User Name  Password
Make a donation click here. Your support will help us remove ads and upload local images, etc.
Title: Lizzy Hideho Taylor April 12, 2014 · Edited MUST SEE - Investigation information (CMTV source unkno
Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY   WELCOME to HDH Controversy & Info
Hop to: 
Views:173     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
HiDeHo
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 2777
Posts: 2777
From: USA
Registered: 26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

(Date Posted:03/07/2015 7:56 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

SELECTED COMMENTS

At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

No one knows for sure how long David s
tays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home. 

One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

Translators’ note: we could not find the source of the last two statements in the translated, on-line versions of the PJ files. It is therefore possible CMTV had access to inside information on these two counts but – from whom? We do not know. Journalistic sources are often unnamed and invariably protected (…)

----------------------------------------------------------------
(...)
But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

Translators’ note: Referring here to the street’s access gate to the back patio’s sliding windows which, for convenience, the McCanns’ were in the habit of leaving unlocked (…)

-----------------------------------------------------------

(...)
Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

Translators’ note: In this context, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral says, at least two staff members of the restaurant state, Gerry McCann only returns to the restaurant moments before Kate McCann gives the alert – that is between 22:00-22:30 and not 21:30 hours (…) These statements are in the witness records . Sounds like a spanner in the works of Andy Redwood and his SY’s crack team but please read on.

At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

Translator’s note: perhaps the most reliable account of events both of the time (22:30 and not 22:00 hours) and of what Kate McCann actually shouted “We let her down!” is that of the late Mrs. Pamela Fenn – the McCanns’ upstairs neighbour.The expression “They have taken her!” seems to have been introduced by nanny Charlotte Penning or, to be precise, from an interview she gave to the British tabloid “Daily Mail” - a notoriously biased and unreliable journalistic source.






.(...)
(Gonçalo Amaral): Good evening! The reconstruction was never made, because we kept waiting for a better opportunity (to carry it out).


Everything was happening then. We did think about a reconstruction; it is the normal thing to do under the circumstances but (because) there were (at the time) so many journalists in Praia da Luz, we decided it was not convenient. All that (media) circus; all that spectacle! It was not practical! As someone then remarked - to go ahead with a reconstruction it would have been necessary to close the air space!

Translators’ note: some citizen journalists have argued that the media frenzy was unleashed by the father in the aftermath of his daughter alleged disappearance, namely by contacting Sky News and/or Alistair Clark, before he even contacted the Portuguese authorities! Click here for some of the alleged evidence and here for an in depth view of the mis-en-scène.

That said, at least one Ph.D. analyst has argued this may not have been the case – that “whoever phoned the FCO and/or Gordon Brown from within the UK, was in possession of it prior to 10.00 p.m. on 3 May, the night of the crime’ (quote). Draw your own inferences. See Dr. Martin Roberts’ essay “Santa’s Little Helpers” for more details.

So, for this reason we left the reconstruction for a later date but, by then, the couple had left Portugal and did not wish to come back. I mean, their friends – who were not defendants, but mere witnesses - did not wish to come back. They refused – and the couple (perhaps) for convenience, went along with them.

Also, the Public Ministry (Prosecutor) decided the reconstruction was not worth doing; but the fact is, it could still have gone ahead just with the couple since they were still defendants (suspects) at the time.

--------------------------------------------------
(...)
(VO): So how long did David Payne stay in Kate’s apartment? Gerry, Kate’s husband, says his friend was there for half an hour but Kate says he (David) did not hang around for more than thirty seconds. Payne seems a rather enigmatic character. He seems to have been in the habit of bathing the daughters (children) of friends he spent holidays with.

(and back to the studio)

(P): We also have this individual’s profile ready to go through in a moment but first (here addressing FMF) what we have here is a great discrepancy, is it not? (From) thirty seconds to thirty minutes, the difference is brutal!

(FMF): It is indeed – and it is very odd too. It is rather strange (bizarre) that in the nucleus of a group of friends, one of them bathes the children of the others – and all that seems entirely natural to them! Worst of all, none of the detectives (past and present) interpellates this state of affairs from an investigative standpoint.

Bathing our children is something that lies in a region we might describe as very personal, of a deep affective bond (…)

(GA): Interrupts. “I think there is a denunciation (report) about …” (unclear).

(P): We will get there. We have that prepared…

(FMP): This (kind of scenario) is important to us as parents – and by the way, we are all parents here so - surely it would seem bizarre to any of us, to have someone from outside our families come to bath our children for us !

(P): Of course! We will address that in a moment.

(FMF): (wrapping up) And therefore, (in this case) a reconstruction was necessary to clarify what such a state of affairs was all about.

(P): Gonçalo Amaral, concerning this serious doubt - that is, the time this person (Payne) stayed in the McCann’s apartment – surely, at the time of your investigation, doubts must have been raised about how long this person stayed in the apartment, no?

(GA): Those doubts are (referred to) in an interim report elaborated by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida in September 2007 – and are clearly outlined (in that report) along with some conclusions drawn from them.

(Incidentally, this is) the very same report the parents of this child, and their lawyers, deeply dislike. They argue it is just old stuff, old history”, but history can be relevant (to understand events).

Translators’ note: “history” and “story” are homophones in Portuguese.
------------------------------------------------------

(...)
Goncalo Amaral
Of course, one may assume this was because the parents were doctors (and it may have been perceived as if the British medical establishment was on trial) but I would still ask – why all this governmental interference ?

I do question myself and, I must stress, the reason may not have anything to do with it (the disappearance) as such. I often question myself about what exactly went on and what is still going on (..). 

I will put it to you very directly – and yet after careful consideration. They (the English and Portuguese Police) are now looking for a paedophile outside of that group (the McCanns’ and their friends) – but what if there was a paedophile within that group? Now, someone might wish to argue I am calling him a paedophile, but I am not. Not at all.

The fact remains, there was a very serious denunciation (two witness statements) to the police (English), which contained very serious accusations against someone (Payne); (a report) and that eventually reached Portugal “through doors and crossways” (suggesting the English purposefully delayed them). I could explain it to you in all detail but …

(P): We also have that story prepared …

(GA): I ask my self what is going on in here. I find it all rather enigmatic, particularly since those people (Drs. Katherina and Arul Gaspar) were not interviewed despite being listed in the “rogatory letter”.

Translators’ note: “rogatory letter”: a request by the Portuguese Justice Minister to the British Home Secretary for the Police to interview certain witnesses. The Portuguese authorities submitted their names (Gaspars) and tried to have them re-interviewed in England…

But that person (Dr. Katherina Gaspar) was not questioned because she was not present at the police headquarters when the questioning took place. Rather conveniently, she only arrived (or was made to arrive) after the Portuguese police had already left the premises (…)



(GA): What is important, erm… (pauses to gather his thoughts); if we pay attention to these reconstructions and the statements of those who were suspects plus those of the witnesses, one observes two important things:

The first is; there seems to ha
ve been a preoccupation to suggest (to the police and the media) the children were safe; that no harm could befall them - for although they were left alone, they were secure since they had been locked inside (the apartment)!

