguese Judiciary Police interested in finding the truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - The Portuguese Judiciary Police is likely more interested at this moment for no one to speak about the case. Because it's a case that has left several people distressed, it seems that there is a series of people traumatized with the situation. People that want, for example, to be able to prove that parents don't murder their own children, I'm not saying that this ones did that of course. It seems that there is a whole culture, a way of thinking that has existed until recently and needs to be changed because we are all upset by it.

Anchor - Manuel Rodrigues, the Judiciary Police doesn't want to find the truth?

Manuel Rodrigues - I appreciate that you made me that question because I don't agree with Gonçalo in this aspect, likely the only one. I don't think that that is the situation, it's not the 'not wanting to', what I think is that, like I said earlier, this process was subject to a blockade in such a way, that at this moment it's extremely difficult to escape from this. That is, what I want to say is that I agree because I am obliged to agree with Gonçalo when he says that the British police set out an investigation where they decided to constitute a series ofarguidos in order to credibilize the couple, to take them from one looking at the process and the only arguidos in there that one sees is the couple, seeing that they are responsible for what happened. For that, they constituted six more, or eight or nine arguidos to divert attentions and diminishes the possible responsibility. Now, to be able to move forward, in a process like this, the timings have all been lost, everything disappeared, we need to have this notion that it's very difficult at this time to recover a body, it's very difficult to retrieve, even making a reconstruction, a credible and exact idea of what took place yet it was imperative for this to have been done.

Anchor - That attempt was indispensable.

Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, and I don't understand why it was never achieved, certainly not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police.

Anchor - Not due to the unwillingness of the Judiciary Police?

Manuel Rodrigues - Certainly not.

Anchor - By whom then?

Manuel Rodrigues - Someone has prevented that reconstitution, and that is why that those couples, friends of the McCann...

Tânia Laranjo - Inclusively, the friends themselves refused to come back.

Anchor - But who is that someone?

Manuel Rodrigues - Don't make me name things...

Anchor - The English police, the English government?

Manuel Rodrigues - We've already talked here about the direct assistance given to the couple by English governmental aids...

Anchor - The English government and the English police, is that what you are trying to say?

Manuel Rodrigues - Obviously. I cannot say anything else differently. I cannot have a different interpretation when in a first exam that was done in an English laboratory, because the Portuguese had the honesty of sending them the evidence, they weren't even analysed here - 'let's send it to England so they can carry out the tests so no doubts remain', in a first moment...

Anchor - Honesty or naivety?

Manuel Rodrigues - Pure naivety. In a first moment 15 alleles of a series of 19 appear, that constituted Maddie's DNA, and in a second report those 15 alleles had completely vanished, there was no longer any DNA of the girl present in there.

Anchor - So, what you are saying is that the probabilities for the "Guilt to die single" (Portuguese saying, no one get's blamed for it) are high.

Manuel Rodrigues - Extremely high.

Rui Pereira - It's a certainty.

Anchor - So, the "Guilt dies single" then professor?

Rui Pereira - Yes, it will, it absolutely will. Now, what I would like to tell you João is that...

Anchor - But the Judiciary Police, in your opinion Professor, is doing everything they can or they want to archive the case?

Rui Pereira - The Judiciary Police was under great pressure by the huge media coverage of the case, it was very active then and at a certain point in time it short-circuited, and why? Because what happened in the Algarve was that negligent parents left their children helpless, who could not defend themselves from natural or human threats, all alone! And in the sequence of that, which initially was a crime of abandonment, the child disappeared - there are no doubt about this.

Tânia Laranjo - And that was everyday.

Rui Pereira - For the English media what happened was that in an exotic country in the south of Europe, in a tourist resort, one child disappeared, full stop. And that the English police is unable of finding out why, full stop. This second story, is a narrative that is totally detached from reality. Thus, what failed in there, and I insist, was the first moment. In the Portuguese Penal code, the Public Ministry who is considered to be the "Master" of the inquest (process), but rarely intervenes. Let me add, that I feel most reassured because the Court of Appeals produced a balanced decision, and even though the case isn't over yet, it's a civil process and there is still an appeal to the Supreme, it seems to me that what the Court of Appeals concluded is correct. It doesn't say that the investigation of the Judiciary Police is truthful but says that what is revealed in the book corresponds to the investigation, and therefore, within the freedom of information, within the freedom of the press, can be made public.

Anchor - That is a plausible line of investigation. Gonçalo Amaral are you going to sue the McCann couple?

Gonçalo Amaral - At this moment I'm not thinking about that. There is always a reckoning of the numbers, the case has not yet ended, there are still appeals, let's see what will happen from now on, and then I'll decide.

Anchor - But you suffered damages, well, you obviously suffered moral damages, and you suffered material damages as well?

Gonçalo Amaral - And others. We have to wait. I don't think that is essential at this moment. What is essential now is to wait for this deadline to end, that the couple has to make an appeal, verify, to know the basis of their appeal, and only then react.

Anchor - What is going to be necessary for you to take that step? To make that decision to eventually sue the McCann couple.

Gonçalo Amaral - If at the end of this appeal..

Anchor - Did you not think about that yet?

Gonçalo Amaral - I thought about that, yes, but to affirm that I'm going to sue, let's take it slowly. I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people.

Rui Pereira - Inspector please allow me to say something very briefly, just to complement. What in fact is curious in the process, is that when the couple gave their Statement of Identity and Residence, they used an address in England, isn't it true?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, that's true.

Anchor - Are you going to publish this book in English?

Gonçalo Amaral - I'm planning to do that, yes. I know that the couple said that if anyone buys the book in England they would sue them. So? The couple does not own the English language and the book can be published in any language, namely in English. In any country where English is spoken or even via the internet. Now, what's going to happen, I'll still need to talk to my publisher, that still hold copyrights on the book. But I do have the intention of divulging the book even because there are some copies going around and inadequate translations online, and people have the right to know what my opinion is, and the opinion of others, and know them through in the official work.

Anchor - Gentlemen, madam, thank you so much for being here in this special broadcast by CMTV. We conclude with another news piece. In just one single day, in the exact same day Maddie was seen in the Brazil, in Canada, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte (Huelva, Spain) and even in Syria. The thesis multiply but of Maddie there is not a single trace.

Continued..

News Segment 4

Voice Over - 3 of May 2007, a British little girl, 3-years-old, disappears from the hotel's (sic, apartment) bedroom where she slept with her twin siblings, in the Ocean club tourist resort, in Praia da Luz, Algarve. This, whilst the parents dined with friends in a restaurant, less than fifty (sic, only in a straight line) meters away from the apartment. Two days later the Judiciary Police of Faro says that they could now state that the daughter of the McCann couple had been abducted. A theory that continues to be alive in the memory and on newspaper pages that every year tell about another suspect, of another search carried out by the Portuguese authorities or English in Praia da Luz, or of another statement by someone that guarantees to have seen the girl, whom, if still alive, is now 12 years-old.

Anna Stam, a 42 years-old Dutch, was working in a shop when a blonde and blue eyed little girl asked her 'Do you know where my Mummy is?', convinced her mother was the woman that was with her, Anna pointed in the woman direction. 'She is not my Mummy, they took me from my holiday', said the child who according to the description was 4 or 5 years-old and spoke in a perfect English with a French accent (sic, the woman had the accent not the child).

This is just one of the sightings that can be found in the over thirty volumes and dossiers of the investigation that is yet to be concluded. The information is so dispersed, that on the same day (11th May 2007) Maddie was seen in Indonesia, in Singapore, in Mozambique, in Brazil, in Canada, in Belgium, at Zurich's airport in Switzerland, in a ferry-boat in Ayamonte at the Spanish border and even in Syria. Not all sightings were taken into account, only those which according to the authorities presented solid elements, like one description of a sighting by two British sisters, who assured to have travelled in a bus in Malta with a little girl resembling Maddie who even had a similar eye defect in the right eye and who said to the woman who was with her 'You're not my Mummy'. After Malta it was Morocco, the stage of numerous sightings. First the sighing by a Norwegian woman alleging she had seen a girl similar to the oldest daughter of the McCann couple at a petrol station, followed by dozens of sightings, like one sighting of Madeleine in a mansion, in Massira, on the streets of Agadir or in Marrakech. After Morocco, the little girl that cried 'Help' in Mem Martins, in Amadora (Lisbon suburbs), then a Roma couple with a baby stroller in France, with a child that didn't appear to be theirs. Hundreds of psychic visions and divinations that placed the little girl at a specific street in Sagres or inside a hole in the vicinity of the tourist resort from where she had disappeared. Theories are abundant, of Madeleine Mccann there is not a single trace. Recently, in 2015, the Australian police entered in action, at stake the body of a child, with light hairs, that would have been murdered in 2007 and placed inside a suitcase, a few days later the conclusion - the body found in Australia wasn't Maddie's. Nine years and hundreds of sightings later the mystery remains and the sightings multiply.

Cândido, a former farmer and fisherman, that lives less than 100 meters away of the tourist resort from where the English child disappeared told CMTV why he can't erase the night of May 3, 2007 from his memory.

** Cândido - On the day the girl disappeared, her father, at 1am, was walking around with a bottle of wine in his hand, and he was 'atascado' (drunk), and screaming for the girl near to my door, I live right there close to the main road, and I said 'what's going on, what's all this noise?' and he said 'menina, menina' (girl, girl), 'embora, embora' (gone, gone), and I said 'girl gone, what girl?', and he said 'menina', and I said 'go call the police', 3 hours he said, 3 hours since the girl went missing, and I said 'call the police', and he said 'no police, no'.

Voice Over - Today Madeleine McCann is not the same child that we got used to watch in loop on TV. If she is alive she will be 12 years-old. For now it's the synonym of a perfect crime. No one has seen her, no one knows where she is, much less what happened on that night of 2007.

Anchor - This is the end point of this special broadcast by CMTV, 'Maddie, the Mystery', where we tried to bring new facts into light so this mystery may one day be solved.


Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20, CM Special: Maddie, the Mystery, April 23, 2016 - first draft

Notes
*Same reconstruction that had been broadcast in the CMTV Special in 2013, see Zizi's full translation with extra notes.
** A fisherman's story, for what it's worth. A very poor news segment riddled with avoidable mistakes to conclude an important debate, a bad editorial decision.

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

THE END !

As Gonçalo Amaral is the focus of much attention at present, I'm bumping this for anyone who may have missed it..

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

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold

Original Source: CORREIO DA MANHA: 24 July 2008

By: Eduardo Dâmaso /Henrique Machado 24 July 2008 22h00

With thanks to Joana Morais for translation

Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept in the cold
Gonçalo Amaral regrets that an "investigative review of the inquiry" was undertaken. In the first interview where he talks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched today in Lisbon and promises to re-launch controversy.

Interview with Gonçalo Amaral in Correio da Manhã today

"The investigation was reviewed"

Gonçalo Amaral regrets that an "investigative review of the inquiry" was undertaken. In the first interview during which he speaks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched in Lisbon today and promises to launch the controversy again

Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator, what is your thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.

What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?

It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.

How was it proved?

Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat.

Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.

In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.

Does that undo the abduction theory?

There lies the solution. To be closed or not, is a strong indicium for simulation. And why does one simulate abduction, rather than simply saying that the child has disappeared? She could have opened the door and left…

Do Kate's fingerprints reinforce the simulation theory?

