Amaral is grilled

WIth thanks to Pedro on J4 for all his work translating this for us.. http://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/lon ... -t2519.htm



My friends, here it is the complete translation:

Miguel: Good evening GA, thank you for this interview. How the investigation begins, you are dining with a friend in Portimao, you are placed in Portimao, you coordinate that area, at the Portimao county, of Lagos, eating some shrimps, good taste, and receives a phonecall saying that a British little girl disappeared at Praia da Luz, so, I think that in your place you should released immediately that was a case which assumed great gravity, paedophile, algarve, tourism, English, etc, etc, why don´t you go immediately to the crime scene and give instructions to PJ picket, let me finish, to say to whoever goes there to be very carefull the evidences sheet / overlay

GA: it´s like this, we have many cases in Portimao, and the coordinator could not, would not presented, it´s like this now, PJ has, works really well, has experts, has technicians, it is well established to function, it doesn´t need a coordinator, the coordinator has other things to do, besides to go along with the police picket, has you can guess, we have cases (Miguel says: that is in any case, but in this case that´s not justified, you are at 20 quilometers of the crime scene (GA says: perhaps in a week or two it could justified, now the issue is, we have many things to do (Miguel says: you released yourself, that, the first ones, gathering evidences, who was there, did not done a very good job (GA says, a normal job inside the perspective that abduction, shall we say, the theft of, the theft of a person in the case and that inspects the site as if it were a theft, the object who was there was removed, it was a lack of procedures that pj is somehow rethink and has a lot to do with that, with the perspective approach of inspect the site in this case (Miguel says: didn´t you thought that you had to go there immediately) it´s not to think, it´s like this, the coordinator or director doesn´t have to go there, it has to control and I control it (Miguel: perhaps it was better to go there, don´t you regret of not being there later) no, I don´t regret, police professionals are police professionals, they are experts, technicians, we being there and as a sign for a technician to gather fingerprints and with the job of taking photos (Miguel: for example, at certain time you...) it is something that should justified pj to go there (Miguel: public experience, at a certain time you regret that you don´t know how the english, the McCanns were dressed in that nightand says with as shame that the took so many photos during holidays but not during night) no, they took during night they just didn´t showed up (Miguel: didn´t showed up) and I (Miguel: ask me: if you a have a man there) if Miguel allows me, it´s like this, I´m a man under an injunction and talk directly about it here in the case, I don´t know if I´m going to break the injunction, there is a conflict of sides, help me a bit in that (Miguel: I´ll help: justifiy people with an injunction is a orde govem by court, I read the sentence which says: you cannot talk about your book´s thesis, but you can talk about other thesis) I can talk about the abduction (Miguel: I asked you this because when you says you regret that are no photos to know how the english were dressed that night, you have a man in charge of taking photos, how can he not took photos fro the english also? How can anyone remembers saying to take photos of everything) yes, such mistakes happens a lot, and in many cases, I remind a case, it´s in the book also, of an expert who showed up in the photos with a brush in her hand in the outside window of the little girl´s room, and without any protection, today the experts, the police in the crime scene has their own clothes (Miguel: you´ve learned with your mistakes) and we didn´t look at CSI (Miguel: seems to me you had a lifetime chance as a pseudo-criminal investigator, you had a difficult case to solve, no argue about that, but under the attentions worldwide, that became immediately a global news at a time when speaks about child abductions, paedophiles, you had a gold chance to bright personally, to bright your corporation (GA says: it´s not bright) Miguel says: you had 2 goals: 1- find Maddie. or known what happened to her, you have failed both, you failed your mission, your chance) GA: no, no, I gave my contribution to the investigation until I was allow to be there, and I can tell you that I as not alone in the investigation, it as the coordinator GA, the director of Portimao who was alone in the charge of the investigation and the director (Miguel: but it was you the public face of the investigation) GA says no, Miguel says you were the one who talked a lot about her) GA: no, the public face was the one used in England´s terms, or here, in Portugal also, I just spoked about her when I left the police, until that, if I was seen in or out the police, was to go to my office, to lunch with colleagues and so on, Miguel says: then I ´ll take te explosive charge on yourself: the team you conducted failed both goals. GA says: no. Miguel: it´s a fact evidence isn´t it? GA says: not wanted to break the injunction, many evidences was gathered and I´m talking in good faith, and I think I´m not breaking the injunction, I cannot speak about the book, but you doctor can (Miguel: yes I can, I was not forbidden, when you talk about evidences, you speaks about te hypothesis of her being killed by her parents, to hide her body) GA: no, no I never said that, MIiguel says: but it is what is in the book, GA: what I say in the book, let me explain (Miguel: but you had fun yourself). GA: I don´t say, (Miguel: the final conclusion), GA: no, no, then you had not read the book, that book is the English truth and there is nothing there. Miguel: I have not read it? Oh yes I have read it, the book ends with 4 conclusions marked in black. GA says: conclusions which are not talking about murder by the parents. (Miguel: I didn´t said murder by her parents, could been killed accidentaly). GA repeats: no, no,accidentaly is not killed by someone, an acident is an accident, it´s not any murder. MIguel says: it is involuntary murder, you always told that they hide their daughter´s body, that is not in your book? Miguel repeats this answer) GA says: there is where you Miguel is wrong, what´s in the book is six month of investigation, during which I ws in charge and where it concludes with reports which are there, at the suspicious at that time and has you MIguel knows, criminal investigation has it´s time, a beginning, a middle and an end, and so on, and in that moment was suspicion, which doesn´t mean later, but, but (Miguel says: but the suspicions were mostly yours, you know GA, another thing that is impressive is, let´s get back, shall we (GA: you are putting words in my mouth, you are forbidden) Miguel continues: no no, the words are mine, my conclusions and taken from your takenm from the process)


