11 Dec 2009 The McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Part 2 (YouTube)

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 0:00

Just posted a few minutes ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmDDsNBRbL4

And here is Part 1 which was posted three days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6uD5ahcTvw

by preciousramotswe 17.12.09 0:04

'Portugal is respectable people'.

Not a word I would personally use about Goncalo Amaral, or about people who shout down the attempts of parents to explain how they think their daughter deserves to be looked for.

by Autumn 17.12.09 0:12

Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 0:27

Autumn wrote:Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.

Yes, the McCanns have quite a line in PR men, the U.K. one once said on Irish TV that most Brits are happy to leave their kids on their own most of the evening ('it's a cultural thing').

He also compared Robert Murat to Ian Huntley.

And what was that about 'none of them were wearing watches' the night Madeleine was reported missing?

Ah yes - corection - some of them were, some of them weren't.

It's the way you tell 'em, Clarrie

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 0:30

badmanners wrote:'Portugal is respectable people'.

Not a word I would personally use about Goncalo Amaral, or about people who shout down the attempts of parents to explain how they think their daughter deserves to be looked for.

badmanners, we've had 14 artists' impressions of the abductor in the papers (and that's not counting Dave Edgar's notorious comment 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman not a man').

Just to help us search, can you help us on which one of those 14 we're all supposed to be looking for?

And just how 'convinced' are you (Dave Edgar's word) that she is being hidden in a prison lair in the lawless hills around Praia da Luz?

It would certainly narrow the world-wide search a bit

by Guest 17.12.09 8:07

Autumn wrote:Thanks for getting the link, Tony. How rude the McCanns' PR man seemed in contrast to the quiet and polite Dr Amaral.

Calmly and politely bodged up looking for poor Madeleine. What a great guy never mind

by Ruby 17.12.09 8:57

He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then? never mind

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 9:11

Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then?

They will probably say 'Jane Tanner man', who in her rogatory gave police the following information (the interrogator is Sandra Ferguson of Leics Police):

SF: Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child, if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?

JT: You see this is where now I’m really, I don’t even know whether it’s worth doing this, because there’s been so much, since then I’ve had the, when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s Murat they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the, because even, I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were, were murky, I needed to that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, erm, front facing software, so you know, and at that point I said, you know, is there, can I do, because the clothes and everything was the thing was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it’s […inaudible], is it?

SF: Yeah.

JT: Because he took me in the car back and forth and I can remember saying to him on the way back: ‘Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side, a side view’. And he sort of said: ‘No, we don’t have that feasible, you know, feasibility or availability’. And I said then: ‘Can I do that when I go back to the U.K.?’, you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been, and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like: ‘Oh no, we can’t do that, we don’t work in that way’, which I can understand and, you know, now obviously I think: ‘Oh I should have pushed and really pushed’, but at that point you rely on, you don’t, you know, you’re just in such shock and you just think: ‘O.K., that’s the way things do’, but…but, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to […inaudible], but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill-fitting, but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy-ish sort of ill-fitting more than…And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly, sort of…

SF: And what colours?

JT: Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket, but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a Mark Warner holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material, but baggy.

SF: You know the artist’s impression that you…that has been circulated a lot. How happy are you with that?

JT: Erm, phew, reasonably, but, I mean, it was the best I could do after that time, I mean, it was more, the hair was the one thing on that, that I wasn’t completely happy about, but we couldn’t get it any better because it was the sort of, I almost think that might have been slightly too long or just, but on the whole I think the actual sort of style and everything was, was fairly right. I mean, I tried to do that, though from my original description that we wrote down, sort of well, afterwards […inaudible] we tried to get all our thoughts down and I tried to do it as much as I could from that, because six months on, as I say, there was, I think the problem is there’d been so much put into my head since then, like doing the surveillance and, you know, looking at people on that and things, it was very hard to, to do it.

SF: I must come back and talk about that when we have finished going through everything.

JT: Yeah, that’s fine, yeah.

SF: What about the height of the man?

JT: Erm, phew, well, you know, I did it on the, I sort of pointed out where it was on the person that interviewed me originally and, erm, sort of, not six foot, but taller than me, but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten. But I think that had got confused in translation because I don’t know what it was in metres and they sort of then transferred that into metres from my statement, so I think it came out actually lower. But I think it was sort of like five foot nine, five foot ten, as much as I could, so.

SF: O.K. And his build?

JT: Medium, well sort of just normal build. As I say, I think the clothes were quite baggy, so I think they made him look more bigger than he probably was, but…and also he would have been, his shoulders would have been out, you know, sort of. So, I think, erm, yeah, medium-ish, a medium-ish build.

SF: And you said earlier you thought he was, I can’t remember what word you used, walking, you didn’t say briskly, but…

JT: Purposefully.

SF: Purposefully?

JT: Yeah.

SF: Did you notice anything else about the way he walked?

JT: Not really, just that it was very, as I say, it did seem quite a very, you know, a purposeful. And also the way he was carrying was sort of, it’s the way I would pick my children up if I didn’t want to wake them up, you know, if you’re sort of picking them up to put them into another bed or something, it is the way I would pick them up if they were asleep, because it’s, normally you would imagine you would carry them over your shoulder or something. So, again, in hindsight, that was probably a bit of an odd way to be, you know, be carrying, but…

SF: Is there anything else about the man that you can remember now?

JT: No, I mean, I would be so worried now about things that are put into my, I think the only two things that I’m still absolutely adamant on is a lot of hair, sort of a lot of thick, thick hair and sort of dark and baggy, well, not, ill-fitting clothes, I think is the sort of, you know, sort of is the two things that still, I mean obviously I get this image in my head all the time and they are the two things that are still, are still, are still there.

SF: And then think about the child again, as much as you can see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?

JT: Well, again, I mean, and this is, I think initially I couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the pyjamas. And I did say it in my first statement and in my second statement I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there, because I said: ‘I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or not’, but the translator sort of went: ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about something at the bottom of the pyjamas. Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know: ‘Oh was I trying to’, I can think that I would think: ‘Oh maybe a little girl would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to, to mention.

SF: [REST SNIPPED]

Given that former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar said Jane Tanner's abductor coud be an abductress, surely what the nation, indeed the world. needs is another appearance by Clarence Mitchell holding up a new artists' impression, once again of course by an F.B.I.-trained forensic artist (nothing less would be acceptable), showing 'purposeful-person' as a woman. Mind you, having said that, her choice of shoes and hairstyle were a bit odd and I'm not sure that baggy light brown trousers were that much in ladies' fashion in Portugal in 2007; she was also presumably fairly flat-chested

by Guest 17.12.09 10:03

Are you suggesting that police should stop having any interest in eye witness information at all because it is not ever 100% accurate, is that what you are saying Mr Bennett? or are you trying to somehow allege that the eye witness description is in fact 100% accurate and no mistakes are ever made? Which is it Mr Bennett, pick an argument, you evidently feel very strongly about it but you are not articulating very well what your issue is?

by Guest 17.12.09 23:15

Ruby wrote:He didn't botch it, he was stopped.
Read his book for enlightenment if this is truly news to you.
Which of the 14 photofits do you favour, then?

He was removed from the case because he was an absolite liability. He couldn't organise a pee up in a brewery, and the impending allegations of turning a blind eye to the torture of a mother of another missing child didn't help did they?

He chose to jump before he was pushed which cleared the way to a million euro book. He keep harping on about evidence he has, did he not share that evidence with Mr Rebelo who had to go back in an re-investigate the first shoddy investigation? If not, why not? Will the next charge he's up against be witholding evidence in a criminal case?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 23:35

Raffle wrote:He was removed from the case because he was an absolute liability. He couldn't organise a pee up in a brewery, and the impending allegations of turning a blind eye to the torture of a mother of another missing child didn't help did they?

Raffle, please educate yourself.

This is what really happened to little Joana Cipriano.

And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral.

Sadly, you are wrong. Joana is not 'missing'. She is dead. Killed by relatives who told the world she had been abducted:

Court hears Joana’s horror story

Onlookers in the public gallery screamed abuse at the mother and uncle of Joana Cipriano as they were ferried to and from court.

The case, which has shocked the nation with its account of incest, murder and desecration, took just three days to be tried.

The Public Ministry has pressed for jail terms of 24 years for the defendants, who are charged with qualified murder, as well as desecrating and concealing a body.

Joana disappeared, presumed murdered, in the Algarve village of Figueira, near Portimão. She was last seen buying food from a nearby café on the evening of September 12 last year.

