Hopelijk het laatste Maddy McCann topic, maandag is d-day.

quote:

Interview with Gonçalo Amaral - IOL Portugal Diário

Maddie: the questions that were missing

IOL PortugalDiário spoke with the former PJ inspector, Gonçalo Amaral and asked some questions

This Monday, the Maddie process will no longer be subject to the judicial secrecy, and can be consulted by who requested to do so. IOL PortugalDiário asks the former inspector Gonçalo Amaral some questions. The goal is to try to shed some light on aspects of the investigation, which was questioned early on

In your book, you write that you believe that Maddie died in the apartment, on the 3rd of May. When did you form the conviction that the child was dead?

It was with the dogs’ work. That was when we were most convinced.

But when did you sum “two plus two”?

That is part of the investigation work and the logics of the investigator. He joins things throughout time. There was atypical behaviour from the witnesses right away, which then transforms into indicia.

Then one realizes that people are lying. How can anyone who has the obligation to cooperate with the police, not do so?! All the person wants is to receive information and all that the person says is a lie?!

Then it was necessary to understand why they lied. Were they afraid of the police? Of its reaction? Of the exposure and abandonment of the children? But when we asked, they said no, and insisted that the little girl had been abducted. This immediately caused strangeness and suspicion.

According to your book, the body was preserved and you have already stated that you suspect it was frozen. If it were so, were could it have been hidden?

Any investigator knows that when there is a group of people that is on holidays, foreigners or not, it is necessary to discover what means they had available to, for example, move the body. But the McCanns and their friends, at that point in time, only knew the route between the beach and the resort. To us, taking into account how little they knew the area, it would be normal that if they did anything, they would move towards the beach. Later on there is the Irish family, which guarantees that they saw a man walking towards the beach, carrying a child. It was something that matched our suspicions.

Does that mean that from your point of view, the body may have remained on the beach?

Yes. But how long was it there for? It is unknown. It is true that the area was searched by the dogs. But some people say that the smell of salted water may lead the dogs not to indicate where the body was. There is also the possibility that the body was taken to another location on that very same night. It is materially possible. The body may have been moved three or more times.

In your book, you also mention political and diplomatic pressures. Was the PJ ever contacted by the British government?

There is an intervention from the British government, even though it was somewhat clumsy. Mainly from the present prime minister, Gordon Brown. He spoke with Kate and with the English authorities that were involved in the investigation. And he also spoke with José Sócrates [Portuguese prime minister]. As far as I know, he never spoke directly with the PJ.

But where did the alleged power of the couple, which you have been suggesting, come from?

On the first night, a dossier about the family was requested, which the English authorities never sent. It was said that they were connected to commissions that emitted opinion reports on nuclear issues, but none of that was ever confirmed officially. Connections to political parties were also mentioned.

Did the British police send information about the McCanns and their friends?

No. They never sent the information that we requested. In fact, they did send only once, financial information. They stated that the couple had a mortgage and that there was no knowledge of any credit or debit cards. How didn’t they have any? The registration of the rental car mentions the card numbers. Concerning the other members of the group, the information was also only that.

Maddie: the leads that remained unexplored

The former inspector speaks about what could have been done in the investigation and says that making Murat an arguido was not a mistake

The PJ’s report dismisses the Smiths’ testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstitution was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were seating down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way how the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further.

When you were removed from the case, they were planning to return to Portugal. But they desisted from the diligence…

The family should have come to Portugal and they didn’t. It was not done on purpose, but a person cannot be left waiting to be heard over five months. That allowed for, according to what I have heard, the Irish family to be contacted and the target of coercion. Several people went there and they were not from the police. He even had to get himself a lawyer to try to get things into order. Before the police arrived to hear them, several persons had tried to speak to them. And they were not the only ones.

In the book “Maddie Truth of the Lie” you mention a polish lead and you say that it is a loose end…

Nobody cares about that. We should have gone there or made a rogatory letter. They (Polish police) misunderstood the goal. They went looking for the child and we asked for an intervention to control them first. The issue was the photographs. The man never let go of the camera. We wanted to know what photographs were on the camera and if maybe there was one of Maddie.

Despite your theory that the girl died on that evening, wouldn’t there be a possibility that this couple “dispatched” the child within a few hours?

That is already speculation. We inspected the apartment where they were staying. Blood was even found inside the apartment and it was not Maddie’s. We cannot forget that when we intervene, they are not in Portugal anymore.

Could you have gone further with this couple?

We could. And if they were here in Portugal we could have done even more. But then the route of the investigation takes us elsewhere.

Was it a mistake to make Murat an arguido?

No, it was not. A mistake would have been if we had not acted in the manner that we did and he would always remain a suspect without being able to defend himself. Now he has even received a compensation. Have you noticed that nobody has requested the instruction of the process? He could have done that.

Did the Joana case contribute to your removal?