They are the only fingerprints on the window. And in a position of opening the window.

Did Kate have suspicious attitudes?

She goes out for dinner and supposedly leaves three children asleep. She returns, one is missing, she goes out, leaving the window wide open with the twins asleep. And the night, according to what she says, was very cold…

What about Maddie's bed?

It carries no signs that anyone was in it. Nor does the chair or the bed under the window. And there are no imprints from strangers.

The reconstitution is missing.

It was not carried out 10 or 15 days after the facts, because the resort was full of tourists. We trusted that it could be carried out at a later date. It couldn't.

Did you request data about the group?

At 8 a.m. on the 4th, the request was made to the English liaison officer, but [the data] never arrived.

What did you want to know?

Who the people are, their antecedents. And the child, whether or not there are complaints against the parents or others. How she behaved in school, to find out if she was the target of abuse.

How important is the Irish witness within the case?

He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried the child.

That was back in May.

When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says he and say the other members of the family.

What did you do?

On the days before I left Portimão we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.

Couldn't that have been included in the rogatory letter?

It could and it should. The ideal would have been for him to come to Portugal, as a key witness. Just like the couple of doctors that describe the situation in Mallorca.

Once the abduction theory was set apart, how was the death theory built?

With the elements that exist, we could only reach an accident, natural death, any cause without the intervention of another person. We were cementing evidence and advancing to understand what happened to the little girl's body. Also based on information from the British lab, about residues that were found inside the car that was rented by the McCanns.

Where and how could they have hidden the body for over twenty days?

That was what we were trying to find out. Searching within their friends, because the couple had a lot of acquaintances. We tried to understand where the little girl could have been during those twenty something days.

Out of reach from the searches.

Yes. There was information that the couple had been seen walking towards a certain apartment block, we were trying to understand which apartment it was. Who had access to that apartment. But everything stopped.

How do you interpret that stopping of everything, when you left?

It seems as though an investigative review of the inquiry was undertaken.

It was even said that the blood that was found was not human.

The dogs only smell human blood. The sample that is collected and taken to England, to be analysed with the Low Copy Number technique, is microscopic. The technique does not allow them to state whether it is blood or any other type of fluid – but it guarantees that it is human.

The family tried to justify itself.

Later on, a brother-in-law and a cousin of Kate said that they had carried steaks in the trunk that had thawed, even garbage, but no. The dogs follow neither garbage smell nor non-human blood. Then there is a witness, that was never heard, a jurist that lived next to the couple, in the second house [villa] outside of the apartment, saying that the car trunk was left open during the night, for airing. But maybe that was because of the garbage…

Within the theory of the parents' involvement, can you reconstitute that night?

We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew but also due to the terrain’s conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness.

At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.

They are not credible. The employees are unable to tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments. And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.

And what about Gerry?

He justifies some of the time with a trip to the toilet. That is not five minutes, then he meets another individual outside. Hence the need for the reconstruction. To find out how long it took them to get to the apartments, what route they walked, etc. A reconstruction that should be joint with the restaurant's movement, because when it is said that they asked for the food from 9 p.m. onwards, there was one person who ordered a steak. And that steak was heated again because someone was not there. It is necessary to find out whose steak that was. He was away for a much longer time period…

An adult carrying a child, until the beach, how long [does it take]?

Fifteen minutes.

How was it possible for the apartment to be rented out after the crime?

The apartment was immediately fully contaminated by the parents' action, before the police arrived. A complete fair was built there and at a certain point, dogs were demanded to come inside the house.

You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives.

The twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal.

But the Judiciária did nothing.

Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed.

How is there room for speculation about the DNA tests? It was those results that allowed you to advance with the arguido status.

The speculation is done by the scientist who performs the test. He starts out by saying, in his preliminary report, that it was easy to say that it was Maddie. Then he raised other questions. Of course nobody can be accused, based on that data alone.

"The cadaver was frozen"

Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?

Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.

How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.

If the body was hidden in the beach area first, was it always out of reach for the searches?

The beach was searched at a time when it is not known whether the body was still there. Using dogs, but sniffer dogs have limitations, like the salted water, for example. Later on, it may have been removed.

"We should have done phone tapping"

Correio da Manhã – Did you feel political pressure during the investigation?

G.A. – Inhibition. One of the mistakes was that we did not advance on this group with everything that legally was within our reach: Tapping, surveillance. It was necessary, for example, to recover the clothes that the little girl was wearing when she left the crèche to go home. There, we thought: if we go, it will immediately be said that we suspect the parents. That inhibition happened throughout time.

And that led you towards the abduction.

We had to prove that there was no abduction, in order to focus on those persons afterwards…

How does the pressure appear?

Right on the morning of the 4th of May, with a consul calling the embassy and saying that the PJ wasn't doing anything. Then an ambassador. Next, an advisor and the English prime minister.

"Payne is the last one to see her"

Correio da Manhã – When do testimonies concerning David Payne's behaviour indicating sexual practices with minors arrive?

Gonçalo Amaral – In May. Something went wrong with that group during a holiday: David Payne made revealing gestures concerning behaviour towards children. Even towards Maddie. We asked for information but it arrived after the 26th of October. They sent the information without giving it any importance.

What exactly did arrive?

A couple of doctors spent holidays in Mallorca, in 2005, with David Payne, the McCanns and another couple. The lady says she saw Payne with his finger in his mouth, making a movement in and out, while rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And he was talking about Maddie, next to her father. Those statements should have been given a different treatment by the police. It was relevant to access the information, about doctors, who are just as credible as anyone else.

What else remains unclear concerning David Payne?

He will be the last one to see Maddie alive after 5.30 p.m., when she leaves the crèche. He meets Gerry playing tennis and asks him about Kate and the children. Gerry answers that they are in the apartment and he goes there. He returns 30 minutes later. Kate says it was 30 seconds. There is something not quite right here.

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

Pre-publication

The evidence and the results of the case

"Arriving this far, it is important to make a deductive summary about this case. Which means, to reject what is false; to set aside what cannot be proved, because it is insufficient; to consider as valid and certain what has been proved.

What is proved

Therefore:

1. The abduction theory is defended by Maddie's parents since the first moment;

2. Within the group, only her parents stated that they observed the open window in the missing girl's bedroom; the majority cannot witness it faithfully because they arrived at the apartment after the alarm was raised;

3. The only statement outside of the group that mentions the open window and the raised shutters comes from Amy, one of the Ocean Club's nannies, who points her observation towards 10.20/10.30 p.m., which is some time after the alarm was raised and does not prove that it was open like that at the time when the crime happened;

4. The set of depositions and witness statements exposes a high number of imprecision, incongruence and contradictions – which, in some cases, may be typified as false testimonies. In particular, the key statement for the abduction theory, from Jane Tanner, which loses all credibility due to the fact that it successively evolved throughout various moments in time, becoming ambiguous and disqualifying itself;

5. There is a cadaver that has not been located, a conclusion that is validated by the English EVRD and CSI dogs and corroborated by the preliminary lab test results.

Certainties until October

"For me, and for the investigators that worked with me on the case until October 2007, the results that we reached were the following:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;

2. An abduction was simulated;

3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter’s cadaver;

4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident;

5. There is indicia of neglect in the guard and safety of the children."

"Decisive diligence was never carried out"

"The Smith family [Irish witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.

"The man that the Smith were talking about was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.

"When the situation was presented to the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely] the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."

McCanns erased all the telephone calls

The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception, in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known. But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.

[Acknowledgement:  Pamalam from gerrymccannsblog]

Gonçalo Amaral: Interview with Hola.com

Translation of complete article from Hola 12-09-2008.

"The McCanns are parents who have lost their daughter, whom they loved very much and I understand their pain and anguish” says Gonçalo Amaral.

The ex inspector from the PJ presents “Maddie, the truth of the lie”, an account of the investigation with the most media coverage of recent times.

Gonçalo Amaral, ex inspector from the PJ coordinated the investigation into the “Maddie case” for the first five months. Now he has presented a book about his experience in the case. 14 months after the disappearance, the investigation was archived with revealing the main question: Where is Maddie?

“Maddie, the truth of the lie”. That is the title that Gonçalo Amaral, ex inspector of the PJ and coordinator of the investigation into the “Madeleine case” during the first five months, has chosen in order to reveal how the search for the little Madeleine McCann who disappeared on 3rd May 2007 from the Algarve, was carried out.

The text summarises the doubts, facts and the questions of an unprecedented investigation. Fourteen months after the disappearance all suspicion has been lifted from Kate and Gerry McCann, the child’s parents, and the case has been filed, but little Madeleine is still missing.

Gonçalo is a tall and corpulent man, as we could imagine of a police officer who has worked against crime for more than twenty five years and who, for the first five months bore the weight of the investigation with most media coverage of recent times, the disappearance of Maddie. Yesterday Gonçalo presented the book in Madrid, surrounded by a large media expectation and made room in his agenda to talk to Hola.com.

Q: The disappearance of Madeleine has been one of the most followed cases followed by the press in the world. Now you have decided to publish a book about the investigation, was there anything left to say?

I decided to write the book to defend our dignity. Part of the British press and even the McCann couple has defamed my name and that of the PJ in Portugal, I requested authorisation to speak but I never obtained it, which is why I decided to write the book.

Q: What relationship do you have with the McCann couple?

I was the head of the department investigating the case within the PJ in Portimao. I was responsible for organising the work of the investigation and ensuring myself of following the direction of the investigation, and therefore I was with the couple once or twice as well as with all the witnesses and with inspectors working on the case. I do not want to discuss publicly with the McCanns, they have lost a daughter. Neither I, nor the parents are of interest, the only victim here is the little girl.

Q: We are obliged to ask this question. Do you know what happened to Madeleine?

Madeleine died in the apartment on the night of the disappearance. It is complicated to be sure how she died because there are many indications. What is certain is that the girl woke up, the girl has disappeared and that behind the sofa there was cadaver odour and human blood.

Q: You state that the girl fell from the sofa, they found her and that her father took her to the beach.

Yes. There are witnesses who claim to be 80% sure that Madeleine’s father was the person who was carrying a covered child towards the beach, in the apartment cadaver odour and the girl’s blood were found as well as in a car rented twenty three days later. In the apartment there was a sofa next to a window, at a height of three or four metres from street level and which did not close properly. The sofa appears to have been pushed towards the wall again, as can be seen by the photos. What could have happened? That the girl woke up during the night, went to the window in order to look towards the restaurant where her parents were dining and could have fallen.

Q: The book says that the witness statements from the couple and their friends are contradictory. Is it not normal for there to be some confusion during these moments of tension?

There are contradictions that are not possible in material terms. For example, the mother speaks of an open window (when she discovered the little girl to be missing) and I wonder how it can be that the witnesses responsible for checking on the children, who passed by the window, at a distance of only two metres, and who entered Madeleine’s room, said that they saw the window was closed. If events had occurred according to the first version, the window should already have been open. There are many contradictions that lack truth. If one reads a summary of the movements told by these persons, there are things that are not certain.

Q: How is it possible that the first examination of the site, carried out by the technical police, was not sufficiently rigorous in order to provide conclusive evidence?

Unfortunately this is something that can happen. The first police officers who went to the site thought of a possible abduction as well as theft, they did not find any door or window that had been forced, they searched for finger prints from people unrelated to the apartment and witness statements from people who could have seen something in the street. It did not occur to them that the parents could have had anything to do with the girl’s disappearance.

