Goncalo Amaral - The View From Portugal

**bb1** Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:01 am

Let's start with Amaral being demolished by the redoubtable Miguel Sousa Tavares.

AMARAL'S TV INTERVIEW ON SIC PORTUGUESE TV CHANNEL

Goncalo Amaral - The View From Portugal Sinais+de+fogo

Goncalo Amaral - The View From Portugal Sinais+de+fogo

Miguel: Good evening GA, thank you for this interview. Now the investigation begins, you are dining with a friend in Portimao, you are placed in Portimao eating some shrimps, good taste, you coordinate that area at the Portimao county, of Lagos, and then you receive a phone call saying that a little British girl has disappeared at Praia da Luz, so, I think that in your place you should be released immediately because that was a case which assumed great gravity, paedophile, Algarve, tourism, English, etc, etc, why didn´t you go immediately to the crime scene and give instructions to PJ picket, let me finish, to say to whoever goes there to be very careful with the evidences?

GA: it´s like this, we have many cases in Portimao, and the PJ coordinator could not, would not be present, it´s like this now, PJ works really well, has experts, has technicians, it is established to function well, it doesn´t need a coordinator, the coordinator has other things to do, besides to go along to the police picket, as you can guess, we have many cases (Miguel says: that is in any case, but in this case that´s not justified, you are at 20 kilometers of the crime scene (GA says: perhaps in a week or two it could justified), now the issue is, we have many things to do (Miguel says: you released yourself, that, the first ones, gathering evidences, whoever was there, did not do a very good job (GA says, a normal job inside the perspective that abduction, shall we say, the theft of, the theft of a person in the case and that inspects the site as if it were a theft, the object who was there was removed, it was a lack of procedures that PJ is somehow rethink and has a lot to do with that, with the perspective approach to inspect the site in this case

(Miguel says: didn´t you think that you must go there immediately?) it´s not to think, it´s like this, the coordinator or director doesn´t have to go there, the coordinator has to control and I controlled it (Miguel: perhaps it was better to go there, don´t you regret of not being there later?) No, I don´t regret, police professionals, are police professionals, they are experts, technicians, we being there and as a sign for a technician to gather fingerprints and with the job of taking photos (Miguel: for example, at certain time you...) it is something that should justified PJ to go there

(Miguel: public experience, at a certain time you must regret that you did not know how the English, the McCanns were dressed on that night, and says it is a shame that they took so many photos during holidays, but not during night?) No, they took during night they just didn´t showed up (Miguel: didn´t showed up) and I (Miguel: I asked you if you a have a man there?) GA If Miguel allows me, it´s like this, I'm a man under an injunction and talk directly about it here in the case, I don´t know if I´m going to break the injunction, there is a conflict of sides, help me a bit in that (Miguel: I´ll help: justify people, an injunction is a order governed by court, I read the sentence which says: you cannot talk about your book´s thesis, but you can talk about other thesis) I can talk about the abduction

(Miguel: I asked you this because when you said you regret that there are no photos to know how the English were dressed that night, yet you had a man in charge of taking photos, so why did he not take photos of the English people also?

How can anyone remembers saying to take photos of everything? Yes, such mistakes happen a lot, and in many cases, I remind a case, it´s in the book also, of an expert who showed up in the photos with a brush in her hand in the outside window of the little girl´s room, and without any protection, today the experts, the police in the crime scene has their own clothes (Miguel: you´ve learned with your mistakes) and we didn´t look at CSI (Miguel: seems to me you had a lifetime chance as a pseudo-criminal investigator, you had a difficult case to solve, no argument about that, but under worldwide attention, that immediately became global news, at a time when speaks about child abductions, paedophiles, you had a golden chance to shine personally, to show your corporation in a good light (GA says: it´s not bright)

Miguel says: you had 2 goals: 1- find Maddie, or discover what happened to her, you have failed both, you failed your mission and you failed your chance) GA: no, no, I gave my contribution to the investigation until I was no longer allowed to be there, and I can tell you that I was not alone in the investigation as the coordinator. GA, the director of Portimao who was alone in the charge of the investigation and the director (Miguel: but it was you who was the public face of the investigation) GA says no. Miguel says: you were the one who talked a lot about her) GA: no, the public face was the one used in England´s terms, or here, in Portugal also, I just spoke about her when I left the police, until that, if I was seen in or out the police, it was to go to my office, to lunch with colleagues and so on, Miguel says: then I ´ll take the explosive charge on yourself: The team you conducted failed both goals.

GA says: no. Miguel: it´s a fact evidence isn´t it? GA says: not wanting to break the injunction, many evidences was gathered and I´m talking in good faith, and I think I´m not breaking the injunction. I cannot speak about the book, but you doctor can (Miguel: yes I can, I was not forbidden, when you talk about evidences, you speaks about the hypothesis of her being killed by her parents, to hide her body) GA: no, no I never said that, Miguel says: but it is what is in the book, GA: what I say in the book, let me explain (Miguel: but you had fun yourself). GA: I don´t say, (Miguel: the final conclusion), GA: no, no, then you had not read the book, that book is the English truth and there is nothing there. Miguel: I have not read it? Oh yes I have read it, the book ends with 4 conclusions marked in black. GA says: conclusions which are not talking about murder by the parents. (Miguel: I didn´t said murder by her parents, could been killed accidentally). GA repeats: no, no,accidentally is not killed by someone, an accident is an accident, it´s not any murder.

Miguel says: it is involuntary murder, you always told that they hid their daughter´s body, is that not in your book? Miguel repeats this question, Is this not in your book?) GA says: this is where you Miguel is wrong, what´s in the book is six month of investigation, during which I was in charge and where it concludes with reports which are there, the suspicions at that time and has you Miguel knows, criminal investigation has it´s time, a beginning, a middle and an end, and so on, and in that moment there was suspicion, which doesn´t mean later, but, but (Miguel says: but the suspicions were mostly yours, you know GA, another thing that is impressive is, let´s get back, shall we (GA: you are putting words in my mouth, you are forbidden) Miguel continues: no no, the words are mine, my conclusions and taken from your book and taken from the process)

GA says: no the suspicions, you are putting words in my mouth or what, no, you are talking about the injunction, it is an interpretation of the book (Miguel: it is an interpretation of the book, you receive the news, gives the order to PJ picket, go to your home, (GA: yes, like in any other case). Miguel continues: you go to your home, wake up in the morning, this is in your book, and the first thing that comes to your brain is to ask the British who are the McCanns? And you start immediately to suspect and ask questions, the questions you ask are: if they hurt children, if the have a serious problem with law, if they have psychological problems, if they are in fact doctors in full time, and then, much ahead you say is common sense in these cases to suspect of the parents, so, you have not yet seen the McCanns, you have not yet been at the crime scene and you´re already suspect them? Is it, or is it not. You´re a master).

GA says: yes, then says, listen, I or any other, yes, yes, it´s normal, to suspect, you´re wrong, it´s common sense, listen doctor, you are making fantasies, something, Miguel says: no, I´m not making fantasies, I read your book). GA repeats: the issue is this: the national and international laws in any of these cases and we were criticised by the FBI about this, is the issue of suspect or not of parents, or the closest in these types of cases and I can tell you, (Miguel says: you believe, but I don´t say suspect, at a certain time now, the first suspicions is that it?). GA says: it´s not the first suspicion, we have to know first who those people are.

Miguel says: Was it not most urgent to know if the borders were all closed? Are all the marinas under surveillance? All the cars who left there under control?). GA says: But we knew. We took care of that. No, it cannot know all cars who left there. And look, we reached the conclusion that for example the Via of Infant has some TV cameras which didn´t work, we talked with Spanish colleagues to control the border of Cádiz, in terms of access to Morocco, all those, Tenerife, and so on (Miguel says: the marinas were not immediately controlled, because I know who left for example of Lagos marina one day after, quietly).

GA: but we have all that information. We know that. From a place where some occurrence happens, we analyze it, if there are CCTV, if there are no CCTV, if there are any CCTV, what can be seen, what cannot be seen, all of that, at the same time, look, saying that we aimed immediately to, it´s not like that, that question is relativity to the parents, excuse me, that first question, that, was answered, it is the first, was never answered, it is the first, it is important to understand... (Miguel: since the first day, anyone who read your book concludes immediately that in the first meeting, at the end of the first day, is the strongest hypothesis you have, and I believe that has been created at a certain time of the investigation, but now, is the first hypothesis of work, it is the first hypothesis of work you pick and seems to be the only. GA says: it´s not (Miguel insists: it looks to be the only one). GA repeats: not it´s not. Miguel insists again: it is, it is. GA says: doctor read the book. Miguel says: I read the book. GA says: notice, there are at the book , there are the investigations for the abduction, there we have the abduction, what has been done. Miguel says: in terms of abduction, yes). GA says: talks about a polish couple and an investigation, that, if you read the book (Miguel: yes, I read it)

