Based on not-at-all-purportedly bad media reporting from the UK, Portugal, and the US, the new top suspect in the case is the reason for the case being reopened, for the abduction theory to be focused upon again, and for there to be hope of finally solving the case and putting it to rest.
Having worked many a cold case, I would like to share how I view the new top suspect, a black immigrant to Portugal from Cape Verde, Euclides Monteiro, supposed heroin junkie, thief, and burglar who worked for the Ocean Club and died four years ago in a tractor accident.
I want to examine three issues in reference to this suspect:
1) Is there strong enough evidence with this man to reopen the case and reconstitute the abduction theory?
2) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a top suspect?
3) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a great scapegoat?
I would say issues 1 and 2, absolutely not. Issue 3, no question. Let me go share why.
1) Is there strong enough evidence with this man to reopen the case and reconstitute the abduction theory?
First off, there should be enough evidence to build an abduction theory, a theory that has stronger evidence or at least as strong evidence as we have pointing to the McCanns, at least something credible enough for an alternate possibility to be considered. We have a great deal to support the McCanns' involvement, yet we still have zero proof of an abduction, not a shred of physical or behavioral evidence pointing to this scenario. We have no witness seeing a stranger coming out the front door of the flat with Maddie in hand, we have no witness sighting a man running from the parking lot with a screaming child, we have no witness sighting of someone handing a child out the flat window to another man who shoveled her into a waiting vehicle. We have no fingerprints or DNA of a stranger in the flat, we have no evidence a stranger broke in through a window or door, no evidence a stranger touched a thing in that vacation apartment. We have no body, no photo of Maddie in a sex ring, nothing. We have had no evidence of a stranger abduction at the time of the crime and no evidence today that such an abduction ever occurred.
So what would cause the PJ to reopen the case based on a druggie who happen to be driving in the area of Praia da Luz purportedly on the evening of the crime? It makes no sense, because I can guarantee you, every town has some druggie or two or three or a dozen in the area when any major crime goes down and none of them necessarily have a thing to do with it. That Monteiro was in the area is just one of the facts, but certainly not proof that he is an abductor of a missing child or that any abduction took place.
So, according to what we know so far, if the PJ have officially reopened the case, it would appear this man could not be the reason, the reopening of the case would have to be for political reasons unless the PJ have a much better abduction suspect or they are going to be refocusing on the McCanns.
2) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a top suspect?
Absolutely not. Quite frankly, he is quite a pitiful suspect. First of all, let's look at the ludicrous revenge theory. He has been reported as being fired from the Ocean Club "the previous year." Is this fellow who since had gotten another job really holding such a massive grudge that he smolders for twelve months before taking any action? Hardly. And instead of going postal like a typical angry ex-employee he decides to abduct a little child? Unlikely.
So, let's look at his drug problem. He is reported to be a heroin addict who robs flats to get money for drugs. This is possible. But he wasn't working for the Ocean Club at the time Maddie was "taken" and we don't even know if he was robbing anything at the time Maddie went missing. Even if he was robbing flats, why would he have picked the McCanns at that moment and why did he waste time in an obvious children's bedroom? Why didn't he toss the McCann's bedroom or the living room for things to steal and sell? And, how is stealing a child going to get him quick drug money? It's a lot of hard work, kidnapping and trying to get ransom. It is a very rare crime especially for heroin users needing a quick fix.
Could Monteiro have grabbed Maddie because he was interrupted by a screaming child? Sure but isn't it far easier just to run? How good is a three-year-old at identifying anyone anyway outside of saying the man was black? And whiile blacks seem to bit in the minority in the area, I am sure Monteiro wasn't the only black guy around. If the child did wake up screaming, why do we not have a guy shoveling a screaming child into his car (no one saw a black man walking around with a kid and he lived fifteen minutes away by vehicle). If he subdued the child by suffocating her, I guess he could have decided to remove her body so as not to leave behind his DNA, but that is pretty far-fetched and I am thinking back a long ways to try to remember a druggie who stole nothing from his target location except a child, dead or alive.
Now, some burglars are really sex predators because they like breaking into people's houses more to invade their territory than to steal things of worth. There are numerous cases of burglars also have a sex offense history as well, but Monterio is not one of those kinds. He is a situational burglar in that he would steal not for the thrill of the offense but to support a drug habit, so his burglaries (if they actually exist at all) would be of this type.
We have no proof Monteiro was abducting any child in revenge or even breaking into apartments at the Ocean Club to steal stuff and we especially have no evidence anyone even broke into the McCanns' holiday flat and we certainly have zero evidence Monteiro did any such thing.
So why was he in Praia da Luz that evening? Who says he was? All we know from the media is that phone records were checked and cell phone triangulation put him in the area. The AREA - not outside the McCanns' apartment. Cell phone triangulation for a small town like Praia da Luz is not going to be that accurate. All cell phones mayhave pinged that come within three miles of the place. Monteiro may simply have been driving home to Lagos on the highway when he cell phone registered in the area. For that matter, when Maddie went missing, all vacationers, residents, and people driving by would have their cell phones triangulating in the area. Are they all suspects? Or just one black, immigrant, with a drug problem and a minor criminal background? And when did Monteiro's cell phone make itself known? Have you noticed we don't actually have a time yet? Was it at 9:15? Was it at 10 pm? Or was it at 6 pm or was it near midnight? The media has kindly left that information out, either because they have no clue or because it doesn't support making Monteiro look like Maddie's abductor.
There is no evidence at all linking Montiero to any abduction of Maddie. Not a shred. All we know is that Monteiro was one of the many people in the area at the time and he had a drug problem and he might be a bit of a thief. If I were investigating this case, I am not saying I wouldn't be following up on Monteiro, but he would just be one of the many leads I would be looking at to do due diligence, not because I expected it would lead to anything. I would follow-up "just in case" there was something in it and because I hadn't enough proof to take anyone to trial at this point.
3) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a great scapegoat?
You betcha! Now, here is where we hit the jackpot! What's not to like? First and best of all, he is an immigrant. If he is the bad guy, the Portuguese people and the folks of Praia da Luz can say, "See? It was not one of us!" Secondly, he is black, a great fall guy like the Roma - he is a minority in that area and, therefore, again, easier to feel comfortable with blaming because, for most people there, "He is not one of us." And, for the world over, nothing like a poor black man to be the bad guy as history has proven.
But, there are those who could feel sorry for the poor black guy if he were getting blamed for the crime of abducting a little white girl without sufficient evidence. Isn't it lucky then that this man can also be a useless druggie, a user of the evil drug heroin, a thief, and a burglar, yeah, and he even may have been creepy with children, so now we can not feel so awful for him? He is a lowlife, so, oh well, he probably did it, don't ya think?
Best of all, the guy is dead. He can't fight back, he can't complain, and, the sad truth is, we have a hard time emotionally connecting to dead people which is why sometimes people feel sorrier for the defendant than the person he murdered; they can still connect with the killer because he is alive.
Euclides Monteiro is indeed a super fall guy, someone who can makes this whole annoying case go away. If enough "evidence" can be found to make people think he really might have taken Maddie, panicked, smothered her accidentally (remember I wrote previously that if Maddie could have been smothered while attempting to quiet her in the abduction that would make the McCanns sleep better at night because it would have been quick and so Maddie would not have had to been raped for years and years) and disposed of her somewhere at sea (so we can't find her body), the case can be closed administratively. The McCanns will finally have closure in a way that wasn't to horrible for Maddie, they will be "proven" innocent, the new PJ will have done the job right and made Scotland Yard look like asses for touting on Crimewatch the white guy the Smiths saw proving they are all wet. Monteiro is the perfect patsy.
Is this what is going to happen? God, I hope not. I still hold out the small hope that this is all media crapola and the PJ is really not reconstituting the abduction theory, that this is all a smoke screen and an elimination of all other possible suspects to leave just the McCanns again in the cross hairs. History doesn't support my hope very well, but sometimes the only way to get through the day is to believe that sometimes people surprise you and truth and justice will triumph..
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
November 4, 2013
Published: July 27, 2011
What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.
Very well put. It's a distraction for the libel case against Goncalo Amaral. The more "evidence" they now have of an abductor, the more Mr Amaral messed up when he focused on the parents instead. No one ever mentioned a man describing his description before, what happened to the German suspects?
ReplyDeleteThe judge Menezes told in 2008 that the case could only be reopened if credible new evidence would come to light.
ReplyDeleteSo, we can guess that the evidences presented to the judge by the PJ of Porto have been considered as "credible".
The details given by the journalists until today on this ex-employee are mainly leaks, unconfirmed officially by the PJ.
The fact is that the reopening of this case will give the PJ of Porto the ability of interviewing legally new witnesses and registering officially their testimonies. Besides of that, I guess that it will also give the PJ of Faro the right of executing the rogatory letters they've received from the MET... if they want to.
Hello Pat, It is of course absurd – sadly people who happen to be black, male, immigrants, mentally disturbed, addicts, or with previous convictions should be warned never to be in the vicinity of a major crime scene when it happens - they will likely be first in line regardless of their profile – I've seen it from the inside.
ReplyDeleteAny perpetrator who doesn't want to be traced via their pings should borrow a Patsy’s mobile for the duration of the crime. My police record-less family was harangued on the first day of the new (UK) National Crime Agency by a raid, searches and detention, all because an international drugs smuggler was sneaky enough to use one of our identities on a consignment. In retrospect – what a comedy, though shocking at the time.
In your Point 1, you could have possibly added ‘No ransom, no blackmailing of the Ocean Club, no lair’?
When it comes to Point 3, some of my friends, intelligent thinking people, believe the party line, hook, line and sinker. I find that frightening, because all I have done is to look at the evidence without prejudice. I regard the McCanns as a tragedy unfolding.
John,
ReplyDeleteYes, doing the rogatory letters is one thing. I don't have an issue with that. But, to claim there is "credible" evidence to reopen the case is concerning because I cannot fathom at this point what that credible evidence is barring one of the Tapas 9 opening their mouths. IF one of them gave information that added to the evidence of the McCann involvement, this makes sense. If someone said, for instance, no, Gerry did not come back to the table after 9:15, this is bombshell evidence which should quickly reopen the case. But, how can there be evidence of an abduction or abductor at this point? Unless these is physical evidence (photos of Maddie in a dungeon, Maddie's clothes in a shed behind someone's house, or her body on their property), there is nothing. Just because someone claims they know a guy who said, "I grabbed Maddie and dumped her in the ocean" does not make it credible. In cold cases, you get those claims all the time. Most of the time it is junk. I am not saying one shouldn't follow these things up in an open case, but such information cannot be deemed credible unless there is more evidence to support a statement. Even if someone does a deathbed confession does not mean it is credible (some people like to claim weird things for notoriety). Certainly a fired employee who was driving by Praia da Luz that evening could hardly be called credible evidence of anything.
Of course, it IS possible that some physical evidence did show up that we do not know about, but it is not very probable; hence, I question the credibility of "credible" evidence for reopening the case.
Hmm...the media coverage here may be worth further consideration and leads me to have tentative hope that this convenient 'suspect' may simply be a smokescreen.
ReplyDeleteThe papers being most vociferous in their condemnation of Eucleides Monteiro are the Express Group papers,they actually led on the story here with additional 'red herrings' that he went towards the beach to access a doctor for her injuries etc. It's a fairytale?
The Express Group were the ones stifled in 2008 by the McCanns and ordered to pay more than half a million in libel monies? Since then one or two of the Express Group Journos defended themselves in front of Levinson stating that they reported what they were told was true by the PJ?
So...the Express Group have no reason to be bosom buddies with the McCanns..but they do have reason to draw them into a false sense of security,hook,line and sinker.
Just a muse?
ReplyDeleteHere is the Libel resolution against the Express Group,for info.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm
Lesley
Pat,
ReplyDeleteThe PJ of Porto has declared that they couldn't make any comment about the rumors/news published in the papers. They have maybe strong evidences and they are searching, for instance, for a possible accomplice. We don't know yet.
Another point that I find a bit curious is the fact, if I'm not wrong, that Euclides Lopes Monteiro had received two times a presidential pardon. The first time was on the 20th of December 95 and the second time on the 22nd of December 96, for two different sentences he's been condemned to, in Portimão.
Maybe it was a custom in Portugal in this time to give pardon, even in case of repeat offence, but there could be something else behind that. I guess that you see what I mean, Pat.
John, I don't understand what they heck is a presidential pardon in Portugal or why a small time criminal would get one. Maybe someone from Portugal can explain that. Do you know what he got nailed for? I can't read the Portuguese document. Also, it may be simply wording for when certain cases are expunged or some very normal procedure within that court system like doing some rehab thing that wipes it out. These sentences were over ten years prior to the crime, so Monteiro had been in the country a while. I doubt there is any big story behind Monteiro; he seems a pretty insignificant small fish, but certainly a useful guy to blame a mystery on.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:51, it could indeed just be mostly the British press trying to sway Amaral's trial by putting enough doubt about the McCanns' involvement that he ends up losing. As long as the abduction theory is made more and more credible, this can have an effect on how Amaral is viewed. Now, mind you it SHOULDN'T because what is at issue is what was then, not what is now, but, in my experience, I don't care if it a judge or a jury isn't suppose to pay attention or not take into consideration news reports...they tend to anyway because they are human.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:43,
ReplyDeleteYes, there was no contact to the Ocean Club for ransom and no threats prior. The whole concept is so silly but the story could go Monteiro INTENDED to ransom Maddie but he accidentally killed her before he got the chance.
There actually is precedent for this in a Canadian case I profiled for TV once. A young girl was indeed abducted from her parent's home, a second floor bedroom if I remember correctly and she was later found dead, her body dumped. It WAS a kidnapping for ransom. Apparently, an ex-renter in the household killed the kid while he was abducting her and then he dumped her body and never went after the ransom because he blew it. BUT, this was an ex-renter who knew the parents and the girl, not a stranger and not revenge against an organization but just a bid for money from the parents he knew had it.
The whole thing is ridiculous. At no point until now has there been any mention of a suspicious looking black man loitering near the apartments...let alone any evidence to suggest anyone actually went into the kids bedroom! Far too easy to pin it on this guy and far too convenient for it to occur at the same time of the trial. Seems to me that the UK press have almost completely ignored the fact that it was the mccanns who hindered the investigation by withholding the efits. How they haven't all jumped on that story, which is a fact, is beyond me. How does it not matter enough that they did that but this load of rubbish does??
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...I have copied and pasted this agin simply because I have read of another reason why the Mccanns are being protected by the establishment.This will be reason number7. Also something else I read today made me think. Apparently the whole Mccann family went to Portugal for the weekend 8-10 June 2007. On June 9th all of them, Madeleine's aunts and uncles, parents and grandparents paid a visit to a nearby village called Segres close enough to Praia de luz. What did they do there one wonders.Perhaps this has something to do with the Renault they hired?? The following day the Mccanns went to Morocco by private plane.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Pat,and the more you delve into the case the more certain we are as to what happened to Madeleine. However will the truth ever be revealed? We can all speculate until the cows come home. Most of the rock solid evidence has never been taken seriously, or has been destroyed or just hidden. It is time to investigate why British Police, the press and influential people are protecting the Mcanns.As you so rightly predicted the next and final step will be to find an innocent scapegoat to pin the abduction on and then the Mcanns can get on with their lives and live happily or unhappily ever after.
But why has the government closed file around the couple? Why is it keen to ignore the truth and persistently feed the British people inaccurate/one-sided information about the case.I have been reading people's comments on different websites- there are so many plausible reasons that my head is whirling.
1)Mcann and his friend Dr.Payne may have connexions with paedophiles and may have inside info.about somebody important who does not want a scandal so G. leaned on the Govt. to get him out of his own personal mess. He called one person up in England and the whole circus started up within hours.
2)GM did something incredibly wonderful. Perhaps he saved someone's life and this person who is tremendously grateful and incredibly important is eternally indebted to him.
3) There is a bretheren element / the old school tie element. Lots of the people who are supporting GM and KM have some sort of connexion with Scotland or the Freemasons or are related to each other.
4. GM was on a commission for nuclear power. State secrets were leaked amd GM was privy to them.
5. Again GM knew some highly incriminating evidence and this involved members of the Establishment and the Princess of Wales' hearing in 2007. In one of the blogs there is ample proof of the conexions between all Gerry's collaboraters/supporters and why the Establishment would want to help him.
6. GM is being groomed to take some post in politics and he needs to be squeaky clean.
7. GM might have evidence that might be embarrassing to Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor,the Duke of Westminister who has been involved in sleazy prostitution rings. That would explain the type of Police that are on the case.The Met are not really involved in the real case.
There are still holes in these theories but it is important to realise that right now MG and KG are under the protection of some pretty powerful people who can manipulate and pervert justice at the tax payers' expense
November 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM
Pat,
ReplyDeleteSometimes, a "small fish" can be very helpful to the police.
In terms of Anonymous Nov 4 1:37 But why has the government closed file around the couple?
ReplyDeleteGerry McCann working with Gordon Browne's brother John who contracted him to do a "study" of childhood illness or death around nuclear facilities (then a big deal in the UK which had a very robust nuclear energy program in the works) gave Gerry McCann one degree of separation between himself and the then Prime Minister of the UK Gordon - IF Gerry had agreed to alter, under- report or otherwise misrepresent the facts of how nuclear stations affect the health of nearby children, in order to make the nuclear power program able to get government approval to go ahead, there were hundreds of millions at stake - that could give him leverage over John and therefore Gordon Brown, And if he did not agree to any such misrepresentation and was doing a clean report (his report if I recall correctly found no correlation, hard to believe with what we know of childhood illness even around oil refineries!) then he STILL has one degree of separation from the then PM, enough for Gerry to ask his "benefactor" or client John to have a word with his brother Gordon, and help the investigation or help (more likely) Gerry and Kate avoid an investigation - this could bring the prime minister into this horrible case and once in for a penny in for a pound; however it seems that the trail stops here. Labour candidates would not want to be on the wrong side of this and would continue to practice the deception in case their "side" would be seen to be very horrible people, Conservative candidates would be less likely to do so although once a distaste for the goings-on and cover ups of the government is achieved, that brush seems to tar all candidates, all of whom, regardless of labour or Tory, are looking much worse when you uncover the sorts of things they will do to stay in power. The relationship between Gerry McCann and John Browne was an initial strong point in the possible justification for why GB would take up for Gerry - people have been covered up for less; they've killed for less, than the money involved in a £25B nuclear power program (see Silkwood).
Great article Pat, someone has to stick up for this guy. I certainly don't have any sympathy for the Mccanns on a day like this.
ReplyDeleteLeslie I think you really have a good point there. I think the Express group must be really 'hacked off' with the Mccanns who have weaved an incredibly tangled web. You could be right: the tabloids are very cycnical and know what they are doing, so manybe they're going with this story, to really stick it to the Mccanns who in the end will be accused of pinning the blame on the black guy (even though it might well only be the newspaper that is doing this).
I hope that's true anyway; and I guess you're right: Leveson could come back to haunt the Mccanns.
Hi Thomas,
ReplyDeleteIt may just be wishful thinking on my/our part but in UK(as I'm sure you know)the media mobilises and attacks or defends in 'Group formation.'))
It's obvious that the Express Group are peddling hokum?
In direct opposition to this you have journalists such as Ben Farmer from the Telegraph and the Times contingent leading with the McCanns suppression of vital e fit evidence for 5 years?
This Suppression story became the 'Most Read' piece over a whole week for the telegraph. Great News indeed...
Comments from the 'discerning' public are on the whole becoming both measured and analytical....which can only be a good thing in my opinion in the search to uncover the truth.
I'm no great fan of the Express Group in general,quite the contrary, but I do think the integrity of the reporters when questioned by Levinson shone out.
Does anybody know where this suspect came from, who has given out his name? There is nothing at all in the files to indicate that a 6ft plus black man was ever in the area that night and I've read that his sister has stated he had kids of his own and would never have harmed a child. Even if the guy did drugs, that Doesnt make him a child abductor/murderer. So what is it that they have on him other than the fact he lived nearby, used to work at the ocean club and apparently (not even sure that this bit is true) had a drug habit. Bet any money it's a mysterious tip off from 'mysterious'source. Pfft!
ReplyDeletePity SY couldn't hire you Pat. I think everybody has lost faith in the police & our corrupt justice system
ReplyDeleteHi Lesley,
ReplyDeleteI didn't realise that about the article in Telegraph and Times -- that so many people had read it. It was strange because there was zero media follow up to that little beacon of hope.
It's ironic that I applaud the aims of the Leveson inquiry; but mixing themselves up with attention seeking celebs and the Mccanns was just laughable. You're right the You tube clip of the Express reporter comes across very well.
On a related matter it's one of my bug bears that the majority of Guardian readers seem to love the Mccanns; leastways they consider that comments should be closed on Mccann articles, even though these articles are utterly pro Mccann (although I hope the reason for that is just because of Superinjunctions and not because everyone at the Guardian is blind to the Mccanns and their ills.)
ReplyDeleteI thought that the PJ and Scotland Yard were working together on this case.
So why did SY promote the Smith E-fits - (suppressed by the McCann's for 5 years), on Crimewatch, when the PJ are supposedly using Monteiro as their patsy?
You couldn't make it up could you? Oh wait! .......
Thomas,you are so right about the old style leftie Guardian. It does have some articles of interest but is relentlessly right-on in adopting a stance and sticking to it.McCann articles rarely appear (much too trivial!)but if any reference comes up in other articles, comments are immediately censored or the whole thing closed. Recently, a goon posted several times "I think this thread should be closed" - and it was! No, Guardian readers do think (in their own way) and like a little gentle mental exercise. The Guardian's policy does not recognise any kind of questioning on the McCann case. Why is that? Gerry and G.Brown are certainly among their readers.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this whole saga various McCann friends and relatives told the media that they'd been told by Kate or Gerry that the shutters had been damaged/jemmied, but of course that turned out to be a lie. However, this lie had its purpose and it succeeded - it planted in people's minds the fact that this was an abduction, that someone had broken in and stole a child. The media fell for it hook, line and sinker, and when it transpired after a few days that the shutters hadn't been damaged at all, but that a door had been left unlocked by the parents, not one of the newspapers bothered to question the early lie, they just went on writing about abduction, almost like they were so keen on the idea of supporting these poor grief-stricken (ha!) parents that they couldn't bear to give up doing so. They had a bit of a wobble when the dogs altered to cadaver odour and blood in the apartment and hire car, and the McCanns were made arguidos, but it didn't take long for them to revert to 'poor grieving parents being let down by rotten foreign police', something they've not stopped doing to this day.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what SY and the PJ are up to, but the dead scapegoat idea seems to have wakened the British public up at long last, and I think if either police force tries such a thing there'll be an outcry. Sympathy for the McCanns has been wearing thin for some time now anyway, and was already at a low ebb after Kate McCann's statement that they did nothing wrong, so any attempt to fit up a dead man will IMO lead to real anger.
This man will not be incriminated for the death of Madeleine. Scotland Yard and the Portuguese contingent have told the public that the McCanns are not suspects now they are demonstrating what they told you by their actions, by looking for an abductor. What essentially they are conveying to the public by their actions is that the original investigators were wrong, that Mr. Amaral is wrong.
