CMTV THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN: CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION

by Guest 07.01.14 10:15

CMTV

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN:

CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION

TRANSLATION OF PART ONE - by Zizi and Paula http://zizipresscuts.wordpress.com/

Presenter (P): Good evening and welcome to this “Maddie Special”!

For the first time in Portugal, a reconstruction of some of the events leading to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been done. We refer to the little girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on the 3rd of May 2007 – a disappearance that remains shrouded in mystery, and beset by various contradictions.

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

Voice-Over (VO): On that Thursday, 3^rd May, the McCanns do 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, they never leave the holiday compound but, even so, they do not take 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 9:10AM, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.

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

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

At the same time as Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends – that is, the other three couples - drink on the terrace of the Paraíso Restaurant in Praia da Luz – that’s at about 17:35 hours on the video. The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in an up-beat mood. Their children are with them. It looks like a tranquil end to their afternoon.

(Short break in the voice-over with more images shown)

(VO): 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 terrace. Later, about 15 minutes or so after their husbands leave the restaurant at around 6:30 hours, they get up from their chairs. By that time, their husbands have arrived back at the Ocean Club.

At 6:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry, who is already playing tennis on the courts. He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him that 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, David, 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 in her witness statement states emphatically that she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment, and that the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home.

One thing is certain. The McCanns’ first-floor neighbour, Mrs Pamela Fenn (now deceased), 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 will 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 28 April. They do not take their children with them – a baby a few months old and seven young children are left asleep unattended in their apartments, while their parents, relaxed and apparently without a care, dine until around midnight - about one hundred metres away from their children.

On the evening of the 3^rd of May 3, Gerry and Kate are the first to arrive at the restaurant. The time is 8:35 hours.

The oval table, near the swimming pool, is reserved for the British group. By 8:45 hours, they are all sitting at the table: Gerry and Kate, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, Matthew and Rachael Oldfield and Dianne Webster - Fiona’s mother.

Kate, for example, has her usual “daiquiri” (a rum cocktail) as an apéritif. The group is in the habit of drinking eight bottles of wine every evening – four red and four white.

That evening, they ordered grilled fish and meat on the spit. As they dine at the oval table, most have their backs turned away from the apartments; but even if they were facing the apartments, the wall and the edges are in the way and would not allow them to see 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. In addition, the window of the room where Maddie and the twins sleep faces the external side of the apartment block.

The McCanns and their friends assured the police that they had a regular 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 with the children. According to the members of the group, the ‘checking round’ took place every half an hour and sometimes, every fifteen minutes. But the truth is: exactly what they 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 provided the police with a schedule of the checking done on the children that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of the cover he tore off from a children’s activity & sticker booklet.

Days later, the police found among Kate’s documents a manuscript with the hours that the checking was done written on it – except that this one differed from the one her friend, Russell, supplied the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends as they give their account of events and, worse, there are contradictory versions of the same alleged events. The police never knew with any degree of certainty, what the movements were of each of the group of friends during that dinner. Nonetheless, there are just four moments that coincide; these four are the only movements ones corroborated by various witnesses.

The first

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 to check on their respective children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk about 20 metres down a dimly-lit street to reach a small access gate to his apartment - referring here to the sliding patio doors on the balcony.

The second

After checking on the children, and on the way back to his dinner at the Tapas restaurant, 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 young baby son back to sleep. The two men greet each other and chat for a little 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 in order to look for him.

Later, she guarantees the police that between 21:00 and 21:05 hours, she sees a stranger carrying a child in his arms, at the top of the very same narrow street she was walking up, and at the same time Gerry was stood there chatting to Jeremy Wilkins. Neither Gerry or Jeremy saw anyone passing by, nor even, for that matter, noticed Jane Tanner’s presence (walking past them).

The third

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 22:00 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains that his older daughter had vomited, that he had given her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

The fourth

At 21:55 hours (9.55pm), as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives back at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22:00 hours, she shouts from one of the apartment’s verandas facing the restaurant: “They’ve taken her! They’ve taken her!” - or: “We have let her down! We have let her down!“- depending on the source. No one from the group is able to see her; they can only hear her; then they all get up from the table and run towards the McCanns’ apartment.

(More images in and around Praia da Luz, followed by the caption – “Where is Maddie?”)

(P) Presenter: (introducing the guests):

Our guests for this special programme are as follows:

On my right – Gonçalo Amaral, ex-co-ordinator of the PJ (Judiciary Police), and on my left – our other guest for tonight, Francisco Moita Flores, who is a criminologist.

Before we start our conversation, I would like to inform viewers that CMTV invited the lawyer representing the McCanns’ in Portugal to appear on the programme and answer questions - but Rogério Alves declined the invitation. He stated that any previous public comments of his had only been done in the context of the search for Madeleine. He added that his contribution to tonight’s debate would add nothing to the results of the investigations by the Portuguese and English authorities.

I will start our conversation here in the studio with Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral, we have just watched around eight minutes of video footage – a reconstruction of part of the 3^rd of May – and mostly the evening, in which this little girl disappeared. How come the Portuguese Judiciary police never made a reconstruction of these events?

(GA): Gonçalo Amaral:

Good evening! The reconstruction was never made simply because we were waiting for a better opportunity to carry it out. Everything was happening then. We did think about a reconstruction; it is the normal thing to do under such circumstances - but because there were many journalists in Praia da Luz we thought that at that time it was not convenient to do proceed with it because of all the media people and paraphernalia all around us – there were too many journalists – it had become a spectacle…it was simply not practical; as someone remarked then, if we had gone ahead with a reconstruction, it would almost have been necessary to close the air space!

For this reason, we left the possibility of a reconstruction to a later date. But, by then, the couple had left Portugal and did not wish to come back. I mean, their friends who were not arguidos (suspects), they were just witnesses, and they did not wish to come back. They refused, in fact, and the couple [the McCanns] went along with them in their decision. The Public Ministry Prosecutor then decided the reconstruction was not worth doing, but it could still have gone ahead just with the couple – since they were still suspects at the time [first part of 2008].

(P): (Brief interruption, not clear what he says. Gonçalo Amaral continues)

(GA): It could have gone ahead! Because if you pay attention to the video, these are moments in time. A reconstruction has to be made of a series of moments. Each person involved has to explain what he or she has done or was doing at the time.

I would not need to have all of them together simultaneously, even if that would have been convenient. If I had only the couple, I could have advanced the investigation further.

For example, there was one witness, Jeremy Wilkins, who was willing to come to Portugal. That fateful evening [3^rd May], Mr Wilkins was walking down the lane, pushing a pram with his daughter in it, trying to lull her into sleep, when he met Gerry McCann leaving (the) apartment around 21:30 hours. Therefore, at least these three persons could have come [McCanns and Jeremy Wilkins] – not to mention others such as an Irish family [Martin Smith and his family] and (possibly) others.

(P): Later, we will shortly…

(GA): But there seems to have been a decision about this – if I may pick up on the words of what Dr. Rogério Alves said earlier [see above] - we should not forget that this investigation process was archived as an expedient.

The mother of the child went so far as to write in a book that she was very pleased with the decision to archive the investigation. For her, then, the archiving - the filing - of the investigation was the correct decision. The reaction of her lawyer we heard about earlier on in the programme was the same.

It was as if the lawyer was saying: don’t touch the investigation, leave it alone - because that was end of it - that is it.

The investigation was compulsorily archived, but, it is still there! It remains in the archive so that there is a record of it - and it makes it clear that a reconstruction was essential - to better establish the facts.

The Public Ministry Prosecutor himself asserted - in his final statement - that those who avoided the reconstruction lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. This is all registered there, in the files, and in that respect, correctly so.

(P): Let me know ask you, Francisco Moita Flores – what would have been the importance of doing a reconstruction in the days immediately after the event – and not some time later, as it was then attempted.

Francisco Moita Flores (FMF): If I may give you a strict, purely technical opinion, a reconstruction in this case would have been decisive but, I do not know how the police could have gone ahead with it, bearing in mind the difficulties imposed by the media circus which was going on in Praia da Luz.

A reconstruction was necessary and would have been decisive because - as we can see from tonight’s is reconstruction - and it is clear that it caefully follows the witness statements of all those involved - it soon becomes clear that the case is full of contradictions. Or, rather, that there are several versions of the truth - or maybe there is no truth at all in the middle of all this. The chances are, then, that some of them are not telling the truth. A reconstruction would have technically had that kind of effect – namely to establish the true facts.

(P): It’s to revive everyone’s memory by returning those concerned to the actual place where the events took place, is it not?

(FMF): The technical aim of a reconstruction is to establish the facts. So, to give an example: “So tell me, you got up at this time. Did you go with your wife?” Or, alternatively, take that story about Dr David Payne - whether he stayed in the McCanns’ apartment for 30 minutes or 30 seconds. That is a most important point! And here you have a contradiction. A reconstruction is about addressing such contradictions.

(P): In order to facilitate the proceedings, we have extracted material that is pertinent to what we are discussing. I will rephrase it again:

“At 18:30 in the evening, David Payne went to see Gerry and asked for Kate. Next, his friend [Payne] went to meet Kate at their apartment, but contradictions remain about the duration of the visit…”

(VO): So how long did David Payne stay in Kate’s apartment? Gerry, Kate’s husband, says his friend was there for a period of half-an-hour - but Kate says David did not hang around for more than thirty seconds. Payne seems a rather enigmatic man. He seems to have been in the habit of bathing the daughters children of friends he spent holidays with.

(P): We also have this individual’s profile ready to go through in a moment - but first [here addressing FMF] what we have here is a great discrepancy, is it not? From thirty seconds to thirty minutes. The difference is colossal!

(FMF): It is indeed - and it is rather odd. It is also very strange that in a group of friends, one of them bathes the children of the others - and that all that seems entirely natural to them. Worst of all, none of the detectives addresses this state of affairs from an investigative standpoint!

Bathing the children of their friends is something that steps into a territory we might describe as one of personal intimacy, of some kind of personal bond of affection…

(GA) (Brief interruption. He seems to wish to add something. It’s unclear what).

(P): We will get there. We have that prepared…

(FMF): This kind of scenario is important to us as parents – and by the way, we are all parents here, so…surely it would seem bizarre to us all to have someone from outside our family to come and do things like bathing our children for us…?

(P): Of course! We will address that in a moment.

(FMF): And therefore, in this case a reconstruction was clearly necessary in order to clarify what such a state of affairs was all about.

(P): (addressing Gonçalo Amaral) Gonçalo Amaral, concerning this doubt - that is, the time this person [Payne] stayed in the McCanns’ apartment - surely, at the time of your investigation, doubts must have existed about how long this individual stayed in the apartment, no?

(GA): Those doubts are referred to in a detailed interim report submitted by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida in September 2007. Those doubts are clearly outlined in that report, along with some conclusions about these matters.

This is the report the parents of this child, and their lawyers, really do not like. They argue it is ‘just history’, that it is no longer part of the case, that it has been superseded. But history can be important.

It was this medical doctor, Dr David Payne, who organised this trip to the Ocean Club for this group – as indeed he had organised other holidays for them before.

It is interesting to note that some ten days after the fateful event in May – Madeleine McCann’s disappearance - we two other Doctors denouncing him by making allegations to the police in England. These two doctors who reported David Payne to the police – a woman and her husband - had in the past spent a holiday with David Payne and some of the others.

(P): We already have that topic ready and prepared…

(GA): We seem to have a situation here that has, on occasion, driven me to speculate about the whys and the wherefores of what exactly lies behind all this public relations management of the story.

We know that there are many children who have gone missing in England – but in no other instance has the British Government preoccupied itself with them - certainly nothing like to the extent that they have done with this child!

Of course, one may assume this is because the parents are Doctors and it may have seemed that it was as if the British medical profession was on trial, but I would still ask – why all that effort by the government?

I do question this myself and - I must stress this - the reasons may not have anything to do with this case! (here he adds adds non-verbal emphasis). I ask myself what is going on now - and exactly what went on then.

I will put it to you very directly – and yet only after very careful consideration – that they [i.e. the English and Portuguese Police] are now looking for a paedophile outside of the group of the McCanns and their friends - but, what if there was a paedophile within that group? Now, someone might believe I am calling him a paedophile. I am not - not at all.

The truth is this. There is two witness statements made to the police in England containing very serious accusations against someone - a report which eventually reached Portugal through various routes which suggest that the British police purposefully delayed them. I could explain it to you in detail, but…

(P) We have that very same story in reserve…

(GA) I ask myself what is going on in here. I find it all rather enigmatic, particularly since those people [Dr Katarina Gaspar and Dr Arul Gaspar] were not interviewed despite being listed in the rogatory letter [a request by the Portuguese Justice Minister to the British Home Secretary for the police in England to interview certain witnesses]. The Portuguese authorities submitted their names and tried to have the Gaspars re-interviewed in England! But Dr Katarina Gaspar was not questioned because, rather conveniently, she was not present at the police headquarters when the questioning took place). She only arrived after the Portuguese police had already left the premises.

(P) Gonçalo Amaral, we do have that investigative nuance in a clip that we will be showing later…but right now, we have here material which is just as important in the reconstruction we are attempting this evening – a reconstruction of events from the witness statements that has never been tried before, and as you have pointed out from your knowledge of the case, the Portuguese police never did.

So, for now, let us focus on another moment of the reconstruction. This is a moment which points to the contradictory versions Gerry McCann gives the police about the manner in which he entered his apartment to check on his children.

(The programme now reverts to showing the reconstruction, with a voice-over…)

(VO) Gerry McCann interrupts his dinner and heads to his apartment (video image indicates 21:00 hours). In the first account he gives to the PJ (Polícia Judiciária), he states that he entered the apartment through the front door using the key. Afterwards, he changed his testimony and admitted he had entered through a rear patio door. One thing seems certain – he had no key. The key had been left inside the apartment.

(Back in the studio)

(P) Gonçalo Amaral, I assume that this detail must have been important during the investigation – this contradictory version of events?

(GA) What is important…erm…if one pays attention to these reconstructions, this one and the statements of those who were suspects, plus those of the witnesses, one observes two important things:

The first is: they seems to have been preoccupied in trying to convince themselves that the children were safe; that no harm could befall them – for although they were left alone, they were secure since they had been locked inside the apartment!

And so, we have the father [Gerry McCann] saying that he entered through the front door, opening it with the key - but in fact the key was left inside – and this information comes from a detective agency employed by the couple…

Then, there is another aspect to it – if you pay attention, at the end of this reconstruction, you are bound to notice one thing – you would conclude that this so-called checking regime seems to have been designed only to benefit the McCanns’ children! The McCanns never checked on their friends’ children!

The story we heard originally, that they got up in turns from the table, and went and checked on all the children, does not ring true, for it seems they did not.

The couple themselves – the mother of the missing child to be precise - seems to have been at the table for two hours without checking on her daughter. When she finally goes to check on her children, it is apparent that she does not seem to have gone there with that sole intention in mind.

If you pay attention to her witness statement and other statements, what she says is that she went to the apartment, she was there - doing something - and suddenly she felt a wind, a cool draft, from the children’s bedroom - and only then does she go to inspect the children’s bedroom!

The father, on the other hand, says he had gone to the apartment first of all to empty his bladder and afterwards happened to see the children’s bedroom door at a certain angle, and so on.

This is the kind of circumstantial detail that leads us to question the truth of their accounts. Why did they say there was a regime of checking the children - when it seems perfectly obvious from their statements that there was none?

All this, by the way, is written there, in that report – the one written by Tavares de Almeida. They – they lawyer Rogério Alves or whoever else - may insist it is ‘all history’, but it is history as recorded in a proper judicial investigation – a process that has been re-opened as we speak. In all fairness), the report by Tavares de Almeida should be properly examined.

by Guest 07.01.14 10:19

There is no way to eradicate these witness statements, no way to destroy these documents. From what they have stated, it seems clear that the first preoccupation of both the father and then the mother, as they arrived at the apartment, does not seem to have been to check on their children.

As I just said), the father appears to have gone there to empty his bladder; the mother said she went there to check on the children, but then it seems she was there doing something else when – suddenly she says - she claims she felt a gust of wind. Only then does she go to the childrens’ bedroom, notices, she says, some light seeping through from outside…and her daughter missing.

This is all there in the files, together with the other statements she [Kate McCann] has made over the years - some of which have since changed…they keep changing (he nods as if to emphasise this point).

(P): (To Francisco Moita Flores), Francisco Moita Flores, we still have two other specific moments of the reconstruction to go through - but we already have here so many contradictions! Surely, these could have been addressed properly if a reconstruction had been done to help clarify those memories.

This was precisely the conversation we were having before I interrupted you. Surely this ought to have been done straightaway. I mean, in the days immediately following the child’s disappearance…

(FMF): From the standpoint of forensic procedures, that would certainly have been decisive. In fact, if I may remark, the reconstruction CMTV has just made – and I did see the one made by ‘Crimewatch’ on BBC1 - it is easy to perceive the difference between them in terms of rigour. It is like the difference between day and night!

(GA): One has more red wine and the other more empty glasses of water… (said with irony)

(FMP): This one [the CMTV one] has the wine, the group and its mood, and the location in relation to…

(P): The surrounding environment…

(FMP): The surrounding space is important – all this is important. Given some effort, I can attempt to understand…allowing for the fact we are dealing here with individuals from a cultural background different from ours - and on this basis I can try to understand these parents leaving their children unattended, out of their sight, relatively far from where they were enjoying themselves until midnight – I mean, from 20:30 – 21:00 hours until midnight. But still, it is very difficult for me to accept such an attitude towards children. If I contrast their attitude with that of our Latin culture, where the parents have a much more day-to-day involvement with the children - it is all very hard for me to comprehend.

(P): I understand that this sad state of affairs would have been regarded under Portuguese Law (seems to be quoting) as a “predisposition to the abandonment of children…

(FMP): I have no doubt! If this case had involved a Portuguese child, our Public Ministry would have immediately set off certain protective legal safeguards, which are in place to protect Portuguese children! Have no doubt whatsoever about that!

In our culture, this kind of behaviour would have not been accepted as reasonable – or indeed susceptible of any rationalisation! I am not even sure that this kind of behaviour is indeed tolerated by Anglo-Saxon cultural values!

(P): But for this group this was all perfectly normal…

(FMP): (recapping) Now from a purely technical standpoint, from an investigative perspective, a reconstruction of these events is the only way for detectives to demonstrate what is needed to the Public Ministry, the judges and the investigation itself.

The questions that needed to be asked - not just to those directly involved in the case but, also certain people not directly involved - I am referring here, for example, to that gentlemen who was pushing a pram, lulling his son to sleep…

(GA): (interrupts to say): Ah! But that contradicts your ideas about Anglo-Saxon cultural values, of being irresponsible towards children…

(FMF): (unclear)

(GA): Jeremy Wilkins took his son with him to lull her into sleep…

(FMF): To lull him into sleep…

(GA): For at least half-an hour…

(FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included in any reconstruction – to find out, for example, whether those glasses contained wine…or water, as the BBC ‘Crimewatch’ programme suggested; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

(GA): And to confirm who was sat down at the table before the mother of the child gives…

(P): (Cuts in) Gives the alert!

(GA): Because there are two employees - a man and a woman - who maintain that the person who sat down at the table soon after the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father of the child. There are witnesses for this!

There are a number of things that need to be clarified. The investigation should proceed as follows.

When an investigation is re-opened and one starts to read it, almost from the end, instead of at the beginning, and then you make the a priori assumption that the case is about a kidnapping – then you go on to assume that the crime was committed by an individual who is dead and who died under a tractor. This beggars belief!

The first action that should have been made at the start of this re-investigation was definitely a reconstruction. The new investigation should have started at this point: where the reconstruction was missing.

This point – that is, the attempt to do a reconstruction - was the very last act of the initial investigation before the investigation process was archived. Therefore, it is from there that it should have started. You (addressing FMF) know very well this is how it should be! (smiles knowingly).

(FMF): But Amaral, allow me to say this – do you know the drama inherent with this reconstruction? The real drama of this investigation is that it provides no answers; it raises questions instead – and a criminal investigation ought to seek answers, not pose more questions.

(GA): Ah! But it is still possible to come up with answers.

(P): The investigation has revealed several contradictions. We are going to…

(There is then a quick exchange between GA and FMF. GA seems to try to make the point that the contradictions themselves are pointing to a possible answer (unclear))

(P): We are now going to show another one of these contradictions. Matthew Oldfield – one of the group - visited the McCanns’ apartment, but was not sure if Maddie was there…

(The programme then goes back to reconstruction mode)

(VO): Matthew Oldfield feels uneasy about the delay of Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien. He gets up from the restaurant’s table and goes looking for his friends. He says he entered the McCanns’ apartment and looked inside the bedroom where Maddie slept with her brothers. He is not sure whether the little girl was in the bed but (oddly enough) alerts no one.

(P): Now we are going to see another of these moments. The mystery this time involves Maddie’s father of Maddie. It is not known for sure where Gerry McCann was at the moment his daughter was found missing.

(Back to the reconstruction)

(VO): Where was Gerry McCann at 22:00 when his wife Kate cries out that her daughter (Madeleine) is missing? Two employees of the restaurant confirm that at around that time, he was not at the dinner table. Could he have been the man that Martin Smith, an Irish tourist, saw carrying a blonde girl in his arms?

(P) Gonçalo, this is the last contradiction, as it were, and… (unclear).

(GA): This is a contradiction that goes beyond contradiction. According to a certain family’s testimony, there was an 80% probability it was this man was Gerry – and this is already a figure which has been ‘doctored’ by the British.

At first, the family was quite sure that the man who was carrying the child in his arms was Gerry. But, once they were questioned over there – in a rather informal manner, it seems…then, they lost that certainty and gave the sighting an 80% probability that it was the father – and a 60% chance the child could have been Madeleine.

What I would like to add this. We have repeatedly spoken here about the hour of the sighting [by Martin Smith] being at 10:00, but we do not know for sure if it was at 10:00. A reconstruction would have to deal with that. There are only three moments that we know with some certainty happen at a precise time.

One is the time the child leaves the crèche, when a family member, the mother, collects her at 17:30 hours.

The other is the Irish family payment of their bill at the Dolphin restaurant. They made their payment with a debit card at 21:27 hours but – you have to bear in mind that after they left the restaurant, they went to a bar…And the third, was a ’phone call made to the GNR (National Republican Guard) at 22:47 hours. Everything else is just ‘chitchat’, guesswork - because the exact times are not known.

For example, in the case of Jeremy (Wilkins), it is not known how long his conversation with Gerry McCann lasted. It is not known how long that Irish family stayed in that bar after leaving the restaurant. They say they left around 22:00, but it is not known if it was at 22:05, 22:10, 22:15 or 22:20 hours.

I give you one example. A while ago, we mentioned Pamela Fenn - an elderly lady who lived in the apartment above the McCanns - and who has since passed away. Now, this lady only hears the commotion in the apartment below at 22:30. In other words), she places the moment of the l scene in which the mother purportedly finds her child missing…not at 22:00 hours, as the mother does, but at 22:30 hours! This person - Pamela Fenn - is no longer with us, but her testimony is .

(P): We are now going to show the exact part of the evening when the child disappeared. This excerpt attempts to show the Smith family – an Irish family holidaying in the Algarve. On the evening Maddie disappeared, the family crossed paths with a man carrying a blonde child in his arms. Four months later, one of them, Martin Smith, was convinced that man was Gerry McCann…

(The reconstruction returns to the screens)

(VO): At the estimated time of 21:50 hours, the Smiths, an Irish family comprising four adults and five children who were holidaying in Praia de Luz, leave Kelly’s Bar and head to their accommodation in the Estrela da Luz urbanisation – not far from the Ocean Club.

A few minutes later, Kate McCann will alert others to her daughter’s disappearance. Meanwhile, not far from Kelly’s Bar, in the Escola Primária Street, the Smith family crosses paths with a man who walks in the opposite direction towards the beach. The time is around 22:00 hours.

Martin Smith, the eldest of the group, describes the man to the police as white, 1.75 or 1.80 metres high (5’ 9” to 5’ 11”) and a ‘normal physical complexion’. His hair was brown and cut short. His skin seemed tanned by the sun. He wore plain trousers – colour beige. The man, Smith says, carried in his arms a blonde child. The child was wearing pink pyjamas, her feet were exposed; her arms were hanging down by her body, with her head laying on the left shoulder of the man who was carrying her.

The child appeared to be around the age of four and about one metre (3’ 3”) in height. Martin Smith was unable to see the face of the suspect because the man turned his face as they crossed paths with him.

Back in Ireland, four months later, on the 10^th of September, Martin Smith is watching on TV the news of the arrival of the McCanns back in England. Gerry comes down the stairs of the plane with Sean (his son) in his arms. Martin Smith immediately remembers the shape and the countenance of the stranger he crossed paths with in a street of the village of Luz. He seems to recognise his physique, his gait, and his way of holding the child.