GA says: no the suspicions, you are putting words in my mouth or what, no, you are talking about the injunction, it is an interpretation of the book (Miguel: it is an interpretation of the book, you receive the news, gives the order to PJ picket, go to your home, (GA: yes, like in any other case). MIguel continues: you go to your home, wake up in the morning, this is in your book, and the firts thing that comes to your brain is asking to the British who are the McCanns and starts immedaitely to suspect and the questions, the answers you ask are: if they hurt childen, if the have a seroius problem with law, if they have psychological problems, if they are in fact doctors in full time, and then, much ahead you say is common sense in these cases to suspect of the parents, so, you have not yet seen the McCanns, you have not yet been at the crime scene and you´re already suspect them? Is it or is it not. You´re a master). GA says: yes, then says, listen, I or any other, yes, yes, it´s normal, it´s not to suspect, you´re wrong, it´s not common sense, listen doctor, you are making phantasies, something, Miguel says: no, I´m not making phantasies, I read). GA repeats: the issue is this: the national and international laws in any of these cases and we were criticised by the FBI about this, is the issue of suspect or not of parents, or the closest in these types of cases and I can tell you, (Miguel says: you believe, but I don´t say suspect, at a certain time now, the first suspicions is that it?). GA says: it´s not the first suspicion, we have to know first who that people is. Miguel says: it was not most urgent to know if the borders were all closed?Are all the marinas under surveillance? All the cars who left there under control?). GA says: But we knew. We took care of that. No, it cannot know all cars who left there. And look, we reached the conclusion that for example the Via of Infante has some TV cameras which didn´t work, we talked with Spanish colleagues to control the border of Cádiz, in terms of access to Morocco, all those, Tenerife, and so on (Miguel says: the marinas were not immediately controlled, because I know who left for example of Lagos marina one day after, quietly).


GA: but we have all that information. We know that. From a place where some occurence happens, we analyze it, if there are CCTV, if there are no CCTV, if there are any CCTV, what can be seen, what cannot be seen, all of that, at the same time, look, saying that we aimed immediately to, it´s not like that, that question is relativity to the parents, excuse me, that first question, that, was answered, it is the first, was never answered, it is the first, it is important to understand... (Miguel: since the first day, anyone who read your book concludes immediately that in the first meeting, at the end of the first day, is the strongest hypotesis you have, and I believe that has been created at a certain time of the investigation, but now, is the first hypotesis of work, it is the first hypothesis of work you pick and seems to be the only. GA says: it´s not (Miguel insists: it looks to be the only one). GA repeats: not it´s not. Miguel insists again: it is, it is. GA says: the doctor read the book. MIguel says: I read the book. GA says: notice, there are at the book the a, the a, the investigations for the abduction, there we have the abduction, what has been done. Miguel says: in terms of abduction, yes). GA says: talks about a polish couple and an investigation, that, if you read the book (Miguel: yes, I read it) GA: as for me, I don´t agree with that end of, I don´t agree, but even the McCanns don´t talk about them and there are other situations, situations if, goes to the process, we have the book, then, the process, we have the book which I wrote it, I was inside, the reason why I wrote it , I can explain it to you later, and there is the process which was been given to the journalists, the book is forbiden, the process is not, the process reaches the same conclusions of those first six months, but if you notice, (Miguel says: no) Ga, says: there are diligencies, if you notice doctor (and MIguel says: no). GA says: have you read the process?. MIguel says: there are diligencies which are not been carried out and which are not made, exactly because it stays since the beginning in the hypothesis of being the parents guilty. GA says: it´s a lie, no, it´s a lie). Miguel says: the first day: the GNR dogs which goes there in the first day pointed all of them to the parking lot, the trail which they follow stops at the parking lot, that lead points to a car who tokk the child out of there, and that is never, excuse me, never, instead, it stays, stayed six months, five months...).