And so, we have the father saying he entered through the front door (opening it with the key) but in fact the key was left inside – and (by the way) this information comes from a detective agency employed by the couple (…)

Then, there is another aspect to it – if you pay attention, at the end of this reconstruction, you are bound to notice one thing – and you would conclude that this (so-called) scheme of vigilance (checking regime) seems to have been designed to benefit only the McCanns’ children! The McCanns’ never bothered to check on their friends’ children!

The story we heard originally, that they got up in turns (from the table), went and checked on all the children, does not ring true, for it is apparent they did not.

The couple itself – the mother of the missing child to be precise – seems to have been at the table for nearly two hours, without checking on her daughter. When she finally goes to check on her (children) again it is apparent she does not seem to have gone there with that sole preoccupation in mind.

If you pay attention to her witness statement, what she says is; that she went to the apartment, that she was there (doing something) and suddenly felt a wind, a cool draft – and only then does she goes to inspect (the children’s bedroom) to see what was going on.

The father, on the other hand, says he had gone there, (to the apartment) first of all to empty his bladder, and afterwards, happened to see (the children’s bedroom) door at a certain angle, and so on.

It is this the kind of (circumstantial) detail that leads us to question the veracity (truth) of their accounts. Why did they say there was a scheme of vigilance (for checking on the children) when it seems evident from their testimonies (witness statements), there was none?

And by the way, all this is written there in that report. They – their lawyer Rogério Alves or whoever else - may insist it is “all history” but it is history as recorded in a process of a proper judicial investigation – a process that has been re-opened as we speak and which (in all fairness) should be properly examined.

There is no way to eradicate these statements; no way to destroy these documents. From what it is (stated) there (it seems clear) the father and the mother first preoccupation (as they arrived at the apartment) does not seem to have been to check on their children.

(As I just said) one (the father) appears to have gone there to empty his bladder; the other (the mother), said she went there to check on the children, but then it seems she was there doing something else when, suddenly – she says – she felt a gust of wind (a draft). Only then does she goes to the (children) bedroom, notices some light seeping through from outside (…) and her daughter missing.

This is (all) there (in the files) and (furthermore) in the statements she (Kate McCann) has produced along the years – some of which changed and keep changing (he nods as if to emphasize this point)
-------------------------------------------------------------
(...)

*****(FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included (in any reconstruction) – to find out (for example) whether those glasses contained wine or water – as the BBC “Crimewatch” tried to suggest; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

(GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

(P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

(GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

Translators’ note: We cannot help but looking at this byte from Dr. Amaral as another spanner in the works of Mr. Redwood’s diplomatic brief but, we pass no judgement.
------------------------------------------------------

(...)
(GA): As far as I know, this Irish family continues (living) over there in Ireland. Immediately afterwards, they were the target of several contact attempts – by private detectives contracted by the couple, by some other people, you know, by journalists and the like. They have since remitted (sworn) themselves to silence. They have not spoken to anyone since.

Recently, news have surfaced about some kind of detectives, hired by the couple who, claim to have spoken with the Smiths’ and (even) made e-fit pictures of the man seen by the Smiths’ – but given the kind of shadowy detail provided by the Smiths, it would have been impossible to make an e-fit of anyone.

Translator’s note: If like Dr. Gonçalo Amaral says, it would have been impossible to make an e-fit of anyone from the description given by the Smiths’, what are we to make of “Scotland Yard” much publicized Crimewatch “e-fits” ? No criticism implied (…)

----------------------------------------
(...)

We would need to hear him (Smith) in more detail in order not to end up with a testimony of hearsay - the kind that is now in the process. What we now have on file, is a testimony of what Martin Smith told others (the Irish police) and not us – the Portuguese police!

------------------------------------
(...)











TRANSLATION OF PART TWO (Highlights)

Presenter (P): 


A British tourist who was near Praia da Luz when the child disappeared, happened to work in England for the Child Protection Services. This woman, seemed to have recognized David Payne (the McCanns’ close friend) as a man who appeared in some report (to the Child Protection Services) in connection with inappropriate behaviour towards children.

(Reconstruction re-starts)

(VO): The day following Maddie’s disappearance, a British tourist in Algarve switches on her TV on an English channel. The news, in direct from the Ocean Club, travel around the world. The woman is moved by the suffering of the couple and decides to try and help these shattered parents.

The woman who rushes to the village of Luz is Yvonne Martin . She is not an ordinary tourist. She works in England for the Child Protection Services. She is conscious of her duty to give all assistance she can to this couple, who are living through the pain of their child’s disappearance (but) she is not welcome by the McCanns (…)

The English social worker tries to find out if the parents need help. She wishes to know the circumstances in which the children were left alone, and expresses interest in knowing details of their scheme (regime) of vigilance (checking) but, Kate and Gerry response thwarts her initiative.

Kate seemed much tenser than the others. Yvonne tries to talk to her alone, but Kate, brusquely, puts a stop to their conversation. Desolated, Yvonne Martin abandons the Ocean Club.

During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she fixed (remembered) the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a “close friend” of the family but, Yvonne knew that face (it rang a bell).

She (thought) she had seen that friend of the McCann’s before. Then, she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. (As) it transpired later, David Payne had been reported in England as suspect of inappropriate behaviour towards children!

The case that involved David Payne, occurred during a (period) of holidays in the island of Mallorca in September 2005. Towards the end of that Summer, the McCanns’ went on a holiday with some friends – three other couples; among them David and Fionna Payne. The group rented a spacious villa (in Mallorca).

(One evening) at the dinner table, one of the women of the group (Katherina Gaspar), also a medical doctor, overhears a (bizarre) comment David Payne makes to Gerry McCann.

Obviously referring to Maddie, David asks Gerry if she “would do this” – (demonstrating what he meant by “this”) by sucking one finger and sliding it in and out of his mouth. While demonstrating this with one hand, he makes circles in the region of his nipples with the fingers the other hand (…)

On another occasion, the same witness, saw David Payne repeat the same gestures as he spoke about his own daughter.

Until the end of their holidays in Mallorca, this doctor and her husband, never again allowed David Payne to come close to their one and half year old daughter.

After Maddie’s disappearance the couple, once again, denunciate (report) the suspect behaviour of David Payne to the English police but, the English authorities (for some strange reason) do not disclose this (to the Portuguese police investigators) until much later.

(Program returns to the studio and the conversation resumes)

(P): So, these allegations which were reported to the police in England, were never taken into account in the investigation …

(GA): Hmm, this is very interesting. No (they were never taken into account) and I will explain (why) …

(P): (interrupts) This was never investigated !?

(GA): I am going to elaborate on it if I may, for your benefit, and for those who are watching the programme.

From May (2007) onwards, we became aware of information (coming in) from our British colleagues about something (very odd) that had happened within that group during a holiday (in Mallorca). They never told us specifically what . (We knew) it was something to do with Madeleine but, they (British) never gave us any details.

Some time later – and by then I had already been removed from the investigation and reassigned to Faro (police headquarters) – and for no specific reason, except it reminded me of the “we can’t tell you attitude” (of the British); a fax (from the UK police) arrived in Portimão (PJ headquarters) ostensibly about some other matter – and this, by the way, is all (clearly stated) in the process; this is all clearly stated in the investigation process files - and, attached to this fax, (which was conspicuously about some other subject) were the statements of Dr. Katherina Gaspar and her husband – which had been made to the British Police (months before)!

(Oddly enough) these statements (Gaspars’) were not referred to in the main communication (either in the heading or the text of the fax).

(I could well take an educated guess and say) the Gaspars’ statements entered the process by the grace of a (British) colleague who was probably fed-up of hiding what he had been told to conceal …

And it is very strange not to see anyone on behalf of the family – I mean the family of the missing child – showing any concern, any interest in these allegations ! And I don’t see anyone from Scotland Yard preoccupied in clarifying these, either!

Recently, they were talking about paedophile networks in Albufeira (Algarve) and I ask: What if there was a paedophile in the very middle of it (of this group)?

I do not know if the Gaspars’ denunciation is relevant! I have no idea if the gentleman in question is a paedophile or not , but if we ask if his behaviour was very odd, we have to admit it was!

Now concerning the British senior social assistant (Yvonne Martin) what she said was, that the person she saw in Praia da Luz (when trying to assist the McCanns’) had already passed through her hands (been seen by her in some files) either as a witness or a suspect. She recognized him afterwards from a photo (shown to her by the police).

In spite of this, when the British police was questioned by the PJ about David Payne, they replied (insisted) this gentleman had no records (on their files).

The fact is, this gentleman was the one who organized the group’s trip (to Praia da Luz); it was he who, for years, had been bathing the children, (including) the little girls of the other couples and – as is contained in the investigation files – had gone to the (McCanns’) apartment that afternoon, to see if Kate needed help with the children. Furthermore, it was he who that (very same) afternoon, (helped to) gave bath to his own daughters, while his wife went for a jog on the beach (…)

(In summary), he is the one who, over the years, had the preoccupation about bathing the children of the other couples (…) I do not know if this is normal, if it is part of British culture or not, but I do not think it is.

The gestures he made in Mallorca were (potentially) very serious (leads) particularly since these gestures related to Madeleine!

The gestures – according to the report of Dr. Katherina Gaspar , who (by the way) is herself a medical doctor so… if in this case we have to show reverence to the couple and their friends because they are doctors (least we are found guilty of lèse majesté), then we should remember she is a medical doctor as well – and her husband too!

The gestures (made by David Payne) were aimed at Madeleine, and Dr. Katherina Gaspar was shocked when she witnessed them – it was not just the gestures, but the very question he (David Payne) poses to the father (Gerry McCann) right in his presence!

This evidence (the Gaspars denunciation ) has never been denied by anyone, anywhere – not least by any of those concerned. It is as if it never happened and then, (m





(...) (FMF): (continuing) From the point of view of the Police (PJ) and the Public Ministry, all the questions that have been raised here (in this programme) form, in my opinion, a serious and important document! This programme tonight, is in fact a document which, by its objectivity, compels to a through re-reading of the investigation material. That much is evident!

This (reconstruction) is based on the very witness statements, written and signed by those who were involved. This (programme) is a document that attempts to deal with all the missing time-frames, in order to effectively arrive (at the truth of) what really happened.

(P): (addressing Goncalo Amaral) Essentially, what we have been doing here tonight is also an exercise in memory, a reconstruction as it were and (so, if I may come back to) the question of the wire-tappings and surveillance – why were these not authorized? Bearing in mind, as Francisco was saying, they would have been crucial in this investigation?

(GA): (They were not authorized) because diplomacy overruled the freedom of the investigators. In our country, our diplomacy is submissive to British power (ideology and hegemony).

I give you an instance (if I may). I was introduced to (met with) the (British) ambassador who, in just a little after 24 hours after the event, was already in the terrain, in loco, meeting with the investigation team; using diplomacy to draw our attention to and suggest we should treat this case as a kidnapping.

(Not surprisingly) the directory of the Judiciary Police immediately afterwards issued a communiqué along the same lines (…)

From then on, the question of surveillance of the couple, could not have been implemented (indeed authorized) – bearing in mind the (police’s) focus had been (officially) diverted to the kidnapping hypothesis!

May be the idea of that communiqué was simply to try and ease the pressure on the couple; (to alleviate) the burden of the media on them, but things (did not quite work out as they expected). With their complicity, they evolved exactly in the opposite direction (in the most unfavourable manner).

(At some point in the investigation) we believed a time would arrive when it would have been possible to carry out various diligences but, that particular undertaking (surveillance) was never put into effect.

(P): But for an investigation (a case) with such contours, certainly it would have been a much more sensible approach …

(GA): That is easy to say with hindsight. That we should have done this or done that; (of course) it is logical we should have but, you know (…)

(P): Of course.

(GA): You see, there were a number of conditionings (constraints). Besides all that we known today about the investigation, there were a number of elements; a host of restrictions that limited our work, constrained our decision-making – and that is (in fact) what happened. And what happened, was the imposition of restrictions by the legal and political superstructure which continue to this day!

Now, concerning the CCTV images… all those images in the area (around the crime scene). They were all collected with the exception of one, that was missed. Someone who was in charge of the task of finding those cameras, fell short.

We checked ATM cash machines, pharmacies which had a system of video-vigilance in place, petrol stations, and so on. We kept widening the perimeter (of the search).

Unfortunately, there was one camera, as we later found out, that was not detected. When we realized there was a camera in that place – (and tried to get those images) it was a bit late.

Translator’s note: Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is probably referring here to the CCTV camera outside the Hotel Estrela da Luz (complex), in the Rua da Escola Primária where the “Smiths’ suspect” must have walked past.

Andy Redwood (“Scotland Yard”) tacitly agrees with Dr. Gonçalo Amaral about the importance of the Smiths’ sighting, but obviously, given his agenda, he does not believe the man was the same the Smiths’ believed they saw – Gerry McCann, himself.

Also important to note in this context that Andy Redwood was ordered to review (sic) the Portuguese PJ investigation by David Cameron – the actual British PM and Head of the Conservative Party for which (surprise! surprise!) Clarence Mitchell - the McCanns’ spokesman – is a candidate for the 2015 elections.

At the time of Madeleine McCann disappearance, Tony Blair was still prime-minister and Clarence Mitchell director of HMG Media Monitoring Unit – reporting directly to the Cabinet’s office. Soon afterwards Mitchell becomes the McCanns’ spokesperson with an initial “salary of £80,000 per annum“ – more than he earned from Her Majesty Government (a reported £70,000 a year).

What inferences do we draw from all this? None whatsoever!






There are many things that Goncalo discusses that are not known...

***Two things claimed by CdM CMTV is that Mrs Fenn claims to have seen David Payne on their balcony at around 7pm and that as well as the timeline written on a sticker book by ROB, th
ere was also one written by Kate which was different.

***I knew the waiters claimed that there were only two men that left the table that night, but we have always believed ROB and Matt left around 9.25pm. but according to this contruction it was only ROB and Gerry who left the table at 9pm.

Claims that Gerry did not arrive back until 10pm.

*** I am aware that Martin Smith and family claimed they did NOT do a photofit, but as Goncalo claims they didnt see his face so could NOT have done one..

***PJ are now holding a further statement made by Martin Smith to Irish police.

**** There is notihng to confirm the Smiths leaving the bar by 10pm...it may have been any time following.

****Kate drank a daquiri (an unimportant snippet)

*****(FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included (in any reconstruction) – to find out (for example) whether those glasses contained wine or water – as the BBC “Crimewatch” tried to suggest; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

(GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

(P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

(GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

***Many CCTV camera footages were collected but the person who collected them omitted the one that would have shown the Smith sighting..


usertype:1
HiDeHo
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:2777
Posts:2777
From: USA
Registered:26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

RE:Lizzy Hideho Taylor April 12, 2014 · Edited MUST SEE - Investigation information (CMTV source unkno
(Date Posted:03/07/2015 7:57 AM)


usertype:1 tt= 1
HiDeHo
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Diamond Member

Score:2777
Posts:2777
From: USA
Registered:26/01/2013
Time spent: 46092 hours

RE:Lizzy Hideho Taylor April 12, 2014 · Edited MUST SEE - Investigation information (CMTV source unkno
(Date Posted:03/07/2015 8:05 AM)

MUST SEE - Investigation information (CMTV source unknown) not available in released files and instructions for English viewers to follow the video!

Video promptly uploaded by Joana Morais (xklamation) before the link mysteriously disappeared

NOTE: If you don't have time to read the full transcript or watch the video, you will find highlights of some previously unknown details in the first 8 messages

INTRODUCTION

This unique crime scene reconstruction, was first broadcast by the independent CMTV channel on the 16th of November, 2013 – sensibly a month after the much publicized and criticized British Broadcasting Corp variations on the same theme.

We refer here to the Crimewatch episode that featured the missing child’s parents, and the London Metropolitan Police sherlock appointed by the Conservative British prime-minister “to review” (sic) the investigation of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) – the Portuguese nationwide, crime specialist force.

It may be relevant to note in this context that Clarence Mitchell – the McCanns’ spokesperson – is also a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming general elections .

Unlike their exonerating British colleagues, CMTV’s objective approach focuses, not on the extant drama of the parents but, on the simulacra and simulation aspects of the case itself.

Much to the programme credibility, CMTV enlists the participation of Dr. Gonçalo Amaral – the former PJ senior detective who coördinated the initial phase of the investigation back in 2007 – and the university professor and criminologist Francisco Moita Flores.

In the opinion of the experts, this unique crime scene reconstruction offers the best in-depth analysis of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance so far, and its findings deserve the attention of the Portuguese Public Prosecutor.

Please read on and judge for yourself (…)

Zizi Duarte and Paula Levy-Smith
Full Translation is available from Zizi's presscuts.http://zizipresscuts.wordpress.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a FULL two part video (Open 'COMMENTS' to see part 2 in Message #2 below) from Portugal CMTV (Thanks to xklamation) .

Messages following part 2 (message # 2) will highlight some of the comments from the video (Open COMMENTS to view

* Recommended viewing:

Read the translation and then watch the video with translated captions (which often bear no resemblance to the correct text but gives a good idea for following if the translation has already been read.)

INSTRUCTIONS (Worth it if you have the patience and/or the motivation) wink emoticon

View the translation page for each video to understand what is said in the videos.

Go to the video and click on a small icon,with CC on bottom right of the video near the 'youtube' icon. (if not appearing click on the video timeline at around 25 mins and just below it and it appears...if anyone knows the correct way to find it please let me know) smile emoticon

Choose ON button

Open the drop down box and choose 'Translation'

Another drop down menu will appear to choose the language.

You can now watch the video with translated captions!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Especial CM - Caso Maddie - Reconstituição do desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann (parte 1) 33.16

Especial CM - CMTV Caso Maddie - Reconstituição do desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann (parte...
YOUTUBE.COM
Like · Comment · 
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor Part 2 Translation link and instructions to 'follow' the video in OP.

    Translators’ notes


    Words in brackets are sometimes added to the text to facilitate its reading-comprehension. It is important to stress this is not a word-by-word legal translation. Literal translations do not work in colloquial reporting because due attention needs to be given to English usage and the alignment or exclusion of disruptive, conversational elements. That said, considerable care has been taken to impart the reader with the meaning (and feeling) of what was said and above all what was (or might have been) intended in the Portuguese original. i.e. attention to “the various paradigms which seem to underline the surface structure of a text and the possible intentions of the participants”. For the same reason, notes (and links) were added – mere “curiosities” which we happened to come across during our work and decided to include for the sake of perspective – no inferences taken, though.

    Acknowledgements

    Special thanks to “Xklamation” (Joana Morais) for her quick thinking and initiative in uploading the original Portuguese version of this important video-document to YouTube at a time when the original CMTV video-document had mysteriously disappeared from the Internet. CMTV’s link could not, for a while, be accessed from the UKGB.

    Especial CM - Caso Maddie - Reconstituição do desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann (parte 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0TXA-0CUUI#t=1339
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor At 18:30, David Payne goes to meet Gerry who is (already) playing tennis (on the courts). He asks him where Kate is. Gerry tells him, Kate is in the apartment with the children. David heads towards the apartment.

    No one knows for sure how long David s
    tays in the apartment with Kate – his visit is shrouded in mystery.

    Gerry McCann says his friend was in his apartment for about half an hour while he played tennis, but Kate McCann says he was not there for more than 30 seconds.

    To deepen the mystery further, Fiona Payne attests she accompanied her husband to their friends’ apartment and the couple, both Gerry and Kate, were at home. 

    One thing seems certain; the (McCanns’) first floor neighbour, Pamela Fenn, saw David Payne, around 19:00 hours, on the McCanns’ balcony.

    Translators’ note: we could not find the source of the last two statements in the translated, on-line versions of the PJ files. It is therefore possible CMTV had access to inside information on these two counts but – from whom? We do not know. Journalistic sources are often unnamed and invariably protected (…)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    (...)
    But the truth is; (exactly) what the group actually did during that dinner – the evening Maddie disappeared – has never been (fully) clarified.

    After the authorities were alerted to Maddie’s disappearance, Russell O’Brien provides the police with a schedule of the (checking) rounds done (on the children) that evening. He drafted it himself on the back of a cover he tore off from a children’s book (activities & stickers).

    Days later, the police find among Kate’s papers a manuscript (draft) with the hours of the rounds (checking) written on it – except, this differed from the one her friend Russell gave to the PJ.

    There are lapses in the memory of the McCanns’ friends (account of events) and (worst) contradictory versions of the same (alleged events). The police never knew with rigour, (with any degree of certainty) the steps (movements) of each of them during that dinner. There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

    At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann.

    They set off to the apartments (ostensibly) to check on their children. In order to reach the apartment, Gerry has to leave the Ocean Club and walk 20 meters of a dimly lit street to reach the small access gate to his apartment.

    Translators’ note: Referring here to the street’s access gate to the back patio’s sliding windows which, for convenience, the McCanns’ were in the habit of leaving unlocked (…)

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    (...)
    Around 21:30 hours, Gerry returns to the restaurant’s table. Russell had not yet arrived back (from his check). He finally returns close to 22 hours – nearly half an hour after Gerry. Russell explains his older daughter had vomited, that he gave her a bath, changed her clothes and put her back to sleep.

    Translators’ note: In this context, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral says, at least two staff members of the restaurant state, Gerry McCann only returns to the restaurant moments before Kate McCann gives the alert – that is between 22:00-22:30 and not 21:30 hours (…) These statements are in the witness records . Sounds like a spanner in the works of Andy Redwood and his SY’s crack team but please read on.

    At 21:55 PM, as soon as Russell O’Brien arrives at the restaurant’s table, Kate McCann gets up to check on her children.

    Five minutes later, around 22 hours, she shouts from the apartment’s balcony (at the back) facing the restaurant: “They have taken her! They have taken her!” . No one from the group is able to see her. They can only hear her. Then, they all rush towards the (McCanns’) apartment (…)

    Translator’s note: perhaps the most reliable account of events both of the time (22:30 and not 22:00 hours) and of what Kate McCann actually shouted “We let her down!” is that of the late Mrs. Pamela Fenn – the McCanns’ upstairs neighbour.The expression “They have taken her!” seems to have been introduced by nanny Charlotte Penning or, to be precise, from an interview she gave to the British tabloid “Daily Mail” - a notoriously biased and unreliable journalistic source.

    ----------
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor .(...)
    (Gonçalo Amaral): Good evening! The reconstruction was never made, because we kept waiting for a better opportunity (to carry it out).


    Everything was happening then. We did think about a reconstruction; it is the normal thing to do under the circumstances but (because) there were (at the time) so many journalists in Praia da Luz, we decided it was not convenient. All that (media) circus; all that spectacle! It was not practical! As someone then remarked - to go ahead with a reconstruction it would have been necessary to close the air space!

    Translators’ note: some citizen journalists have argued that the media frenzy was unleashed by the father in the aftermath of his daughter alleged disappearance, namely by contacting Sky News and/or Alistair Clark, before he even contacted the Portuguese authorities! Click here for some of the alleged evidence and here for an in depth view of the mis-en-scène.

    That said, at least one Ph.D. analyst has argued this may not have been the case – that “whoever phoned the FCO and/or Gordon Brown from within the UK, was in possession of it prior to 10.00 p.m. on 3 May, the night of the crime’ (quote). Draw your own inferences. See Dr. Martin Roberts’ essay “Santa’s Little Helpers” for more details.

    So, for this reason we left the reconstruction for a later date but, by then, the couple had left Portugal and did not wish to come back. I mean, their friends – who were not defendants, but mere witnesses - did not wish to come back. They refused – and the couple (perhaps) for convenience, went along with them.

    Also, the Public Ministry (Prosecutor) decided the reconstruction was not worth doing; but the fact is, it could still have gone ahead just with the couple since they were still defendants (suspects) at the time.

    --------------------------------------------------
    (...)
    (VO): So how long did David Payne stay in Kate’s apartment? Gerry, Kate’s husband, says his friend was there for half an hour but Kate says he (David) did not hang around for more than thirty seconds. Payne seems a rather enigmatic character. He seems to have been in the habit of bathing the daughters (children) of friends he spent holidays with.

    (and back to the studio)

    (P): We also have this individual’s profile ready to go through in a moment but first (here addressing FMF) what we have here is a great discrepancy, is it not? (From) thirty seconds to thirty minutes, the difference is brutal!

    (FMF): It is indeed – and it is very odd too. It is rather strange (bizarre) that in the nucleus of a group of friends, one of them bathes the children of the others – and all that seems entirely natural to them! Worst of all, none of the detectives (past and present) interpellates this state of affairs from an investigative standpoint.

    Bathing our children is something that lies in a region we might describe as very personal, of a deep affective bond (…)

    (GA): Interrupts. “I think there is a denunciation (report) about …” (unclear).

    (P): We will get there. We have that prepared…

    (FMP): This (kind of scenario) is important to us as parents – and by the way, we are all parents here so - surely it would seem bizarre to any of us, to have someone from outside our families come to bath our children for us !

    (P): Of course! We will address that in a moment.

    (FMF): (wrapping up) And therefore, (in this case) a reconstruction was necessary to clarify what such a state of affairs was all about.

    (P): Gonçalo Amaral, concerning this serious doubt - that is, the time this person (Payne) stayed in the McCann’s apartment – surely, at the time of your investigation, doubts must have been raised about how long this person stayed in the apartment, no?

    (GA): Those doubts are (referred to) in an interim report elaborated by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida in September 2007 – and are clearly outlined (in that report) along with some conclusions drawn from them.

    (Incidentally, this is) the very same report the parents of this child, and their lawyers, deeply dislike. They argue it is just old stuff, old history”, but history can be relevant (to understand events).

    Translators’ note: “history” and “story” are homophones in Portuguese.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    (...)
    Goncalo Amaral
    Of course, one may assume this was because the parents were doctors (and it may have been perceived as if the British medical establishment was on trial) but I would still ask – why all this governmental interference ?

    I do question myself and, I must stress, the reason may not have anything to do with it (the disappearance) as such. I often question myself about what exactly went on and what is still going on (..). 

    I will put it to you very directly – and yet after careful consideration. They (the English and Portuguese Police) are now looking for a paedophile outside of that group (the McCanns’ and their friends) – but what if there was a paedophile within that group? Now, someone might wish to argue I am calling him a paedophile, but I am not. Not at all.

    The fact remains, there was a very serious denunciation (two witness statements) to the police (English), which contained very serious accusations against someone (Payne); (a report) and that eventually reached Portugal “through doors and crossways” (suggesting the English purposefully delayed them). I could explain it to you in all detail but …

    (P): We also have that story prepared …

    (GA): I ask my self what is going on in here. I find it all rather enigmatic, particularly since those people (Drs. Katherina and Arul Gaspar) were not interviewed despite being listed in the “rogatory letter”.

    Translators’ note: “rogatory letter”: a request by the Portuguese Justice Minister to the British Home Secretary for the Police to interview certain witnesses. The Portuguese authorities submitted their names (Gaspars) and tried to have them re-interviewed in England…

    But that person (Dr. Katherina Gaspar) was not questioned because she was not present at the police headquarters when the questioning took place. Rather conveniently, she only arrived (or was made to arrive) after the Portuguese police had already left the premises (…)
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor .(GA): What is important, erm… (pauses to gather his thoughts); if we pay attention to these reconstructions and the statements of those who were suspects plus those of the witnesses, one observes two important things:

    The first is; there seems to ha
    ve been a preoccupation to suggest (to the police and the media) the children were safe; that no harm could befall them - for although they were left alone, they were secure since they had been locked inside (the apartment)!

    And so, we have the father saying he entered through the front door (opening it with the key) but in fact the key was left inside – and (by the way) this information comes from a detective agency employed by the couple (…)

    Then, there is another aspect to it – if you pay attention, at the end of this reconstruction, you are bound to notice one thing – and you would conclude that this (so-called) scheme of vigilance (checking regime) seems to have been designed to benefit only the McCanns’ children! The McCanns’ never bothered to check on their friends’ children!

    The story we heard originally, that they got up in turns (from the table), went and checked on all the children, does not ring true, for it is apparent they did not.

    The couple itself – the mother of the missing child to be precise – seems to have been at the table for nearly two hours, without checking on her daughter. When she finally goes to check on her (children) again it is apparent she does not seem to have gone there with that sole preoccupation in mind.

    If you pay attention to her witness statement, what she says is; that she went to the apartment, that she was there (doing something) and suddenly felt a wind, a cool draft – and only then does she goes to inspect (the children’s bedroom) to see what was going on.

    The father, on the other hand, says he had gone there, (to the apartment) first of all to empty his bladder, and afterwards, happened to see (the children’s bedroom) door at a certain angle, and so on.

    It is this the kind of (circumstantial) detail that leads us to question the veracity (truth) of their accounts. Why did they say there was a scheme of vigilance (for checking on the children) when it seems evident from their testimonies (witness statements), there was none?

    And by the way, all this is written there in that report. They – their lawyer Rogério Alves or whoever else - may insist it is “all history” but it is history as recorded in a process of a proper judicial investigation – a process that has been re-opened as we speak and which (in all fairness) should be properly examined.

    There is no way to eradicate these statements; no way to destroy these documents. From what it is (stated) there (it seems clear) the father and the mother first preoccupation (as they arrived at the apartment) does not seem to have been to check on their children.

    (As I just said) one (the father) appears to have gone there to empty his bladder; the other (the mother), said she went there to check on the children, but then it seems she was there doing something else when, suddenly – she says – she felt a gust of wind (a draft). Only then does she goes to the (children) bedroom, notices some light seeping through from outside (…) and her daughter missing.

    This is (all) there (in the files) and (furthermore) in the statements she (Kate McCann) has produced along the years – some of which changed and keep changing (he nods as if to emphasize this point)
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    (...)

    *****(FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included (in any reconstruction) – to find out (for example) whether those glasses contained wine or water – as the BBC “Crimewatch” tried to suggest; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

    (GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

    (P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

    (GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

    Translators’ note: We cannot help but looking at this byte from Dr. Amaral as another spanner in the works of Mr. Redwood’s diplomatic brief but, we pass no judgement.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    (...)
    (GA): As far as I know, this Irish family continues (living) over there in Ireland. Immediately afterwards, they were the target of several contact attempts – by private detectives contracted by the couple, by some other people, you know, by journalists and the like. They have since remitted (sworn) themselves to silence. They have not spoken to anyone since.

    Recently, news have surfaced about some kind of detectives, hired by the couple who, claim to have spoken with the Smiths’ and (even) made e-fit pictures of the man seen by the Smiths’ – but given the kind of shadowy detail provided by the Smiths, it would have been impossible to make an e-fit of anyone.

    Translator’s note: If like Dr. Gonçalo Amaral says, it would have been impossible to make an e-fit of anyone from the description given by the Smiths’, what are we to make of “Scotland Yard” much publicized Crimewatch “e-fits” ? No criticism implied (…)

    ----------------------------------------
    (...)

    We would need to hear him (Smith) in more detail in order not to end up with a testimony of hearsay - the kind that is now in the process. What we now have on file, is a testimony of what Martin Smith told others (the Irish police) and not us – the Portuguese police!

    ------------------------------------
    (...)
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor .TRANSLATION OF PART TWO (Highlights)

    Presenter (P): 


    A British tourist who was near Praia da Luz when the child disappeared, happened to work in England for the Child Protection Services. This woman, seemed to have recognized David Payne (the McCanns’ close friend) as a man who appeared in some report (to the Child Protection Services) in connection with inappropriate behaviour towards children.

    (Reconstruction re-starts)

    (VO): The day following Maddie’s disappearance, a British tourist in Algarve switches on her TV on an English channel. The news, in direct from the Ocean Club, travel around the world. The woman is moved by the suffering of the couple and decides to try and help these shattered parents.

    The woman who rushes to the village of Luz is Yvonne Martin . She is not an ordinary tourist. She works in England for the Child Protection Services. She is conscious of her duty to give all assistance she can to this couple, who are living through the pain of their child’s disappearance (but) she is not welcome by the McCanns (…)

    The English social worker tries to find out if the parents need help. She wishes to know the circumstances in which the children were left alone, and expresses interest in knowing details of their scheme (regime) of vigilance (checking) but, Kate and Gerry response thwarts her initiative.

    Kate seemed much tenser than the others. Yvonne tries to talk to her alone, but Kate, brusquely, puts a stop to their conversation. Desolated, Yvonne Martin abandons the Ocean Club.

    During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she fixed (remembered) the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a “close friend” of the family but, Yvonne knew that face (it rang a bell).

    She (thought) she had seen that friend of the McCann’s before. Then, she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. (As) it transpired later, David Payne had been reported in England as suspect of inappropriate behaviour towards children!

    The case that involved David Payne, occurred during a (period) of holidays in the island of Mallorca in September 2005. Towards the end of that Summer, the McCanns’ went on a holiday with some friends – three other couples; among them David and Fionna Payne. The group rented a spacious villa (in Mallorca).

    (One evening) at the dinner table, one of the women of the group (Katherina Gaspar), also a medical doctor, overhears a (bizarre) comment David Payne makes to Gerry McCann.

    Obviously referring to Maddie, David asks Gerry if she “would do this” – (demonstrating what he meant by “this”) by sucking one finger and sliding it in and out of his mouth. While demonstrating this with one hand, he makes circles in the region of his nipples with the fingers the other hand (…)

    On another occasion, the same witness, saw David Payne repeat the same gestures as he spoke about his own daughter.

    Until the end of their holidays in Mallorca, this doctor and her husband, never again allowed David Payne to come close to their one and half year old daughter.

    After Maddie’s disappearance the couple, once again, denunciate (report) the suspect behaviour of David Payne to the English police but, the English authorities (for some strange reason) do not disclose this (to the Portuguese police investigators) until much later.

    (Program returns to the studio and the conversation resumes)

    (P): So, these allegations which were reported to the police in England, were never taken into account in the investigation …

    (GA): Hmm, this is very interesting. No (they were never taken into account) and I will explain (why) …

    (P): (interrupts) This was never investigated !?

    (GA): I am going to elaborate on it if I may, for your benefit, and for those who are watching the programme.

    From May (2007) onwards, we became aware of information (coming in) from our British colleagues about something (very odd) that had happened within that group during a holiday (in Mallorca). They never told us specifically what . (We knew) it was something to do with Madeleine but, they (British) never gave us any details.

    Some time later – and by then I had already been removed from the investigation and reassigned to Faro (police headquarters) – and for no specific reason, except it reminded me of the “we can’t tell you attitude” (of the British); a fax (from the UK police) arrived in Portimão (PJ headquarters) ostensibly about some other matter – and this, by the way, is all (clearly stated) in the process; this is all clearly stated in the investigation process files - and, attached to this fax, (which was conspicuously about some other subject) were the statements of Dr. Katherina Gaspar and her husband – which had been made to the British Police (months before)!

    (Oddly enough) these statements (Gaspars’) were not referred to in the main communication (either in the heading or the text of the fax).

    (I could well take an educated guess and say) the Gaspars’ statements entered the process by the grace of a (British) colleague who was probably fed-up of hiding what he had been told to conceal …

    And it is very strange not to see anyone on behalf of the family – I mean the family of the missing child – showing any concern, any interest in these allegations ! And I don’t see anyone from Scotland Yard preoccupied in clarifying these, either!

    Recently, they were talking about paedophile networks in Albufeira (Algarve) and I ask: What if there was a paedophile in the very middle of it (of this group)?

    I do not know if the Gaspars’ denunciation is relevant! I have no idea if the gentleman in question is a paedophile or not , but if we ask if his behaviour was very odd, we have to admit it was!

    Now concerning the British senior social assistant (Yvonne Martin) what she said was, that the person she saw in Praia da Luz (when trying to assist the McCanns’) had already passed through her hands (been seen by her in some files) either as a witness or a suspect. She recognized him afterwards from a photo (shown to her by the police).

    In spite of this, when the British police was questioned by the PJ about David Payne, they replied (insisted) this gentleman had no records (on their files).

    The fact is, this gentleman was the one who organized the group’s trip (to Praia da Luz); it was he who, for years, had been bathing the children, (including) the little girls of the other couples and – as is contained in the investigation files – had gone to the (McCanns’) apartment that afternoon, to see if Kate needed help with the children. Furthermore, it was he who that (very same) afternoon, (helped to) gave bath to his own daughters, while his wife went for a jog on the beach (…)

    (In summary), he is the one who, over the years, had the preoccupation about bathing the children of the other couples (…) I do not know if this is normal, if it is part of British culture or not, but I do not think it is.

    The gestures he made in Mallorca were (potentially) very serious (leads) particularly since these gestures related to Madeleine!

    The gestures – according to the report of Dr. Katherina Gaspar , who (by the way) is herself a medical doctor so… if in this case we have to show reverence to the couple and their friends because they are doctors (least we are found guilty of lèse majesté), then we should remember she is a medical doctor as well – and her husband too!

    The gestures (made by David Payne) were aimed at Madeleine, and Dr. Katherina Gaspar was shocked when she witnessed them – it was not just the gestures, but the very question he (David Payne) poses to the father (Gerry McCann) right in his presence!

    This evidence (the Gaspars denunciation ) has never been denied by anyone, anywhere – not least by any of those concerned. It is as if it never happened and then, (m
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor (...) (FMF): (continuing) From the point of view of the Police (PJ) and the Public Ministry, all the questions that have been raised here (in this programme) form, in my opinion, a serious and important document! This programme tonight, is in fact a document which, by its objectivity, compels to a through re-reading of the investigation material. That much is evident!

    This (reconstruction) is based on the very witness statements, written and signed by those who were involved. This (programme) is a document that attempts to deal with all the missing time-frames, in order to effectively arrive (at the truth of) what really happened.

    (P): (addressing Goncalo Amaral) Essentially, what we have been doing here tonight is also an exercise in memory, a reconstruction as it were and (so, if I may come back to) the question of the wire-tappings and surveillance – why were these not authorized? Bearing in mind, as Francisco was saying, they would have been crucial in this investigation?

    (GA): (They were not authorized) because diplomacy overruled the freedom of the investigators. In our country, our diplomacy is submissive to British power (ideology and hegemony).

    I give you an instance (if I may). I was introduced to (met with) the (British) ambassador who, in just a little after 24 hours after the event, was already in the terrain, in loco, meeting with the investigation team; using diplomacy to draw our attention to and suggest we should treat this case as a kidnapping.

    (Not surprisingly) the directory of the Judiciary Police immediately afterwards issued a communiqué along the same lines (…)

    From then on, the question of surveillance of the couple, could not have been implemented (indeed authorized) – bearing in mind the (police’s) focus had been (officially) diverted to the kidnapping hypothesis!

    May be the idea of that communiqué was simply to try and ease the pressure on the couple; (to alleviate) the burden of the media on them, but things (did not quite work out as they expected). With their complicity, they evolved exactly in the opposite direction (in the most unfavourable manner).

    (At some point in the investigation) we believed a time would arrive when it would have been possible to carry out various diligences but, that particular undertaking (surveillance) was never put into effect.

    (P): But for an investigation (a case) with such contours, certainly it would have been a much more sensible approach …

    (GA): That is easy to say with hindsight. That we should have done this or done that; (of course) it is logical we should have but, you know (…)

    (P): Of course.

    (GA): You see, there were a number of conditionings (constraints). Besides all that we known today about the investigation, there were a number of elements; a host of restrictions that limited our work, constrained our decision-making – and that is (in fact) what happened. And what happened, was the imposition of restrictions by the legal and political superstructure which continue to this day!

    Now, concerning the CCTV images… all those images in the area (around the crime scene). They were all collected with the exception of one, that was missed. Someone who was in charge of the task of finding those cameras, fell short.

    We checked ATM cash machines, pharmacies which had a system of video-vigilance in place, petrol stations, and so on. We kept widening the perimeter (of the search).

    Unfortunately, there was one camera, as we later found out, that was not detected. When we realized there was a camera in that place – (and tried to get those images) it was a bit late.

    Translator’s note: Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is probably referring here to the CCTV camera outside the Hotel Estrela da Luz (complex), in the Rua da Escola Primária where the “Smiths’ suspect” must have walked past.

    Andy Redwood (“Scotland Yard”) tacitly agrees with Dr. Gonçalo Amaral about the importance of the Smiths’ sighting, but obviously, given his agenda, he does not believe the man was the same the Smiths’ believed they saw – Gerry McCann, himself.

    Also important to note in this context that Andy Redwood was ordered to review (sic) the Portuguese PJ investigation by David Cameron – the actual British PM and Head of the Conservative Party for which (surprise! surprise!) Clarence Mitchell - the McCanns’ spokesman – is a candidate for the 2015 elections.

    At the time of Madeleine McCann disappearance, Tony Blair was still prime-minister and Clarence Mitchell director of HMG Media Monitoring Unit – reporting directly to the Cabinet’s office. Soon afterwards Mitchell becomes the McCanns’ spokesperson with an initial “salary of £80,000 per annum“ – more than he earned from Her Majesty Government (a reported £70,000 a year).

    What inferences do we draw from all this? None whatsoever!
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor Above comments on hold for adding translation highlights.
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor Each video will take more than an hour to read the translation and then follow along with the (kind of) translated captions but I recommend viewing such an important video.

    I apologise but they are far too long for me to even contemplate adding the tr
    anslated text. I would probably reappear some time in June! smile emoticon (not speaking Portuguese tends to be a little obstacle when adding translations) wink emoticon You may get a chuckle out of some of the translated captions.

    Thanks to Zizi and Paula for the translations and Joana for the videoshttp://joana-morais.blogspot.com/.../caso-maddie-especial...
    An assortment of news, opinion, translated police reports and investigation process files on the McCann Case
    JOANA-MORAIS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY GUEST AUTHOR
  • Chris Roberts Thanks for that Lizzy, I know it's a lot of work. There are two things that strike me above all others. (1) "The Gaspars’ statements entered the process by the grace of a (British) colleague who was probably fed-up of hiding what he had been told to conceal ". Excellent news because it means that at least one police officer is likely to have a conscience and (2) I note that David Payne only seems to "enjoy" bathing the young daughters of his friends, not young sons or at least I can find no reference to the latter is he does. The point of this is that if his predilection is only to bath young female children, it is a clear indication that he has "interests" other than hygiene.
  • Jacqueline Henderson what i find strange is DP his tongue in cheek , finger sooking ,nipple circling behavior . bathing other peoples children , going to help bath children , then he disappears to " clean up sick and bathe a child! , his partner is concerned at the time he is taking to "check up on kid" so she then leaves to go see what he is up to. Gm is also gone a long time and arrives back After the "they've taken her " Alert . If M had died in that apartment and these men were "creeps" then they would definitely cover it up , no way would they want the world knowing what they do to children. The more you hear about this case the more distasteful it gets.
  • Chris Roberts Jacqueline, at times I feel like I've trodden in something nasty on the pavement. It is also a truism that birds of a feather flock together and because of that to one degree or another I believe that the Tapas 9 ( or 10 ) share the guilt of whatever happened to this poor child.
  • Jacqueline Henderson give me the heebie jeebies , and That DP looks like one of the efits as well , just cannot comprehend people in power helping to cover up the likes of this , it is so wrong on every level .
  • Chris Roberts What is more wrong is that given the Gaspar statements, GMc was at the very least complicit and clearly saw no wrong in DP's "activities". I say that because I know what I would have done had someone spoken about and gestured like that concerning my own daughter in the same way.
  • Jacqueline Henderson exactly - me too i knock them into next week.
  • Louisa Taylor Still stands to reason that all the interviews goncalo gives his references to the investigation stay the same even after all this time, I also find it strange that Kate would refuse help from child services any kind of support would be helpful although the fact she recognised dp makes me think that's why Kate pushed her away getting to close for comfort. Imo.
  • Chris Roberts Goncalo's story never changes .. because it's the truth supported by evidence. LIARS need a much better memory.
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor This shocked me....

    During the brief minutes she was with the McCanns’, she fixed (remembered) the face of a man who was always around them. This man was not introduced to her. They simply told her he was a “close friend” of the family but, Yvonne kne
    w that face (it rang a bell).

    She (thought) she had seen that friend of the McCann’s before. Then, she seemed to remember the name and where she knew him from. (As) it transpired later, David Payne had been reported in England as suspect of inappropriate behaviour towards children!
    (...)

    Now concerning the British senior social assistant (Yvonne Martin) what she said was, that the person she saw in Praia da Luz (when trying to assist the McCanns’) had already passed through her hands (been seen by her in some files) either as a witness or a suspect. She recognized him afterwards from a photo (shown to her by the police).

    In spite of this, when the British police was questioned by the PJ about David Payne, they replied (insisted) this gentleman had no records (on their files)

    (...)
  • Frances Gallagher Oh goodness. .I got a shiver down my back .
  • Beryl Spilsbury Jacqueline Henderson, l thought it was R. O'B who went back and his child was sick and JT went to see what was wrong, not DP. Please correct me if l'm wrong.
  • Frances Gallagher It was Russell O/Brien whose child was allegedly ill Beryl.
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor There are many things that Goncalo discusses that are not known...

    ***Two things claimed by CdM CMTV is that Mrs Fenn claims to have seen David Payne on their balcony at around 7pm and that as well as the timeline written on a sticker book by ROB, th
    ere was also one written by Kate which was different.

    ***I knew the waiters claimed that there were only two men that left the table that night, but we have always believed ROB and Matt left around 9.25pm. but according to this contruction it was only ROB and Gerry who left the table at 9pm.

    Claims that Gerry did not arrive back until 10pm.

    *** I am aware that Martin Smith and family claimed they did NOT do a photofit, but as Goncalo claims they didnt see his face so could NOT have done one..

    ***PJ are now holding a further statement made by Martin Smith to Irish police.

    **** There is notihng to confirm the Smiths leaving the bar by 10pm...it may have been any time following.

    ****Kate drank a daquiri (an unimportant snippet)

    *****(FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included (in any reconstruction) – to find out (for example) whether those glasses contained wine or water – as the BBC “Crimewatch” tried to suggest; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

    (GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

    (P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

    (GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

    ***Many CCTV camera footages were collected but the person who collected them omitted the one that would have shown the Smith sighting..
  • Frances Gallagher I knew that Kate had a daquiri and that they all had after dinner drinks. I am not sure why they would need to know if the glasses contained wine or water?
  • Ketty Östman http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/.../david-payne-ruislip-manor/ I think she got the wrong person, that it is this David Payne as she has heard of.
    October 2003 Man who raped children is jailed A MAN who raped and indecently assaulted children, and...
    UKPAEDOS-EXPOSED.COM
  • Ketty Östman Does anyone know if the friend of Mrs. Fenn was questioned and can be found in the files?
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor For those that choose to watch the video with English translated subtitles...Just be aware that they only give an indication of what was said.. smile emoticon (enough to follow if you read the transcript first)
    Lizzy Hideho Taylor's photo.
  • Tanya Hoyt *** Many CCTV camera footages were collected but the person who collected them omitted the one that would have shown the smith sighting... Who collected the footage???
  • Lizzy Hideho Taylor "(GA): You see, there were a number of conditionings (constraints). Besides all that we known today about the investigation, there were a number of elements; a host of restrictions that limited our work, constrained our decision-making – and that is (in fact) what happened. And what happened, was the imposition of restrictions by the legal and political superstructure which continue to this day!

    Now, concerning the CCTV images… all those images in the area (around the crime scene). They were all collected with the exception of one, that was missed. Someone who was in charge of the task of finding those cameras, fell short.

    We checked ATM cash machines, pharmacies which had a system of video-vigilance in place, petrol stations, and so on. We kept widening the perimeter (of the search).

    Unfortunately, there was one camera, as we later found out, that was not detected. When we realized there was a camera in that place – (and tried to get those images) it was a bit late.

    Translator’s note: Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is probably referring here to the CCTV camera outside the Hotel Estrela da Luz (complex), in the Rua da Escola Primária where the “Smiths’ suspect” must have walked past."
  • Tanya Hoyt Thanks lizzy, that makes perfect sense, I remember reading that that hotel wipes their recordings regularly!
  • Tanya Hoyt The smiths also didn't make a photofit at first, because it's claimed that they didn't see his face.. How could they make one later? Can some please elaborate how he recognised it was j until he seen him on telly departing a plane holding a child that he realise it was j... I don't understand how this could work.... Lizzy!
  • Tanya Hoyt Ketty it says she recognised him, and later remembered who he was...