ReplyDeleteApparently phone records are destroyed after 2 years, Mr. Euclides Monteiro’s name is not found in the case files so there is the question of how they got a hold of Mr. Monteiro’s number.
Portuguese people won’t be happy if this man is blamed. They won’t let it happen.
I agree with the others that think this is a distraction for Amaral's Trial.
ReplyDeleteMonteiro was not the result of PJ Porto review but of the rogatories carried on by the Faro PJ team.
Apparently Monteiro is/was one of the 41 persons of interest the SY got from their reviewing the PJ, and private investigators "findings".
But they chose a wrong person to incriminate. The fact that this an is deceased, that he has minor children, that he was appreciated by the population is going to backfire...People in the region of Lagos, where he lived, and in the North of Portugal, where he grew up are rightfully indignated.
One day, sooner or later, this case will reach critical mass and implode revealing one figure. And we will all say to ourselves "It was so bloody obvious, why didn't we guess?"
ReplyDeletejohn,was Tony Blair treated by Gerry McCann for his cardiac procedure??
ReplyDeleteCourtney
Also,john,Rebbekah Books former husband,Ross kemps Father was a top Detective,also his Father's former Regement was deployed to Afganistan.Which of course Mr Kemp has visited,for his tv programmes and featured in his Books!just seems like another connection,with the pro McCann Group!!!
ReplyDeleteCourtney
@ Courtney,
ReplyDeleteI never heard about this "cardiac procedure" you mention.
What I know, is that if you read carefully the PJ files that have been released, as I have done, you will find that there is no concrete evidence against this couple, just some disturbing clues.
In his book and his documentary, Dr Amaral made some serious mistakes which nobody seems having noticed. He has maybe convinced many people but not me.
By the way, on a french -not English nor Portuguese - TV channel (W9), Mr Amaral did admit that he was not sure about the validity his own thesis. If they'd let me go on with my investigation, maybe I'd have found other leads, he said, like a burglary.
Then is that what he calls "The truth of The lie"?
I don't know what happened to this little girl but the eventuality of the involvement of her parents seems to me very, very weak.
Just a sign of that is the fact that, since they're not arguidos anymore, they deploy a lot of energy to make this file reopened, to their government to order a new investigation and they say that this new lead of this deceased man, Monteiro, is "pure speculation".
This is the exact contrary of what they'd better do if they were involved in their daughter's disappearance, isn't it?
The W9 interview which included Mr. Amaral's documentary was never broadcast it was cancelled. In that interview Mr. Amaral says that the investigation was half way through and that they were just beginning to see things. He said the investigation was not allowed to run its course. He acknowledged that there are other theories such as a burglar could have killed the child and taken her body elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteMr. Goncalo Amaral firmly believes that the McCann couple are responsible for the death of their child and that they disposed of the body. No evidence collected after he was removed as lead coordinator invalidates his theory.
People seem to forget that the police from the McCann’s home town were on Portuguese soil in May 2007, soon after the child had disappeared and that officers from Scotland Yard soon followed. They all came to the conclusion that the child had died and that the parents were responsible, they were the ones that suggested that the specially trained dogs be brought to Portugal. When the McCanns were allowed to leave Portugal in early September, all the British police went with them. Afterwards it became apparent that British authorities no longer had any desire to cooperate with the Portuguese authorities. The request for background information on the parents and their friends was denied. The request for Madeleine McCann’s health records was denied. The request for credit card records of the group was denied. And of course initial conclusive findings from the now defunct FSS laboratory were not conclusive anymore.
There seems to be some confusion on what the word “arguido” means. In Portuguese law a suspect is different from an arguido. Arguido means that there is evidence that will lead a person to defend her or himself. Suspect means that an hypothesis has already been formed about someone. The arguido status was created for the defence of the person. The Portuguese police posed 48 questions to Mrs. McCann and she refused to answer them, which is within her rights as an arguido.
The June 30, 2008 final report concludes that there is no solid conclusion as to what happened to Madeleine McCann. It also concluded that they were not able to obtain any evidence that would logically lead one to believe that a dead or alive child had been removed from that apartment by an opportunistic abductor or planned abduction.
They lifted the arguido status of Mr. Murat and the McCanns because that’s what you do when you archive a case in Portugal. It was not a declaration of their innocence. The final report does say that there is no proof that the couple or Mr. Murat committed any crime, (a battery of lies is not enough to incriminate someone as we learned in the Casey Anthony trial) however, the final report also regrets that the McCanns and their friends did not take part in a re-enactment of what happened that fateful night. It says that they missed an opportunity to prove their innocence.
As for reopening the case, the McCanns could have done it anytime they wanted. All they had to do was ask the Portuguese authorities. They could have even prevented the case from being archived if they had wished.
Thank you Guerra.I agree with almost all you say,however Arguido means "person of intrest",as Mr Amaral himself stated.That,by British law,technically, means suspect.
ReplyDeleteCourtney
Joh,Tony Blair had a cardiac procedure,regarding Cardiac Arythmia,002,ot there abouts!Gerry McCann carries out those,amongst other,procedures!
ReplyDeleteCourtney
Thank you, Courtney, but I still do'nt see the connection.
ReplyDelete@Guerra,
The video of this interview of Mr Amaral can still be viewed on Internet. So that anybody can check that what I have written is perfectly correct.
Dr Amaral has declared :
"We can find many other assumptions. Let's imagine, for instance, that a burglar had entered in the flat and met the little girl, he could very well have killed her and then bring the corpse to any place".
"Many other assumptions" ... "The Truth of the lie".
It's totally contradictory and, personally, I add : not credible.
Three judges from the Lisbon Appellate court examined Mr. Amaral's book, "A verdade da Mentira,” in detail comparing its contents with the facts found in the case files. They found no difference and they overturned the ruling to ban the book. They were very critical of the judge who had banned the book. The McCanns appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the McCann's appeal effectively ending any hope they had of winning damages from Mr. Amaral. The McCanns tried to intimidate Mr. Amaral into settling out of court and were unsuccessful. The McCanns went ahead with the libel trial because not doing so would have been bad PR.
ReplyDeleteTeam McCann presented Mr. Amaral's lawyer with a formidable list of people that would testify in their favour, but as we've seen many of these people who have taken the stand have admitted that they never read the book or seen the documentary. The libel trial to date has been a disaster for the McCanns.
There was an interesting exchange between the libel trial judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro and police inspector Ricardo Paiva who had worked on the case from the very beginning until it was archived and who also analysed information that was received after the shelving.
Judge: "What are the revelations in the book?"
Mr. Paiva asks the judge to explain
Judge: "What is new in the book?"
Mr. Paiva: "Compared to the investigation, nothing."
The judge waves the book in her hand and says: "Doesn't the cover say that it has unique revelations?"
Mr. Paiva answers that there is nothing new in the book.
Judge: "Shall I have to conclude that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?"
Mr. Paiva mumbles. The judge insists with her questioning. Mr. Paiva again mumbles.
Judge: "Then there are no new revelations."
I still wish you would do something on the Morgan Dana Harrington case.
ReplyDeleteIt was linked (by d.n.a.) to a serial offender who is still out there and likely preying on others.
Anonymous 8:25
ReplyDeleteI have always felt that the Harrington case was not analyzed properly nor did the police use good serial homicide investigative methods. Unfortunately, neither the family or police have asked me to work on the case, so I have no way to look into it. I think, from what I have seen, the case will remain unsolved and basically shelved until the DNA gets a hit in CODIS if the guy is convicted in the future in a felony.
You're right Ms. Brown, unfortunately it's probably going to take someone else getting hurt or victimized and the offender messing up before he's caught.
ReplyDeleteThe case was definitely handled inadequately too. In that are I believe the only real requirements to become a detective is a few years on the force and a high school diploma, then you get the promotion, and you're considered a detective who receives on the job training from another det.
TY very much for responding ma'am.
Good post! I read your blog often and you always post excellent content. I posted this article on Facebook and my followers like it. Thanks for writing this!
ReplyDelete