Q: Did you think from the beginning that this was not an abduction?

It is not normal that someone should insist and be determined that this was an abduction without considering another option. When a child disappears, one thinks she could have escaped and many other hypotheses. And the contradictions from all of them, lead one to think that something totally different happened. We worked on the abduction theory for two or three months and then we began to think about the theory of death.

Q: The police continued maintaining the abduction theory after considering that the girl was dead. Why?

The parents spoke of the abduction as a necessity. There was no security for the children because if there had been Maddie would not have disappeared. And the abduction theory was dropped when it was proved that it could not be based upon the open window.

Q: In the book you state that even Kate, the young girl’s mother, at one moment assumed the death of her daughter. Let’s talk of this moment.

Yes. As is mentioned in the files, once the entire world had been upturned with the search for the child, Kate received a disturbing email from a woman who claimed to have powers. This woman said that she had had a premonition according to which, Madeleine’s body was in a sewer in Praia da Luz. At that moment, Kate believed in the premonition and a search for the little girl was made. Kate began to act as though she were assuming that Madeleine had died; she even contracted a former South African Colonel who could locate the girl’s body using a machine that searches for atoms. The man participated in the search, but without success. There were many psychics who wanted to contribute. However, at that time Kate returned to her thesis that the small girl had been abducted.

Q: More polemic evidence. The dogs detected cadaver and blood odour, bu these conclusions were not admitted as official evidence. What credibility does dog tracking have in police investigations?

In England it has much legal value, as in the States, but not in Portugal. Its credibility has been undervalued, it has been said that dogs obey the trainer’s voice. But they found cadaver odour and human blood that coincided with Madeleine’s blood and although it was not admitted as material evidence, it did serve as information for the police.

Q: The consideration of Kate and Gerry as suspects was very polemic. However, in your book you say that the status of “arguido” brings with it the right to silence, or that of non self-incrimination, something advantageous for any person being interrogated. The press understood it as an attack.

They were considered “arguidos” on the moment when the evidence indicated that they Could have committed a crime. “Arguido” is not the same status as “accused” in Spain, it is a status that provides the rights to defend oneself and remain silent, and often serves in order to exculpate them later. If one speaks as a witness, one is obliged to speak of everything that happened, and therefore there are things that could make you culpable.

Q: The media has placed an important role in this case. Has all this media expectation helped to find the girl?

No. In my opinion, justice is done in silence. And with all this noise, it is very difficult. I say : who is interested in all this publicity? All the “sightings” of the girl around the world? Does this help to keep her alive? No, they would kill her. And the parents do not want their daughter to die, so why do they publicize the sightings? Because they know the girl is dead. Otherwise they would not do it.

Q: But, how can parents maintain the abduction theory of their small daughter, if they know what really happened to her?

It is a way of moving forward, of surviving. It is like a snowball that keeps growing in size. With everything that they have stirred, with the financial fund they created, how can they step backwards and say that she died? It is not a case of coldness but of survival. But the police investigation was also centred from the start on the principle that Maddie was alive. In effect, and all those sightings that were made public were not beneficial to the girl. If she were alive and not dead as we think, what would all this publicity do to the girl?

Q: How did you experience the search for Maddie? Has this case affected you?

There have been some very difficult moments. My family has suffered much, my wife and my daughters… I kept them away from the press and concentrated on the case. In September, when school started, they left our city for Portimao in order to be closer to me but they had to go back. The press followed us and tried to find out where we lived. It is only now that it is known who they were, now that I have decided to publish the book.

Q: Can we learn anything from such a tragic case as the story or poor Maddie?

Unfortunately for the girl, her case has served as a study case. Before I left the police force, on 30th July of this year, a commission had already been set up in order to establish a better way of dealing with this kind of situation.

Q: You have entitled the book “The truth of the lie”. What is the big lie in this story?

The truth of the lie is what we call the material truth, the pure truth. The truths are the analyses, the procedures and the mechanism that are covered in the case. The lie, or in other words, the lack of truth, is that the girl is alive. The girl is dead. The McCanns are parents who have lost a daughter whom they surely loved very much and I understand their pain and anguish.

Q: Do you believe that we will know what happened to Maddie one day? Will we get to know the truth?

Yes. There were nine people in this Holiday Group. Maybe they do not know that the girl is dead, but they could have received instructions about what to say, such as “you went to the room and you saw the girl”, however they know that this is not true. By that means the case could be re-opened; one day the full truth could be known.

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

Analysis by Moita Flores: 'English police admits abandoning Madeleine McCann case review'

Original Source: 29 AUGUST 2012

Thanks to Joana Morais for translation

Transcript/Translation

Julia Pinheiro (JP) - So, the British police admits to abandon the investigation relative to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. [ref. English police willing to abandon Madeleine McCann investigation] The Met Commissioner [Bernard Hogan-Howe], responsible for the process, stated to an English newspaper that until the end of the current year the (English) government should decide if the investigation should continue or not. It is a curious issue. I have with me, here, Francisco Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento. Hello, good afternoon. How are you both? What do you think Francisco?

Francisco Moita Flores (FMF) - Good afternoon. This is very strange.

JP - Very strange, isn't it?

FMF - In fact, I think this is too strange, you see, in England, everyday, children go missing. I wouldn't go as far as to say everyday, but at least many times per month, children go missing...

JP - At least every week children go missing.

FMF - ...Like in Portugal, where some also disappear, and as we know there aren't as many as those who go missing in England. This investigation, is an investigation made to a process that was already investigated. What the Scotland Yard is doing, and what the English police is doing, is an investigation to the investigation that was done by the Portuguese Judiciary Police.

JP - Yes, and in that they have already spent close to 3 million pounds.

FMF - It was not the police that invested in there [in the review].

JP - Who was it then?

FMF - Those who invested are always the same.

JP - Right.

FMF - That is, it's the government that handles the money, so they can find every possible solution that exists for the Maddie case. Even though the solution, for them, is always one and the same: "The child was abducted", and thus "Let us see where did the Judiciary Police failed", so "We can can find the abductor". They don't consider alternative hypotheses. Therefore, what is taking place, and I understood that from the first public appearance of the English inspectors [ref.DCI Andy Redwood], is that there is a sort of exam, an oral and written examination to the process investigated by the Portuguese Judiciary Police. What is also true is that everything that they have "found" at the time, the numerous leads [ref. 195 "leads"], clues and similar, were all leads that had been previously investigated [or dismissed] by the Portuguese Police, leads that had already been cleared up.

JP - Without results.

FMF - What I fear, or rather what I would be afraid of, if the Portuguese authorities turn a blind eye, is that a new whitewashing operation is being prepared in this case. And the whitewashing operation results in something similar to this: "the child was abducted", "there aren't any other hypotheses", the issue of involving people connected to the child is "vile", they are all "good people", "it had to be a Moroccan or a Portuguese" - it has to be someone whose complexion is a bit darker than average, that has performed the abduction. "Those poor people were just on holidays", "good people" and so on. To disturb them or even question them is indeed an "insult". Well, that is perverse, because it reveals that millions are being spent in order to whitewash people's images [reputations].

JP - But doesn't the idea of closing the investigation come as an attempt to put an end to the case, even the English people are tired...

FMF - The process is archived, the only one who can reopen the process is the Portuguese General Attorney's Office. Everything that they are doing is an investigation to a process that is archived!

JP - Exactly, so they are spending several resources of the British government, in...

FMF - They are lucky not have the IMF in there.

JP - At least not yet. [laughs/ref. See Portugal and the IMF] Let me speak with Paulo Sargento, who has been following the case attentively since the beginning. What do you think?

Paulo Sargento (PS) - This has an hidden agenda behind it, as usual. When news, precisely like this one, appear in the British media they have an hidden agenda. About a month ago there was a first call to arms, now...

JP - But what this man stated now was "let's close this", "it will not really come to anything".

PS - What that man stated is nonsense. It means nothing. They're going to close, they're not going to close. First of all, they don't have any sovereignty to...

JP - To close anything.

PS - Precisely. As Francisco said and very well. I fully endorse what Francisco said, they don't have any sovereignty. [ref. Maddie Case review is “A mendacity for the sake of the English”] Secondly, what they did was a review of what the Judiciary Police had done. So, nothing that they have done so far matters at all. What matters is what we are going to have in September, on the 13th and 14th and then on the 20th and 21st. Those are the final hearings dates of the trial of the main action of the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral. [ref. The McCann couple demand 1,2 million euro from Gonçalo Amaral] It's important for them to keep the story in the spotlight. These are news without any real interest, like rehashing again the 195 leads, it's just pure stupidity, pure media junk to keep the story in the spotlight long enough to reuse it later on in terms of image [i.e. PR strategy]. This is what is happening, it's better that the Portuguese realize that, and by the way, the English people as well. This is what is taking place, nothing else.

JP - What's written there [points to the UK newspaper being shown on the TV/ref. 'Yard chief suggests Madeleine probe may be wound down'] in the title...

PS - The "Scotland Yard" usage is to give the impression of an argument from authority.

FMF - And respectability.

PS - And respectability. Exactly.

FMF - At least it's more respectable than the English government [ref. UK PM's ex-media boss, friend to face charges for hacking].

PS - That's true. Do you remember about two months ago when David Cameron forgot his daughter in the pub?



FMF - Exactly.

PS - This seems to be recurrent in the English. So, people should use some discernment and understand that this is nothing more than a media strategy to put the focus back in the McCann couple, in this case targeting Portugal. What they want now [with the upcoming trial] is to build up their image.

JP - So, it has to do with a specific agenda.

PS - Without any doubts.

FMF - There is an essential error that the Scotland Yard could present - something that I've always considered a serious mistake in the process, and I don't mind giving this contribution to the Scotland Yard: What was the reason behind the protection given to the McCann couple and friends by the Portuguese Judiciary Police, immediately at the beginning? Why were they shielded? Why was there concern in addressing them before the situation that was taking place? [ref. Kate McCann forces political pressure] I know that some colleagues of yours, journalists, hold a 'beatified vision' [i.e. a quasi veneration] - "Oh, those poor parents", "Oh, those poor friends", "They are all good people, drinking red wine glasses and had nothing to do whatsoever with the child that was sleeping 200 meters away", "Those wicked cops!" - that is a sanctimonious and moralistic view that has nothing to do with the police procedures when handling problems of violence and homicide, where everyone is treated equally. And where the first suspects are the ones closest to the victim.

JP - Only yesterday we spoke about that Spanish case [ref. Unexpected twist in mystery over missing Spanish children], where a former colleague of yours said that at the beginning they always have that feeling of not involving the parents, and then...

FMF - But there isn't any other way, the victims, particularly children, and also other victims, are generally produced by those who are closest to them. This doesn't mean that the parents are guilty, it could be by those who had access to the house. And then it also emerged, another mistake that was made and that... - actually, firstly, let me place these questions [still regarding the political pressures]: Why? Where there any phone calls insisting that the parents shouldn't be disturbed? Where there any superior authorities that said "don't touch those people"? And the Portuguese Judiciary Police should tell the truth, they should tell the truth. Where there calls from the embassies? Where there phone calls directly from the directorships of the Judiciary Police?....

PS - Ambassadors where there immediately.