Prosecutors charge that she came home to find her mother, 34-year-old Leonor Cipriano, and her uncle, 32-year-old João Cipriano, having sex. Fearful that Joana would relate the incident to her stepfather, they allege that the couple decided to kill her. The prosecution also said that the couple had repeatedly mistreated Joana, recounting that she was little more than a “servant” in her own household.

The court heard a catalogue of horrifying details, including an earlier video taped confession from Joana’s uncle in which he related the circumstances of his niece’s murder.

This video testimony is now the subject of an appeal from the defence team who claim it should be excluded because the couple exercised their right to remain silent during the trial.

In the taped confession, João Cipriano said he and his sister hit Joana who then banged her head against a wall before collapsing, unconscious, onto the floor. João Cipriano claimed that he had wanted to call an ambulance but that his sister prevented him, telling him instead to go to Joana’s stepfather and inform him that she had disappeared.

Her mother made subsequent public appeals for her daughter’s safe return, claiming that she had been kidnapped. But authorities began to suspect the couple after villagers noted their allegedly offhand reaction to Joana’s disappearance.

Local shopkeeper Nídia Rochato remembered that Leonor neither cried nor seemed unduly concerned. When she commented on this to her, Leonor reportedly replied that she believed that her daughter was still alive.

The absence of a corpse delayed the arraignment process but the Public Ministry were able to indict the couple following statements from neighbours. Investigators also gathered forensic evidence at the house where Joana lived with her mother, stepfather and two brothers.

Pinheiro castigated Joana’s mother for her “emotional instability, insensitivity and disregard for other people’s needs”. Only when Pinheiro announced that he was pressing for a 24-year jail term for both defendants did Leonor show emotion, sobbing uncontrollably.

Pinheiro explained why his team was pressing for such a long sentence. “The defendants’ guilt is heightened by their cold and calculating behaviour after their child’s death, as well as the devious manoeuvres they adopted to conceal the crime,” he said.

The trial included key testimony from Joana’s stepfather, António Leandro, who related that Leonor had confided to him that she had had a sexual relationship with her brother. He also told the court that during this conversation, which took place a few days after Joana’s disappearance, at judicial police headquarters, Leonor had admitted that she and her brother had killed the little girl.

A key element of the prosecution’s case rests on the fact that the couple dismembered the girl’s corpse.

António Leandro, confronted with photographs of tools allegedly used by the couple, said he recognised a saw he had kept at home. In the video taped confession, João Cipriano admitted that the body of the girl was dismembered and placed in a refrigerated trunk.

A doctor involved in the case, Albino Santana dos Santos, conceded that body parts, matching the size of a girl of Joana’s height, could have been stuffed inside the trunk.

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:39

"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 23:44

DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.

What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.

by Guest 17.12.09 23:51

DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.

I think if the British Gov hadn't got involved then kate McCann would have had her own meetings with ashtrays, stairs and hoods over her head.

And as for you Mr Bennett, refrain from telling me to educate myself over something. Tis not I who had to tell a firm of lawyers I would pack in slandering and stalking a grieving family because I produced a factually INCORRECT leaflet based on newspaper reports and the posts of a bunch of loons at the 3arguido forum.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.12.09 23:55

DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.

I'd go for these straight off:

1. Both claimed to have been abducted

2. Both girls

3. Parents in both cases thought by many others to be much too casual about the loss of their daughter

4. Evidence that both have died

5. Goncalo Amaral on the case

6. Portugal

7. Close relatives become suspects in both cases.

Any more I've missed?

by Guest 17.12.09 23:57

Where is the evidence they both died?

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:"And the detective who secured the conviction of her cruel mother and uncle was Goncalo Amaral."

Consider that very carefully.
What does that mean, DCB1? Don't speak in riddles.

Am I wrong?

Oh no - you are not wrong at all - GA certainly was involved in the case.

He was also involved in the Madeleine case.

Examine the similarities of the cases from an objective viewpoint.
I'd go for these straight off:

1. Both claimed to have been abducted

2. Both girls

3. Parents in both cases thought by many others to be much too casual about the loss of their daughter

4. Evidence that both have died

5. Goncalo Amaral on the case

6. Portugal

7. Close relatives become suspects in both cases.

Any more I've missed?

Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.

by DCB1 17.12.09 23:59

TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:00

DCB1 wrote:Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.

Sorry DCB1, I don't mean to be critical, but you can be obtuse at times.