GA says: and I´ll tell you more, yes, pointed to what? No, sorry, pointed to a car, why, where did you read that, in my book (Miguel: no, that is not in your book). GA: but it is also in the book, the GNR dogs are good, these are sniffer dogs, what they followed was the trail of a living child, you understand, it was the route of that child, you doctorsays it is a car and Miguel says: why do you say that she was not alive? GA says: excuse me, but, how do you doctor says it was a car, you don´t know the day, hours before the... Miguel says that in a parking lot is most likely that was a car, and if you accepted the idea you give me, I´m not an expert in criminal investigation, now the idea that gives me is tha~t since the beginning and if, if what we have, started with a serious work in the hypothesis of the abduction, the first suspicion is that the child was taken by a car, instead, instead...).


GA: oh doctor, there is a witness who even talks that the child went out in the opposite way (Miguel says: exactly, which you give no credibility, which is another english friend of the McCanns, and which you give also no credibility to that witness). GA: I´m not giving credibility? And Miguel says again: no you don´t, you give no credit at all. GA: it´s possible, neither me nor anyone else. That lady starts by saying this, startings by saying that, then it´s going to change it, when, in the middle, the only thing she remembered was the hair, she remembers the photofit which was the hair and so on, what she remembered is that it was filling everything, until reach the point of recognizes Robert Murat as the author, so, that cannot be, now it´s yes, these are all things which are to be done. Miguel says: the first person who suspects of Robert Murat is you, isn´t it? It is you. You´re the first. You´re the first who goes there and decides to put him under surveillance. GA says: It is Jane Taylor. You´re wrong. It is Jane Taylor, no, no, and Miguel says: yeah, bhut I don´t talk about that suspect. Well, back to my story, this is a thesis, much like yours, I think it was not properly / enough investigated the story of the abduction, because PJ was a prisoner / attached since immediately to the other hypothesis: the most darkest theory of them all, and moreover, for me, it contains a thing that I stil don´t see any person to explain it: How can a British couple, who is on vacation at the Algarve, who doesn´t know the country, at night, between 9.30 and 10.00 pm, doesn´t know why, doesn´t know the reason, which mobile / purpose, in which circumstances, wanted, not wanted, kills their daughter and makes disappear the body in half an hour and that no one can find? Evaporates? GA says: It´s like this, the words kill the daughter are form you doctor not mine (Miguel says: they´re mine) the period between 9.30 and 10.00 are from the suspects (Miguel says: from the suspects, of some of the suspects, which were already at the restaurant where employees, witnesses seeing them, even if they were all in... how can a body just disappears?). GA says: oh doctor, let´s talk about one thing, there is one thing, one thing that is said, wait a minute, there is one thing that is said in the report, for me is the principal mistake of the shelve of the process, let me remind, the doctor in an article of June 21st told no to the shelve and against the shelve, and there I agree with you, with everything else behind, the most part I do not agree, but in the issue about the shelve, I agree with you, not a bit as the report about the public ministry: the issue, and even at the British police reports at mpa (Miguel says: are reports... makes a body disappears in half an hour in a foreign country at night). GA says: I´´m going to answer, wait, what half an hour? Miguel repeats: half an hour. GA says: the child is seen by people outside the couple (Miguel says: 7.30) at 17h35 and then an Irish couple which told saw someone with the, with possibly with that, not sure, at 22h15 and which gives (Miguel says: ah, then) excuse me, who gives the wall, who gives the window of (Miguel says: so your thesis....) is Mr. Gerald McCann, not my thesis (Miguel says: so, you cannot speak about your thesis, but you´re telling me that is also possible to put the hypothesis that, the child died between 17h35 and 22h). GA says: don´t have any doubts about that. you doctor limited half an hour, and I´m not talking in deaths, is someone to have killed, the couple, never mind about it, what is told internationally, (Miguel says: so, if it was not death, was what? They abducted themselves their own daughter?), GA says:; wait, I´m not telling you that the had killed, that´s not what I´m saying, what is told internationally and in terms of investigation here in Portugal and in any country of the world and it is told by British police, that cannot be trusted at the timetables which are provided by the suspects, and that is why the Public ministry which is a mistake the shelve of the process, if you read the dispatch of the shelve, it says: the couple could not have done this or that at that time because it wasn´t there, but who gave that half an hour was Mr. Gerald McCann and Mrs. Kate McCann (Miguel says: and all the others, all the friends), GA says: no, no, not all the friends.