Martin Smith is convinced the man he saw in Escola Primária Street could have been Gerry McCann. Martin Smith informs the Polícia Judiciária of his discovery. The PJ wants to hear him (in Portugal) and Smith expresses his readiness to travel. The PJ National Directory authorises the financing of his passage and accommodation expenses. Everything is arranged for Martin Smith to come to Portugal.

Meantime, Gonçalo Amaral is removed from the investigation and substituted by a new special team co-ordinated by Paulo Rebelo. The new head who is responsible for the investigation considers that Martin Smith’s proposed trip to Algarve is pointless.

A report written later by the team led by Paulo Rebelo states that at the time Martin Smith sees his suspect, Gerry McCann may have been sitting at the table of the Tapas restaurant.

Their choice of words however, does not mean ‘Yes he was’ or ‘No he wasn’t’. It does not affirm or deny anything). “May have been” does not necessarily imply he was or, for that matter, that he was not sitting at the table. It merely suggests that there is no absolute certainty of Gerry McCann’s whereabouts that evening around 22:00 hours.

(The programme reverts to studio mode and the conversation resumes)

(P): Gonçalo Amaral, what happened to this Irish family?

(GA): As far as I know, this Irish family continues living over there in Ireland. Immediately afterwards, they were the target of several contact attempts - by private detectives hired by the couple, by others - journalists and so on. They have since sworn themselves to silence. They have not spoken with anyone since.

Recently, news has surfaced that some kind of detectives, hired by the couple, claim they have spoken with the Smiths and even made e-fit pictures of the man seen by the Smiths - but given the kind of shadowy detail provided by the Smiths, it would have been impossible to make an e-fit of anyone.

(P): But why are they now remaining silent, whereas before, they were available to talk? I mean - to the extent that they were willing to do so, and arrangements had been made for them to travel to Portugal?

(GA): They were available to talk to the police - but where journalists are concerned, in terms of communications with the media, in that respect they are keeping things to themselves. As far as I know, they are happy to co-operate with the police.

(P): And why did they not come over, then, when everything was arranged?

(GA): They did not come over because of the circumstance of my being removed from the investigation. I had to leave my office in Portimão on the 2nd of October 2007, which was around the time those arrangements were made. Then the arrangements were cancelled, as it were.

Then there was a short hiatus in the investigation, during which time my colleague was appointed. When my new colleague arrived, he said he had his own vision, his own reading of events…so instead of a reconstruction by the PJ, he simply asked for the co-operation of the Irish police and afterwards he reached the conclusion that it was not necessary for Martin Smith to come to Portugal.

(P): I have always believed that this question was…

(GA (seems to go into ‘teacher’ mode for the benefit of the presenter).

(GA): Look, it was not just the question of him coming over. It was necessary to know…let us go step by step…it would have been necessary not just to learn when the Smiths’ bill was paid at the Dolphin restaurant.

A while ago, I told you the precise time that the bill was paid. It is well documented on a computer-generated bill. But it would have been crucial to clarify the time-frames of other related events – not just the time they paid that bill at the Dolphin.

Some specific times can be corroborated – no one can argue with a payment slip, only that it was issued a minute more, a minute less, say, because it is an official, computer-generated) statement - but even so, 21:27 hours is merely the time when they paid their bill.

It does not mean that they left the restaurant at 21:27! It is only evidence that they paid their bill at 21:27 hours. Then, sometime later, the family leaves the restaurant and heads to a nearby bar – Kelly’s Bar, where they have a few drinks, except that on this occasion there are no receipts.

Furthermore, we do not know how many drinks they had at Kelly’s, nor how long they stayed. They say they might have left around 10:00 but again, this is all too subjective. The eldest, Martin Smith, says his son had to travel the following day and, for that reason, it is unlikely they had relaxed there for very long.

It would have been important to have them in a reconstruction in order to try to understand how long they may have stayed in the bar.

In addition, it would have been important to know how long any person leaving the McCanns’ apartment would take to reach the place at which a man was seen by the Smiths. We needed to hear him in more detail so as not to end up with a testimony of hearsay - the kind that is currently in the investigation archive. What is there in our files is the testimony of what Smith said to other people, not what he said to the P.J.

(P): Very quickly, just before we go for a break. We also have here the question of the statements as to the times at which Gerry McCann was present at the restaurant table.

(GA): That is not a certainty. What is in the investigation process states the Smiths’ trip to Portugal was pointless and that such a decision was justified vis-a-vis the Smiths’ testimony because the father of the child may have been sitting at the time in the restaurant. But there is simply no certainty that he was!

So, if there was no certainty, then Paulo Rebelo’s team felt free to assume that the information about the Smiths’ sighting lacked any significance - especially as this was received second-hand from Ireland.

It lacked significance because Smith was only 80% certainty that it was Gerry that he saw. Furthermore, Smith reached this conclusion from TV images, from Gerry McCann’s gait, his manner of holding the child, and so on – all of which did not constitute any proof per se.

It may be true to say it did not constitute proof but – nonetheless - what we have here is an encounter that demands to be investigated. We cannot just go after proofs; we need to understand the “whys” as well.

