Gonçalo Amaral New Book: General Discussion.

garfy wrote:Now online in English

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cSWCnOaJGamIHXfE23w_P_UpOmf9mbfJ/view?fbclid=IwAR2o27ucevFkt4qgz2HGv_AvdY0g_K1WLa50HSxjbc9fcZ2I8ST99yPScto

Thank you garfy.

The English translation of Gonçalo Amaral's second book has been circulating throughout cyberspace since shortly after it was published.  CMOMM didn't publicize because for one, it appeared to be a google translation which was/is not 100/% reliable but more importantly, it didn't seem fair on Sr Amaral to publish a free translated version of his book across the internet when it was first on sale.  At the time it was thought, hoped, an English version was to be published through the auspices of Sr Amaral himself so at least he be credited for his own efforts - if you get the drift.

In addition, at the time CMOMM had their own member Portuguese/English translators, considered to be of great advantage in the interest of accuracy.

__________________________________


Topic merged

An oldie but goodie, worth another airing.  This brief mention follows an interview with Sr Amaral for Jorno do Centro in June 2020..

“What kidnap?” Maddie detective gives interview as mainstream warns “investigation could be dropped if missing evidence isn’t found”

By Natasha Donn - 26th June 2020



Gonçalo Amaral, the detective whose theory on what happened to Madeleine McCann sparked a massive court battle with the missing child’s parents, has finally spoken about the media ‘circus’ involving latest suspect Christian Brueckner.

Almost the minute he did so, Rogério Alves – the Portuguese lawyer representing Kate and Gerry McCann – dismissed his input as ‘fantasy’.

Shortly afterwards reports started churning out the suggestion that ‘the whole investigation could be dropped unless missing evidence isn’t found”.

Said the Sun in another of its ‘exclusives’ on the case: “NO CHARGE Madeleine McCann suspect may NOT be charged admit German prosecutors despite ‘concrete evidence”.

Within the text, the concrete evidence is explained as (little more than) German police being “convinced” of Brueckner’s guilt.

As Amaral has said since the ‘early days’ when he was removed from the investigation for his inconvenient approach, it really is time for a serious probe.

Anyone who has followed this mystery through the ups and down of the last 13 years will recall that many others have called for a serious investigation – from former Metropolitan Police chief Colin Sutton, to the group of ‘armchair detectives’ often dismissed as conspiracy theorists (click here).

[https://www.portugalresident.com/maddie-disappearance-pretty-much-solved-say-sleuths-pushing-for-new-remit/]

Amaral gave his interview to ‘local’ newspaper ‘Jornal do Centro’, following a TV slot last weekend where he suggested German investigators actually ‘released’ questionable images when they trailed their quest for ‘the smoking gun’ that would nail Brueckner to “the deed” (click here).

[https://www.portugalresident.com/major-breakthrough-as-new-suspect-identified-in-madeleine-mccann-investigation/]

The Portuguese-registered camper van that Brueckner drove when living in the Algarve back in the early 2000s was not white and yellow, as police images have shown, said Amaral. It was covered in childish graffiti.

The stills of the very different-looking camper were shown to news anchor José Alberto Carvalho and beamed to the television audience.

“Is it that the German authorities came to the conclusion that in 2007 the vehicle was painted white? Who told them that?” Quizzed Amaral.

“Could it be that German or British authorities – because I don’t know who did this, it certainly didn’t come from Portugal – could it be that they released this to try and check information? See if anyone called up to say, ‘I saw that vehicle’ when of course they couldn’t have because the van looked different then..?”

Amaral also questioned the images of Brueckner splashed across the world’s press. They were relatively recent. None showed him as he had been in 2007, and “people change”, said the former detective who has himself changed radically over 13 complicated years.

The bottom line of Amaral’s discourse remains that Brueckner has been chosen as an ‘almost perfect suspect’.

“As the parents said it was a pedophile from the start, a pedophile has had to be found”, he told Carvalho – adding that the only detail that would make Bruecker ‘more perfect’ as a suspect would be “if he was dead”.

Little has been said in the British press about Amaral’s latest comments.

Nothing has been reported on his insistence that the kidnap theory is “the one where the least evidence actually exists”.

Focus in the mainstream now is that despite the media brouhaha, charges may never be brought against Christian Brueckner – for the simple reason that nothing but circumstantial evidence links him to the disappearance from Praia da Luz 13 years ago of Madeleine McCann.

Brueckner’s lawyers meantime are pushing for their client’s release from jail where he has already served ⅔ of a drug sentence.

https://www.portugalresident.com/what-kidnap-maddie-detective-gives-interview-as-mainstream-warns-investigation-could-be-dropped-if-missing-evidence-isnt-found/

Natasha is the only true investigative journalist in this entire saga
She actually reads the evidence and thinks for herself.

Gonçalo Amaral reflects..

No More Lies

I have been successful in my career. Time seems to have passed too quickly.

One moment I was progressing in a career in criminal investigation, the next I was retired and out of the institution of the Judicial Police. It is true that it was my decision to leave the police force, but the reasons that led me to put an end to the exercise of a professional activity that I embraced by vocation, with heart and soul, were beyond my control.

I am fully convinced that my early retirement from the Judicial Police was an exercise of my own free will, but as a consequence of one or more acts that were the responsibility of others. Mainly of someone who did not know how to take care of his children. A simple act, the flapping of a butterfly's wings, which provoked a typhoon and installed chaos in the lives of all those who, directly or indirectly, were connected with the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Years have passed, too many years, but the story, or the investigation, is still with me and I have not given it up.

[I can't vouch for the accuracy of this translation]

No More Lies

A suspect was constructed without even proving the existence of a kidnapping. On the
other hand, the simulation of a kidnapping that took place on 3 May 2007 is not
compatible with the existence of a real kidnapping. If there had been a real
kidnapping, why simulate it?

[Disclaimer: Because we can]

40. BY WAY OF A FINAL CONCLUSION

This book was written over the last 12 years. Here I narrate the consequences and the
harmlessness of the search for the child. Alongside this narrative, there is a review of
the Portuguese process in which the child's disappearance was investigated, and which
is still to be investigated, the investigative methodologies that were and were adopted,
the steps taken, the provisional conclusions reached in September 2007, the
conclusions contained in the behavioural report on the profile of a suspect, the
timeline and the window of opportunity.

We got to know the girl a little better, specifically through the vocabulary she uses. At
the time of the disappearance she seemed to denote some speech impediment for a 4
year old, an idea that was rejected by the mother, who described her as very
intelligent and articulate, considering that the vocabulary used by the daughter was
not limited and would be above the usual usage of other children of the same age. It is
not known what is essential, i.e. whether she was abused, as the episode in Mallorca,
described by Dr. Katherine G., when she reported the "suggestive" gestures of David
P., seems to denote.

The review of the work carried out by the Judicial Police is carried out, over the years,
interspersing the approaches of the different hypotheses, from abduction, planned
abduction, abduction motivated by sexual gratification, voluntary disappearance, the
responsibilities of the parents or other persons with the duty to take care of the child,
accidental death (with or without the ingestion of the drug Calpol), death in the hours
or days prior to the alert of disappearance.

The behavioural report, drawn up on 1 June 2007, by the British agency NPIA, which,
after profiling a possible abductor, draws attention to the fact that "the possible
involvement of the family in the disappearance of the child" cannot be ruled out. For
the experts who drafted the report, there was no evidence at the time to directly
support the family's involvement, "but given the absence of decisive evidence to the
contrary", this hypothesis had to be explored in addition to the alternatives.

For the first time, the Risk Control report produced in the first days after the
disappearance, the work of the private detectives hired by the parents and the review
of the child's mother's book, which is evidence to be attached to the file, were
reviewed.

This review began with the scenario presented on 3 May 2007, a disappearance
between 17:30 and 22:00 hours, with the subsequent alert of a child to be watched in
a sketch drawn up by parents and friends, and two sightings of a "man with a child on
his lap", one by her friend Jane T., at around 21:15 hours, and the other by the family
of Martin S., after 22:00 hours.

The re-examination of the investigation showed that there had been no surveillance
plan and that the eventual death of the child could have occurred at an earlier time,
taking into account the date of 30 April (photograph of the child in the swimming pool
with his father and brother), or the night of 1 May, when the child spent more than
one hour and forty-five minutes crying alone with his two brothers.

Since the night of 3 May, the only thing that can be assured, within the group of
parents, is the non-existence of a monitoring scheme for the children. As far as the
alert of the disappearance is concerned, it is not known if it was planned or if it
corresponds to reality, the exact time remains to be determined, knowing only that
the telephone call to the Republican National Guard, to warn of the disappearance,
occurred at 22h41.

As for the initial search for the child, following the alert, carried out by friends and
locals, all that is known is that they were only looking for a "missing child" and not for
a "man with a child in his arms", i.e. they were not looking for a child following an
abduction.

Jane T.'s statement about seeing a "man with a child on his lap" has always been
suspect because it has been refined over hours, days, months and years, as well as
casting doubt on witness Matthew O.'s statement about going to the flat where the
child disappeared. This is the reason why the British police, in 2013, proceeded to
expunge this sighting, made intentionally, being aware of its inconvenience. All that
remains is the sighting of Martin S.'s family, who partially recognise the father and the
missing child, which has led the same police to consider that the abductor resembles
the child's father.

As for the "man with a child on his lap", namely in terms of the way he walks and
dresses, without looking like a tourist, there is a strange coincidence. The testimonies
of three independent witnesses seem to describe the same person, who resembles the
father of the child.

The analysis of the elaboration of the police sketches outside the criminal proceedings
and without the presence of the Judicial Police shows that they are used to impose the
idea that the child has been abducted, drawing attention to the fact that any sketch
should be drawn up on the basis of a statement describing the person portrayed, a
description that can and should serve to eliminate or confirm the resemblance
between the sketch and the person finally identified.

On the other hand, the temporality in which the testimony is produced, as well as the
making of the sketch-portrait, must always be kept in mind by those analysing the
resemblance. It is often not possible to know whether the witness is identifying the
person he or she actually saw in the commission of the crime or the portrait of the
person he or she saw in the media. Finally, in any resource for the identification of a
person or persons, photographs or images contemporary to the crime should be used,
not before or after, as people change with age.

Having had access to the documents relating to the investigations carried out by the
police and the German authorities, it has become clear that they have a common
thread which starts from the premise of the existence of a kidnapping by a paedophile,
with no other means of proof than the motivated statements of a prisoner, sentenced
to more than seven years in a Greek prison for trafficking in human beings. He is the
one who claims to have heard that Christian B. was responsible for the abduction.

The investigation into Christian B. has not produced any evidence or clues pointing to
his responsibility for the abduction, nor has it even succeeded in proving that this
individual is a dangerous paedophile murderer, despite the massive propaganda
campaign carried out since June 2020.

That investigation is flawed by several errors and omissions of important steps to
uncover the truth. As a US federal judge recently said, in relation to an error-ridden
false allegation of voter fraud, it is "like Frankenstein's monster, it was stitched
together haphazardly". This comparison is perfectly apt to define the German
investigation.

A suspect was constructed without even proving the existence of a kidnapping. On the
other hand, the simulation of a kidnapping that took place on 3 May 2007 is not
compatible with the existence of a real kidnapping. If there had been a real
kidnapping, why simulate it? Today, we know a lot about a suspect, whether real or
fake, but little, if anything, about the victim.

It is to be hoped that with the publication of this book, and the knowledge of the
errors contained in the German investigation, so-called "investigative journalism" will
assume its intervening role and question why such a poor job has been done by the
German police and authorities, whose intervention in the investigation of Madeleine's
disappearance alone proves nothing.

The main conclusion reached by our review of the investigation is that there are still
many unanswered questions, the only certainty being that on the night of 3 May 2007,
after 22:00 hours, a British child of approximately 4 years of age was reported missing.
Another certainty is that the child travelled to Praia da Luz, but it is not known
specifically when he was no longer seen outside the family or group of friends and, if
he died, when and in what circumstances.

The provisional findings, contained in the interim report produced by the Judicial
Police in September 2007, remain valid and no evidence has been gathered to
invalidate them.

Fourteen years after the disappearance, after millions of pounds and euros spent, the
investigation continues where it left off in 2007. All hypotheses are open.

After reviewing the Portuguese investigation and analysing the work of the consortium
"Grange, Rechen & Associados", a set of useful steps towards the material truth has
been listed, some of which may already have been carried out, but I believe most will
come as a surprise to many. The first step will be to reconstitute the events that took
place during the dinner on 3 May 2007, with the nine adults who made up the holiday
group.

The Portuguese authorities cannot abdicate their powers and responsibilities. The
crime of 3 May 2007, whatever it was, took place on national territory. From the
outset, criminal proceedings have been the competence of the Judicial Police and the
Public Prosecutor's Office. The investigation must be carried out within the scope of
the facts contained in such criminal proceedings, and can and should be carried out in
collaboration with other countries, but it is the Portuguese police and judicial
authorities who are in charge of the investigation; the contrary is not acceptable and
would be of dubious legality.

The child who mysteriously disappeared deserves an objective and serious
investigation and not a randomly stitched, i.e. badly stitched, monster.

South Olivais, 1 February 2021.