Goncalo Interview on Portugal TV 23.04.16

dogs don't lie wrote:Wonder what else will come out?

Not sure - but wonder if he will reveal that 'ace he had up his sleeve' (or whatever it was exactly he said ages ago)......

Or did I dream that..

I am certainly not saying Mrs Fenn is lying in fact I've always believed what she had to say. Maybe she did see DP when she was coming from or going to the supermarket. What I am saying is that there must be a statement from Mrs Fenn that we have not seen. It also contradicts DP, KM and GM's statements.

I think there are an awful lot of statements/notes from crime scene that we have not seen. As I once mentioned the cops go round the houses almost immediately doing a door to door search asking questions. The answers written down, and we have not seen any of these have we. We know from BoD that they came round, we know her version of what was said, but we haven't got the coppers version of the answers have we. This obviously applies to Mrs Fenn without doubt an important person living above the crime scene. I am sure she would have been questioned a lot that evening by the detectives, and that most certainly isn't in the files we have.

I believe the Smiths,the dogs and Mrs.Fenn.
The main protagonists hid the Smith's evidence,discredited the Dogs and ignored Mrs Fenn.
Says everything.imo

Andrew wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wonder what else will come out?

Not sure - but wonder if he will reveal that 'ace he had up his sleeve' (or whatever it was exactly he said ages ago)......

Or did I dream that..  

Phone data? hair sample? maybe.

A bit more from Joana (still more to come)

Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).

Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.

Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.

Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?

Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...

Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.

Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.

Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?

Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion who was always present and present in the investigations.

ongoing

candyfloss wrote:How do we know where Mrs Fenn was anyway, she may have popped out to the supermarket or something and seen him then?  I don't think she would lie anyway, we have been through all that, and I certainly don't believe Goncalo would.

Please don't think I am saying Mrs F lied. No. What I mean is that she says she saw him on the balcony below. I just don't think a 70 odd year old lady could lean far enough over her railing to see him outside the living room. But she could have seen him outside the bedroom. Now there was no mention if that. He only said he used the lr door and K says he stayed outside.
Anyway there was no requirement for Mrs F to pay extra attention ie by leaning over, as there was no missing child at that point.

And that implies DP was still there at 7pm, DP can't remember how long he was there (a few mins did he say?), KM says 30secs and GM says 30mins?

Andrew wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Wonder what else will come out?

Not sure - but wonder if he will reveal that 'ace he had up his sleeve' (or whatever it was exactly he said ages ago)......

Or did I dream that..  

He said this:

But Jane Taner was a credible witness? 

GA - Never was.  But there were other things. Phone calls from anonymous people who came to mention it as a possible abduction.

These anonymous phone calls took place before or after being recognised by Jane Tanner? 

GA - I do not know need, but it was certainly before he was made arguido. Either way, nothing has been found that links Robert Murat in this case. 

Recently you said that there is much you know and have not written. Is there something that has been purposely left out?

GA -  It is logical that yes.

 What and for what purpose? 

GA -  I cannot disclose it. 

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1078-goncalo-amaral-opinions-from-interviews

It's my recollection that another strand of hair was recovered from the Scenic. Rootless, so could not be tested at that time, but retained by the PJmfor the future.

Whether or not this is what Goncalo is referring to I'm not sure, I'll try to find a link about the hair.

But could be about the phone calls that they couldn't use then, but maybe can now?

Found this from HiDeHo on Jill's about the rootless hair. Unfortunately,  the link to the original interview no longer works.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12172p150-john-lowe-tells-us-there-was-a-match-to-maddie-in-the-car-more-about-dna-forensics


IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HAIRS (WITHOUT ROOTS) FROM THE RENTAL CAR MAY NOW BE ANALYSED!

This program was broadcast on the 8th of June 2014 by Portuguese CMTV.

(GA) ....(...)..And in this latter respect I must point out that we do have the hairs found in that car (the McCanns rented after their daughter’s dematerialization).

(P) The car where they found the cadaver odour?

(GA) Yes, where they found the cadaver odour. These are hairs without roots, which the British laboratory (the defunct FSS) said – by analysing its colour – belonged to Madeleine McCann.Most importantly, they pointed out that nothing – short of being accidentally transported there – would justify their presence in the luggage compartment of the car where the dog detected cadaver odour.Therefore, I suggest the Policia Judiciária who, as far as I know, still has those hairs; send them to a laboratory competent enough to determine its DNA profile without the need for the hair roots.

(P) Is it so?(PPS) It is!