If the Smiths’ encounter did take place, then if the man was not Mr. Gerald McCann, then who was he?

(P): Gonçalo Amaral, Francisco Moita Flores, we are going now for a short break in this “Maddie McCann Special” - and we will be back shortly.

END OF PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

[ Translators’ notes

(1) CMTV must have had inside information on (a) the Pamela Fenn’s sighting, for such detail is (apparently) not mentioned in the files which were made public by the Prosecutor’s office in Portugal (b) similar concerning Fiona Payne’s confusing statements.

(2) It is important to stress this is not a word-by-word legal translation. Literal translations do not work in colloquial reporting because due attention needs to be given to English usage and the alignment or exclusion of disruptive, conversational elements. That said, considerable care has been taken to impart the reader with the meaning (and feeling) of what was said and above all what was (or might have been) intended in the Portuguese original. The reader should not unduly worry about this for at least one of us is versed in Semiotics, Transactional and Discourse Analysis.

By Zizi Duarte and Paula Levy-Smith

For the original link see: http://videos.sapo.pt/tVOhcsvPZrkpKIMsG5pv ]

[ Additional note by the CMOMM forum: The transcript sent to us by Zizi Duarte and Paula Levy-Smith has been further, but lightly, edited and corrected in accordance with the above translation principles ]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

by Guest 07.01.14 10:20

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN:

CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION

TRANSLATION OF PART TWO

Presenter (P): We are now resuming this “Maddie Special” and, as we do we now return to one of the many questions posed by this disappearance and its interrupted investigation.

A British tourist, who was near Praia da Luz when the child disappeared, happened to work in England for the Child Protection Services. This woman recognised David Payne – the McCanns’ friend - as a man who appeared in some report to the Child Protection Services in connection with inappropriate behaviour towards children.

(Reconstruction re-starts)

(VO): The day following Maddie’s disappearance a British tourist in Algarve switches on her TV on an English channel. The news comes in direct from the Ocean Club. The news travels round the world. The woman is moved by the suffering of the couple and decides try and help the shattered parents.

She is not an ordinary tourist. The woman who rushes to the village of Luz is Yvonne Martin. She works in England for Child Protection Services. She is conscious of her duty to give all assistance she can to this couple who living through the pain of their child’s disappearance – but she is not welcomed by the McCanns.

The English social worker tries to find out if the parents need help. She wishes to know the situation in which the children were left alone and expresses interest in knowing details of their regime of scheme of checking - but Kate and Gerry’s response frustrates her initiative.

Kate seemed much tenser than the others. Yvonne tries to talk with her alone, but Kate, brusquely, puts a stop to their conversation. Disappointed, Yvonne Martin abandons the Ocean Club.

During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she stared at the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a ‘close friend’ of the family - but Yvonne knew that face. It rang a bell.

She was sure that she had seen that friend of the McCanns before. Then she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. Apparently David Payne had been reported in England as being suspected of inappropriate behaviour towards children!

A case that involved Dr David Payne occurred during a holiday on the island of Majorca in September 2005. Towards the end of that summer, the McCanns went on a holiday with some friends – three other couples; among them David and Fiona Payne. They rented a spacious villa. One evening, at the dinner table, one of the women of the group, a medical doctor [Dr Katarina Gaspar], heard a bizarre comment of David Payne to Gerry McCann.

Apparently referring to Maddie, David asks Gerry if she “would do this” - demonstrating what he meant by this by sucking one finger and sliding it in and out of his mouth. While doing this with one hand, he made circles in the region of his nipples with the fingers of the other hand.

On another occasion, the same witness saw David Payne repeat these gestures as he spoke about his own daughter. Until the end of their holidays in Majorca, this doctor and her husband never again allowed David Payne to come close to their one-and-half-year old daughter.

After Maddie’s disappearance, the couple, once again, reported the suspect behaviour of David Payne to the English police. But the English authorities. for some strange reason, do not disclose this to the Portuguese police at the time.

(The programme returns to the studio and the conversation resumes)

(P): So, these allegations, which were reported to the police in England, were never taken into account in the Portuguese investigation?

(GA): Hmmm, this very interesting. No, they were not taken into account, and I will tell you why…

(P): (interrupts) …this was never investigated!?

(GA): I will elaborate on it, if I may, for your benefit and for those who are watching the programme.

From May 2007 onwards, we became aware of information coming in from our British colleagues about something very odd that had happened within that group during some holiday in Mallorca - but they never told us specifically what it was. We knew it was something to do with Madeleine but they never gave us any details.

Sometime later – and by then I had already left the investigation and been reassigned to the Faro office - and for no specific reason, except it reminded me of the “we can’t tell you” attitude of the British, a fax arrived in Portimão from the UK, ostensibly about some other matter – and this, by the way, is all clearly stated in the investigation file…and attached to this fax, which was quite clearly about some other matter, were the two statements of Dr. Katherina Gaspar and her husband – the very allegations you were referring to just now, allegations which had been made to the British Police months before!

Oddly enough, these two statements by the Gaspars were not even referred to in this communication (either in the heading or the text of the fax).