FMF - Ambassadors where in there. [ref. McCann Case: Freedom of Information Act on John Buck former Ambassador] Where there calls from the English government? They should answer these questions. They know what the answers are. It's not worth it to be silent.

JP - For the sake of clarity.

ongoing

in SIC, Querida Julia - Talk show segment titled 'Análise de Moita Flores', Broadcast on 29.08.2012

Note

Dr. Francisco Moita Flores - Former Judiciary Police Inspector, University Professor, Criminologist.

Dr. Paulo Sargento - University Professor, Forensic Psychologist.

[Acknowledgement - pamalam of gerrymccannsblog]

Transcript: The Mystery of Madeleine McCann
NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.

PANORAMA

The Mystery of Madeleine McCann

Reporter: Richard Bilton

RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE
DATE: 19:11:07

JEREMY VINE: Hello, I'm Jeremy Vine and this is Panorama. Madeleine McCann. The unseen footage of her parents as the tied of public opinion was about to turn.

GERRY:.....

KATE: It's not like there's a .... about it, is there, like what to do when your daughter gets abducted.

GERRY: It's still hard to think it's us, it's actually happened to us.

VINE: And the friend who tried to warn them.

JON CORNER: I said to them that I think there's a possibility that Madeleine may not be the story eventually, that you may be the story.

VINE: But where will that story end? The police now say they don't expect the long-awaited DNA results to be decisive, but they're not ready to clear the McCaans and want to speak to witnesses again. Tonight one of them describes to us the moment she believes Madeleine was taken.

JANE TANNER: I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road so I was a reasonable distance away from them, and that person was carrying a child.

VINE: It's the story that's transfixed most of us but which has largely been told through leaks, spin and innuendo, partly because of the Portuguese justice system. But tonight Panorama talks to people with first hand accounts of what happened that night including a first interview with the woman who says she saw Madeleine being abducted. It comes at a key moment in the investigation with the police now under pressure to justify the cloud of suspicion over the McCaans. Richard Bilton reports.

RICHARD BILTON: From anguish:

KATE: Please continue to pray for Madeleine, she's lovely.

BILTON: To a form of celebrity.

GERRY: There was the one that we did in conjunction with J.K. Norman for the distribution.

BILTON: Then doubt and finally suspects.

It has just been today declared that we've?...

BILTON: Their story has been the same from day one - their daughter was abducted. But they were forced to leave Portugal without her and had to protest their innocence. GERRY: Despite their being so much we wish to say, but we are unable to do so, except to say this: we have played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine.

KATE McCANN
Speaking in August
It's funny, we were having such a good time today see. We were with our friends and their kids and I think because there was a group of us you're into each other, do you know what I mean, you're kind of.. your interacting with each other, whereas maybe if it had just been me and Gerry and the kids, you know, you'd probably spend a bit more time looking round, you know.

BILTON: This is the McCaans at home being filmed by a friend in August. So far this footage has remained private. This is the first time it's been seen.

KATE: I mean we're home. We're knew to this, it's awful, and it's horrible for anyone to have to go through, and we're just doing what we think is best and we don't know. We don't know if what we're doing is right, you know.

RICHARD BILTON
During the making of this film somebody said to me that the McCaans are either monsters or martyrs. As it stands, I can't tell you what happened to Madeleine McCann on that night. No one seems to be able to do that. But what I can do, with new information, new interviews, with new pictures that have never been seen before, and were filmed by the McCaans friends, is to give you the fullest and clearest account yet of the mystery of Madeleine McCann and why her parents seem unable to shake off the suspicion that they were somehow involved.

CARLOS ANJOS
Association of Police Investigators
We have uncooperative witnesses who don't collaborate. The McCaans and the friends, the people who were there who clearly aren't collaborating with the investigation.

BILTON: April of this year the McCaans, along with a group of friends who all have pre-school children, decide to go for an early break in the sun. They come here, to the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Portuguese Algarve. Kate McCann calls home. The holiday is going well.

SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
It was good. She said it was cold. She said the weather was cold and they were quite surprised because they hadn't taken a lot of warm clothing. And so she was surprised about that. But I think the day I was speaking to her it had improved a bit, and I think she said that they were going down to the beach.

BILTON: The week long holiday is coming to a close. Day 6: it's Thursday, May 3rd. We've produced this model of the Ocean Club to clearly show the key areas and where people were. The tennis courts and pool area, the Tapas Bar and here apartment 5A where by 5.30 in the evening the McCaans say the children have been picked up from, their kids' clubs and they were all back together. At 6 Gerry McCann has his third tennis lesson of the day so he leaves the flat. He says as a family they talked about bringing the children back out to play in the area by the courts. At 6.30 Gerry McCann asks a friend, David Payne, to pop in on Kate to see if the children are coming down. He goes to the flat, he says all is well, but the children are too tired and are already in their pyjamas. At 7, lesson over, Gerry McCann goes back to the apartment. He says he reads the children a story and all three are asleep by 7.30. The couple say they have a glass of wine before at half past eight they leave for the tapas restaurant, it's on the complex about 70 metres away. They'd eaten here every night of their holiday with their friends. They can't see the front or the side of the apartment but they can see part of the back, though even that view is partially obscured by bushes.

GERRY: We ate in the open air bit of the tapas and when we went in there was I think one or two other couples.

KATE: And then it was just us, you know, and it wasn't late, you know, it was half eight we were there.

GERRY: One couple we played tennis with and we chatted to them, and then some of the friends started arriving and they left shortly after that. And I think at that point we might have been the only table.

BILTON: Now what follows is the crucial part of the story. The police have told Panorama that the timeline, the chronology of the events of the night of May 3rd, are still at the heart of this investigation. They say that there are many inconsistencies in what the group who were having dinner with the McCaans the so-called 'tapas night' have said in their witness statements. This is what the McCaans say happened that night.

There's a party of nine. It's coming towards the end of their holiday and most people are drinking. All the couples have children in the apartments. They say they took turns to check up on them.

KATE: We all knew what we had to do, what we would do and.. you know, it worked as a system we had going and it just seemed totally right somehow.

BILTON: Gerry McCann says he went at just after 9 to check on his children. He says that their bedroom door was more open than usual so he goes in. Gerry McCann has told Panorama he remembers looking down at Madeleine. He spent a moment thinking how beautiful she looked and how lucky he was. He says this was the last time he saw his daughter. He closes the bedroom door and leaves through these unlocked patio doors. A stair gate since removed is shut, this gate is on the latch not locked. Returning to the tapas bar he meets Jeremy Wilkins who he'd played tennis with that afternoon. He crosses the road to talk to him.

GERRY McCANN
Speaking in August
I bumped into one guy I played tennis with in the street when I'd gone in to check, and that was the first time I think of any of the nights that I'd been going up and down that I saw anyone else really - five, six nights, and it was incredibly quiet.

BILTON: They spoke for a few minutes. At this time around 9.15 Jane Tanner thinks about checking on her children.

JANE TANNER
Friend of the McCaans
I think the starters were about to arrive so I thought oh, I'll go and do a check in sort of 20 minutes or so before last check. So I thought I'll go and do a check before the food arrives. So I just walked out of the restaurant, up the hill, I passed Gerry who was talking to one of his tennis friends at the time. And then after I'd past Gerry, at the top of the road I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road I just saw somebody walking across the top of the road so I was a reasonable distance away from them, and that person was carrying a child.

BILTON: You say "a person." Male or female?

JANE: Oh a male, a male.

BILTON: And just describe that individual to us.

JANE: He was about probably 5'8 tall, he was taller than me but not 6' and so between those two. He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on, and hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair.

BILTON: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see.

JANE: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

BILTON: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

JANE: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold.

BILTON: From your sketch he appears to be carrying the child in a sort of unusual way.

JANE: Yeah, he was carrying sort of across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.

BILTON: And I have to ask you this. Are you absolutely sure of what you saw? It was a long time ago and it was only for a brief period?

JANE: Brief period but at the time I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw.

BILTON: According to the McCann timeline, at about 9.30 Matt Oldfield is the next to check on the children. Remember Gerry McCann says he had closed the bedroom door, but Matt Oldfield says he finds it open. He doesn't go in the room, he sees the twins but can't see Madeleine's bed. Because there's no noise he assumes everything is okay. At about 10 it's Kate McCann's turn to check on the children. The bedroom door is still open. As she closes it she feels a draft and knows something is wrong. A shutter on the side of the apartment they couldn't see from the tapas bar is open. Madeleine is missing. Kate McCann says she searches the flat three times before raising the alarm. Jane Tanner says that by this time she is already back in her apartment.

JANE: I went out to the front door of our apartment and then I saw Rachael came and said: "Oh Madeleine's gone!" So that was the first that I heard about it. And then I saw Kate and Fiona running around shouting 'Madeleine' and Kate said to me: "Jane, Madeleine's gone! Madeleine's gone!" and that was the first that I heard.

BILTON: What time was it about?

JANE: I'm not sure, it'd be ten'ish, around ten'ish.

BILTON: And now all of a sudden what you've seen...

JANE: Yeah, as soon as Rachael said to me: "Madeleine's gone" this person sort of came into my head. I hadn't given it a second thought up to that point but then this person sort of... I suddenly thought oh, well that person was a bit odd. Suddenly Madeleine is not there and I've seen somebody that made me think oh, that maybe was a bit odd. It just seems too much of a coincidence.

BILTON: The McCaans say they asked Matt Oldfield to call the police at 10.15 from the Ocean Club front desk. When the police don't appear, they say someone from the group goes back to the front desk to see what's happening. The police say the first call they received was about 10.40. In the chaos it's clear there is some confusion about the exactly times. Remember Portugal and Britain are on the same time.

I have spoken to someone who was staying very close to flat 5A on the night of May 3rd. She says the first that she was aware of a missing child was 10.30 and she's sure of that because she says the BBC 10 o'clock news had just finished. She says that she heard Kate McCann sobbing, repeating over and over again: "We've let her down." She also says that she heard the first Portuguese policeman arrive and he said: "She must have walked out because there's no sign of a break in."

Initially the flat isn't treated as a crime scene and police would later be criticised for not sealing it off.

GERRY McCANN
Speaking in August
There had been quite a few people in the apartment but not into the bedroom, that was limited to myself, Kate, I think two of our friends, the two GNR officers and I think a translator. I was certainly saying to people: "Stay out of the room." There was no sealing off of the room and should we?

Children's bedroom, Apartment 5A

The twins were still sleeping in their cots. So... you'd be trying to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept very soundly until we moved them out of the cots into their own apartment which does make me wonder about whether there was any substances used to keep them asleep.

BILTON: The police didn't follow this up with tests. Meanwhile late on May 3rd the McCanns begin calling home.

SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
I think it would be about half eleven - and I'm guessing now, I might be wrong - there was a phone call and it was Gerry on the phone, and he said it's a disaster. It's a disaster. And he was quite hysterical.

PHILOMENA McCANN
Gerry McCann's sister
He's absolutely uncontrollable. He's howling and screaming down the phone: "They've taken her, she's gone."

JOHN McCANN
Gerry McCann's brother
He was walking the streets of Praia da Luz at half past three. I think most of the search party had disbanded by then and he was still crying his eyes out.

BILTON: What was Kate like, what sort of state was she in?

SUSAN: She was distressed, obviously. She just asked me if I had the telephone number of Father Paul Seddon. Paul Seddon is a friend of theirs who is a Catholic priest who actually married Gerry and Kate and baptised Madeleine, and for some reason at that stage Kate needed to make contact with Paul. She needed I suppose the strength that comes from having faith.