It cannot have contributed. The national director knows that the issue are two social psychopaths – considered by the IML [national institute for forensic medicine] – that lie. The issue is my word and the word of a psychopath.

May the noise of the case have had some influence?

When the first news came out I called for the attention of the director in Faro. What I said at that time was: maybe it’s best for the process to leave Portimão, or for me to step aside from the investigation.

Did you consider the possibility of leaving the Maddie case?

I did. And the feedback that I got was that I had full support.

Don’t you repent that you did not go to the location [on the night of the events]?

There are several ways to coordinate. And one of them is over the phone. No, I have no regrets.

Don’t you think that the result might have been different?

It is possible. At least there would have been someone, and I have a good memory, who would remember how they were dressed that evening.

Maddie: the questions from the readers

IOL PortugalDiário allowed for its readers to ask questions from the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral. Among several that were received, here are the ones that were chosen by the redaction

Could the tests have been made at another laboratory, like for example the FBI’s? (question from Michael Williams)

That is another group decision. And it is decided in order to somehow compromise the other side. There was already that “bad posture”, let’s put it that way, from the English tabloids. The idea was for them to be compromised with the results. But yes, it could have been done at another lab, it didn’t even need to go to the United States, there are some very good ones in Europe.

Were the diligences the same in the cases of Joana and Maddie? (question from Luís Nogueiro)

The first diligences were the same.

How do you comment on the statements from the former President Jorge Sampaio? (question from Fernando Moura das Neves)

I think it is a concern. Deep down, he is not against the publication of the book. Maybe what he meant is that it was not necessary to go this far.

Was anything done about the church where the McCanns spent so much time and to which they had the key? (identified reader)

There were never any motives to question the catholic church. There is no indice that points towards the child being there, at least up to the moment when she was transported in the car. Even because there are no freezers there, or cold spots that would allow for the body to be kept at that location.

Was no cadaver odour or other indicia ever found on the father’s clothes? (identified reader)

No. We don’t know what he was wearing on the night of the disappearance. If it was him who was seen carrying the child, those clothes may even not exist anymore. He went to London and he might have washed it. As a matter of fact, we never knew what anyone of the group was wearing on the evening of the facts.

IOL PortugalDiário remembers that the process of the disappearance of Maddie was archived and that Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, stopped being arguidos on the 21st of July. Maddie’s parents have made it known that they intend to sue Gonçalo Amaral, following the publication of the book “Maddie: Truth of the Lie”. source: IOL PortugalDiário, 03/04.08.2008

quote:

"The McCanns are keen not to give "a running commentary" on their legal team's trawl through the files, family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said today. And they are reluctant to respond to questions raised by journalists allowed access to the documents.

Mr Mitchell said: "The Portuguese Attorney General, in his recent statement, made it very clear indeed that there's absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by Kate and Gerry in any way, shape or form and journalists should bear that in mind when they examine the police files. "A lot of this is historical detail drafted by officers who failed to find Madeleine and who quite wrongfully were going down inaccurate lines of supposition and assumption. "We will not be commenting on any of this.

quote:

Op maandag 4 augustus 2008 21:59 schreef Ledikant56 het volgende:
Wanneer zal het hele dossier online te bekijken zijn??

quote:

McCanns: British Media Press Releases or Telepathy?

What is interesting is that the British media is running the exact same story - it makes me wonder if a prepared press release about Mr. John Lowe of the FSS service and that specific e-mail was already done to be served and fed for distribution. That or all the British Journalists have telepathy and decided from 20 000 files to pick that specific one and write a very similar in words and content article. Yeah right, the British Journalists are all telepathes!

Telegraph/Express/Daily Mail/Guardian/Herald (and all the others from the Island)

Scientist issued McCann DNA warning

The officer wrote that Mr McCann was told his daughter's DNA was discovered in the boot of the rented Renault Scenic and behind a sofa in the family's holiday apartment. The notes said: "Confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was gathered from behind the sofa and from the boot of the vehicle, and analysed by a British laboratory, he said he could not explain why this would be."

This contradicted the Forensic Science Service (FSS) expert's opinion that the sample found in the car could not be definitively linked to the little girl.

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the 40-year-olds from Rothley, Leicestershire, said: "You have to ask what the police were trying to achieve by over-presenting evidence that they did not have, and clearly could not claim to have." (...)

The files released yesterday include an email written on September 3 2007 by John Lowe, from the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, warning that it was impossible to conclude whether DNA from the Renault Scenic, hired 25 days after Madeleine disappeared, came directly from the missing girl. Lowe told Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, head of the British side of the investigation, that the results were "too complex for meaningful interpretation or inclusion".

Lowe wrote: "Let's look at the question that is being asked: 'Is there DNA from Madeleine on the swab?' It would be very simple to say 'yes' simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

"What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine - because Madeleine has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeleine merely appears to match the result by chance."

The components of the missing girl's DNA profile were not unique to her; in fact some were present among FSS scientists, including himself. He wrote: "We cannot answer the question: is the match genuine, or is it a chance match?"