We could well take an educated guess and say that the Gaspars’ statements entered the investigation process by the good grace of a British colleague who was probably fed up with hiding what he had been told to conceal!

And it is very strange not to see anyone on behalf of the family - I mean the family of the missing child – becoming concerned with showing any interest in such allegations! And I don’t see anyone from the British police, like Scotland Yard, becoming interested in clarifying these allegations (either).

They were talking recently about paedophile networks in Albufeira (in the Algarve) and I ask – could there have been a paedophile in the middle of it of this group? I do not know if the Gaspars’ evidence is relevant! I have no idea if the gentleman is a paedophile or not, but if we ask if his behaviour was very odd, we certainly have to concede it was!

Now, concerning the British senior social worker, Yvonne Martin), what she says is this: that the person she saw in Praia da Luz, when trying to assist the McCanns’, and whom she recognised afterwards from a photo shown to her by the police), had already been seen by her in a previous investigation about behaviour toward a child in England. This was either as a witness or a suspect. Notwithstanding, when the British police were questioned by the PJ about Dr David Payne), they replied the gentleman had no records relating to an investigation about a child in their files).

The fact is, this gentleman was the one who organised their trip to Praia da Luz). It was this gentleman who, for years, had been bathing the children of the group, including the little girls of the other couples and – as is contained in the investigation files.

He had gone that afternoon to the apartment of Kate McCann to see if help was needed - to bath the children. Furthermore, it was he who, that same afternoon, had helped to bath to his own two daughters while his wife went for a jog on the beach.

In summary, he is the one who, over the years, had a preoccupation about bathing the children of the other couples. I do not know if this is normal, if it is part of British culture or not, but I do not think it is.

The gestures he made in Majorca are potentially very serious allegations, particularly since these gestures related to Madeleine. The gestures – according to the report of Dr. Katarina Gaspar – herself a medical doctor… so, if in this case we have to pay respect to the McCann couple and their friends because they are doctors - well, she, Katarina Gaspar, is a medical Doctor as well - and her husband too!...

…the gestures made by David Payne were aimed at Madeleine, and Dr. Katarina Gaspar was shocked when she witnessed them – it was not just the gestures he made but the very question he posed to the father, Gerry McCann, right in front of him!

This evidence, from the Gaspars, has never been denied by anyone, anywhere – not least by any of those concerned. It is as if it never happened and then, much later, it suddenly arrives in the process in the manner in which it did.

It does not even arrive in time to be included in the rogatory letters which were drafted for the British government around October/November 2007, nor, for that matter, was it later included in the amended round of rogatory letters that the PJ tried to carry out in England.

The Gaspars are, in my opinion, a couple that should be heard in the investigation – particularly since this was a state of affairs they promptly contacted the police in England about when they saw David Payne on TV just ten days after the fateful event.

I repeat that when Dr. Kaarina Gaspar sees Payne) on the TV screen, she realises who this person was - and she felt, very strongly, that she simply had to report him to the police. But all this information was witheld from the Portuguese police)

(P): (to Francisco Moita Flores): Francisco Moita Flores, an allegation of this type, with these characteristics and, moreover, witnessed by members of their own profession - medical doctors - should have been investigated, surely!

(FMF): Of course it should! In fact almost everything that has resurfaced in this reconstruction is of such gravity that I think the only rightful thing for the PJ and the Public Prosecutor to do, would be to request this film from CMTV – and while they are at it, examine the reconstruction done by BBC’s ‘Crimewatch’ as well and, then, try to explain how so many questions, questions like these, were left unanswered!

Questions of such gravity! Questions that could involve paedophilia, sexual abuse and again, going back to that Irish gentleman’s sighting…that could be decisive for us to know, by the manner of his description, if that child was dead or alive.

(P): Particularly since such a possibility was available - certainly the Smiths were very willing to come over to Portugal.

(FMF): (continuing his train of thought) From the position of her hanging arms, her hanging legs, and other indicators, it might have been possible to find out if the child that the stranger was carrying was dead or alive; whether we were dealing here with a kidnapping or a homicide…

(GA): (cuts in to add) …and remember! In this instance we have more than a witness! We have a family, and … (unclear)

(P): (interrupts) Forgive me interrupting! I am going to follow on what you have just said, and invite our viewers to review the reconstruction – or for those who are only watching us now, to view it for the first time.

NOTE: What follows is a simple repeat of the film shown at the beginning of PART ONE

We refer to the little girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on the 3rd of May 2007 – a disappearance that remains shrouded in mystery, and beset by various contradictions.

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

Voice-Over (VO): On that Thursday, 3rd May, the McCanns do 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, they never leave the holiday compound but, even so, they do not take 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 hours, Gerry delivers the children to the crèche.

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

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

At the same time as Kate McCann is collecting her children from the crèche, their friends – that is, the other three couples - drink on the terrace of the Paraíso Restaurant in Praia da Luz – that’s at about 17:35 hours on the video. The CCTV cameras of the restaurant capture the presence of the British group in an up-beat mood. Their children are with them. It looks like a tranquil end to their afternoon.

(Short break of the VO with more images)