JOHN: They texted a couple of times just.. you know.. pray for us. Pray for Madeleine.

BILTON: By dawn a major search of the whole resort is underway. These officers are from the GNR, the uniformed Portuguese police but it's the investigation branch, the Polícia Judiciária, or PJ's, who are now in charge of the hunt for Madeleine McCann.

MAY 5th
We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.

BILTON: First appeals are made, but what we didn't know at the time was that some Portuguese detectives are already telling Portuguese journalists that they don't believe the McCann story.

JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.

BILTON: But that breakdown in trust worked both ways. The McCaans quickly grew impatient at the police response.

KATE: It seemed bloody slow at the time, you know, and I don't know, I mean again you've got to put it into perspective, you know, it's a quiet, sleepy place, certainly at that time of year, there's no local police, you know, so they had to come from the nearest town. The local police came out. You've got to remember we had the language barrier as well.

BILTON: Against the police advice the wider McCann family turned to the media. But within days Kate and Gerry McCann found themselves being judged by the media.

MAY 7th
KATE: Madeleine is a beautiful, bright, funny and caring little girl. She is so special. Please, please do not hurt her. Please don't scare her. Please tell us where to find her.

BILTON: It was reported that police suspicions were fuelled by the couple's behaviour, that in these early appearances Kate McCann seemed too cold, too controlled.

KATE: We need our Madeleine, Sean and Emily need Madeleine and Madeleine needs us.

PEDRO TADEU
Editor, 24 Horas'
They are criticised for having displayed a cold and calculating attitude throughout this process. You can see already after the kidnapping Kate McCann appeared on a veranda in front of the journalists crying purposefully.

MAY 8th
[Veranda picture]

And we interpreted this as a performance for the media, and this made us feel some sort of discomfort.

KATE: Please give our little girl back. "Por favor, devolva a nossa menina."

JOHN McCANN: They were getting advice. If you're too tearful you're gonna have the emotional impact but you're not going to get the message over. And yes what comes out of their mouths sounds measured, controlled, and.. you know, a nice tempo. They don't speak like that normally. That is a false situation, okay, and they had to work damned hard to get to that place. Because the number of tears before that were shed before they went out there, because I saw that. I was backstage there.

BILTON: But it's in this atmosphere that a former PJ detective goes on Portuguese television and without any corroboration accuses the McCaans of being swingers.

MAY 13th

JOSE BARRA da COSTA
Former Policia Judiciaria
There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

BILTON: When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....

DA COSTA: People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.

BILTON: The Portuguese police publicly disowned the allegation, also denied by the McCanns. But such stories are damaging. Then within weeks at a press conference in Germany, this question to the McCanns?

JUNE 6th
How do you deal with the fact that more and more people seem to be pointing the figure at you saying the way you behave is not the way people would normally behave if their child was abducted and they seem to imply that you might have something to do with it.

KATE: To be honest I don't actually think that. It's a case.. I think that's a very small minority of people that are criticising us. You know, we are very responsible parents and we love our children so much, and I think it's only a very few people that are actually criticising us.

BILTON: That question seemed extreme at the time, but there was more and more focus on Kate and Gerry McCann. But one film crew was welcome. The resulting footage wasn't offered to Panorama but the McCanns agreed to release it to us when word of its existence leaked out.

How do you know the McCanns?

JON CORNER Independent Film Producer I know them through my wife, Michelle, who was Kate's longest friend. I mean they met each other back in primary school and stayed lifelong mates.

BILTON: John Corner is a film producer, he's also godfather to the McCann twins. The McCanns say, because he's a friend, he's invited to make a film for the launch of the YouTube channel for missing children and on August 1st he arrives on the Algarve.

CORNER: It was very low key, very relaxed and very quickly got used to us hanging around and...

BILTON: He filmed the McCanns for a week. The family have just moved to their new base, a villa on the outskirts of Luc.

CORNER: You can see the twins just playing and you can see it's a normal house, you've got toys and stuff on the floor. What's quite poignant about it is you see a father sitting on his own, in his bedroom, in a foreign country desperately looking for his daughter and seeing that quite upset me.

GERRY McCANN
Speaking in August
Looking at these, both in isolation I don't think too bad, but when you see videos or the pictures that I haven't seen for a while, the calling ones I think I've become a bit desensitised to but the ones that haven't been used as much are much more difficult to look at, and particularly video.

BILTON: When Jon Corner arrives at the villa Kate tells him about Gerry taking his sister and brother-in-law to the airport.

KATE McCANN
Speaking in August
Gerry took them, yeah, he was a bit crumbly I think. I think he was alright he got up and said: "I'm gonna go now" and then he lost it. And I got a text from Trish and it said: "Nearly choked on my full English because of that Tiny Tears husband of yours" you know, (laugh) but yeah.

BILTON: Is he big brother or little brother?

KATE: Little brother. Yeah, Gerry's the youngest, yeah.

BILTON: He's the youngest isn't he? Because the media see Gerry as this kind of emotionless warrior and he's not really, is he?

KATE: No he's not. I mean it's really harsh to say that because I mean... Gerry, he's always been a very focused person, he's enthusiastic, he's focused and he's incredibly positive which is great for me to be honest, and he's obviously he's speaking in public, not dealing with media but speaking in public, so he's able to go on and do that, and throw himself into it, and I think that's what people see and you know, people say oh how can he do that? Or how can you stand there and do that when your daughter has been taken and everything. And I mean I've been like that before, you know, when there's been other cases of kids that have been taken or killed or whatever and you think to yourself how does anyone cope with that? How could you get through another day? And then you throw it back to yourself and think how did I get up this morning? How did I get a shower? How did I get my breakfast? And something obviously gets you through it - apart from the first few days which you have total physical shutdown but something gets you through it, do you know what I mean, and I think I'm fully in that situation, you just can't say. You know, he has his lows as well, you know, for sure, and in fact probably Gerry's lowest points were often on a Saturday because we had like a family day, we'd just say right we'll try and put the work on hold as much as you can, and we'll do something with it, with the twins and then he often found that the hardest because we were on family time without Madeleine, you know, it just didn't seem right.

BILTON: Because you're their friend, people might treat these pictures with some scepticism, what difference do you think it made that you were their friend? Were you for example guiding them off camera?

JON CORNER: Not at all, no I was never guiding them off camera. And then it's not that kind of relationship with Kate and Gerry. I just let the cameras run and we burnt a lot of tape, just left the cameras run.

BILTON: There'll be plenty of people who won't buy that. This was their friend filming what they wanted seen, but their supporters would say they weren't then suspects, and if they were hiding an extraordinary secret, is it likely the couple would invite a camera team, however friendly, into their lives?

CORNER: I said to them that I think there's a possibility that Madeleine may not be the story eventually, that you may be the story.

BILTON: What did they say?

CORNER: They were quite distressed by that.

BILTON: It had not occurred to them before?

CORNER: Well it's difficult for me as a friend to be negative and to impart a sense of negativity.

BILTON: He was right to sense a change. On the day filming was due to start the police arrive at the McCann villa. As they pictures show, they would return.

CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.

BILTON: The crew?

CORNER: Everybody.

BILTON: So they searched the whole villa?

CORNER: Yes.

BILTON: So what, as all this is going on, what do Kate and Gerry make of this?

CORNER: Well this is the bizarre thing Richard because the police said to Kate and Gerry: "Yeah, we're going to be coming along, we want to do some forensics." And Kate and Gerry were massively optimistic about this. You've got to remember if your daughter is missing and the police phone you and say: "We want to do some forensics, that's a straw that you hang onto. That's a moment for optimism.

BILTON: That's because the McCanns say this was a time when they were pushing for more urgency in the investigation. The Portuguese had rejected their request for the FBI to come in, but they did bring in a British forensic team with sniffer dogs. Kate McCann talks to Jon Corner as all this is going on.

KATE: We're just doing absolutely everything we can do, you know, to help find Madeleine, and the last thing we're wanting to look back and think we could have done more.

BILTON: But they've taken clothing away, they've taken a diary away, they've taken cuddlecat away. Were they not thinking things have changed here?

CORNER: No, I was. I was thinking this seems really all a bit late in the day to me.

BILTON: Let me take you back to what it was like then. I was here in Praia da Luz for BBC News. Like the rest of the media I was reporting on the 100 days since Madeleine McCann had disappeared, but things were changing. Forensic teams had found what were thought to be specs of blood in the McCann apartment. Both sniffer dogs had reportedly reacted to the scent of death in the McCann hired car and on Kate McCann's clothing. People were starting to think what had previously seemed unthinkable. And faced with all of this the McCanns agreed to talk to me.

AUGUST 9th

BILTON: Part of this inquiry is now shifting from a possible abduction to an investigation that might involve a death or murder. Were you aware of those sorts of issues?

GERRY: We're not naïve but on numerous occasions the Portuguese police have assured us that they were looking for Madeleine alive and not Madeleine being murdered, and I don't know of any information that's changed that. Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously what we don't know is what happened to her afterwards, who has taken her and what the motive is, and we're best not to think that out.

KATE: And as Gerry's just said, even last week when we met with the police they said: "We are looking for a living child" and they've said that a lot so...

BILTON: What I know now but didn't know then that that was precisely the time when the McCanns first experienced a more aggressive attitude from the Portuguese police. At an informal briefing two detectives turned on Kate McCann. She was on her own. Gerry McCann wasn't with her, but her version of events was openly questioned.

JUSTINE McGUINNESS
Former McCann spokesperson
I do know afterwards she was incredibly upset and that was the start of a very difficult period and.. you know, I really felt for them actually because they went through a very tough time.

BILTON: And by now the forensic work is shaping the case. The police doubts are more serious. On Thursday 6th September Kate McCann is dropped off in Portimão, she's been called in for questioning, her sister-in-law Trish goes to support her. Justine McGuinness, the McCann publicity manager at the time is also there.

JUSTINE McGUINNESS: I have to say I was incredibly impressed because she just held her head high and walked into the police station and just kept on going, and a lot of people wouldn't have been able to have coped going through a media mob.

BILTON: As Kate McCann sits down in the interview room she recognises one of the detectives.

SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
They'd had a meal with this guy, with his family, and the children have played together, and she talked to me about this particular police officer as being as if he was a friend, and she felt quite comforted by having this guy who spoke English as well, and he was in the interview and he didn't make eye contact with Kate at all.

BILTON: Kate McCann is at the station for 13 hours, but from inside she and Trish text out updates. Even at this point the message is being controlled.

McGUINNESS: We were a bit naughty because we did have messages coming out of the police station which we weren't supposed to...

BILTON: How did that work.. what, the text messages?

McGUINNESS: Yeah.

BILTON: And were the texts saying? Talk us through.

McGUINNESS: Sort of updates from things that were happening.

[Video: public statement to press]
I'd like to read a statement on Kate's arrival at the police station....

Knowing everybody had copy to write, had the 10 o'clock news like you did, or whatever, various different deadlines that they had. I felt that it was important just to manage people's expectations.

BILTON: She finally gets out at 1 o'clock in the morning. A lawyer tells family and friends what has been put to her by the police.

[Video: lawyer's public statement]
Kate has been listened to as a witness. The investigation will continue. Like everybody knows, because of the system of justice we can't say anymore.