GA: as for me, I don´t agree with that end of, I don´t agree, but even the McCanns don´t talk about them and there are other situations, situations if, goes to the process, we have the book, then, the process, we have the book which I wrote, I was inside, this is the reason why I wrote it , I can explain it to you later, and there is the process which was been given to the journalists, the book is forbidden, the process is not, the process reaches the same conclusions of those first six months, but if you notice, (Miguel says: no) Ga, says: there are diligencies, if you notice doctor (and Miguel says: no). GA says: have you read the process?. Miguel says: there are diligencies which have not been carried out and which are not made, exactly because it stays since the beginning in the hypothesis of being the parents guilty. GA says: that's a lie, no, it´s a lie). Miguel says: On the very first day: the GNR dogs which went there on the first day all of them pointed to the parking lot, the trail which they follow stops at the parking lot, that lead points to a car that took the child out of there, and that is never, excuse me, never, instead, it stays, stayed six months, five months...).

GA says: and I´ll tell you more, yes, pointed to what? No, sorry, pointed to a car, why, where did you read that, in my book? (Miguel: no, that is not in your book). GA: but it is also in the book, the GNR dogs are good, these are sniffer dogs, what they followed was the trail of a living child, you understand, it was the route of that child, you doctor say it is a car, and Miguel says: why do you say that she was not alive? GA says: excuse me, but, how do you doctor say it was a car, you don´t know the day, hours before the... Miguel says, that in a parking lot it is most likely that it was a car, and if you accepted the idea you give me, I´m not an expert in criminal investigation, now the idea that gives me that is since the beginning and if what we have, started with a serious work in the hypothesis of the abduction, the first suspicion is that the child was taken by a car, instead, instead...).

GA: oh doctor, there is a witness who even talks that the child went out in the opposite way (Miguel says: exactly, which you give no credibility, which is another English friend of the McCanns, and which you give also no credibility to that witness). GA: I´m not giving credibility? And Miguel says again: no you don´t, you give no credit at all. GA: it´s possible, neither me, nor anyone else. That lady starts by saying this, then by saying that, then it´s going to change, when, in the middle, the only thing she remembered was the hair, she remembers the photo-fit which was the hair and so on, what she remembered is that it was filling everything, until reach the point of recognizes Robert Murat as the author, so, that cannot be, now it´s yes, these are all things which are to be done.

Miguel says: the first person who suspects of Robert Murat is you, isn´t it? It is you. You´re the first. You´re the first who goes there and decides to put him under surveillance. GA says: It is Jane Tanner. You´re wrong. It is Jane Tanner, no, no, and

Miguel says: yeah, but I don´t talk about that suspect. Well, back to my story, this is a thesis, much like yours, I think the story of the abduction was not investigated properly or enough, because the PJ was a prisoner immediately attached to the other hypothesis: the most darkest theory of them all, and moreover, for me, it contains a thing that I still don´t see any person to explain it: How can a British couple, who is on vacation at the Algarve, who doesn´t know the country, then at night, between 9.30 and 10.00 pm, doesn´t know why, doesn´t know the reason, which mobile / purpose, in which circumstances, wanted, not wanted, kills their daughter and makes the body disappear in half an hour and that no one can find? Evaporates?

GA says: It´s like this, the words kill the daughter are form you doctor not mine (Miguel says: they´re mine) the period between 9.30 and 10.00 are from the suspects (Miguel says: from the suspects, of some of the suspects, which were already at the restaurant where employees, witnesses seeing them, even if they were all in... how can a body just disappear?). GA says: oh doctor, let´s talk about one thing, there is one thing, one thing that is said, wait a minute, there is one thing that is said in the report, for me is the principal mistake of the shelve of the process, let me remind, the doctor in an article of June 21st told no to the shelve and against the shelve, and there I agree with you, with everything else behind, the most part I do not agree, but in the issue about the shelve, I agree with you, not a bit as the report about the public ministry: the issue, and even at the British police reports at mpa (Miguel says: are reports... makes a body disappears in half an hour in a foreign country at night?). GA says: I´´m going to answer, wait, what half an hour?

Miguel repeats: half an hour. GA says: the child is seen by people outside the couple (Miguel says: 7.30) at 17h35 and then an Irish couple which told saw someone with the, with possibly with that, not sure, at 22h15 and which gives (Miguel says: ah, then) excuse me, who gives the wall, who gives the window of (Miguel says: so your thesis....) is Mr. Gerald McCann, not my thesis (Miguel says: so, you cannot speak about your thesis, but you´re telling me that is also possible to put the hypothesis that, the child died between 17h35 and 22h). GA says: don´t have any doubts about that. you doctor limited half an hour, and I´m not talking in deaths, is someone to have killed, the couple, never mind about it, what is told internationally,

(Miguel says: so, if it was not death, what was it? They abducted themselves their own daughter?), GA says:; wait, I´m not telling you that they killed her, that´s not what I´m saying, what is told internationally and in terms of investigation here in Portugal and in any country of the world and it is told by British police, that cannot be trusted at the timetables which are provided by the suspects, and that is why the Public ministry made a mistake to the shelve the process, if you read the dispatch of the shelving, it says: the couple could not have done this or that at that time because they wasn´t there, but who gave that half an hour? Was it Mr. Gerald McCann and Mrs. Kate McCann? (Miguel says: and all the others, all the friends?), GA says: no, no, not all the friends.