The warning was passed to the Portuguese police the following day. Despite this, the McCanns were identified as suspects. Mitchell said yesterday: "The search for Madeleine goes on. Kate and Gerry ... know there is a possibility that Madeleine could be dead, and could be long dead. However, there is absolutely no evidence that she is dead." (...)

quote:

Madeleine McCann: Reversed Investigation

Talking with Pinto da Costa – Forensic Medicine Expert 27/07/08

Reversed Investigation

In the book ‘The Truth of The Lie’ Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ coordinator who was removed from the ‘Maddie Case’ has no doubts about the death of the girl. Pinto da Costa follows his considerations.

Specialist in Forensic Medicine, Pinto da Costa supports the thesis followed by Gonçalo Amaral, which points to the death of Madeleine McCann. The professor does not understand the reason why the analyses done by the British laboratory are not conclusive and he manifests the conviction that, soon or later, the truth will be known. The biggest problem, according to the President of the Portuguese Section of International Transparency [sic], resided in the incorrect way the investigation was carried out. Pinto da Costa understands that the death hypothesis should have been pursued since the beginning.

Do you believe in the thesis defended by Gonçalo Amaral, according to which Madeleine McCann died accidentally in the night of her disappearance?

It does seem possible that that has taken place based on the circumstances of the cadaver dogs who signalled [death triggers] the existence of a cadaver and, also of blood with the genetic profile of the girl.

The English Laboratory said the analyses are not conclusive...

What the Laboratory concluded was that, in a total of 19 alleles [genetic markers], 15 are present in the sample examined. In Portugal, in order to guarantee the authenticity of progeny [descendants, children], that is, in the paternity tests we use 15 alleles. Therefore, the results obtained by the British Laboratory are extremely significant. Thus, they seem, pertinent in the consideration that the child could have died in the apartment. Another hypothesis is that she could have died outside and then the body was moved inside [the apartment].

Isn’t there, in Portugal, technical capacity to do this kind of analyses?

Yes, they could have been done in Portugal. I believe that either the Scientific Police Laboratory of the Judiciary Police or the various Forensic Medicine Institutes have the conditions to perform them. That did not happen possibly for the reason that the persons at issue were of English nationality.

The explanation given by Gonçalo Amaral, that the corpse was frozen or preserved in cold, for more than 20 days, also seems plausible?

What I believe is that the body was not totally decomposed. There are situations when the cadaver is preserved more or less without adding any substance, like ice, for example. Besides, we should not forget that this is the body of a child and not of an adult, who decays more rapidly.

Do you believe the Truth will be discovered?

Yes, when all entities involved are at a distance. The midwives fight, the truths are discovered. [Portuguese Proverb: "Zangam-se as comadres, sabem-se as verdades."]. The process has so many contradictions that, it is impossible to have one truth.

And what exactly is at the origin of so many contradictions?

The fact that the investigation started incorrectly. It should have started with the exaggeration of the positive and with the assumption that the child was killed. Even because the existence of maltreatment is a reality and in these cases, the number one suspect is the father, not the stepfather, the uncle or any other person. At another side, the scene should have been put immediately in custody to avoid its violation, because the examination of the scene is fundamental. The parents presented the abduction hypothesis, but those who do a criminal investigation have to have their ‘heads cold’ [‘cuca fria’- meaning open and objective mind], as they say in Brazil, and cannot deviate from the essential. The investigation was done in reverse.

Source: Jornal de Notícias, paper edition - 26 July 2008

Note: Professor Pinto da Costa was the Director of the Portuguese Forensic Institute [INML] for several years. by Joana Morais

quote:

"Less clear would be the analyses on the hair that was found in the car boot. The tests that were performed on those did not arrive at the same time as the rest. Until the date when Amaral left, there were no results. The hair samples were requested from the lab, but it “didn’t want to let go” of the samples"

quote:

"on page 183 (chapter 19), a "failure" from the FSS is mentioned: the analyses on the hair samples are missing. Stuart Prior contacts the FSS on the PJ's request. The analyses had not been done yet. The PJ does not only want to know whether the hair belongs to M - above everything else, they want to knwo whether they came from a living or a dead person. The FSS is in no condition to reply to the latter; only to the former. English colleagues who are present at the meeting, raise the possibility of sending the hair to a European lab that is able to clarify the issue: hair from a living or a dead person. The FSS is not prepared to let go of the hair samples. They inform the PJ, via Stuart Prior, that a process of comparison of hair colour would establish whether the hair belonged to M. The next step would be to identify the DNA - which never happened.

quote:

A personal comment

"Among the motives to consider that the couple had no responsibilities in their daughter’s disappearance, the PM points out, in the archiving dispatch, that none of them was in the apartment when the child disappeared."

The above is an indirect quote from the Public Ministry's archiving dispatch that was appended to the process files, a quote taken from an article that was published by Sol, and sourced from Lusa.