GA: It is you, whose going to use an apartment (Miguel says to go to that apartment) GA sys: just to that apartment (Miguel says: not just that one, there are other apartments, six friends dining plus an older lady, seven people who says all that goes there minutes in minutes) GA says: there are seven children and oly goes to that apartment? No, it´s like this: Mr. Matthew Oldfield, for example, told he never saw the girl and says he entered in the apartment and didn´t saw her, now it´s like this: I´m talking in general terms, not want to break any injunction, it is needed to have carefull with that, all I´m saying in technical terms, of police experts, in police terms, it cannot be trusted in, it´s in the reports, even the British police (Miguel says: it cannot be trusted and I believe in what the witnesses says) GA says: it is not about what the witnesses says, the suspect, don´t you forget that (Miguel says again: but you determined them as suspects before they become suspects, it is what it seems to me, really, the idea you give me is and they are immediately suspects, that you wake up in the next day morning without even looked at their faces, you are already suspect them is a gold rule? I think that the golde rule here is to start investigate if there are evidences and then comes the suspicions, but before having evidences there are already suspicions? Seems to Mr.Amaral, excuse me for that, but seems to me that you started from a thesis and looked for evidences to confirm the thesis instead of doing otherwise). GA says: you´re wrong, they are not, but it is a golden rule, no, in international terms, in rules terms, we don´t have many cases. No, on the contrary, I can tell you something: in the beginning they said it was a case similar to the one with Joana Cipriano, I said no (Miguel says: similar with the Joana Cipriano) and GA, nervous, says:not again, Miguel repeats: similar with the Joana Cipriano, GA says: our mistake (Miguel says: it´s the same), GA says: no, it´s not the same, it´´s not the same, MIguel says: you also investigates, also no body and you concludes with was the mother and the brother). GA, nervous: I, I, didn´t conclude it, it was the court of Portimao who concludes it and they were condemned (Miguel says: you only feels satisfied, now, let me ask you: you were convinced, I´m not convinced, I believe you had been satisfied as investigator that the court corroborated your thesis, right? In the case of Joana Cipriano).


GA says: But why my thesis? (Miguel says: now, after being proved that she was beaten, that is also being judged, that she was beaten hard (GA says: who was condemned?Miguel says: you are condemned with suspended with probation, suspended by not beating her but for false declarations about the case), GA says: how can false declarations, how can we reach that? I´m going to explain it quickly (Miguel says: a judicial sentence, I´m guiding by the sentence now) GA: no, I was listened always and has a witness... (Miguel says: let me do to you a question: you think that in this country (Portugal) many people believes that Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter? A very few people Mr. Amaral, very few people (GA says: You think?) very few people and we don´´t believe: how can a woman without any instruction, without any proof, who was beaten hard by PJ (GA says: nothing has been proved, you are going to...) how can she managed, managed to be so clever, that she kills her daughter, hides the body and PJ couldn´t get a single trace? Miguel continues: where is the body? (GA says: the inspection which was carried 12 days after and then let´s see the circumstances in which he was, there is blood, washing of the apartment itself, a person who never washed the apartment, wash it at that time, there are a series of traces, if you want to talk about that case, let´s talk, I mean (Miguel says: no, some should exist for the court to condemned her, now there is also a revue of the sentence based on something) GA says: yes it was inferred the revue of the sentence), Miguel says: it was inferred? I didn´t know that, look, I wish it had been, because that doesn´t convince me) GA says: why doesn´t convince you?, Miguel says: because it doesn´t convince me, because I have a previous suspicion about defendants who reach court, with confessions of crimes made under beatings, which is obvious, I cannot accept that, therefore, I suspect). GA says: but, do you suspect of me? Miguel says: you signed a confession. GA says: Do you think so? In what time? Miguel says: it´s in the confession in the files, I don´t know or have assumed? What I know is: she was taken out of jail, during night, take her back to PJ facilities and returned her beaten, it was during night, and besides, it was participated by the warden of the jail, right?).