GA: It is you, whose going to use an apartment (Miguel says to go to that apartment) GA says: just to that apartment (Miguel says: not just that one, there are other apartments, six friends dining plus an older lady, seven people who says all that goes there minutes in minutes) GA says: there are seven children and only goes to that apartment? No, it´s like this: Mr. Matthew Oldfield, for example, said that he never saw the girl and says he entered in the apartment and didn´t see her, now it´s like this: I´m talking in general terms, not want to break any injunction, it is needed to have careful with that, all I´m saying in technical terms, of police experts, in police terms, it cannot be trusted in, it´s in the reports, even the British police (Miguel says: it cannot be trusted and I believe in what the witnesses says)

GA says: it is not about what the witnesses says, the suspect, don´t you forget that (Miguel says again: but you determined them as suspects before they become suspects, it is what it seems to me, really, the idea you give me is and they are immediately suspects, that you woke up in the next day in the morning and without even having looked at their faces, you are already suspect them, is that a golden rule? I think that the golden rule here is to start investigate, if there are evidences and then comes the suspicions, but before you have any evidences there are already suspicions? Seems to me Mr.Amaral, excuse me for that, but seems to me that you started from a thesis and looked for evidences to confirm your thesis, instead of doing otherwise). GA says: you´re wrong, they are not, but it is a golden rule, no, in international terms, in rules terms, we don´t have many cases. No, on the contrary, I can tell you something: in the beginning they said it was a case similar to the one with Joana Cipriano, I said no

(Miguel says: similar with the Joana Cipriano) and GA, nervously, says:not again, Miguel repeats: similar with the Joana Cipriano, GA says: our mistake (Miguel says: it´s the same),

GA says: no, it´s not the same, it´s not the same, Miguel says: you also investigated, also no body and you concludes with it was the mother and the brother). GA, nervous: I, I, didn´t conclude it, it was the court of Portimao who concludes it and they were condemned (Miguel says: you only feels satisfied, now, let me ask you: you were convinced, I´m not convinced, I believe you had been satisfied as investigator that the court corroborated your thesis, right? In the case of Joana Cipriano).

GA says: But why my thesis? (Miguel says: now, after being proved that she was beaten, that is also being judged, that she was beaten hard (GA says: who was condemned?) Miguel says: you are condemned with a suspended probation, suspended not for beating her but for making false declarations about the case),

GA says: how can false declarations, how can we reach that? I´m going to explain it quickly (Miguel says: a judicial sentence, I´m guided by the sentence now) GA: no, I was listened always and as a witness... (Miguel says: let me ask you a question: you think that in this country (Portugal) many people believes that Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter? A very few people Mr. Amaral, very few people (GA says: You think?) very few people and we don´t believe: how can a woman without any instruction, without any proof, who was beaten hard by PJ (GA says: nothing has been proved, you are going to...) how can she managed, managed to be so clever, that she kills her daughter, hides the body and PJ couldn´t get a single trace? Miguel continues: where is the body?

(GA says: the inspection which was carried 12 days after and then let´s see the circumstances in which he was, there is blood, washing of the apartment itself, a person who never washed the apartment, wash it at that time, there are a series of traces, if you want to talk about that case, let´s talk, I mean (Miguel says: no, some should exist for the court to condemned her, now there is also a revue of the sentence based on something) GA says: yes it was inferred the review of the sentence), Miguel says: it was inferred? I didn´t know that, look, I wish it had been, because that doesn´t convince me) GA says: why doesn´t it convince you?,

Miguel says: because it doesn´t convince me, because I have a previous suspicion about defendants who reach court, after confessing to crimes made under beatings, which is obvious, I cannot accept that, therefore, I suspect). GA says: but, do you suspect of me? Miguel says: you signed the confession. GA says: Do you think so? In what time? Miguel says: it´s in the confession in the files, I don´t know or have assumed? What I know is: she was taken out of jail, during night, she was taken back to PJ facilities and they returned her beaten, it was during night, and besides, it was participated by the warden of the jail, right?).