I rarely comment on the case on this blog - my posts are mainly dedicated to translations of articles that appear in the Portuguese press, regardless of their contents, because I firmly believe that only by making information generally available, can readers make up their own minds, instead of being shepherded by the media in one or another direction.

There have been many moments, throughout the last 15 months, that have made me feel sad, discouraged, helpless – ultimately impotent to really help in finding a missing child that, for one reason or another, has concentrated our attention and gripped our emotions.

But I honestly cannot remember a moment that even comes close to making me feel as low as I felt yesterday evening, when I read the above mentioned quote.

Never mind that the whole archiving dispatch reads more like a work from a defence lawyer than from a prosecutor.

Never mind that the head prosecutor did not sign the dispatch, leaving the job up to a second in rank.

Never mind that the process is archived with more open questions than answers, and important diligences are dismissed.

What I cannot accept, as a Portuguese citizen, in a case of manifest public interest, is that the Public Ministry holds information that the PJ acknowledges not to have been able to establish, and does not share that information in the process.

The Public Ministry knows the exact time at which Madeleine disappeared.

It also knows where the parents were at that moment.

And finally, it sets one of the most innovative precedents in legal terms, that I had ever heard of: as long as you’re at least 100 metres away from your child, no matter what happens to the minor, it’s not your responsibility.

Brilliant. by astro

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 20:33 schreef livelink het volgende:
Suko, dank je wel voor je vele bijdrages hier. Madeleine is niet vergeten, mede dankzij jou

Ik hoop dat er snel nieuwe, baandoorbrekende ontwikkelingen zullen zijn die jou uit je lurkstand halen en die Madeleine recht doen.

quote:

AMSTERDAM - Vrijgegeven documenten laten zien dat een klein meisje dat zichzelf ´Maddie´ noemde, is gezien in Amsterdam tijdens de verdwijning van Madeleine McCann. Het meisje zou gezegd hebben dat ze was weggehaald tijdens de vakantie, meldt de Daily mail.
Een 41-jarige Nederlandse winkelmedewerker Ana Stam heeft gezegd met Maddy te hebben gesproken. Het meisje zou in mei vorig jaar samen met een man, een vrouw en twee andere kinderen haar winkel zijn binnengekomen. Stam verklaarde in haar getuigenverklaring tegenover de Nederlandse politie dat de man er niet uitzag als een aardig persoon en waarschijnlijk Portugees sprak. De vrouw sprak Engels en vertelde dat ze een klein circus in Frankrijk hadden.

Het jonge meisje vroeg vervolgens of Stam wist waar haar moeder was. Toen zij daarop antwoorde dat haar moeder achter in de winkel was, zei 'Maddie' dat die vrouw niet haar moeder was, maar een vreemdeling die haar van haar mama had weggenomen. Volgens Stam leek het meisje erg op Madeleine McCann, op de haarkleur na.

Ook werden voor het eerst beelden vrijgegeven van een beveiligingscamera in een pompstation in de buurt van Praia da Luz waar de McCanns op vakantie waren. De foto is enkele uren na de verdwijning genomen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 20:33 schreef livelink het volgende:
Suko, dank je wel voor je vele bijdrages hier. Madeleine is niet vergeten, mede dankzij jou

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 22:51 schreef paddy het volgende:

[..]

http://www.telegraaf.nl/b(...)sterdam__.html?p=4,2
nog meer linkjes

quote:

Op woensdag 6 augustus 2008 00:18 schreef Loedertje het volgende:

[..]

De houding van het meisje op die camerabeelden is anders, de scheiding in het haar van het kleine meisje op de beelden is niet die van het verdwenen meisje, het meisje is zelfs iets groter en ik begrijp dan ook niet waarom deze beelden opeens in de krant verschijnen als zijnde *dit zou Maddy na de verdwijning kunnen zijn*

Kul-verhaal.

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 20:33 schreef livelink het volgende:
Suko, dank je wel voor je vele bijdrages hier. Madeleine is niet vergeten, mede dankzij jou

Ik hoop dat er snel nieuwe, baandoorbrekende ontwikkelingen zullen zijn die jou uit je lurkstand halen en die Madeleine recht doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 21:20 schreef yyentle het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2008 23:46 schreef schatje het volgende:

[..]

En Kahaarin natuurlijk ook.

Ik hoop ook op baandoorbrekende artikelen.

quote:

The McCann Case: A “Mystery girl” and Mr. Clarence doubts

“Mystery girl in Maddy hunt” was today's headline of the Evening Standard. “The CCTV picture taken hours after she vanished from Algarve villa. Why did police keep it secret?”, asks the newspaper. The picture was taken on May 4 and PJ was informed of an alleged sighting of Madeleine.

The same day, PJ inspectors J.C. Franco and C. Lucas, went to that gas station (from GALP, a Portuguese company) at A22, a highway that crosses Algarve, from East to West. The two inspectors, according to the report signed by them and included in the DVD files made available to journalists, got the CCTV images and showed Madeleine's picture to the employees of the shop.