GA says: at night? Took her at night. Yeah, it was, maybe it should be listened better, because you know... if we are going to talk about this case (Miguel says: but we are not going to talk about Joana Cipriano, we are not going to talk, let´s go back to Maddie´s case), GA says: Let´s talk, look, there is one thing essential, let´s focus here a very fast thing: I was accused in this process of omission of seeing and denounce and I ask: what does that lady do when she thought that she had someone there and she told that pj doesn´t asked for forensics, didn´t informed the Public ministry, why does she asked to a worker, a person under her dependence, wait, let me finish this, why did she asked for a dependent medic by green tickets to make one medical exam attached to a psychiatric, this is interesting, because there are experts in Odemira, you doctor know where Odemira is and there are there forensic experts, it can be done there. It will not be a german psychiatric in green tickets dependent of the lady warden that will make fornsics (Miguel: I´m not discussing the Joana case, I don´t have time, what I want is Maddie case, it stil actual, it didn´t reach any conclusion, at the time of the Maddie case, the Times of London wrote something which I agree completely: it said like this (GA says: it´s in your opinion? I cannot give mine), Miguel says: about this you can give it, Times told: "Portuguese police continues to be the bulk of their investigations in the self-incrimination of arguidos, of suspects (GA says: that´s a lie), Miguel continues: listen: or throught the tapping phonecalls where they confess the crime, or through confessions and I remembered this; after the, because when you tell in the book that you invited Kate McCann as arguida, that thre was great expectations that she confessed spontaneously and she didn´t confess and the husband didn´t confess and then they return to England e you become very disappointed because they return to England, because from that moment on, they are not here for you to continue interrogates them, because, (GA says: To England we already knew they were going to... it says here that our director, was hasted the nomination as arguidos, but they were leaving and there are statements in that direction, but saying that (Miguel says;: but it was a right who assists them) Ga says: yes, it was, completely), Miguel says: to whom had read the news blown by police and by the press, by police obviously (GA says: why obviously? Why not by the Public ministry, by British police?) Miguel says: it was by Public ministry, by British police. Its another opinion of mine; for you it seemed that the McCanns were suspects for returning to England, to return home five months later, but, their purpose was to stay here, interrogated, interrogated by pj until they confessed something they never did, isn´t that right?), GA says: we are running out of time, you told me so, let´s change the format and you doctor talks and I´m going to tell you very quickly one important thing: look, as for the couple McCann, the couple only mentioned in leavimg in the day that British dogs arrived to Portugal and then Mr. Gerald McCann knowing the potentialities of those dogs, and to be all enlightened (Miguel says: I don´t see the connection, if he were in London, wouldn´t the dogs acted the same way?), GA says: seems that the dogs only failed here, it´s because of the heat in Algarve (Miguel says: what difference can they make by being here or not at the same time as the dogs?) GA says: what difference? They knew what´s going to happened next, until that, they walked with their hands clapped and pj gaves them information, just to say something. I wrote that book - the truth of lie, in the exercise of my freedom of speech loke the judge told, because the attacks towards me, which I was targeted, I´m going to tell you: they call me, the British press: 418 times shameful, 440 times outrageous, 140 times torturer, 45 times disabled, 37 times incompetent, 23 times libertine cop, 20 times sacked, let me tell you: when my fredeom of speech is in stake, and when at Republic Assembly discusses problems of freedom of speech, as it was told recently, for me is something smaller, because the discussion should be extended, because what´s in stale here is not only the Gonçalo Amaral´s freedom of speech, it´s in stake the freedom of speech of the journalisrts and the freedom of speech of this country´s citizens. Miguel says with a boring expression: yes, yes, I heard, so, you made your statement, I only want a short answer to this question: imagine, imagine yourself, because to me I cannot imagine: that the McCanns are indeed inocent, imagine that they under the excruciating pain of losinf a daughter, who was abducted, which they don´t know what happened to her, they had still suffered the ignominy of seeing themselves considered suspects of being killed and hiding their daughter´s corpse, have you already thought about that hypothesis? GA says: I have already thought and thought about al of them. Miguel says: and you sleep with tranquility with the certain that that didn´t happened? Ga says: I do sleep, yopu know why? It´s like this: who demanded the shelve of the process? You doctor told in that title from the Express diy 21: The couple McCann. Who conformed with the shelve of the process? The couple McCann (Miguel says: excuse, but, they are not conformedm they want reopen the process). GA says: Excuses, you doctor don´t know the rules. They at that time, opening the instruction, speaks abour the process reopened.