GA says: at night? Took her at night. Yeah, it was, maybe it should be listened better, because you know... if we are going to talk about this case (Miguel says: but we are not going to talk about Joana Cipriano, let´s go back to Maddie´s case), GA says: Let´s talk, look, there is one thing essential, let´s focus here a very fast thing: I was accused in this process of omission of seeing and denounce and I ask: what does that lady do when she thought that she had someone there and she told that PJ doesn´t asked for forensics, didn´t inform the Public ministry, why does she asked to a worker, a person under her dependence, wait, let me finish this, why did she asked for a dependant medic by green tickets to make one medical exam attached to a psychiatric, this is interesting, because there are experts in Odemira, you doctor know where Odemira is and there are forensic experts there, it can be done there. It will not be a German psychiatrist in green tickets dependent of the lady warden that will make forensics

(Miguel: I´m not discussing the Joana case, I don´t have time, what I want is Maddie case, it still actual, it didn´t reach any conclusion, at the time of the Maddie case, the Times of London wrote something which I agree completely: it said like this (GA says: it´s in your opinion? I cannot give mine?) Miguel says: about this you can give it, Times told: "Portuguese police continues to be the bulk of their investigations in the self-incrimination of arguidos, of suspects (GA says: that´s a lie), Miguel continues: listen: or thought the tapping phone calls where they confess the crime, or through confessions and I remembered this; after that, because when you tell in the book that you invited Kate McCann as arguida, that there was great expectations that she confessed spontaneously and she didn´t confess and the husband didn´t confess and then they return to England, you become very disappointed because they returned to England, because from that moment on, they are not here for you to continue interrogate them, because, (GA says: To England we already knew they were going to... it says here that our director, was hasted the nomination as arguidos, but they were leaving and there are statements in that direction, but saying that (Miguel says;: but it was a right who assists them) Ga says: yes, it was, completely), Miguel says: to whom had read the news blown by police and by the press, by police obviously (GA says: why obviously? Why not by the Public ministry, by British police?)

Miguel says: it was by Public ministry, by British police. Its another opinion of mine; for you it seemed that the McCanns were suspects because they returned to England, to return home five months later, but, their purpose was to stay here and be interrogated, be interrogated by PJ until they confessed something they never did, isn´t that right?),

GA says: we are running out of time, you told me so, let´s change the format and you doctor talks and I´m going to tell you very quickly one important thing: look, as for the couple McCann, the couple only mentioned in leaving in the day that British dogs arrived to Portugal and then Mr. Gerald McCann knowing the potentialities of those dogs, and to be all enlightened (Miguel says: I don´t see the connection, if he were in London, wouldn´t the dogs acted the same way?) GA says: seems that the dogs only failed here, it´s because of the heat in Algarve (Miguel says: what difference can they make by being here or not, at the same time as the dogs?) GA says: what difference? They knew what´s going to happened next, until that, they walked holding hands and PJ gave them information, just to say something. I wrote that book - the truth of lie, in the exercise of my freedom of speech like the judge told, because the attacks towards me, which I was targeted, I´m going to tell you: they call me, the British press: 418 times shameful, 440 times outrageous, 140 times torturer, 45 times disabled, 37 times incompetent, 23 times libertine cop, 20 times sacked, let me tell you: when my freedom of speech is in stake, and when at Republic Assembly discusses problems of freedom of speech, as it was told recently, for me is something smaller, because the discussion should be extended, because what´s in stale here is not only the Gonçalo Amaral´s freedom of speech, it´s in stake the freedom of speech of the journalists and the freedom of speech of this country´s citizens.

Miguel says with a bored expression: yes, yes, I heard, so, you made your statement, I only want a short answer to this question: imagine, imagine yourself, because me I cannot imagine: that the McCanns are indeed innocent, imagine that they under the excruciating pain of losing their daughter, who was abducted, which they do not know what happened to her, they had still suffered the ignominy of seeing themselves considered suspects of having killed and hiding their daughter´s corpse, have you already thought about that hypothesis?

GA says: I have already thought and thought about all of them. Miguel says: and you sleep with tranquility with the certain that that didn´t happened?

Ga says: I do sleep, you know why? It´s like this: who demanded the shelving of the process? You doctor told in that title from the Express diy 21: The couple McCann. Who conformed with the shelving of the process? The couple McCann (Miguel says: excuse me, but, they are not conformed they want reopen the process). GA says: Excuses, you doctor don´t know the rules. They at that time, opening the instruction, speaks about the process reopened.

Miguel says: Dr. GA, I have to "shelve" the interview.

GA says: sadly, sadly.."

Dodgy Morais version at:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/03/miguel-sousa-tavares-entrevista-goncalo.html