The employees confirmed that the girl they saw, a few hours before (11:10 am) was not Madeleine McCann. Images were viewed and analysed by PJ technicians and the result was negative – it was not Madeleine. The two PJ inspectors went also to the gas station on the opposite side of the highway (in the West-East direction), and the result was the same. They did it also at another Galp station, near Loulé, with the same results.

"Just as a curiosity, the Metro refers that these images were seen by the McCann, who also ruled out the possibility of being her daughter. Anyway, the Evening Star even wrote that “it is not clear if the image released today was thoroughly checked by Portuguese officers.” Mr. Clarence Mitchell is quoted by the newspaper: "Was that sighting followed up and ruled out properly? We just don't know."

PJ received a second information, the same day – May 4 – about a blonde girls seen in another shop, at another gas station. This one was a Repsol gas station, at Vale do Paraíso, near Albufeira. PJ Inspector A. Silva went there, got the CCTV images, talked with employees and it was easy to conclude it couldn't be Madeleine. As the PJ inspector wrote in his report (available at the DVD given to journalists) there was no positive identification and the child had very long hair, clearly visible. As hair grows at a rate of around 1 cm every month, Madeleine couldn't have a so long hair, on May 4, he wrote. The Daily Mail published the picture with a caption: “Clues: Another possible sighting contained in the file”... Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis

quote:

AMSTERDAMSE VERMOEDT DAT ZE ONTVOERDE MEISJE ZAG

„Ik hou er serieus rekening mee dat ze het is.” Anna Stam, werkneemster van een Amsterdamse feestwinkel, loopt inmiddels al een jaar rond met de gedachte dat ze oog in oog heeft gestaan met de vermiste peuter Madeleine McCann, ofwel Maddie en haar ontvoerders.
Uit het door de Portugese politie vrijgegeven onderzoeksdossier blijkt dat op aangeven van Stam in mei vorig jaar een uitvoerig onderzoek is gestart naar de vermissing van Maddie door de Amsterdamse politie. Na haar aangifte op 13 juni werden bewakingsbeelden onderzocht, de kassarol bekeken en een compositietekenaar naar Anna gestuurd. Aangezien de opnameapparatuur beelden automatisch wist na een week, was de ontmoeting met het meisje niet meer terug te halen. Op 18 juni is het rapport naar Portugal gestuurd. Uiteindelijk heeft het allemaal niets opgeleverd.
Voor Anna Stam resteert momenteel alleen nog een onbehaaglijk gevoel. „Was het nieuws maar eerder bekend geworden, dan…” vraagt ze zich vertwijfeld af. Tijdens het gesprek toont ze zich weinig enthousiast over alle plotse media-aandacht. Ze hoopte alleen maar dat het vervullen van haar burgerplicht kon helpen. „Ik heb dan ook de politie gebeld toen ik rondliep met mijn verhaal en niet de pers.”
Maddie werd op 3 mei vermist en op 8 mei 2007 bereikte het nieuws de Nederlandse media in volle omvang. Vlak na de verdwijning, nog voor de media over de zaak berichtten, kwam er bij Anna ineens een stel met twee kinderen binnen, met nog een meisje van een jaar of vijf. „Op zich vielen ze niet op, behalve dan dat het meisje iets apart liep van de rest. Het werd wel vreemd toen dat meisje ineens in perfect Engels vroeg of ik haar moeder had gezien”, zegt Stam.


• De nuchtere werkneemster van een Amsterdamse feestwinkel Anna Stam denkt Maddie vorig jaar juni te hebben gezien. Ze was met haar ’ouders’ en nog twee kinderen in de winkel toen ze aan Anna vroeg: „Have you seen my mummy?”


Op de vraag ’Have you seen my mummy?’ antwoordde Anna het meisje dat haar moeder achter in de winkel was, waarop het meisje antwoordde dat dat haar moeder niet was. ’She is a stranger, she took me from my mummy.’ En: ’They took me from my holiday’, had ze Anna ook nog toevertrouwd. „Ik vroeg hoe ze heette, waarop ik Maggy verstond. Toen ik vroeg of het Maggy was, corrigeerde ze me dat het Maddie was.”