Miguel says: Dr. GA, I have to shelve the interview.

GA says: sadly, sadly.

Chopped, grilled and served with relish on a bun.

Dreadful isn't it!

Bet he felt relieved when the interview was over.

Nice to see someone who isn't a sycophant putting the Truth to Amaral. He had a theory which by hook or by crook he was going to make it fit.

IMO, the most telling point the interviewer made was that Amaral suspected parental involvement from the very beginning, then looked for, manipulated and even fabricated evidence to fit his "thesis." A proper investigation, of course, should be the other way round.

His mind was closed to any other possibilities, and still is.

Chinagirl wrote:IMO, the most telling point the interviewer made was that Amaral suspected parental involvement from the very beginning, then looked for, manipulated and even fabricated evidence to fit his "thesis." A proper investigation, of course, should be the other way round.

His mind was closed to any other possibilities, and still is.

He's trying to justify this by asserting it's normal for parents to be ruled out as a matter of urgency in any case involving their child, which of course it is, but this should be parallel to treating the crime scene as the scene of a potential homocide or abduction, which if done, would have been the best way to preserve any evidence.

Of course what he did was treat it as a woke and wandered, was lackadaisical regarding the collection of forensic evidence, incredibly relaxed regarding using a local translater who he later suspected of involvement. Panicked when he had no case and the trail had gone cold, remembered about another case of a missing child that he had convinced the court was murdered by her mother, was potentially involved in the leaking of damaging and untrue rumours about the Mccanns, got into a petty and minor war of words with the media, got asked to leave the case, stomped off the force in a hissy fit, decided to punish said media by writing an offensive untrue book where he relates what a genius detective he is 'cos he knew all along it was the parents wot done it and it's all from the investigative files except that no it sort of isn't, it's from his own head, but it's all true innit.

Well summed up Hedge.

What a hero

I maintain if this man had done this in any other case other than the McCanns (who are unfortunate enough to inspire some sort of dislike in a small section of society) a fair few of the parent bashers would be sitting on the other side of the fence infuriated that an individual in a position of power can get away with such a thing.

Chinagirl wrote:IMO, the most telling point the interviewer made was that Amaral suspected parental involvement from the very beginning, then looked for, manipulated and even fabricated evidence to fit his "thesis." A proper investigation, of course, should be the other way round.

His mind was closed to any other possibilities, and still is.

Wasn't it the British police who suggested bringing the dogs in which changed things?

Yes, ufercoffy.
What a timely reminder of this oft-overlooked (on here, anyway) fact, thank you.

And wasnt it the head of Leicester Police who said there was not one shred of evidence to say the McCanns had antything to do with madeleines abduction?

Ruby wrote:Yes, ufercoffy.
What a timely reminder of this oft-overlooked (on here, anyway) fact, thank you.

I wouldn't have said it was overlooked, don't we all know that the dogs used in this case were recommended by the UK, I'm not sure what relevance it has to this thread which is focused on exposing Amarals frankly shocking and disturbing behaviour.

The Portuguese sniffer dogs? - Hm lets see - Did the PJ try very hard to check the routes out that these dogs took?