Why don't you spell out your viewpoint, please, it's quicker that way.

by DCB1 18.12.09 0:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Use your analytical skills from another viewpoint. That is what I meant by being objective.
Sorry DCB1, I don't mean to be critical, but you can be obtuse at times.

Why don't you spell out your viewpoint, please, it's quicker that way.

Parents did it in both cases - had to be proved.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:02

DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.

No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

by DCB1 18.12.09 0:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:10

DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.

Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?

by DCB1 18.12.09 0:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:TB - you should edit your point 4. - it is in breach of the agreement you signed.
No it's not.

I refer to evidence not proof.

And I don't say how much evidence there is that either Joana or Madeleine is dead. Merely that in both cases there is some evidence.

Are they both, or either still alive then?

this sounds pretty conclusive to me : "4. Evidence that both have died"

There is no "maybe" or "points to" or "possibly" in there.
Let's put it another way.

What actual evidence do we have that either girl is alive?

In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate.

by MaryB 18.12.09 0:16

Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

by DCB1 18.12.09 0:22

MaryB wrote:Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

did you read what I said:

"In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate."

Are you suggesting that someone is fraudulently claiming that Madeleine is dead?

I just don't understand your point.

by MaryB 18.12.09 0:30

What was your point. Perhaps I misunderstood your point as you were the one who first mentioned death certificate. And I only said I didn't think death certificate was always conclusive in practice. (Either way) Especially in a case of disappearance. Because of the person who turned up again who was supposed to be dead. That yachtsman guy.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:31

DCB1 wrote:
MaryB wrote:Wouldn't there have been a death certificate for that person who disappeared and then turned up again. So a death certificate doesn't seem to always mean your're dead. And neither does the absence of a death certificate necessary mean a person is alive.

did you read what I said:

"In the case of Madeleine there is no death certificate."

Are you suggesting that someone is fraudulently claiming that Madeleine is dead?

I just don't understand your point.

MaryB is saying, quite plainly, that the absence of a death certificate is an indication that Madeleine may still be alive but by no means proof of that as a fact.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.09 0:36

Raffle wrote:Where is the evidence they both died?

We might of course consider this published evidence from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, published 10 September 2007:

QUOTE

The facts point to Madeleine dying on 3rd May in Apartment 5A:

From everything that was established, the facts point in the direction that the death of Madeleine McCann occurred on the night of 3 May 2007, inside apartment 5A, at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, which was occupied by the McCann couple and by their three children. There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.

The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed. Because of the few traces that were recovered on location and subject to examination, it has to be admitted as a strong hypothesis that it [the room] was subject to a clean-up operation at some time following the occurrence of death.

In the same manner, the soft toy that was used by the dead child, which was found at the top of the bed where she usually slept (see the photos from the initial inspection) reveals that someone put it there at a moment after Madeleine’s death, given the fact that the bed itself doesn’t have any cadaver odour.

This is to say, an intentional alteration of things in that apartment took place, in order to create a false scenario that doesn’t match reality, in an attempt to develop opportunities to create a bogus abduction scenario. It must be added that the cadaver dog strongly signalled the bedroom where the McCann couple slept, which may indicate the moving of the corpse from the actual death spot (the living room) into a non-visible part of the said master bedroom of the McCanns.

Furthermore, a strong marking of cadaver odour was made on Kate McCann’s clothes, which may indicate that she was in touch with the cadaver. There was also a strong marking of cadaver odour in the car that was used by the McCann couple after 27 May 2007). Taking together the blood dog’s marking, and based on the forensics that are included in the process files, which indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann’s DNA in the car boot, we cannot exclude a strong hypothesis that this vehicle may have possibly been used move the cadaver, 24 days or more after Madeleine’s death.

The indication from the cadaver dog, as well as from the blood detection dog, on the key of the aforementioned vehicle, where the laboratory would confirm the existence of Dr Gerald McCann’s DNA, cannot be dismissed. This last signalling was obtained by the dogs after the key was put far away from the vehicle, in a non-visible location.

Conclusions:

From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:

A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007

B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted

D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann

E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;

F. from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

G. Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:

1) possible new questioning of the arguidos Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, and

2) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case.

During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Dr Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts.

We therefore propose that the photocopies of the said document are presented to the illustrious judge for the purpose of its apprehension (if legal), its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the files, as necessary for the investigation.

At this date, I submit the case files for your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

10 September 2007 - Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

UNQUOTE