Bij de Amsterdamse Anna Stam gingen toen de eerste berichten over de ontvoering van Maddie McCann in de kranten en op televisie verschenen nog niet direct alle alarmbellen rinkelen. „Ik heb er eerst nog een paar weken mee rondgelopen. Het meisje had donkerblond haar en het ging in de pers constant om een blond meisje. Ook viel me het stukje in haar oog niet op (Maddie heeft een opvallend vlekje in haar oog, red.).”
Toch liet de gedachte Anna niet meer los, waarna ze uiteindelijk toch naar de politie stapte. De werkneemster van een van de grootste feestartikelzaken van Europa werd meteen serieus genomen. „Ik ben daar geweest, ze zijn hier gekomen. Er zijn compositietekeningen gemaakt. Het lijkt nu alsof er in Portugal niets mee is gebeurd en ik vind het vooral vervelend dat de ouders nooit mijn verklaringen hebben doorgekregen. Belachelijk.”
Volgens Anna kocht het stel dat het kleine meisje bij zich had voor een ’aanzienlijk’ bedrag aan spullen in de winkel. In haar verklaring bij de politie stelt ze dat het om 237 euro gaat. „Pruiken en maskers. Maar niet het soort waarmee je je kunt vermommen op straat. De pruiken waren heel opzichtig en de maskers een soort halloweenmaskers”, verduidelijkt Anna.
„Ze wilden graag met creditcard betalen en ze drongen nog sterk aan. Ze moesten namelijk weer meteen verder reizen. Ik kreeg dan ook niet de indruk dat ze op vakantie waren in de buurt. Toen ik duidelijk maakte dat we geen creditcard accepteren, kwam de vrouw een dag later alleen terug om cash te betalen.”
De mogelijke ontvoerders spraken onderling Portugees, tegen de kinderen Frans en tegen de medewerkster Engels. Maddie mocht vrij rondlopen in de winkel. „Het viel me wel op dat ze weinig emoties toonde. Normaal zijn kinderen vrolijk en enthousiast in onze winkel. Ik bood haar een ballon aan, maar die wilde ze niet.”


De korte kennismaking met het kleine meisje heeft Anna nooit meer losgelaten. „We spraken er laatst nog over, hoe het toch met haar zou zijn. Ik hoop alleen maar dat de zaak nog wordt opgelost”, en naar lang aarzelen: „Ik denk dat ze nog leeft.”

Hiaten
Clarence Mitchell, de woordvoerder van de Madeleines ouders Gerry en Kate McCann, zegt dat de verklaring van Anna Stam voor hen ook ’nieuw’ is. Hoewel Mitchell haar getuigenis serieus neemt, zijn er wel een paar hiaten. „Zo is het opmerkelijk dat Madeleine zichzelf ’Maddie’ noemde. Dat deed ze nooit. Ze noemde zichzelf altijd Madeleine.”
Wel zegt Mitchell dat de verklaring van Anna Stam ’net zo serieus wordt genomen en nagetrokken als alle andere tips’. „Onze privédetectives reizen op korte termijn naar Amsterdam om haar te spreken.”
Volgens Mitchell heeft de Portugese politie weinig gecommuniceerd met Kate en Gerry over het onderzoek naar de verdwijning van hun dochter. „We kwamen er pas achter dat Madeleine zou zijn gezien in Amsterdam nadat het onderzoeksdossier openbaar is gemaakt. De Portugezen hebben ons in elk geval niets verteld.”

quote:

Op woensdag 6 augustus 2008 23:04 schreef Tmaatje het volgende:
Kahaarin & Suko bedankt voor jullie info; goed becommentarieerd en goed doordacht, ik ben benieuwd wat het dossier nog aan informatie bevat waar de internetgemeenschap iets mee kan, tenslotte heeft die minder last van politieke belangen...

quote:

Irishman says that he saw a man carrying a child on the evening of the disappearance. The PJ dismisses the deposition because the father was at the restaurant. But the employees fail to say who is who in the entries and exits by the group that evening

The McCanns contacted the Irish Smith family, which says they saw Gerry, to a certainty of 60 to 80 percent, carrying a little girl towards the beach, on the evening when Maddie disappeared. But the contact was apparently made with the purpose of drawing a photofit of the alleged abductor, according to what the Irishman told the police in his country.

In the Maddie case process, this contact was reportedly made by Brian Kennedy, the Scottish millionaire who financially helped the McCanns in the search for their daughter. The Irish officer who questions M. Smith, in Dublin, writes in his communication to the Portuguese police that Smith refused to participate in the making of the photofit and that he did not tell the story of what he saw to the McCanns’ friend.

The moment in which Maddie’s parents contact M. Smith is not clear. But the Irish witness only refers it to the authorities when he is heard on the 23rd of January, after seeing the images on television that livened his memory, on the 9th of September: when Gerry leaves the plane in the United Kingdom and turns his head down, M. Smith identifies the gesture as similar to what he saw in Praia da Luz four months earlier.

What woke up Smith’s memory?

Days after this ‘click’, the Irishman told the Leicestershire police about his suspicions; the witness also stated that it might have been the way in which Gerry transported one of the twins that made him feel that the man who he saw near the Ocean Club could have been Maddie’s father.

Smith even clarifies that he discussed that perception with the other members of his family, who also saw the man carrying the child in Praia da Luz, but only his wife had the same feeling. Nevertheless, she did not want to give a deposition.

M. Smith also tells that he was harassed by the media that published false declarations in his name, and that at least six newspapers apologized. The Irish policeman who led the questioning refers that he does not believe that Smith is trying to please the press, given the fact that he is, in his own opinion, an authentic person and known locally as a very decent man.