McGUINNESS: I mean there was an allegation put to Kate that she'd been involved in harming her daughter, I mean a dreadful allegation to be put to any mother.

BILTON: At 3 in the morning after Kate McCann has returned to her villa, her lawyer arrives with what seems to be a deal. Plead guilty to manslaughter and escape with only 2 years in gaol. As he explains the offer, Philomena McCann is on the phone to her sister Trish.

PHILOMENA McCANN
Gerry McCann's sister
Trisha hangs out with a mobile and there I am listening to Kate screaming at the lawyer: "No! No!" and just the emotion and the disgust, her tone, everything that was being conveyed, I mean what she was saying and the anger, you could feel it.

SEPTEMBER 7th

BILTON: This was a turning point, a dramatic 48 hours. First they're named as official suspects.

[Video: Official statement to press and public]
Kate and Gerry McCann have both been today declared arguidos with no bail conditions..

BILTON: Then they decide the time has come to leave Praia da Luz to go home without Madeleine. Few are putting up yellow ribbons now. It's a case that divides people. Those who think that somehow the McCanns are involved and those who don't, including a small number of wealthy supporters who appoint a legal coordinator.

EDWARD SMETHURST
McCann legal co-ordinator
It was quite clear when Kate and Gerry came back to the UK that they were subject to an open season of abuse from the media. They'd obviously gone through the tragedy of having their daughter taken in very unfortunate circumstances, and to make matters infinitely worse, were now subject to a trial by media.

BILTON: So what exactly is the case against the McCanns? Well some of it tenuous to put it mildly and hard to disentangle from wild press speculation. It was widely reported, for example, that the body was shifted in the back of this vehicle, the Renault Scenic the McCanns hired 25 days after Madeleine disappeared. The story goes that they drove the car to Huelva in Spain on the 3rd August where they disposed of the body. According to the McCanns, these pictures show the only trip they made to Huelva.

CORNER: It's bizarre, truly bizarre. I mean we use it as a base for the crew.

BILTON: So that, effectively, is evidence, isn't it, because that is the trip to Spain when, if reports are to be believed, in the back of that vehicle is the body of Madeleine McCann.

JON CORNER
Independent Film Producer
In the back of that vehicle there's a lot of posters of Madeleine and me and my cameraman. It's quite sickening really, you know, the speculation around what was a genuine trip out to Spain to try and raise public awareness about Madeleine. This is a couple who are desperately looking for their missing daughter. The thought of them having Madeleine in the car is just obscene.

BILTON: We are told the police do remain interested in this car. One source says it's a mystery why the vehicle does so many miles when Kate and Gerry McCann have left it behind on trips across Europe. There is a new man in charge of the case. They say everything is being reassessed. The speculation and police leaks do seem much reduced. We've had access to a third briefing from a source close to the top of the Polícia Judiciária. He tells us that two very different scenarios are now being tested, one that Madeleine was abducted as her parents believe, or that she died in apartment 5A as the result of an accident and that her death was covered up, and that second theory asks serious questions of the McCanns and their friends. So let's have a closer look at some of those police suspicions. Now a senior detective has told us that the friends are everything, that there are inconsistencies in their statements, that they might be hiding something. Specifically, the police thought seems to be that with the statements as they stand, that night seems so busy it's hard to see a predatory paedophile taking the risk. Officially the PJ can't talk about this case, but close to the investigation is a PJ detective who also heads the organisation representing Portuguese detectives.

CARLOS ANJOS
Association of Police Investigators
What happened that night in the dinner, at the end of the dinner in the tapas bar and everything that happened that night, what was said between those people, it leaves us somewhat perplexed in the way, as I've been saying, since the beginning, that not all their statements match up exactly with each other. There are some things where between what one says and what the other says, they don't match up with each other.

JANE TANNER
Friend of the McCanns
Well if you ask nine people about events of the night you're probably going to get nine slightly different stories, and you're not clock watching, you're not... you know, we were having a meal, you're not...

BILTON: Jane Tanner is the only one of the group of friends who has agreed to speak to us. She denies recent reports that both she and her partner want to change their witness statements.

I heard that you've not yet spoken to the media before and yet you've been much discussed. Why have you chosen to speak now?

JANE: Well, I've not spoken because the Portuguese police told us not to talk about the case at all, and.. you know, from day one we've done everything we can to help them with the investigation. I think maybe I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist and all this, and I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.

BILTON: One reason why the police may doubt the consistency and the honesty of some of the witnesses relates to the first man to be declared arguido, Robert Murat. In July here at Portimão PJ headquarters Robert Murat came face to face with these three people: Russell O'Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne, all part of the McCann holiday group. Invited to read out their statements one by one, they all said they'd seen Robert Murat in and around the Ocean Club on the night Madeleine disappeared. He denied it then and he denies it now.

SALLY EVELEIGH
Robert Murat's aunt
Robert is sticking to his guns, he was not there on that night, there was not a shred of evidence against him being there on that night, so.. you know, that question definitely needs to be answered, why are they putting a finger at Robert.

BILTON: He's been told not to speak to the media but he wants his views to be heard. As I interviewed his mother and aunt he sat in on the interview.

What do you think Jenny?

JENNY MURAT
Robert Murat's mother
I just don't understand why they're lying. On May 3rd I'd been out taking the dogs out which I do every single night of my life, and I got home about 8 o'clock and Robert was already there and he was in all the evening.

BILTON: How are you so sure?

JENNY: Because we were sitting in the kitchen talking the whole evening.

BILTON: And you would have known if Robert had gone out?

JENNY: Yes, I definitely would have known if he'd gone out.

BILTON: Robert Murat was questioned for three days and he remains an arguido. Our access to police briefings points to another area of concern, Kate McCann's journal.

SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
Kate was very distressed, obviously. Every evening people were having to kind of hold it together, you know, because as bed time came, it was another day gone and they didn't have Madeleine back, and so she needed support at that time of the night and I think it was during that time that Philomena suggested: "Kate, why don't you start to keep a journal and then when Madeleine comes back you can let Madeleine read it."

CARLOS ANJOS: Kate McCann's diary will be as important to the investigation as is all the small evidence that has been found throughout the whole course of investigation, not more, not less. By combining all of the evidence we will be able to reconstruct what happened that moment that evening.

BILTON: There were newspaper claims that Kate McCann had described Madeleine as hyperactive, but we can almost certainly dismiss these, even the Portuguese attorney general says that those claims are untrue. Nonetheless we have been told by detectives that the journal remains of interest. Now, point 3 for the police - the DNA. As it stands, the full DNA evidence that is being assessed in Birmingham is still not back in Portugal. We understand evidence has been recovered from the underside of the carpet lining in the boot of that Scenic. Fluid and hair from a corpse, not necessarily human, and a separate DNA sample that's a partial match from Madeleine and comes from a primary source. Our senior Portuguese contact has said the partial results that have been sent are inconclusive and that he doesn't expect the full set will ever be enough on its own to bring a case, a view shared by those familiar with the investigation.

CARLOS: What did come to Portugal were not conclusive results but rather served to be indicative. Also the results from some of the tests were still missing and these are once again not conclusive results but rather indicative. To be able to say with certainty that Maddy was there, or that this DNA was Maddy's the test results would have to be 99% positive. If they are not 99% certain, they can be viewed as indicative but not conclusive, and if it is not conclusive the police or the courts should not make any statements at the moment because they could be wrong.

BILTON: The McCanns' legal team has told us the results of its own tests on the car conducted by experts which reveal, they say, nothing incriminating. Our police sources say they have other evidence which the media knows nothing about, but much of what the police have said and have leaked only points to suspicion about the abduction theory. So the police say they have no alternative but to continue to investigate the chronology of the events of the night of May 3rd.

Well let's have a look at the timeline again. The police say there are inconsistencies in the McCann party's version of events. So does the alternative theory that some, or all, were involved hold any more water?

Remember, the McCanns say they picked up their children from the kids' clubs and returned with them to their apartment. At 6 Gerry McCann left for a tennis lesson. Kate McCann stayed indoors with the children, and it's claimed that David Payne looked in at 6.30 and confirmed they were okay. Gerry McCann finished tennis and joined them from 7 to 8.30. If they were solely responsible for something that happened in that flat that would leave them little more than an hour to clear up and move Madeleine's body. Now what if something happened when Gerry McCann came back to the flat at just after 9pm to check on the children as he said he did? Well that would leave him with even less time. Now what if there was a third person involved? If that's true, and some detectives think it might be, then it gets more complicated because this person would be able to move the body any time up until 10 o'clock when we know the alarm was raised. Those are the theories but the reality is we would have to accept that Kate and Gerry McCann, having just been involved in the death of their daughter, then got ready for a night out, were first at the table and then had a meal with friends as if nothing had happened.

As late as last week a senior officer was still saying that it's possible the McCanns could have masked their feelings when they were at that meal.

SUSAN HEALY: If Madeleine had an accident in Kate's presence, Kate is a doctor for goodness sake, they were on holiday with doctors, the first thing she would have done would have been to have sought help for Madeleine, you know, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that Kate would do anything else.

BILTON: In the footage provided to us by Jon Corner he revisits the apartment, for some of the time accompanied off camera by Gerry McCann. He tests how easy it would have been for an abductor to get in and out with Madeleine.

CORNER: Okay, we're sitting at the table, we're sitting at the very table and we can still see the apartment quite clearly. We've got a good line of sight.

GERRY McCANN
Speaking in August
We were looking at the back of the apartment and maybe the weak spots were at the front, and it's very... you know, a corner flat with trees overlooking it, somebody could be hiding there or watching, out of view.

CORNER: So you can see Gerry coming out the gate, and over here you can see them sitting in the tapas bar.

KATE McCANN
Speaking in August
They've been watching us over a matter of days, I'm sure, you know, they know.. you know, they must have known that Gerry had just been into the apartment and then.... you're right, there was only a small window of opportunity but.. you know..

BILTON: Let's go back to that moment. At about quarter past nine Gerry McCann says he'd just left the flat. He's still in the street talking to a friend when Jane Tanner walks past him on the other side of the road up the hill and sees what she now believes to be Madeleine, so at most a window of five minutes for someone to get in. The alternative view which Gerry McCann says was put to him by the police is that the abductor was already in the flat hiding when Gerry McCann did his check.

Jon Corner and Camera Operator speaking

Just even standing here now I think it's quite creepy because you could just be standing here just chilling out couldn't you, just...

And he could have been down there.

Do you reckon? So how long would it take you to get across there? 20 seconds?

20 seconds, 10, 15. Open the window, in out, you could be all done in under a minute.

GERRY: There was a window of opportunity and that's the regret that we'll always have, the window of opportunity to snatch a child, and I've no doubt that Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core to think that somebody was watching us and our daughter and had targeted her, and I think the true word is a predator.

CORNER: So this is the front door of the apartment and of course you're straight onto the street, see you're straight over the wall onto the street, or straight out there onto the street.

BILTON: Painfully for some, the more the couple disclose about how insecure the flat was, the less wise their decision appears to leave the children unattended.

SUSAN HEALY: Well I have to say that I'm surprised that Kate and Gerry left their children at all and I've thought about it a lot because they're such caring parents and I think - why?

GERRY: Clearly at the time we felt what we were doing was quite responsible. If we were going to be down and further away or round the corner we would never have left the kids, and with hindsight... everything with hindsight is all taken in the context of your child being abducted and if we could turn back the clock and that, it would be.. you know, we would just rewind as fast as we could completely.

KATE: I mean there isn't a day that goes by that I'm not kind of thinking to myself why did I think that was okay, you know, was I wrong in thinking that was okay? And I mean all I can say to myself is I know how much I love my children, I know I'm a responsible parent and I know that, and I've just got to keep saying that to myself really, you know.

BILTON: One possibility, and it's no more than that, is that police suspect some of the group of friends may have exaggerated the extent of their checks to make them and the McCanns appear more responsible. If true, if could have inadvertently raised suspicions of something much worse.

CARLOS ANJOS
Association of Police Investigators
They said that every half an hour they would go and look in on the children and all of them, we found in everybody's statement, some questions that suggest that actually they didn't go and see the children.

KATE: It's not about us, you know, we were bobbing back and forwards several times and I wanted to see the kids so.. you know, it's not about us. You know, I think that the problem is it's a predator basically who's been watching us, which gives you the shivers anyway, and broken into the apartment and taken Madeleine out of her bed.

BILTON: So 200 days on, where is the search for Madeleine McCann now? Well the two camps are preparing for the next stage. Though we have been briefed by the Portuguese police they can't speak on television about their view of this case. It's the same for the McCanns, but they have a substantial team working with them, and in the last week they have authorised co-operation with this programme. Briefings, that interview with Jane Tanner, a chance to push their view that Kate and Gerry McCann are innocent.

EDWARD SMETHURST
McCann legal co-ordinator
Part of the reason why we're here disclosing evidence to you today as opposed to keeping our powder dry is a recognition that there were two strands to this case, part of it is the criminal case, but part of it is the media speculation and the media perception, and we see it as incumbent upon us to portray the truth to the media and in particular to try and expunge any ill-founded theories about Gerry and Kate's involvement so that the media attention can focus back onto the abduction and therefore onto the fact that we have a missing little girl out there.

BILTON: The police say they are keeping an open mind about this, but will ask to re-interview the McCanns' friends again. The delay, we're told, is down to bureaucracy.

ANJOS: Let's say it's important for all the people who were at the Ocean Club in the group, the friends of the McCanns, including the McCanns, to tell us exactly everything that happened, everything they remember.

We've got nothing to hide, we just said what happened and I don't understand how they can say that doesn't add up because.. you know, we've just said what happened on the night.

BILTON: That has been widely reported now but also throughout this idea that you want to go back and change your story.

JANE: It's just complete lies. I mean I don't know where these stories come from. We've never been in contact with the police to say we want to change our stories.

BILTON: So you said you're prepared to answer questions.

JANE: Yeah.

BILTON: In some ways would you like to?

JANE: I'd love to, yeah, I think.. you know, I actively want to be re-interviewed. If there is a feeling that what we're saying is wrong, you know, be interviewed.. you know, and we can clarify that it's not wrong, you know, we're not making things up, it's just what happened.

BILTON: Have you been asked to return to be questioned?

JANE: No.

BILTON: Would you be prepared to?

JANE: Yes. Yeah of course we would. Yeah, and I mean if it helps to find Madeleine, be interviewed tomorrow, you know, we're obviously key witnesses.

BILTON: The McCann camp say they continue to co-operate with the police but they're doing more than that. If there is to be a breakthrough it may well come through this office, the M3 Detective Agency in Barcelona, it runs this phone number of sightings and information from the public. As part of the McCanns co-operation with this film, they've revealed to us what they believe is a new lead.

FRANCISCO MARCO
Director General, Metodo 3
Maddy was alive two days after the kidnapping. Madeleine was in a car and she was given to another person inside Portugal. We have the description of the woman and the man involved.

BILTON: We have seen no proof that this is a genuine development but they're confident of this evidence and say it's been passed to the Portuguese police.

MARCO: I'm not saying well maybe - no, no, no. We are very, very close to find the kidnapper.

BILTON: Do you beat yourself up on this? Is it something you play with in your head or...?

JANE: I do and initially I did more but I just have to think.. you know, there's no... it's the least thing you'd ever think in a million years that.. you know, a child is going to be abducted in a safe family resort. As I said before, Gerry was standing outside the apartment so I thought Madeleine had just been checked so there was absolutely no reason why I would think it was odd. You know, there was no reason why I would think it was Madeleine being taken at that point.

BILTON: More than six months on and there is still only one real fact and that is Madeleine McCann disappeared on the night of May 3rd 2007 and has not been seen since. Now potentially the month ahead is crucial. Barring any other developments the forensic evidence may force the police here in Portugal to decide once and for all if the McCanns are to face any charges. If they do, then they will have the chance to clear their name. If they don't, then Kate and Gerry McCann could face the rest of their life without their daughter but with the suspicion that they were involved in her disappearance.

Coming soon on Panorama, the Battle for Basra Palace, the unheard story of Britain's deadly struggle for Southern Iraq and the legacy we leave behind.

Panorama returns in two weeks time at the usual time of 8.30 here on BBC 1.

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

Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and Broadcast Media - Tuesday, 25 April, 2017

Q: Six years’ on of Scotland Yard’s involvement, a team of largely 30 people, £11/12 million you’ve spent, what have you achieved?

MR: We’ve achieved an awful lot. I think you know that we have a track record for using cold cases on serious old cases, and we solve many cases that way. This is no different in one respect but is particularly complicated. I think people get seduced perhaps by what they see in TV dramas where the most complex cases are solved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes with adverts as well.

What we started with here was something extraordinary. We started with 40,000 documents. We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work and we did appeals to the public, four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible. Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort. It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on. And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and focusing our attention and making progress.

And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who
were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that together and that takes real time.

So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant. If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.


Q: So when you talk of success and progress, it’s really a case of eliminating things? You’re not getting any nearer to finding out what happened?

MR: So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann. I’d love to guarantee them that we would get an answer, sadly investigations can never be 100 per cent successful. But, it’s our job, and I’ve discussed it with them, we’ll do everything we can do, reasonably, to find an answer to what’s happened to Madeleine. And I know, Pedro, the senior Portuguese colleague I’ve worked with and his team, have a shared determination, to find an answer. That’s what we’re going to do.

Q: You’ve described it as a ‘unique’ case. Why is it unique?

MR: I think it’s unique in two or three respects. First of all the way its captured attention in different countries is quite unusual. You’ll get a very high-profile case in a particular country, the way it has captured interest across countries, I think is significant. The length of it. And it’s unusual to have a case like this where you’re doing a missing persons investigation, where ten years on, we still don’t have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened. And that’s why we’re open minded, even if we have to be pessimistic about the prospects, we are open minded because we don’t have definitive evidence about what happened to Madeleine.

Q: You say you haven’t got definitive evidence, do you have any clues at all which might explain what happened to her?

MR: So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.

Q: Do you have some evidence, in your six years of investigation, have you unearthed some evidence to explain what happened?

MR: We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we’re pursuing those. And those link into the key lines of enquiry we’re doing now. As I said, those are very much live investigations and I know that’s frustrating when you’re doing a programme looking back but it’s hard to talk about that now, it’s going to frustrate the investigation.

Q: I know it’s not your money, it has come from the Home Office, but how do you justify spending so much on one missing person?

MR: Big cases can take a lot of resource and a lot of time and we have that with more conventional cases which Scotland Yard gets involved with that run over many years. I think it’s worth noting that this cold case approach we do, every year we’re solving cases that have gone cold years ago. I think in the last year it’s 35 rape cases, and two murder cases. Some of those reaching back to the 1980s.

The cold case approach does have some expense, it is time-consuming, looking back at old records, but it does help solve old cases and you give families and victims an understanding of what went on. It’s worthwhile. This case is unusual, it’s not in Scotland Yard’s remit to investigate crimes across the world normally. In this case, in 2011, the Portuguese and British prime ministers were discussing the
case and agreed that Scotland Yard would help and recognising that it’s not what we’re normally funded for, we were given extra money to put a team together to work with the Portuguese and that’s what we’ve been doing ever since.

We’ve tried to be careful about public money and we started with that massive sifting and we’ve narrowed the enquiry, the funding has reduced accordingly. And we will stick with it as long as the funding is available, as long as there are sensible lines of enquiry to pursue.

Q: You’ve talked about 600 people. You at one point had four suspects. Can you tell me the story about how they came into the frame?

MR: So, one of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was could this be a burglary gone wrong? Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going missing.

Q: Most burglars would just run out.

MR: Possibly.

Q: Difficult for the public to understand that potential theory, given that every child wakes up.

MR: In my experience, if you try to apply the rational logic of a normal person sat in their front room to what criminals do under pressure, you tend to make mistakes, so it was a sensible hypothesis, it’s still not entirely ruled out, but there was also lots of material about people acting suspiciously, a potential history of some recent thefts from holiday apartments. Working through that it was a sensible thing to
pursue, and we had some descriptions to work with, and that led to us identifying amongst the 600, a group of people who were worth pursuing, have they been involved in this activity, have they had a role in Madeleine going missing? Because what the hypothesis was, then we’ve got some searches, we’ve worked with the Portuguese, they were spoken to, and we pretty much closed off that group of
people. That’s one example of the journey I spoke about, you start with this massive pool of evidence, you understand it, structure it, prioritise it, you work through and you try and sift the potential suspects, and then you end up where we are today with some key lines of enquiry.

Q: As I understand it, the key to your suspicion about those four suspects was very much to do with their use of mobile phones and one of the criticisms of the original Portuguese police investigation was that they didn’t interrogate the mobile phone data as thoroughly as they could have done. How important was it for you as that part of your investigation for you to pick up and thoroughly investigate
the mobile phone data?

MR: So that phone data is always something we will look at and we wouldn’t have had it available if the Portuguese had not got hold of it at the time so we need to be careful about criticism. But we had the data available and we worked with the Portuguese and that was part of the background to do with phone data and various sightings. There was enough there to say, not to prove the case, but there was something worth looking at in more detail and that’s what we did.

Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese beginning of July 2014?

MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other parts of the investigation.

Q: Do you have any other suspects at the moment?

MR: So, we have got some critical lines of enquiry that are definitely worth pursuing and I’m not going to go into further detail on those. Another I would say though is, these lines of enquiry we have to date, they are the product of information available at the time and information that has come from public appeals that we have done.

Four Crimewatch appeals, and other media channels have been
incredibly helpful, including yourselves, and thousands of pieces of information have come forward, some useful some not, but amongst that have been some nuggets that have thrown some extra light on the original material that came from the time and that is one of the things that has helped us to make progress and have some critical lines of enquiry we are pursuing today.

Q: The question of other suspects, is there anyone like those four who have been dismissed, is there anyone who has the “alguido” status?

MR: I’m not going to give that level of detail away, we have got some critical lines of enquiry and we are working with the Portuguese on that, we are both interested in. Disclosing any more information on that will not help the investigation.

Q: You said the burglary gone wrong theory is not completely dismissed. What are the other theories? You have spoken in the past, Andy Redwood spoke in the past about focussing on the idea of a stranger abduction, is that still the focus, or a focus?

MR: Whilst we’ve got some lead ideas there is still a lot of unknown on this case. We’ve got a young girl gone missing 10 years ago. Until we get to the point where we have solved it, we’re unlikely to have definitive evidence as to exactly what happened at the time. All the hypothesises that you or I could come up with, they all have to remain open and the key lines of enquiry open today focus on
one or two of those areas but we have to keep them all open until we get to that critical piece of evidence that narrows it down and helps us to be more confident as to exactly what has happened on the day Maddie went missing.

Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?

MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.

Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that
been to your investigation?

MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.


Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.

MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation.

The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.

Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under caution, ever consider them as suspects?

MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward.

It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.

MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.

Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?

MR: No

Q: Let’s move to today, recently you were given more funding £84,000 to £85,000, how is that going to be used?

MR: As you understand we started with a full-sized murder team of 30 officers, that was a standard operating approach at the time. So we start with that team and work through the massive amount of investigation. The Home Office has been funding that and of course it is public money so they review that from time to time and as the enquiry has gone on we suggested we could run it with a smaller group of people and that is what happened. That recent level of funding reflects that it’s keeping the team going for the next six months and we will want to keep this running as long as there are sensible lines of enquiry and keep asking the Home Office to fund it as long as there are those open lines of enquiry.

Q: I know you don’t want to go into detail but are there more forensic tests, is that what is going on?

MR: I’m not going to talk about detail of the type of work going on but there are critical lines of enquiry of great interest to ourselves and our Portuguese counterparts and there are some significant investigative avenues we are pursuing that we see as very worthwhile.

Q: Are you still waiting for answers to new ‘rogatory’ letters. I understand how the system works if you want something in Portugal, you have to send ‘rogatory’ letter and get that approved over there. Are there letters in the post?

MR: That process you describe reflects the first four or five years of our work there, sifting through mass amounts of material, putting together with new evidence that comes from appeals, generates new enquiries and the legal requirements the Portuguese have is quite labour intensive in terms of dotting I’s and crossing T’s and working through that detail. Where we are now is much narrower much more focussed.

Q: Is there anyone you are still looking for?

MR: Where we are now is much narrower and much more focussed.

Q: There was a report recently that there was an international manhunt in regards to a person you were interested in talking to, maybe not even a suspect, maybe a witness?

MR: There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.

Q: You say in your statement, you are getting information on a daily basis, new information, what sort of information?

MR: First of all it is indicative of the level of interest in this case, not just in this country but across the world. The team are getting emails, phone calls, new information all the time and it ranges from the eccentric, through to information that on the surface looks potentially interesting and needs to be bottomed out and are constantly sifting through them.

Q: Are you any closer to solving this then you were six years ago?

MR: I know we have a significant line of enquiry that is worth pursuing, and because of that, it could provide an answer. Until we have gone through it, I won’t know if we will get there or not.

Q: What area is that enquiry?

MR: Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits out on it publically.

Q: How confident are you this will solve it for you?

MR: It is worth pursuing.

Q: What does your instinct say about what happened to Maddie?


MR: If I start going in to my instinct having read the material of interest we are dealing with at the moment it would give away what we are looking in to so I’m not going to answer that. But what I would say from my experience of dealing with cold cases and these types of investigations is that this time, even sadly after 10 years of Maddie being missing there are nuggets of information and lines of enquiry that are worth pursuing and it is possible they may lead to an answer. As long as we have the resources to do it, and as long as we have those sensible lines of enquiry because if we can provide an answer to a family in this horrible situation that is what we must do.

Q: Do the significant lines of enquiry suggest to you Maddie is alive or dead?

MR: As I said earlier on we have no definitive evidence as to whether Maddie is alive or dead. We have to keep an open mind that is why we describe it as a missing person enquiry. Of course we understand why after so many years people would be pessimistic but we are keeping an open mind and treating it as a missing person enquiry.

Q: You’ve said you are realistic about what you are dealing with, what do you mean by that?

MR: We are realistic about the prospects and the assumptions people will make 10 years on when a little girl has gone missing but there is no definitive evidence and as long as that is the case we have to have an open mind and treat it as a missing person enquiry.

Q: If she is alive, she is nearly 14, do you have any idea what she might be doing, where she might be, the circumstances she might be living?

MR: That is such a hypothetical question I cannot begin to answer.

Q: There is a chance she may still be alive.

MR: We have to keep an open mind, it is a missing person enquiry, we don’t have that definitive evidence either way.

Q: How confident are you that you will solve the case?

MR: I wish I could say we will solve this. We solve more than 90 per cent of serious cases at Scotland Yard. I wish I could say I could definitely solve it but a small number of cases don’t get solved. What I have always said on this case and I’ve said to Kate and Gerry. We will do everything we can that is possible to try to find and answer. I hope to find an answer but can’t quite guarantee and as a
professional police officer and dealing with the families in awful situations it always hurts you can’t guarantee success, but we will do everything we can to try to get there.

Q: How long might it keep going, your investigation?

MR: It is impossible to be exactly clear. We have a small number of ongoing lines of enquiry, they are critical and we need to deal with those and see how long it takes.

Q: You talk about lines of enquiry because last year the ex-commissioner said there was one piece of work still to be done and when that was completed that would be the end of the investigation. You are rather suggesting things have moved on since then and there is more to pursue, is that true?

MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry and that’s what we are focussed on.

Q: But he was the boss and he was quite specific ‘one piece of work to do’, you are saying something different?

MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry, that is what we are pursuing today.

Ex-Maddie-investigator: - Madeleine's dead. This case has ruined me Dagbladet

By LARS TONSTAD, Therese Doksheim

09.01.2014

Full interview

The man who led the investigation after Maddie's disappearance breaks his silence in an interview with Dagbladet, just hours before battling the McCann's in court.

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

LISBON (Dagbladet): Gonçalo Amaral (54) is the man Gerry and Kate McCann, Maddie's parents, do everything they can to stop.

"I am financially ruined and my name and honor is blackened. And I have not done anything wrong," said Amaral to Dagbladet.

- Immediately thought she was kidnapped

He is one of the main characters in the story that has engaged a whole world. Little Madeleine McCann, then three-years-old, disappeared sometime between nine and ten o'clock on May 3, 2007. As her parents were drinking and dining close by, Madeleine and her younger twin siblings were sleeping alone in the family's holiday apartment in Praia de Luz.

"She died in her parents flat that evening on May 3, 2007. I am not saying her parents killed her. But they have a responsibility for her disappearance," said Gonçalo Amaral.

Now, the McCann's demand £1m in compensation from the man who led the first investigation after their daughter vanished. He is now facing trial in Lisbon.

Amaral still claims that the evidence, observations and the way the parents reacted to their daughter's disappearance, points towards the parents.

Dagbladet met Amaral for an exclusive interview just hours before the trial against him starts in Lisbon. Outside, the rain was pouring down.

"My initial thought was that she had woken up, left the flat to look for her mum and dad. It was not natural to think that something criminal had happened. Children get lost. But the weird thing was that her parents never entered that thought - they immediately said that she had been kidnapped," Amaral said.

He spoke, visibly engaged, about the case that changed his life.

- Hard to accept

The conflict between Amaral and the McCann's sparked massive news coverage in the British media. Gerry and Kate McCann have received millions in compensation and have had many journalists and newspapers apologise for their coverage of Maddie's disappearance.

The trial against Amaral started when he published his book, «Maddie: A verdade de mentira» («The Truth of the Lie»), where he meant that the suspicion should be pointed at the McCann's.

The book broke all the records and was translated into eight languages, before Gerry and Kate McCann had it stopped by Portuguese court. They claim the book violated their honor and their search for Madeleine. The Supreme Court in Portugal dismissed the case, and the the book went back on the shelves.

Madeleine McCann's parents then sued Amaral based on his claims in the book. It is now up to the Portuguese court. The claims are sky high and - as the McCann's asked - Amaral's assets are frozen until he has been given his verdict.

"That is why I am living from hand to mouth. I can't dispose the money from my book sale. I work a little as a legal adviser for a firm but I am only getting enough money to survive. I live in my dad's flat in Portugal. It is hard to accept that I have to live that way just because I did my job," said Amaral.

Are you nervous of the outcome of this case?

Amaral shrugged.

"No, I feel safe that the verdict is going to be fair. Everything I wrote in the book can be found in the police documents. The Supreme Court believed me. I am happy that good - not rich - friends have supported me financially so that I could hire a lawyer," he said.

- Too much politics

The retired policeman lost 20-30 kilos and said he has had a rough time since being taken off the case. Many people reacted with fury when he called Gerry and Kate in for questioning - as suspects.

Amaral said that he, without a warning, got a telefax saying he was being transferred to other assignments within the police. Amaral claimed Portugal's Prime Minister informed his British colleague Gordon Brown even before he was notified himself.

By then he had already warned against political pressure from the English government, he told Dagbladet.

"This case has involved too much politics and too little police," Amaral said.

Shortly after, the case was dismissed. But the search for Maddie is still engaging the whole of Europe, and many claim to know what happened to the girl.

"The McCann's were very pleased that the case was dismissed," Amaral claims.

The Scotland Yard believes that burglars might have taken Madeleine?

"Of course we considered that. Burglars go after money and valuables. There were no signs of an intrusion. The apartment was in good order - everything was where it should have been. Can thieves really have been frightened by a three-year-old - and taken her with them? Nothing at all suggests that. We put away that theory early on, and it is just sad that is back on the table," said Amaral.

- The case is about money and celebs

Kate and Gerry McCann have since their daughters disappearance kept their profile in the media, and still speak of their hope of being reunited with Madeleine.

Influential people in England, such as Virgin-billionaire Richard Branson, are behind the McCann's. Large sums have been donated to The Madeleine Fund, which provide economical support for the McCann's.

"Everything should be about what happened to Madeleine. The case's core has shifted and is now about money, celebrities and politics. It has become an industry - an absurd theatre," Amaral told Dagbladet.

Madeleine could still be alive?

"This is a flurry of rumours and theories surrounding this case. But there are no facts. I think the truth will come for a day. To get there, we have to go back to the McCann's and their dinner party that evening, May 3, 2007. More people have to talk. The McCann's refused to participate in a reconstruction. British police did not want to give the medical information that could have helped make a profile on the victim," Amaral claimed.

"Altogether, British police were not cooperative - they seemed more interested in making sure the McCann's were not arrested. Since the case started, the McCann's have involved private investigators who have been working in spite and against what we do. Our police is independent and have high integrity - we work in an independent country. Our mission has been to find an answer - we cannot think about who the McCann's are and who support them in England."

Did you do anything wrong in your investigation - do you have any regrets?

"Madeleine's mum and dad should have been suspects from a lot earlier on," the controversial investigator said.

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

- Responsible for her disappearance

He repeated his claims, which have been strongly criticised.

"An Irish family saw a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms - that is a fact. Dogs found biological evidence in the rental car. Dogs do not lie. Madeleine's grandfather said the kids at times were given sleeping pills to sleep better. Two days before she disappeared, Madeleine cried for two hours straight. When we went through the flat for hours, the twins slept and slept in spite of a lot of noise, bright lights and people going in and out of the apartment."

In the years after Madeleine disappeared, many people from different countries have claimed they have seen girls that look like her. People have been wanted for police questioning and sketches have been printed. Maddie is still vanished. Today she would have been a ten-year-old girl.

Dagbladet have contacted the McCann's Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, through her secretary, where Amaral's quotes have been presented. Duarte did not wish to comment.

Dagbladet has also asked Madeleine's Fund for a comment, but the requests have not been answered.

[Acknowledgement pamalam of gerrymccannsblog]