The McCanns knew that I was going to catch them - TvGuia

by astro 8 years ago

Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral

TvGuia invited me to interview my former companion in the PJ, and former coordinator of the Maddie case.

He tells why he was the target of lies and how the little girl’s parents concealed the truth.

Moita Flores (MF) - Anyone who reads this conversation on these pages will say: there it is! This guy went to tv to say what the other one told him and it’s going to be difficult to convince the gossipers that we had not spoken to each other for years.

Gonçalo Amaral (GA) - True. The last time that we chatted before I left the PJ, I was stationed in the Azores.

MF - And how are things now? The book that you wrote, “Truth of the Lie”, is out there. You have retired and people are calling for you from all sides…

GA - Don’t even mention it. I’m exhausted. I came to have lunch with you because I had made you a promise, and I’m on my way to Vigo. I know that there are hundreds of persons waiting for me.

MF - Vigo, Madrid…

GA - I also presented the book in Seville and Barcelona, in front of hundreds of readers and the full force of the media.

MF - I read it in El País and I saw you on one or two Spanish tv channels.

GA - Eight tv stations! Can you imagine what that’s like? The whole of the press. I didn’t know where to turn to anymore. Even Hola!…

MF - What about sales? In Portugal, I know it’s selling well. At least in the bookshops where I usually go, I see it listed high in the best-seller lists.

GA - Here we have sold 180 000 copies and we’re rapidly reaching the 200 000 mark. From Spain I have no figures yet, but I know it’s been selling well.

MF - And in England?

GA [laughs] - You’re joking…

MF – I’m serious. It was where your life was most ruined, where you were insulted and defamed…

GA [laughs] - It’s over now… The book will get there, you’ll see…

MF - What about other countries?

GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I’m going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We’ll see…

MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They’ve mistreated you.

GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I’m not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I’m convinced that they don’t even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that’s it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it’s over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.

MF – And you launch a “grenade” that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl’s destiny. She died in the apartment.

GA – Do you doubt it?

MF – No. Neither I nor the older people who used to work with me. When this happened, I was in Greece and I heard the news through an English channel. The story was so badly told, that only an ingénue, or a silly person, would believe it. As a matter of fact, when I arrived, I had dinner with several already retired colleagues that worked in homicides, and their opinion was the same. The detail about the window killed the version. Nobody passes through that narrow window space carrying a child.

GA – The window made me doubt. And not only that.

MF – But I do insist on the window. The mother said that she never touched it.

GA – That she never even opened it.

MF – Now, when I read the process, I realized that her fingerprints were on it. And positioned in a manner that coincides with an opening movement.

GA – It was with that, with Kate’s fingerprints on the window that I wanted to catch them.

MF – That’s the truth of the lie.

GA – Among other things. It was one of the best games that I ever saw played out, to divert attention from what really happened in the apartment. The manner in which they “worked” for the Smith was brilliant.

MF – The couple that recognized the father carrying the little girl.

GA – Exactly. It was done in such a manner that at one point in time, it was Gerry himself who informed that someone had witnessed the situation, as if the person that was recognized had been someone else.

MF – Wearing the clothes that the friend mentioned for the photofit. 

GA – Precisely.

MF – Do you still drink beer, or did you stop drinking red wine after the news in the English press?

GA [laughs] – I never drank wine. I don’t like red wine.

MF – What really made them mad was being made arguidos.

GA – Now that you know the process, tell me… Under the old Penal Process, how do I ask Kate: “Are you lying when you say you didn’t touch the window? As a matter of fact, it was you who opened the window. We have material evidence of that.” A question like this forces the constitution of arguido because it invades her sphere of constitutional rights. I have to give her the right not to reply, instead of lying. The only solution was to make her an arguida.

MF – Things were different in my time. She would have been under such an attack that before she realized anything, she’d be in jail.

GA – Right, but in your time, in our old times, investigation was made with fuel. Now we all move on honey. Apart from that, this is a process that is uncomfortable for everyone. Nicely archived, nice and quiet, that’s how it looks better. Everyone was happy.

MF – And nobody was tried.

GA – Not yet…

MF – Do you still believe?

GA – It’s too big and too serious a burden to be concealed by so many people for their entire lives.

MF – I also agree with you. Now, tell me. Do we eat grilled squid or do we play the premier league? There is bean and piglet casserole.

GA – You’re crazy. Grilled squid.

MF – I definitely looks like things now move on honey.

GA – We’re too old for such a bean casserole. Today is my birthday and I don’t want to die of overstuffing.

MF – You’re 49 and you say you’re old? What am I then, I’m six “minutes” ahead of you on the scoreboard?! I’m 55, and on the 23rd of February I receive another free one.

GA – Get sensible and order the squid.