It is remembered that the alleged abductor was seen by the entire family, and it was the conviction of the three members, who were heard by the PJ on the 26th of May 2007, that the child was Madeleine. The street where the encounter took place is approximately five metres wide.

PJ drops lead?

After M. Smith contacted the British authorities, the Portuguese police is informed about this new perception from the Irishman. On the 27th of September, the PJ contacts the witness and confirms the information, as well as his availability to come to Portugal, once more, to give a new statement. A trip that never happened.

After Gonçalo Amaral left, on the 2nd of October, the PJ requests a new deposition from the witness through the Irish police. This only takes place four months later, at the end of January, and arrives into the PJ’s hands on the 19th of February.

But the Smiths’ witness statement was dismissed by the Portuguese authorities, because it was established that at the time of the sighting, Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant. According to the process, this information was corroborated by the friends of the couple and was not contested by the employees, who are unable to identify who is who and at what time the elements from the group left and returned to the restaurant.

It is also remembered that the Public Ministry recognizes contradictions in the depositions by the friends, and considered that the reconstitution would be a very important diligence, in order to clarify the incoherencies.

Without indicia that the McCann couple committed any crime, the Public Ministry ordered the archiving of the process. On the 21st of July, Kate and Gerry, along with Robert Murat, saw the arguido status lifted. source: IOL Portugal Diário, 06.08.2008 by astro

quote:

The work of the dogs described by their coach Jornal de Notícias Gelezen op mccannfiles.com

07 August 2008 - 00h30m Thanks to 'carilina' for translation]

They were primarily responsible for the turnaround in the process, at a time when the Judicial Police had already left behind the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. The dog that detects the smell of corpses "Eddie", and the one that detects blood "Keela", were "very excited" when they entered the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club, which was occupied by the couple McCann during the holidays.

Although the images will only be viewed in September, in the dossier of the case you can read the report from Martin Grime, an expert on dogs used in research and an adviser to the FBI, who says he "noticed in the first instance", as soon as they entered the apartment, that the dogs "were very excited", and he as a coach "understands their body language."

He explains that Eddie was the first one to come into action. When he entered the apartment "he caught an odour that he recognises". Martin noted that the animal walked the apartment in an attempt to locate the odor, and that he discovered it in the room behind the sofa. At that time, he began barking. Keela was the second to come into action. "She makes an indication to me only when she has found human blood, only human blood," said the expert, ensuring that "there must be something physical there, so that she can warn me."

In the process, the Prosecutor notes that "any trace, even if invisible to the naked eye, collected using this type of dog, must be subject to expert analysis in an accredited laboratory."

quote:

Afbeelding photofit

Suspects – Portraits by Lance Purser and Derek Flack

His name is Barrington Godfrey Norton, he is a music teacher and at the time resided inside a white van next to Praia da Luz, in the Algarve

The two photofits that are included in the process concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are of the same person, and according to Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the case, belong to an individual who was identified as Barrington Godfrey Norton a few days after the witness statements from Derek Flack and Lance Purser.

These two English citizens told the Portuguese police that they had seen a suspicious man near the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine McCann disappeared from. “We identified the person and discarded the information”, Gonçalo Amaral told CM, referring to Flack and Purser.

The first portrait appeared with Derek Flack, aged 64, who described a man of Caucasian race, dark complexion, around 1,75 metres and aged between 25 and 35, according to the deposition that was collected by the Portuguese police. In the same document, it can be read that Derek stated he could not identify the individual if he saw him again. The second portrait originated with Lance Purser, who saw a man in the surroundings of the same location where Derek saw the suspect. The description that was made mentions a Caucasian man, of dark complexion, aged approximately 35 and 1,70 m tall.

Based on these statements, the Portuguese police managed to identify the suspect, and questioned Barrington Norton on the 8th of May 2007. The music professor admitted to having been in the area of the Ocean Club, where he delivered a curriculum and picked up dinner.

English press

‘The Sun’ – ‘Why did the police hide the two portraits?’ is the title of the English paper, which cites the two citizens concerning the testimonies.

‘Daily Mail’ – This newspaper also presents the two portraits, and it can be read that the Portuguese police never revealed them to parents Kate and Gerry.

‘Guardian’ – Apart from the photofits, the newspaper mentions the testimony of a Dutch woman who reportedly spoke to an English child, aged 2 or 3, who supposedly was named Maddie.

Musician – The two photofits picture Barrington Norton, an Englishman who had been in Portugal for five years and slept in his white van. The GNR inspected his vehicle and didn’t find anything out of the ordinary.

...............................................................

Direct speech – Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the process

“Description without value”

Correio da Manhã – Why did you never reveal these two photofits?

Gonçalo Amaral – We didn’t divulge those photos because we cannot go on revealing photofit after photofit. Even more so because we identified the person and it was a musician who was perfectly known in the area. It made no sense.

But were the testimonies by Derek Flack and Lance Purser credible?