(GA) Yes, there are those who say it is possible so let them, at long last, have those hairs analysed! Probably they will loose less time and save money, who knows? They might even be able to advance a little bit more with the investigation.This (farce?) has been going for too long! Let them send it to Holland or Germany – where I am told there are laboratories perfectly capable to handle this type of analysis. It would be much easier (…)

https://zizipresscuts.wordpress.com/…/dr-goncalo-am…/page/2/

Great stuff Dee.

Thought I remembered about the root hairs being kept back.

Also what's intrigued me this aft, which I mentioned in a couple of other earlier posts, was BHH talking about working with other countries (not just the Portuguese)...

So I looked up Forensic labs in Europe that specialise in that sort of thing. A fair few of them about. For example...

http://www.lgcgroup.com/services/forensic-services/dna/#.Vx-yGfkrLIV

From your post, GA mentions Holland and Germany....

Now could that be what BHH is on about when he mentions the other countries..... as I can't think of another?

A few different opinions to confirm things.

Just a thought anyway

Andrew wrote:

Now could that be what BHH is on about when he mentions the other countries..... as I can't think of another?

A few different opinions to confirm things.

Just a thought anyway

Maybe Ireland to re-interview the Smiths.

I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

dogs don't lie wrote:I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

Can't see a link or translation of that, just Jill's headline for the thread..

candyfloss wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

Can't see a link or translation of that, just Jill's headline for the thread..

They've a vid up, apparently it hasn't been translated that far but someone else has that little bit.

https://youtu.be/BJXrn6M_hfQ

dogs don't lie wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

Can't see a link or translation of that, just Jill's headline for the thread..

They've a vid up, apparently it hasn't been translated that far but someone else has that little bit.

Thanks ddl.  So only a headline so far.

So here is the video pic with the caption underneath...

Have a look at the vid.

Translated video by Isabelle McFadden

dogs don't lie wrote:I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

Is this the one line of enquiry that all agree on is worth pursuing?

candyfloss wrote:So here is the video pic with the caption underneath...

OMG. This is wonderful confirmation. The Portuguese investigation is real and alive after all .

Contrary to what some would have us believe. Just how does he reach his conclusions?


http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12700p75-bbc-radio-4-10am-26-apr-2016-news-just-announced-uk-police-to-close-madeleine-investigation-soon-if-no-new-evidence-emerges#336593

Some more of it translated from Joana.

Anchor - So there were members of the Brtiish police whose opinions agreed with this thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral - I can tell you that one of the officers, former police officer, that was present, when the preliminary reports were known, what he said about the results was that there in England they would already be arrested. The issue was that report was just a preliminary one and we needed the data of the official report, that arrived at the PJ as it did. That was his opinion, affirmed in front of several people who can testify to that.

Anchor - I'll return to you soon Gonçalo. Manuel Rodrigues, good evening, thank you for being here.

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening.

Anchor - Let me make you challenge, suppose you don't know Gonçalo Amaral and as a PJ investigator you have to assess the truth presented by Gonçalo Amaral, which is the material truth. Is it factually sustainable or is there a possibility of eventually Gonçalo Amaral being obsessed by the belief that he formed and of him valuing more certain indicia that give substance to his belief and undervalue others?

Manuel Rodrigues - Good evening, I'll try to play this game with you, and answer with the utmost honesty possible. The truth of an investigator has to do with something, that in all likelihood the common citizen is far from understanding. That is, when a real investigator starts an investigation, when he starts to have the perception of the facts and events, following leads, and elaborating his belief resulting from the findings and indicia that appear, it's obvious that he believes in them, but he can also keep its distance and is able to evaluate all the possible solutions available and diverging paths that may arise. I believe that all the work that was done by Gonçalo Amaral and by the team at the time covered all those hypotheses and for doing so, they were able to reach determined conclusions, conclusions that he expressed in his book. If we pay attention and want to be honest, we can verify, that at no moment, did Gonçalo Amaral in his book or in other situations, accuse the couple of homicide. He accused that an accidental death took place in that apartment, that they are suspects of concealing the cadaver, that the death is likely to have occurred as a consequence of a tragic accident, I stress there never was an accusation of homicide, and that there exists clear evidence of negligence in the guardianship of the children. Therefore, before this, what can I say - it should never be believed that Gonçalo Amaral is obsessed for one truth. The truth before him is one which results from the indicia that he investigated, that is why he refuted the abduction thesis, which they also investigated until they reached a dead end and returned to the beginning, believing that the thesis of what really happened was an accidental death followed by the concealment of the cadaver. there's nothing else to be said about that. This question that you made, if you allow me, implicates another - is this investigation a failure or can it be considered otherwise? I would say that in a normal process, maybe we could say that this investigation was a failure. However due to what happened, with the pressures that were felt, with the press involvement, with the involvement of advisors from the English government, with all the manoeuvres done by the parents of the child who were always advised by press and image assistants. The whole theatre created around this, may to an extent signify that this investigation was a failure. I would add, that at that time, this investigation wasn't able to reach conclusions due to all the theatre that surrounded it, which effectively prevented the police to work as it should, in a tranquil atmosphere, following leads and constituting as arguidos those who needed to be constituted, carrying out the reconstitutions that should have been done, obtain results that would not be altered, and finally a series of situations that if you wish I can later detail.