Dogs or no dogs - Amaral had looked for the easier option and made everything fit (or tried to). He didn't expect anyone to stand up to him and didn't let it interfere with his tunnel vision when they did.

bunny wrote:WIth thanks to Pedro on J4 for all his work translating this for us.. http://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/lon ... -t2519.htm



My friends, here it is the complete translation:

Miguel says: and you sleep with tranquility with the certain that that didn´t happened? Ga says: I do sleep, yopu know why? It´s like this: who demanded the shelve of the process? You doctor told in that title from the Express diy 21: The couple McCann. Who conformed with the shelve of the process? The couple McCann (Miguel says: excuse, but, they are not conformedm they want reopen the process). GA says: Excuses, you doctor don´t know the rules. They at that time, opening the instruction, speaks abour the process reopened.

Miguel says: Dr. GA, I have to shelve the interview.

GA says: sadly, sadly.

Is this final paragraph correct? Do the parents want the process reopened? Last I heard they didn't think it mattered one way or the other. What they are pushing for is a review, or am I behind the times?

is a review a precursor for a possible re-opening?

I lose track

Hi vaguely,

I don't know if it is or not, but sadly it looks to me as though Madeleine has become lost beneath a mountain of agendas.

Yes, they want it re opened!

bunny wrote:Yes, they want it re opened!

Well that is great news. Where is this info from bunny as I haven't seen it ? Not doubting you, but the last I saw was the interview after the Lisbon court hearing where the parents were specifically asked if they wanted the case reopened and the reply was that it didn't matter if it was reopened or not, they were going for a review.

Sorry, to me a review will lead to a re opening. I believe there is no point re opening it if Pavia and others who believe madeleine is dead are still there....pointless exercise, dont you think?

If reviewed I would imagine that would show that certain officers didnt do their job correctly and should not be on the case. That being the case they should be removed thus letting new eyes have a look.

I thought this also....but I haven't been paying a whole heap of attention.

I would have thought a review would be much better than a re-opening.

All a re-opening is going to bring about is well meaning and/or attention seeking nutter sightings from across the globe.

A review of all evidence to date seems a much more powerful thing.

OK, I'll go along with a review. I really couldn't face any more nutter sightings, and I suppose anything is better than nothing, which is what we have now.
Bunny, I don't think it's only certain police officers who didn't do their jobs properly who need to be called to account. I think everybody who had any involvement with Madeleine on that holiday needs to be fully co-operative and truthful.

I think re-opening or review - either would help . I can't see the problem with a completely independent Police Force going over EVERYTHING from processes used to information given. If there is nothing to hide what harm would it do? I'm not sure how agreeable the PJ would be to this though.,

vaguely1 wrote:is a review a precursor for a possible re-opening?

I lose track

It means essentially the same thing, that the case is not being ignored, that someone somewhere other than them is doing something, that as they pointed out the information that is kept in different formats in different countries might somehow be joined so that any gaps in investigation can be seen, currently it is all in different places.

This is not new it's just that now they are being more vocal about the faults, no doubt they can see their case sliding away and the trail growing even colder.

I had interpreted a review as being a look back on everything that had happened, whereas a reopening of the case would include restarting an official search for Madeleine.

No, I don't think so. I think a review will highlight areas that need to be reinvestigated, and a re-opening would just mean that they would deal with new information.

I personally would like to see a full review, that hopefully may lead to a re-opening. I wouldn't like to see a re-opening of the case without a review.

vaguely1 wrote:No, I don't think so. I think a review will highlight areas that need to be reinvestigated, and a re-opening would just mean that they would deal with new information.

I personally would like to see a full review, that hopefully may lead to a re-opening. I wouldn't like to see a re-opening of the case without a review.

I agree. The best clues they've got were probably mentioned in the first days after she went missing. If any of those clues were overlooked, perhaps its still not too late to investigate them now.

My understanding of a "re-opening" of the case would mean concentrating on parental involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, with the re-constistuting of the original three people as arguidos, which is most emphatically not what is need now.

A review, on the other hand, would mean a thorough, in-depth look at the case entirely, with emphasis being placed on looking for what happened to the missing child, and making an all out effort to find her, alive or dead.

Chinagirl wrote:My understanding of a "re-opening" of the case would mean concentrating on parental involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, with the re-constistuting of the original three people as arguidos, which is most emphatically not what is need now.

A review, on the other hand, would mean a thorough, in-depth look at the case entirely, with emphasis being placed on looking for what happened to the missing child, and making an all out effort to find her, alive or dead.

?????????????????????????????????

made sense to me.