There is the testimony from two English persons who reportedly saw a suspect in the surroundings of the Ocean Club. That person was identified by us. The description by one of them ends up being of no value, because at a certain point he says he could not identify him if he saw him.

There is now a witness in Holland who says that she spoke to Maddie in a shop?

I think it is strange that persons spoke to the child and she said her name was Maddie. To us, the parents always said that she did not answer to Maddie, but only to Madeleine. source: Correio da Manhã, 07.08.2008, paper edition

quote:

Op donderdag 7 augustus 2008 11:43 schreef SunChaser het volgende:

[..]

Het is een algemeen bekend psychologisch verschijnsel dat hoe langer het duurt des te meer getuigen er dingen onbewust bijverzinnen. Ze zag Maddy voor 8 mei maar deed op 13 juni pas aangifte. Op 8 mei barstte het mediaspektakel los, had ze 5 weken om zichzelf wijs te maken dat t kind zei dat ze maddy heette en was ontvoerd.

quote:

Op donderdag 7 augustus 2008 12:43 schreef kahaarin het volgende:

[..]

Thnx!

Oh en alle registers gaan open, alle verdachtmakingen worden de kast uit getrokken, van Amsterdam naar belgie:

http://news.be.msn.com/bi(...)p-documentid=9149894
[..]

quote:

Why Madeleine is dead - written by Jailhouselawyer

Madeleine Beth McCann died or was killed in Apartment 5A between 6 and 8.30pm on 3May 2007. Madeleine was definitely dead before Kate and Gerry McCann left the apartment and arrived at the Tapas bar at 8.40pm. Whilst the McCanns have stated that an abductor must have taken Madeleine in between one of the checks, this is obviously false. Because, it is obvious that the McCanns had to fit in the so-called abductor in between one of the checks to give the story any kind of plausibility. Having to squeeze the so-called abductor into a tight time frame, a window of opportunity, has given the McCanns a logistical problem.

According to the McCanns, at 9.30pm Matthew Oldfield supposedly offers to check on Madeleine and the twins. However, there is something wrong about this account. Matthew Oldfield states that he did not see Madeleine. What good is a check to see if everything is alright which fails to check on Madeleine? He would be failing in his duty towards the McCanns if the scenario was genuine. Why didn’t he see Madeleine? Obviously, she wasn’t asleep in her bed. There are two factors here. One is that Matthew Oldfield was not prepared to state he saw Madeleine. It would mean he was the last person to see Madeleine alive, and make him a prime suspect when the police arrived, and mean he would be accused of perverting the course of justice if discovered to be lying. The second factor is that if he claimed he saw Madeleine, then it would cast doubt upon Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting of the abductor at 9.15pm.

It was difficult enough for the McCanns to introduce an abductor into the plot. To give this version of events any credibility whatsoever, it was better to have someone within the group “see” the abductor. This could not have been done by someone outside of the group as it would have compromised their security if the witness cracked under police questioning. Therefore Jane Tanner drew the short straw, and claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. This means that Madeleine was missing before 9.30pm. It also means that Madeleine was missing before 9.15pm. Gerry McCann claims to have seen Madeleine asleep at 9.05pm. If he is to be believed, this means that an abductor only had 10 minutes between 9.05 and 9.15pm to kidnap Madeleine.

What spoils this plan for the McCanns is the unexpected arrival upon the scene of Jeremy Wilkins. So, the abductor sees Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins and Jane Tanner in the street and decides to just pop into Apartment 5A and abduct Madeleine? One of the McCanns favourite words of scorn is ludicrous, which is what we are expected to believe. It was a shock for Gerry McCann to leave the apartment and unexpectedly to bump into Jeremy Wilkins. It would not have been sociable had Gerry McCann just ignored Jeremy Wilkins therefore he had to stop and talk to him for a few minutes. In reality, Gerry McCann did not see Madeleine asleep in her bed at 9.05pm, this was because she was already dead by 8.30pm.

It is unlikely Madeleine died as a result of an overdose or overreaction to a sedative. This is because she would have been in bed appearing to be asleep, and the McCanns would not have noticed until later that night or the next morning. It is more likely that Madeleine was killed between 6 and 8pm. And, that the meeting in the Tapas bar was hastily arranged.

quote:

Dossier Madeleine McCann openbaar
De Portugese autoriteiten hebben het politiedossier over de verdwijning van het Britse meisje Madeleine McCann openbaar gemaakt. Journalisten kunnen een aanvraag doen om de bijna 30.000 pagina's op dvd te laten zetten. Zo'n 30 media hadden om inzage gevraagd.

Het onderzoek naar de verdwijning van het driejarige meisje werd vorige maand stopgezet, omdat geen aanwijzingen konden worden gevonden voor een misdrijf. Madeleine McCann verdween in mei 2007 uit een hotelkamer in de Portugese Algarve. Haar ouders begonnen daarop een internationale campagne om hulp.