MF [speaking to the waiter] – Squid for both of us. Now it’s like in the movies. Bean casseroles are for under 40s only.

source: TvGuia, 17.10.2008, printed edition

Joana Morais

Join us on Facebook

Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case

Monday April 10, 2017

An awful lot of people believe the "Last Photo" is the key to what happened to Maddie. I disagree. 

Furthermore, I don't believe it is even very important in the analysis of this case. Worse, it is a huge distraction which has lead to a very complicated theory of Maddie dying on Sunday which lacks the support of solid, credible evidence. Furthermore, it completely negates the most important piece of evidence in the case - the Smith sighting. Let me explain how, as a profiler, the "Last Photo" as any kind of evidence pales in comparison to the Smith sighting and excessive focus on it should be laid to rest.

First of all, the "Last Photo" is not photoshopped. It is a real photo. Now, as to when it was taken, I can accept that it might not have been taken when the McCanns claimed (although I believe it may well have been taken when they said it was). I will go even further - to make my point - and be willing to accept that one possibility is that it might have been taken on Sunday. So, let's say it was indeed taken on that day. What does that tell us? Here is where the speculation goes off track. As a profiler, all I can tell you is if it is true the photo was taken days before the McCanns claim, there might be a half dozen reasons for them choosing that photo and saying it was taken later in the week, none of which are very alarming to the point of throwing up a huge red flag.

Here is an example of how speculating on certain evidence leads to false conclusions.
My granddaughter was born three years ago. She was born at my daughter's home in a planned home birth quite close to her due date, just a day or so early. At the time of her birth, I lived just thirty minutes from my daughter's home. On the occasion of my granddaughter's first birthday, my daughter cobbled together one of those first-year-of-life albums with photos from birth through turning one. As one peruses the photos, one cannot help notice that there is but one photo of me, the only grandmother, in the whole book and I am conspicuously absent from the birth photos. My ex-husband is shown holding the newborn baby in a couple of photos, the baby's uncles are there with big smiles on their faces, my best friend (who was an "aunty" to my daughter during her childhood) is there helping at the birth, but I am not. Why am I, the grandmother of the baby, the mother of the woman giving birth, not there?

Okay, start speculating.

Did any of you come up with these possibilities?

My daughter and I have a bad relationship and I wasn't invited to the birth.

I was busy doing television and my career and publicity was more important than being at the birth.

I was off traveling - having planned a vacation around the time of my daughter's due date.

I was opposed to home birth an refused to show up and support my daughter's choice.

Yeah, none of these are true. Oh, and, wait, look here! What is this?

Yes, that is a photo of me at the birth! What the heck? Where did that come from and why, if it isn't a photoshopped picture or a photo of me with another baby, or a photo of me with the baby on a day sometime after the birth, why wasn't that photo in my daughter's picture book? Why would it be left out?

First of all, let's talk about if the photo is actually me at the birth. Yes, it is a real photo. I was there. Not only was I there, but I chose to be there under stressful circumstances. Oh, no, not that I had any problems with my daughter; our relationship was fine. And I am a supporter of home birth; my son, David, was born at home. In fact, I went with my daughter to her final midwifery appointment and as soon as she called and told me she was in labor, I raced over to her house. I would never have planned a vacation during the last month of her pregnancy and I would have turned down all television and work-related jobs to be present at the birth. In fact, the stressful circumstance which made my presence difficult was that my mother was dying in another state and I had to choose whether to be at her deathbed or at my granddaughter's birth.

I had been at my father's side when he died just a year earlier and I had been making trips back and forth to New York to help my sister care for my mother in her last year of life as she declined with Alzheimers. After she fell and was hospitalized for the last time, my other sister went up to New York to help as my daughter's due date was nearing. I then had to the choose to be with my mother or to be with my daughter, not knowing exactly when my daughter would give birth or my mother would leave this world. I did what I thought my mother would sanction; I stayed for the birth. My mother died the same day, just hours after the baby was born, so I was unable to fly there after the birth to be there in time to say goodbye.

So, yes, I was at the birth, totally involved, and none of the negative speculation would have been accurate. So, what about the photo? Quite simple really. My daughter didn't have that photo. I never had sent it over to her. The photos she DID have of me weren't very flattering and she knows I hate bad photos of myself, so she kindly did not include them in the book. Yes, other grandmothers wouldn't have cared if they looked like a wildebeest holding the baby but my daughter knew it would make me shudder. I asked a woman who put a photo of me kissing an iguana in a marketplace during a trip to Nicaragua to pull the photo from Facebook; the iguana's sideview of it's neck and dewlap hanging down looked a whole lot better than mine. I love the photo (privately) but not for public viewing!  Okay, call me what you will -  proud, vain, whatever - I just hate embarrassingly bad photos of myself at my age.

So, now, see how speculation as to why there was no  photo of me at my granddaughter's birth can go so far off course? Now, think about the "Last Photo" of the McCanns. Why would they lie, if they even did, about the time it was taken? I can think of a whole bunch of reasons which are far less bizarre than Maddie being dead by Sunday which then requires a massive plan to hide the fact and cooperation of a great number of people being  needed to carry on the charade for the next four days.



Let's see.



1. There WERE other photos of Maddie that week but they were blurred or not very good, so the McCanns chose the pool photo but said it was on Thursday because that made the photo more compelling (the LAST photo! The McCanns like spin and know its value).

2. They were other photos of Maddie but THEY look bad in them (and Kate and Gerry like to look good).

3. There were no other photos past Sunday because once they did their day with the children, they dumped them in care during the day and left them at night because they were busy enjoying their adult vacation and they didn't want to admit not spending time with them.

In other words, it is dangerous to speculate, creating dots that do not necessarily exist and then connecting those dots to create a theory. To me, the "Last Photo" is just a photo and I can find no reason to exaggerate its meaning.

Now, the Smith sighting is a completely different animal. THIS is the KEY to the case and yet it is even poo-poo'ed as having merit, mostly because it invalidates the earlier death theory of Madeleine. Simply, if the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine toward the beach on the evening of May 3, then Madeleine died an accidental death while being neglected and there is no big child sex ring that Gerry and his friends and the British governement are involved in.

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves. Unlike every parent I have ever dealt with whose child went missing or was found murdered, the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing. Why is this? There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street. For if Gerry DID have a solid alibi at that time, the McCanns would have jumped at a sighting that was validated by an entire bunch of strangers, not just a close friend who could easily not be believed (and wasn't). The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.

Even if I could explain away every other behavior of the McCanns and every other piece of evidence in this case, the one thing I cannot possibly come up with is an alternative explanation for is the McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting. If they are innocent of any connection to Maddie going missing, they would have jumped on the Smith sighting as a huge lead as to who might have taken their daughter. And if they are guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, their ignoring of the Smith sighting is the strongest piece of evidence we have of Maddie's death and subsequent cover-up being an inside job and not a stranger abduction.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 10, 2017

Join us on Facebook

Witnesses Heard by The PJ in the Maddie Case Were Sounded Out by the McCanns

by Joana Morais 9 years ago---Source|24 Horas

Persons Heard by the PJ in the Maddie Case Were Sounded Out by Madeleine’s Parents 

McCanns searched for Witnesses
by Luís Maneta

The mediatic process was still under the secrecy of justice, Kate and Gerry had already been constituted as arguidos, but nonetheless Madeleine's parents did not stop having contacts with witnesses. Three of them told everything to the authorities.

Kate and Gerry McCann spoke with witnesses after leaving for England

During the period in which the process Maddie was kept under the secrecy of justice, the McCann family had knowledge of what several witnesses knew. Persons who were sounded out and questioned by detectives hired to discover the whereabouts of the English girl, or even by a millionaire friend of the couple, reported subsequently the fact to the authorities, as stated in the process made public last month.

Between the witnesses "searched" on the McCanns request is Charlotte Pennington, one of the Ocean Club nannies, and Martin Smith, an Irish tourist who swore to be convinced of having seen Gerry carrying a child on his arms, in the fateful night of the 3rd of May in which the English girl disappeared of the apartment rented by the family in Praia da Luz.

Another witness, Catriona Baker, an Ocean Club nanny who knew personally Madeleine McCann, was received at the home of Kate and Gerry in November of 2007; months before her giving a statement to the Leicester police, in the scope of the rogatory letters sent by the Portuguese authorities for the United Kingdom.

When cross-examined by the English police, in April of 2008, Catriona Baker revealed the existence of this meeting: “I visited the family at their home in the sequence of an invitation to see how everyone was”.

Millionaire spoke with witness

In the questioning, besides describing the routine of the children in the crèche where they spent a great part of the day, Catriona shows that, when she knew of Maddie's disappearance, she searched for her everywhere, following on foot all the routes that were familiar to her, from the area around the Tapas Bar to the beach. “I did not see Kate or Gerry on that night”, she guarantees.

In his turn, the Irish tourist Martin Smith said to the British authorities that he had been contacted by Brian Kennedy - one of the biggest financiers of the Madeleine McCann Fund - in a date that he did not specify. Brian Kennedy justified the initiative with the purpose of elaborating a visual rendering of the man that Martin Smith said to have seen, a little after 22h00, carrying a child near the Ocean Club.

Initially, Smith did not identify the person. But after returning England and having seen Gerry McCann with one of the twins on his arms he was “60-80 % sure” that it was the same person. Having suspicions, Smith, did not only help to do any sketches he also refused to give informations.

Charlotte Pennington also said to have been approached by initiative of the McCanns. In this case, the contact was done through a private investigator, Noel Hagan, who works for Metodo 3, one of the detectives' agencies hired by Maddie's parents. “Charlotte assured to me that she only told him the same informations that she had already given to the PJ and to me”, wrote the English police officer who spoke with the former Ocean Club nanny.


Joana Morais

Join us on Facebook