Gonçalo Amaral - Allow me just to add, just to reinforce, that is not my truth, those are the conclusions of the investigation of the Judiciary Police and of the British police.

Anchor - You're not obsessed with this truth that is here(book)?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I'm not obsessed, and I'll tell you why. What is in there is a specific time of the investigation, as I had said. A line of investigation that was being followed and was never resumed, and should be resumed. That line of investigation was not concluded, it did not reach a dead end, do you understand? If it had been concluded, then we would know what the results were. Now the issue here is that line of investigation is not allowed to be pursued.

Anchor - They don't allow it ostensibly in your opinion?

Gonçalo Amaral - Clearly not. They don't allow it.

Anchor - But whom, the Portuguese government, the Judiciary Police, the direction of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - It's not the Portuguese government nor the Judiciary Police, it's the British police. at this moment, Scotland Yard who is doing the investigation in one direction.

Anchor - Gonçalo I'll get back to you, we have a man here who was the Minister of internal Affairs at the time...

Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no.

ongoing

Some more....

Rui Pereira - Not at that time, no. A bit later on.

Anchor - A bit later, two weeks later.

Rui Pereira - Two weeks later, yes.

Anchor - It should be said that tutelage of the Judiciary police belongs to the Ministry of Justice. Rui Pereira, was the government pressured?

Rui Pereira - Well, I don't know but I'm going to tell you the following, and please João allow me to contextualize it.

Anchor - Yes, of course.

Rui Pereira - I remember very well seeing in the English newspapers, right in the middle of the investigation, Portugal described as an exotic country, where the inspectors of the Judiciary Police were bushy moustache people...

Anchor - Exotic in what way?

Rui Pereira - Wait please, I'm citing from a news article of a daily English paper, it described the Judiciary police inspectors as people that had bushy moustaches, that enjoyed sardines and red wine. Exactly like this! What was it that happened in this process? - and please give me some latitude to explain this. What happened in this process was that there was an initial error that caused a lot of damaged to the investigation and is not set off against...

Anchor - What was the error?

Rui Pereira - The error? Was not constituting the parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment (article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code). Because, without delay at the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory, in my perspective, that said that the English have very peculiar costumes and therefore was natural for them to leave a couple of two-years-old twin siblings and another 3-years-old child alone in a bedroom and for the parents to go a few hundred meters away, socialize with their friends.

Anchor - Professor I'll give you back the word in a few minutes, Gonçalo please be very brief, why wasn't this measure taken?

Gonçalo Amaral - The measure of constituting the as arguidos? I would even go as far as to ask why weren't they constituted for abandonment?

Anchor - For abandonment.

Gonçalo Amaral - For abandonment, exactly.

Rui Pereira - That was given some thought at the time.

Gonçalo Amaral - We thought about that but... it wasn't easy.. (overlapping speech, impossible to discern what is said)

Anchor - Please let Gonçalo conclude.

Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, which is the distinction




ongoing

... and a little bit more.

Rui Pereira - But Gonçalo cannot answer that question, and do you know why? Because here something else is introduced, that is the distinction between what is a Judiciary authority and an organ of Criminal police. so, he can't answer that.

Gonçalo Amaral - You're absolutely right.

Rui Pereira - I can answer your question.

Anchor - Here enters the pressure.

Rui Pereira - The crux of the matter is this, we have a legal order - this is not to blame anyone, it's describing what should have happened - we have a legal order that makes the clear distinction...

Anchor - But you can say who was responsible Professor.

Rui Pereira - ...that makes the clear distinction between Judicial authorities and bodies of Criminal Police. what matters for an inspector, an experienced one and with good reputation like inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is to discover the material truth, with all the difficulties that existed in that case. Hence, there should have been a direct intervention of the Judicial authority that is in charge of the process, and that is the Public Ministry (public prosecution) to outline a procedural strategy.





ongoing

Heisenburg wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I've just read across the way that the parents are still under investigation??? Gonna read more

Is this the one line of enquiry that all agree on is worth pursuing?

I think it must be, after watching the video I'm a bit more optimistic now. Brilliant