The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Mm11

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Mm11

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Regist10

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 01.11.20 12:50

The Churches' Media Conference 2008

Monday 9th – Wednesday 11th June 2008

McCanns and the Media - The Inside Story

Andrew Graystone talks to Janet Kennedy and Clarence Mitchell


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?


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.


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.


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)

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 13.03.21 0:14

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.


The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 27.07.21 13:00

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'


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]

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

crusader likes this post

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 08.09.21 13:06

CM Special: 'Maddie, The Mystery'

Original Source: CMTV Saturday 23 April 20


With thanks to Joana Morais  for transcript and translation

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Cmtv2311
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.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 08.09.21 13:13


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.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 08.09.21 13:15


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.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 08.09.21 13:16


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.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts - Page 4 Empty Re: McCann Interview and VideoTranscripts

Post by Verdi 08.09.21 13:18


News Segment 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20, CM Special: Maddie, the Mystery, April 23, 2016 - first draft

*Same reconstruction that had been broadcast in the CMTV Special in 2013, see Zizi's full translation with extra notes.
** A fisherman's story, for what it's worth. A very poor news segment riddled with avoidable mistakes to conclude an important debate, a bad editorial decision.


The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 23335
Activity : 30168
Likes received : 5771
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum