10 Comments

Well, well, well

Cast your minds back to October 2007 when Goncalo Amaral was removed from the Investigation Team. Well many people say he was kicked off the case because he got too close to the truth.

Well even Goncalo Amaral in his book doesn’t state that, he says the following in Chapter 21 of the French to English Translation:

On Monday August 1st[should read 1st October as per PT book], I go back to work at DIC in Portimão, where two pieces of news are waiting for me: officials at Buckingham Palace have received an email informing them that a little girl – Madeleine – has disappeared from a hotel complex situated….in Lisbon! The second was brought to us by an English tourist – Kate – on holiday in Praia da Luz: she allegedly saw a stranger hanging about near the Baptista supermarket in the vicinity of the Ocean Club.

This is where we’re at: reduced to receiving that type of tip-off and chasing a phantom, that of the imaginary abductor. This Monday gets off to a bad start, with its load of irritation and preoccupations.

BAD RESPONSE TO A JOURNALIST

In the evening, while driving, I receive an unidentified phone call, the last straw…A journalist asks me if I want to comment on the subject of the email. Whether due to the difficult day, the raging storm or the fact of driving through rain…I lose my cool. I reply, irritably, without thinking, that the message is of no interest and that it would be better for the English police to occupy themselves with the Portuguese investigation. Even as I am hanging up, I realise that I have not only made a blunder, but I have been unfair towards the majority of the British police who have helped us throughout these difficult months. I drive on, certain that I have triggered a diplomatic incident with predictable consequences: as soon as these simple words are made public, I risk not being able to continue to direct the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation.

Goncalo Amaral knew exactly why he was removed.  And as per a comment in this post, Alipio Ribeiro was questioned many times about the systematic leaks from the PJ under Amaral’s leadership.

Paulo Rebelo took control and according to Paulo Reis he stated this on twitter about the reasons and remit of Rebelo’s task with regards to the Madeleine Investigation.

So his job was either to close the case or accuse someone according to Reis… well that in itself speaks volumes.  If the McCanns were involved in what happened to their daughter they would be before a Court of Law.  As they were not, Paulo Rebelo, along with the Public Ministry realised that the McCanns along with Robert Murat were not involved in what happened to Madeleine McCann and therefore the Public Ministry ultimately removed their arguido status and concluded the archiving dispatch with the words with regards to the 3 arguidos:

because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Add that to the Lisbon Court hearing where Ricardo Paiva stated categorically that Amaral’s thesis stopped over lines of enquiry being investigated, plus the fact that Jose Magalhaes e Menezes said there was a 50/50 chance of that Madeleine was alive and you get to see the real reasons why the case was archived.

The investigation under Goncalo Amaral, was a shambles with many blunders and Paulo Rebelo knew that all crucial evidence was lost when the PJ made mistake after mistake during those first few months of the inquiry.

No in my eyes, Paulo Rebelo is not “The Fixer”, he is the guy that gets sent in to clean up other people’s messes and to see if there is anything they can salvage to move the case forward so that the correct person is brought before a court of law.  Not the person that the previous investigator, has a hunch about but no evidence.

Don’t you find it strange, people are prepared to criticise and condemn Paulo Rebelo and accuse him of being “The Fixer”, but they take umbrage when you refer to Goncalo Amaral as “The Convict”? A statement which of course is true as it has been proven by a Court of Law that Goncalo Amaral did in fact commit perjury and falsify documents.

Advertisements

10 comments on “Well, well, well

  1. Astro on the New Penal Code

    snipped…………….

     

    I personally
    respect, but disagree with the decision that was made on the case one
    year ago. The archiving dispatch itself
    is riddled with
    contradiction and recognises the very significant amount of facts about
    this case that remain unclear. How
    any case can be
    archived, sustained on a 57-page document that lists nothing but doubts,
    can only be justified by the need
    to comply with the new
    Penal Process Code, which was enforced on the 15th of September 2007.
    Under the new code, any judicial
    process starts a
    countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months,
    with two possible extensions of 3 months
    each, there has to be a
    decision to either accuse, or archive the case.

     

    Robert Murat was
    made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 – 4 months before the new Penal
    Process Code was enforced -,
    and 14 months later, the
    case was archived, caught in time between two different legal frames.

  2. Thank you Samantha, wasn’t there something said once that they made the McCanns arguidos before the start of the new Penal Code?

    God I wish I could remember what was exactly said but I remember it being something on the lines that this case would be dealt with under the old Penal code and not the new one.

  3. Hiya

    I don’t know if this is what you were thinking of, but at some point I did mention that I wondered whether it was simply coincidence or not that they were made questioned as arguidos days before the new code came into effect.

    My point was this:

    The McCanns (and RM) were questioned according the arguido rules of a code that was soon to be replaced.
    The date of the code that it was to be replaced with is 29 august 2007, but it was not to come into effect until 15 September 2007.
    The one in effect UNTIL 15 September is here:
    http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/Codigo_de_Processo_Penal_-_Anotado.pdf
    The one that came into effect on 15 September is here:
    http://www.legix.pt/docs/CPP.pdf
    Just the first thing I found to show that it came into effect on that date is here:
    http://www.juliosantos.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=13

    Now the bit that made me wonder is the fact that a NEW bit was added to Article 61 (which deals with arguido issues) in the 15 September version:
    Artigo 61.º
    Direitos e deveres processuais
    (…)
    c) Ser informado dos factos que lhe são imputados antes de prestar declarações perante qualquer entidade;

    c) Be informed of the facts alleged against him before giving testimony before any entity;

    Now, as we know, they both saw the dog videos. Then, p. 253, “Ricardo had told him [Gerry], too, that they had recovered Madeleine’s DNA from inside the hire car, using the “best forensic scientists in the world”. When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s [UK dog handler] document in the air and saying, “It’s the dogs that are important!”

    If the questioning had taken place on, or after, 15 September, would Kate and Gerry have had the right to read the Lowe report before answering any questions? 

    The bottom line is I still can’t work out whether the PJ genuinely didn’t understand the DNA report or whether they were quite simply bluffing.

  4. Very good question Carana, and by the sounds of it, if they had been made arguidos after the 15th September they would have had to be interviewed under the new rules.  I suspect your assumption that they would have been allowed to read the reports to be correct.

    The likes of me, wouldn’t really understand the full complexity of markers, etc but a trained doctor would. 

    Funny how Ricardo kept saying, “It’s the dogs that are important!”.

    Well the Archiving Dispatch said different.

    These dogs, which had already been
    used on multiple occasions by the
    Scotland Yard and by the FBI with
    positive results, are evidence
    collection means and do not serve as
    evidence; any residue, even if
    invisible to the naked eye, which is
    collected using this type of dogs,
    has to be subject to forensics
    testing in a credentialed
    laboratory.

    Martin Grime, the dogs’ instructor
    himself [20], mentions in his
    report: “Whereas there may be no
    retrievable evidence for court
    purposes this may well assist
    intelligence gathering in Major
    Crime investigations”; or scientist
    Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that
    the FSS has no scientific support
    about the use of the dogs as a
    fundament for the collection of
    biological residues and that
    normally take the handler’s word for
    certification, that asserts that the
    dogs are more sensitive than any
    chemical technique or other
    techniques that are normally used by
    crime scene sector experts.

    In that sense, forensic examinations
    were performed in the areas and on
    the objects that were marked and
    signalled by the blood dog,
    especially in a credentialed British
    lab (Forensic Science Service – cf.
    Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final
    Report), and also, some of them, at
    the National Institute for Legal
    Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose
    final results failed to corroborate
    the canine markings, that is to say
    that cellular material was
    collected, which was nevertheless
    not identified as belonging to a
    specific person, and it was not even
    possible to establish said
    material’s quality (namely if it
    could be blood or another type of
    bodily fluid).

    • Well, if Kate and her lawyer had had the opportunity to actually read the report, the lawyer’s advice may not have been the same. 

      • Exactly Carana, they would have known what was in the report, digested it and been able to answer those questions. 

        As it was, they didn’t have a clue and the best advice was to say ‘No Comment’ instead of incriminating herself.

  5. A distant bell started ringing when I read this post, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was. 

    I’ve now remembered what it was: an extract from one of Paulo’s blog entries that intrigued me. 

    – If I’ve understood this correctly, the article that got GA dismissed from the case was co-authored by someone very close to the family (in particular to GA’s wife)  … 

    – At the time I couldn’t work out why I found that there was a contradiction in the substance of his outburst: if indeed the UK and PT police HAD come to the same conclusion, why the outburst against them? 

    My conclusion now, having read the files, is that there WAS no such joint conclusion. The UK police provided assistance, when requested, to help them clear the ground under their feet, whilst continuing to pass on other information that they had received, irrespective of whether it was deemed relevant. That “Prince Charles” e-mail supposedly came from PT, therefore it was on the PJ’s territory to investigate. 

    All in all, an emotional outburst to a friend… and I expect he was tired. 

    “” Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the “statement” he gave to Diário de Notícias – and was the reason for his removal, according to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk with a journalist from Faro, “very close to the family, a friend of my wife”, who called him to ask about the email sent to the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. “What I said, talking not to a journalist, but with a friend, a personal talk, was that Police should concentrate in what was the common conclusion of British and Portuguese Police: the child was dead and it was necessary to consolidate the existing evidence and move forward, to find where she could be and what happened.” At that moment, the kidnapping line of inquiry was “already closed”, and “another door was opened”, Mr. Amaral said. When asked about the existence of political interference in the investigation, is answer was short and clear: “I think there was more politics than police.” “”

    http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/gonalo-amaral-and-madeleines-case-there.html

  6. Hit submit before checking:

    I said: My conclusion now, having read the files, is that there WAS no such joint conclusion.

    I meant to change it to: 

    My conclusion now, having read the files, is that there was NO such joint conclusion.

  7. GA BOOK

    Placing Madeleine’s parents under investigation – Kate Healy and Gerald
    McCann as arguidos – must have marked a turning point in relations between the
    police in charge of the investigation and the couple. The Portuguese police
    officers began to consider the McCanns as potential suspects, which their
    British counterparts DID NOT.

  8. “The likes of me, wouldn’t really understand the full complexity of markers, etc but a trained doctor would. ”
    There seems to have been a HUGE confusion over what a marker actually means and how it was explained in the media.

    I’ll try to get back to this a bit later today.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: