Why I will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007

It's no secret, that for quite some time now, I have become increasingly frustrated with the force-feeding of flawed, fanciful theories regarding the Madeleine McCann case. What people don't see, is that when I've shown evidence to counter these theories, I've been plagued via messenger by a small number of defenders of those driven by a burning desire to place people into the feeding chair, clamp the clasps, insert the metaphorical tube and perpetually ply them with puffed-up propaganda. What happened to defending the truth? Floods of long-winded, repetitive, off-beam attempts at persuasion, virtually begging me not to counter these theories - and that's not nearly the worst of it. Why? Why the hell shouldn't I pursue the truth, is that not what we're all here for?

The indoctrination will see you now

The danger of force-feeding a preposterous scenario is this; many people looking into the case can - and do, jump to the conclusion that those disbelieving the McCanns are the same people who believe the earth is flat, that guards stand along a border of the Arctic, shooting anyone who ventures too close to the edge, and that Australia was a mere invention to cover up mass drownings of criminals who were only taken 5 miles out to sea, before being thrown over the side of ships to meet a watery grave.

Is this their purpose? Tony Bennett certainly has no qualms when it comes to ignoring true facts and inventing evidence, but we'll get onto that fraud in good time.

For now, let's take a look at just some of the witness statements that have been shrouded with doubt, how they've been discredited, and why those who do so should take a look at themselves in the mirror, and have a serious word with themselves:

Firstly, the statements of the Millennium restaurant staff:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CECILIA-DFC.htm

"When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.

She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.

She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him. Given her public relations function she was always very nice to the guests and would get involved with the children, saying that Madeleine was very shy and did not respond to her. She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millennium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area."

So, the first statement, and we have a member of staff who claims "...she knows the parents, the siblings, and Madeleine"

I'm really not sure what the doubters want here, or what they'd consider as proof? A biometric retina scanner on the door perhaps...

Next, we have Ana Marilia do Carmo Silva's statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANA-SILVA.htm


"She says that the child and her parents frequented the restaurant where they would have breakfast. When asked, she says that she can not remember the date when they first began to frequent the restaurant. However, she is certain that they frequented the restaurant from the beginning of the week."
Three keywords, "...she is certain"

John Young:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_YOUNG.htm

"After seeing their [the McCann's] picture, he immediately remembered that he had seen them having breakfast in the restaurant where he works, but that he does not remember any situation in particular involving this family, nor does he remember hearing or noticing any strange situation involving their presence."

He "immediately remembered" No doubt, no confusion

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htm

"For security reasons and given that the restaurant has a receptionist, the entrance of guests is registered, in order to frequent the adjacent areas cards must be shown, with the individual's name, apart number and arrival and departure dates."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GUSTAVO_COMPOS.htmIs this proof? I'll admit, we haven't seen the register, but you can be damn sure the PJ did.

So that's three independent witnesses who were absolutely sure, and there are many more.

BRINGING ON A SUB

"But, but, but...", say the doubters "...perhaps they used a substitute child. Perhaps they used one of the other tapas children; perhaps one of the other children were used, one who was described by her mother as shy?"

This extension of the death on Sunday theory sees suggestions that one of the other Tapas friends offered up their daughter as a substitute for Madeleine. A three-year-old stand-in whom - we're expected to believe, was to unwittingly play the public role of Madeleine in order to convince a myriad of witnesses, that her friend hadn't died on the Sunday, and that all was well. In the meantime, we're also expected to believe that this act was carried out for four consecutive days, whilst the McCanns and their friends planned a fake abduction scenario; a scenario that, let's be honest, was littered with mistakes and inconsistencies.

 More McCann lies. A crock of locked V unlocked

For me, the substitute child theory is a bridge too far. It was an area I looked at, even one - I'm ashamed to say, I bought into at one point. That was before I looked at what was being said from a logical point of view, and before I considered the feelings of an innocent little girl who was, at the time, of a similar age to Madeleine McCann. A little girl whom, for no good reason, has had her name planted into a totally implausible and disturbing fantasy world, that some will believe at face value.

I'd like to look - objectively, at some of the reasons that have been put forward as to why some think there's a possibility the witnesses I named above could have been mistaken about seeing Madeleine, and had, in fact, confused her with another child. The crux of this theory is put forward by using the following descriptions and accepting them as the full and complete personality of Madeleine.

I'll write the descriptions in purple and keep my words in black so you can see who the comments were attributed to:

Extroverted - Gerry McCann
Lively - Matt Oldfield, Jane Tanner, Kate McCann
Vivacious - Jane Tanner
Ringleader - Jane Tanner
Bags of character - Kate McCann
Loud - Kate McCann
Likes talking - Kate McCann
Huge presence - Kate McCann
Run around screaming...shouting - Kate McCann
Hyperactive - Kate McCann
Full of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Active - Sharon Lewin (Madeleine's nursey school teacher for 6 months)
Energetic - Janet Kennedy/Dianne Webster
Headstrong - Russell O'Brien
Bubbly - Rachael Oldfield/Russell O'Brien/David Payne
Full of life - Russell O'Brien
Full of beans - Russell O'Brien
Cheery - Rachael Oldfield
Full of fun - Rachael Oldfield/Amanda Jane Coxon (friend of Kate and Gerry, their cleaner and Madeleine's babysitter)
Lots of energy - Rachael Oldfield
Happy go lucky - David Payne
Chatty - Jill Renwick (Kate McCann's friend)
Wee devil - Joe Peoples (family friend)
Not shy - Jill Renwick
Personality all of her own - Susan Healy (Madeleine's grandmother)
Full of life - Russell O'Brien/Philomena McCann
Relishes being the centre of attention - Susan Healy
She would shine out of a crowd - Jon Corner (Madeleine's Godfather)
Outgoing personality - FindMadeleine website
Engaging chatter - FindMadeleine website
Incredible amount of energy - FindMadeleine website
A warm, life enriching little person that will never fail we're sure to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter - FindMadeleine website

Comparisons were then been made to differing ones from Ocean Club staff. An example of which is below, and again, from Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo:

"She says that the McCanns appeared to be a normal family and that the relation between the members of the family was very good. Madeleine appeared to be very attached to her father and was always clinging on to him."

It's because of the above descriptions, and contrasting recollections of a shy Madeleine, from people she barely knew, that some believe in the "distinct possibility" of another child being used as a substitute for Madeleine.

Take the snippet from the statement above, I can see no earthly reason why, for example, Jane Tanner's daughter, would be clinging to Gerry McCann's leg. More likely, that Madeleine, as children often are, was a little nervous in the restaurant. Perhaps tired (groggy even?) and therefore a bit clingy.

Given that the people who described Madeleine as all of the above knew her well, that she would recognise their faces and be comfortable around them, is it beyond the realms of possibility that perhaps Madeleine behaved differently around those she didn't know as well?

No, it isn't. In fact, it's perfectly normal and usual for this to be the case.

Adults can often be outgoing and confident around those they know - less so around people they don't. For children, that is more apparent. It would be absolutely natural for Madeleine to be shy in a strange environment, with other guests and staff milling about. She might have even been cranky on a morning, and not feel much like running around and being the centre of attention.

Speaking of running around, here's a snippet from Jane Tanner's statement; a snippet that shows Jane Tanner's daughter as being the least shy of all the kids on the holiday, at that particular time:

"Err and then I mean I really can’t, the kids were excited so they were, Ella was running around especially"
Another point to consider is this. After Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry McCann were under the spotlight, they had lied about the crime scene and would be desperate - as would their friends, not to give rise to any suspicions upon them by describing Madeleine as anything but a happy child. Had they described her as shy, quiet, reserved, timid, withdrawn or any other similar variant, then fingers would have been pointed a lot sooner than they were.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that Madeleine McCann is perhaps the most recognisable child on the planet since Harry Potter first sat on a Nimbus 2000! All it would have taken, would have been for just one of the witnesses to say "Hang on, that's not the child the McCanns were with every day"

What if the twins had called out the wrong name when addressing their sister?

What name would the adults call if said substitute child was to be spoken to?

What if this unaware child had introduced herself to another person, or been asked her name?

No, the theory of a substitute child simply isn't plausible.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

One thing that keeps cropping up from supporters of the death on Sunday theory is this, "Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't have access to the evidence we have now" This claim is actually laughable, it's not only arrogant, but it's ludicrous in the extreme.

We, the public, have seen far, far less evidence than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, and here's why.

With thanks, and with the permission of my good friend NT:

"When it comes to sources of information about the Madeleine McCann case, we have had access to far more information than would normally be available to any member of the public in most countries. It is very rare to have access to the police case file at any time, but particularly for a case which is ongoing and unsolved. We have been able to read witness statements, police communications, scenes of crime and forensic reports. In fact, if you read it sequentially, in date order, it gives a fascinating insight into how a case is approached and the multitude of tasks which have to be completed.

So one would think that someone who has followed the case closely, studied the PJ files, ignored the fawning nonsense delivered for years on a daily basis by a press which was handed stories to print, read the court transcripts and generally kept their ear to the ground would know everything there is to know about the case, wouldn't you?

And you would be wrong.

So, instead of considering what we do know, what is there out there to which we have not been granted access?

The answer is: Most of it.

So let's have a quick rewind for a minute

Most people are aware that when the PJ case file was published, certain sections and documents were withheld. Often, they are not clear about what was retained and what wasn't, and it's not easy to follow, especially when you take a document written in legal language which has been dragged through a minimum of two translation processes and try to figure out what was actually being said.

There were five categories raised with the Portuguese judiciary by UK policing authorities with respect to information which should be retained and not published. Briefly, these were:

1. Information relating to convicted sex offenders

2. Intelligence reports, often relating to suspected sex offenders

3. Information supplied via Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)

4. Communication between police forces

5. Information supplied via the NPIA.

I have searched in vain for an order from the court detailing what, with the exception of the info about sex offenders, should be retained. There are a number of untranslated documents at the end of that files, the last process file, so I am hoping this may throw up a definite answer. However, we can say with certainty that some files, in fact some volumes were removed prior to publication.

This has given rise to an oft-used expression; "Missing from the files" is often used with respect to certain statements which do not appear in the published files, often giving rise to elaborate conspiracy theories about why they were ''hidden'', secret D notices and other such rubbish, when the answer is simple - they fell into one of those categories listed above and so were withheld from publication.

So, with the exception of those few files, we have seen everything, right?

Er, no.

We have not seen, nor are we likely to ever see, the vast amount of information accumulated by UK forces, both contemporaneously and in the years since.

The reasons why are enshrined in both UK and EU law, but to put it simply we do not have the right to see those files and nor are we ever likely to unless prosecutions result and we see any evidence offered in court. Anyone who thinks they will be published with the closure of the Operation Grange investigation is sadly deluded.

So what have we NOT seen?

Easy one, this. We don't know.

We know of the existence of certain documents because reference is made to them in a later document, most typically reference in rogatory interviews to previous statements a witness may have made. It's quite simple - if they made their statement to a UK force, it won't be there. If they made it to the PJ, it will. ( I should state here it is nothing to do with Textusa's nonsense explanation that a statement would only be included if there was something of interest in it, hence the absence of some initial statements. That is hogwash)

So we know about those. We also, tantalisingly, know of a few others, like the witness who testified that they had seen K&G carrying a bag on the night of the 3rd May, because the McCanns have made specific reference to them, but we can't see them as they are not in the published file

So, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, what is out there that we have not had access to?

1. Initial statements of some witnesses who gave evidence to UK forces. In some cases, there are rogatory statements which cover the same ground so we have an idea of the content eg, Stephen Carpenter

2. Witness statements made directly to UK police forces. We know there were some, we do not know how many or what their content was

3. The 500 questionnaires sent to UK residents who had been on holiday in PdL at the time.

4. Any other evidence given directly to a UK force ( for example by people who knew any of those involved)

5. Any information submitted via Crimestoppers

6. Any information given directly to other non-UK forces


7. All the information resulting from subsequent UK investigations, including the case review and Operation Grange"

http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-full-picture.html

Proof - of needed, that the PJ and Goncalo Amaral had far more evidence to hand than those who claim the opposite, including:

500 questionnaires - not seen by the public.

Statements from UK residents who were staying at the Ocean Club - not seen by the public

Photographs - not seen by the public

The PJ and Goncalo Amaral were also a damn sight better equipped to absorb it all than a handful of people on the internet and yet, these people question the findings of the PJ. They doubt them.

I refer back to my earlier words; all it would have taken, would have been for just one witness to raise doubts as to Madeleine being alive and well up until the 3rd of May, and the entire investigation would have taken an entirely different turn of events; an entirely different line of questioning would have taken place, and we would have seen that within the limited evidence available to us, the public.

Throughout the libel and damages trials - instigated by the McCanns, Goncalo Amaral himself was fighting to prevent himself from financial ruin; his assets were frozen.

If any credible evidence casting doubt upon Madeleine being alive prior to the 3rd had presented itself, would he really have kept this under his hat?

Would the former coordinator of the case gone through years of hell, systematic and relentless abuse from the McCanns' allies in the British media, before finally having to rely upon a fund to help him appeal - and win the case brought against him?

The answer to those questions has to be "an emphatic no"

CAMERA LIES

At the top of the blog I mentioned Tony Bennett, a man with a history - dating back to 2012, of planting fake evidence relating to the McCann case, and those who try to draw attention to the real facts. As far as myself and the vast majority of people who follow the case closely are concerned, Bennett is finished, his agenda has been exposed, and so I don't wish to dwell on him too much. That being said, he is responsible for some fake claims regarding this topic, and as such it would be remiss of me not to tackle these, before drawing this blog to an end.

The following photograph is from the PJ Files, and has a description attached (in blue), by Albym, one of the translators of the files who whose job it was to examine all the photographs:

 "Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCannplaying with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean(laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Now, it's unclear as to where Albym got the date from, whether it was given to PJ by the McCanns, if it was added by the PJ after being examined, or if it was from a timestamp on Kate's camera that had also been checked, but...what is of interest when it comes to backing this date up, and proving beyond any doubt that Madeleine was alive on the 2nd, is the weather. I will zoom in on the sky:

When I was searching for some independent photos to try and make a comparison between the sky and weather on the photo above, I came across some of a windsurf competition. It wasn't until I spoke to one of the Portuguese translators, that I was made aware of the fact that Tony Bennet was also in possession of these photos. Here they are, pay particular attention to the sky:

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/gallery/241

Now you tell me, is that sky, in nearby Portimão (a mere 12 miles from PdL as the crow flies), not exactly the same as that in the photo of the play area? 

Satellite imagery of Saturday the 28th April

Yet, and despite having seen these photographs, Tony Bennett demands that people ignore the facts and claims the weather matches that of Saturday, a day that by his own admission was sunny.

Would you describe any of the photos above as being taken on a "sunny day"? Of course not, and to back that up, I've included (above) the satellite imagery for the 28th. Not a cloud in the sky, and why would there be, the photo was taken on the 2nd on a day when, as can be seen from the imagery below, Praia da Luz was surrounded by cloud.

IT'S A MATCH!
Satellite imagery of Wednesday the 2nd May

To further these false claims, Bennett also tries to tell people the clothes that Gerry and Madeleine were wearing on arrival (Saturday 28th May) match those in the play area photo. So let's look at those:

Here we have two stills taken from a video of the McCanns arriving in Portugal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw

Compare the photo on the left, to the one in the play area. Madeleine is wearing 3/4 length bottoms, whereas, in the play area photo, her jogger bottoms are long enough to fall past her ankles.

To highlight the differences even further, I've zoomed in on the trousers Madeleine was wearing in the play area (right) from another photograph, again reported in the files as being taken on the 2nd. It couldn't be any clearer that the shorts Madeleine wore on arrival - the 28th April, are entirely different from the jogger bottoms she was wearing on the 2nd of May. No question, no debate; they're different.

If we then look at Gerry's clothing, we can see he's wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt, but in the play area photograph, he's wearing khaki shorts and a long sleeved top. In other words, they're both wearing different clothes.



I feel like I'm repeating myself, and that's because I am. Despite Bennett's claims to the contrary, neither Gerry or Madeleine are wearing the same clothes as they were on arrival. Add this to the established, and undeniable facts that the weather in the play area photo is an absolute match to the independent photos of the windsurfing competition that took place on the 2nd, then there simply is no coherent claim that the photograph of the play area, showing an alive and well Madeleine, was taken on any other day than that reported in the files - May the 2nd 2007. Thus ruling out any possibility of Madeleine having met her fate 3 days earlier.

It's madness to suggest otherwise, and it's for those reasons, and many more, that I simply will not subscribe to theory of Madeleine McCann dying on Sunday the 29th April 2007.

51 questions to Goncalo Amaral - NULLIFIED - Naysayer Nessling's Nonsensical Noodlings Nicely Neutralized

Note: Since writing this blog, Nigel Nessling was convicted of downloading 804 still and moving images in the most serious level A category, 818 still and moving level B images and more than 40,000 still and moving images in the lowest level C category

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183

My attention was recently brought to a  blog written by Pro McCann - Nigel 'VEE8' Nessling. A lengthy piece, that asked questions, thinly veiled by an agenda fuelled hatred of Goncalo Amaral. Oddly, Nigel seemed to get the inspiration for his blog by the fact that Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the PJ in 2007. 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE QUESTIONS KATE McCANN REFUSED TO ANSWER

At first I wasn't sure if Nigel had been hacked; perhaps somebody had written a satirical blog, mocking his blinkered biased views on the case. Upon further reading however, I soon realised it was in fact Nigel's own work, and he'd done a fine job of exposing himself as a  somewhat perplexing protégé to Pinky...Naughty Nigel!

Before I tackle the questions, it is worth noting that Nessling states in his own words that:

"myself and others have compiled several hundred pertinent questions, but I have distilled them down to these ones, that I personally consider vital to understanding just what game amaral was playing at."

I must say, I find it quite astounding, that of the "several hundred" questions, Nigel and his friends have compiled over the years, he would choose to ask the 51 that he did, when many of the answers can be easily obtained through reading Snr. Amaral's book; The Truth of The Lie. Nigel and his fellow pro McCann friends slate the book so fervently, yet seemingly know nothing of it's content, something that in itself begs it's own questions: 

Has Nigel actually read the book he and the McCanns demonise?

If the answer is no, then how can he judge it?

If the answer is yes, then is Nessling, by writing his blog, not really asking questions at all, but merely embarking upon a feeble assault on Snr. Amaral?

Personally I'd plump for the latter, but, as I find myself with a spare couple of hours, I will humour him, and answer as many of the questions I can:

Q1.

"Is it true that you never attended the scene yourself on the night Madeleine was abducted, but coordinated the investigation by phone? Where exactly did you coordinate this investigation from? Is it true you in fact never left the restaurant where you were eating?"

It is true that Goncalo Amaral was dining out the night Madeleine was reported missing, as were the McCanns, and that he was contacted by phone.

"It is midnight when I receive the news about the disappearance of a little four-year-old English girl. The police officer on call was informed about it by the National Guard of The Republic (GNR) At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away. An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence. I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge."

.Click here to read source: The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

Not really sure what your point here is Nigel. Although given that your entire piece is written with the sole objective of discrediting Goncalo Amaral, I can only assume you are trying to suggest Goncalo Amaral should have immediately raced to the scene, Jim Bergerac style, and single handedly solved the case. Let me assist you to avoid any doubt as to Goncalo Amaral's job description regarding this case.

Goncalo Amaral was the operational coordinator.

Let's break that down:

Operational: of or relating to the operation of a business or machine, (in this case the machine being the PJ)

Coordinator: someone whose job is to make different groups work together in an organized way to achieve something.

It wasn't Amaral's job to attend the crime scene immediately. Quite why you would think he would need to rush to the scene to coordinate his staff at that point, is a mystery.

Q2.

"Why did you not organise a search for the child IMMEDIATELY?"

What is it with calling Madeleine "The child"? Gerry does that a lot too, (when he's not calling her Margaret). The Ocean Club had already put their search protocol into operation, before police arrived at the scene. The GNR then began searches, which carried on throughout the night, not only by police on duty, but by off duty policemen, volunteers, and of course search and rescue dogs.

Click and scroll down to GNR investigations, to read statements from GNR officers.

The fact that searches by both the GNR, and the PJ were carried out, is confirmed here by Joao Carlos:

"During this night and the during the early morning intensive searches were carried out by this police force, GNR officers equipped with sniffer dogs and by local people organised in groups and employees of the resort. These searches were extended over the following days over a radius of 15 km2 by GNR officers and tracker dogs, locals, marines (folio 821 marine control Portimao), civil protection officers, the use of a helicopter as is documented in the report on folios ''' (sic) In spite of titanic efforts, time and methods used, the search for the girl was fruitless."

Click here to read the statement from Inspector Joao Carlos.

As a side note, it's interesting that you bring up the subject of searching. Kate McCann herself admitted to "not physically" searching for Madeleine, whereas Gerry only managed a short walk to the beach, where he was consoled by David Payne. That "search" lasted about an hour. On foot, the beach is a 30 minute round trip in daylight, at night it would take longer. Seems Kate and Gerry were the only ones not searching.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Q3.

"Why did you expect distraught parents to do YOUR job and secure a crime scene? In view that it was YOUR obligation and YOUR job to see that a crime scene is properly secured, why did YOU allow so many people to contaminate it?"

Again this is more spin. Goncalo Amaral didn't "expect" Kate and Gerry to secure the crime scene. He did, however question whether the parents contaminated the crime scene on purpose."

Snr. Amaral also admitted that mistakes were made with the securing of the crime scene. Although by the time the police had arrived, having not been notified for 40 minutes, the crime scene had already been compromised.

Q4.

"Why did you not consider getting the apartment properly examined by properly trained forensics teams IMMEDIATELY?"

The apartment was examined by forensic teams at the first available opportunity. During the night and into the next day. Why suggest it wasn't Nigel?
"The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/FORENSIC_INDEX.htm

"On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

On the subject of forensics..."After 00.00 a team from this police force arrived at the scene and immediately began diligencies, namely fingerprint inspection which only revealed the collection of prints from people who had legitimate access to the apartment. The bedroom was also examined by Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous vestiges for continuous examinations, which up until now have not contributed to a full clarification of the facts."

Click here to read the statement from Inspector Joao Carlos 

Q5.

"Why did you falsely inform the press that the parents contacted Sky News BEFORE calling the police?"

In this question you use the word "falsely". I therefore assume you have proof the parents didn't inform Sky News, apart from of course Kate McCann's book, which you seem to be basing a lot of your blog upon. 

One thing is for sure, Kate and Gerry McCann did inform the media through third parties, one of whom was Jill Renwick who worked with Kate McCann at Glasgow hospital in the 90's. Jill was one of the friends Kate phoned during the early hours of the 4th May 2007, and possibly the most influential. It was through Jill, that the lie about an "abductor" breaking the shutters to gain entry to apartment 5a, manifested across the nation within hours of the parents reporting Madeleine missing. This fabricated story was, remember, concocted by Kate and Gerry who sat indoors, whilst scores of volunteers searched throughout the night for a missing 3 year old girl they had never met. 

In an article for the Guardian by Esther Addley, on June 2nd 2007, Jill Renwick discusses her conversation with Kate:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/02/ukcrime.comment

"She just said, 'Help me, please help me'. She said, 'We've been searching all night until 4.30am, and then everybody left us'. At that stage there was only one police officer at the door. They didn't know what to do. So I phoned GMTV."

First line, and it's a lie, Kate did NOT physically search, and Gerry managed an hour, but that's by the by. Good old Jill phoned GMTV, surely GMTV would check that the information Jill gave them was correct, precise, and accurate? Not a hope, what they did was to fail Madeleine, whilst at the same time, helping the McCanns plant the abduction seed. Jill provided more lies to 6.1 million UK viewers:

"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."

"Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open. The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her."

BANG! In one fell swoop we have 6.1 million people being told that A, there was opportunity for an abduction, and B, there had been a forced entry. Total and utter nonsense, we now know, as did the McCanns, that there was NO forced entry, but there it was, out in the public arena. 

Support then began to gather pace. Think about it, of those 6.1 million viewers, how many of them went into work that week, spoke to friends and told them; 

"Hey did you hear on the news today? An intruder broke into an apartment in Portugal and snatched a little girl" 

The lie grew legs and multiplied, the press reported it as fact, and before the week was out the McCanns had a nation behind them, in fact they had so much support, based upon lies, that when the Official Find Madeleine website was set up on the 10th May 2007 it received 75 million hits in the first 48 hours, and all due to one phone call.

Q6.

"Why did you initially refuse Scotland Yard experts help?"

Now this wouldn't happen to be another bit of loosely based spin, taken from Kate's book would it Nigel. I assume you liked Kate's book so much, as the person who wrote it for her, like yourself, also had a problem with using capital letters for a person's name, eg. "madeleine", eg. "goncalo amaral".

Yes, in Kate's book it states that:

"The Portuguese police were apparently reluctant early on to accept any help beyond this from their counterparts in the UK."
Although that is in relation to Leicestershire police force, not Scotland Yard. If of course this is what you were using as the source for your information, you will also note, that Kate went on to mention, that Leicestershire police were allowed to send over family liaison officers, forensic psychologists from CEOP, and an analyst from the National Policing Improvements Agency.

Not only that, but in Goncalo Amaral's own words:

"After Madeleine’s disappearance, the first English police officer whom we welcome to the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation, on May 5th, is Glen Power, liaison officer to Portugal. The brief of this police official attached to his country’s embassy is to facilitate communication between police forces. This is one of a number of pivots on which international police collaboration relies.
I have known Glen Power for a long time. Martin Cox, who had held the job in Portugal for some years, came to the Algarve with Glen when the latter replaced him. I had worked with Glen on several cases of violent crime or linked to organised crime; I was aware of his skills, his great capacity for work, his kindness and his modesty. Our relationship went beyond that of a simple professional connection. I was a bit worried when he told me that he wouldn’t be around a few days later. He had a lot to do. He wanted to reassure me by telling me that the language of investigation was universal and that his colleagues would have no difficulty in integrating into the ongoing investigation. No doubt, but personalities are important, as is the information committed to memory, knowledge of the details, the cross-checks that allow us to be responsive to the slightest indications. It’s for that reason that, in general, the make-up of the team remains the same from start to finish of an investigation.

Two days later, English colleagues begin to arrive. The main idea was for the English police to place at our disposal two specialists in family supervision and support to be the link between the Portuguese investigators and the McCanns. The National Directorate of the PJ had authorised the arrival of these police officers in the context of international collaboration. Bob Small, an officer from the Leicestershire police, and one of his colleagues meet us to take stock of the situation and evaluate the needs of the investigation before making contact with the couple.

We insist on knowing what our English counterparts have come to Portugal to do. I assign one of my investigators to follow the English superintendent like a shadow and to keep me informed about his actions. I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of the people he meets and the places he goes to.
Then the two police officers arrive who are assigned to psychological support and communication with the family. Little by little, the number of English police officers grows exponentially. We place at their disposal a room next to our crisis unit, Task Portugal. These are specialists from various police services, including Scotland Yard. Special surveillance teams as well as information and telecommunications technicians turn up with their laptops and various high-tech equipment. Others will come to join us, notably profilers: they will develop a profile of the alleged abductor from which a number of possible scenarios will be constructed. The analysts trace timelines and patterns of connections based on the witness statements gathered. They produce giant summary boards that cover the walls of the offices. They attend all our meetings and collaborate in decision-making. They are the intermediary through which requests for information are sent to Great Britain, and it is they who receive the responses and enquiries."

Even more people to be coordinating. Still thinking Amaral, should have been running around with his deer stalker on? I don't think anything there amounts to a refusal on Amaral's part. A measured amount of caution perhaps, but "refusal"? Come off it Nigel, you're being a tad hyperbolic.

Q7.

"Why did you not order the organisation of the immediate interviewing of all MW staff and residents?"

From the police files, it's clear to see they were. Between the 5th of May, and the 9th of May, 143 statements were taken from hotel staff. Additionally staff on duty that night were spoken to informally at the time for any relevant information. To contact and arrange to interview 143 people is a mammoth task for any police force, and it was done in just 5 days. Additionally 27 residents were interviewed at various times as necessary.

Click here to view the list of all staff interviewed.

Q8.

"Why did you not order the Spanish borders with Portugal to be informed you had a missing child believed abducted and issue them with photographs and details? Same with the Marina just short distance away, why did you not order the lock down of this Marina? Why did you not inform authorities at the airport?"

The police at Faro airport had already been informed before Snr Amaral even knew of Madeleine's disappearance. A control post had been set up on the Guadiana bridge, connecting Portugal and Spain, all police in Portugal had been informed as well as Interpol. CCTV had been requested from the two main motorways in the area. Spanish customs at two ports with links to Morocco, Tarifa and Algeciras were also alerted. Contact was made with all marinas, and video recordings, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.

Click here to read, The Truth of The Lie. Chapter 3.

Click here to read PJ files records of boat movements.

Click here to read PJ files documents and maritime police.

Q9.

"Why did you allow Mark Warner cleaning staff to come in and clean apartment 5a and then ask Kate McCann why the flat had been cleaned?"

I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the files Nigel. Kate McCann wasn't asked if the apartment had been cleaned. Why would you make that up?

Kate McCann's first statement. 04/05/2007
Kate McCann's second statement. 06/09/2007

Kate McCann's final interview. 07/09/2007

Q10.

"Is it true that finger prints were not lifted from this apartment until five days after Madeleine was abducted?" 

No Nigel, that isn't true. Finger prints were lifted on the 4th May 2007.
Again, taken from The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair."

A fact confirmed on the link below in the PJ files:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

Q11.

"Is it true that the first finger prints lifted from the apartment were not taken properly and had to be re-taken?"

Not as far as I'm aware, perhaps if you had added links to back up your smears questions... 

Q12.

"Why didn't the forensics technician taking the finger prints from the shutter and the bedroom window dress appropriately in accordance with international guidelines for taking forensic evidence?"

That's a very good question Nigel, and one that Goncalo Amaral was also unhappy about, as stated here in his book:

"We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of judiciary police technicians."

Q13.

"Is it true that proper forensic examination of this flat did not take place until Day 100 after Madeleine was abducted?"

No Nigel. It isn't true. I think we covered this in question 4. A full forensic examination was carried out on day 1. Next!

Q14.

"Why did you allow apartment 5a to be used by numerous other holiday makers for two out of the three months after Madeleine was abducted?"

I think the answer to this is rather obvious Nigel. Here's what Snr. Amaral said:

"The apartment was immediately fully contaminated by the parents' action, before the police arrived. A complete fair was built there and at a certain point, dogs were demanded to come inside the house."

Read the full interview here.

Q15.

"Did you get in touch with the German police and the Swiss police about two paedophiles known to be in Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s abduction?"

I suspect, as with many of your questions, you haven't been shy in adding a great deal of spin to this question, most notably, because you failed to produce any names. However, I can hazard an educated guess as to whom you are referring.

Lenhard's body, and clothing was found close to the body of Von Aesch, who had shot himself in the head. Several items belonging to Lenhard were also found at the scene. I suspect you say he was "known to be in Praia da Luz", as that's what certain quarters of the MSM stated...(cute).

There is no mention of him being in Praia da Luz, from any official source. In fact the Swiss investigators even stated that there was no connection to Madeleine McCann.

"As mentioned in previous correspondence, the investigations underway conducted by the police from the Canton of St Gallen did not manage to establish any link to the case of the disappearance of the British girl Madeleine McCann."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OTHER_DISAPPEARANCES.htm

The British press tried to link Von Aesch to the case, by grabbing a huge handful of straws, and saying a white van, seen outside the Ocean Club, was similar to a white van driven by Von Aesch. They were still doing this as late as 2013, despite white van man being identified on May 8th 2008, as a 56 year old British music teacher. Not only that, but Von Aesch's van was inspected by the Swiss for forensic evidence, where they found traces of Lenhard's DNA inside. Had any of Madeleine's DNA been found, it would have matched the samples held by Interpol, (aside from it being a miracle).

As for your other paedophile, I suspect you mean Martin Ney, a German paedophile who had a sexual preference for young boys. There are no details in the files about this man, although there were stories in the press, which is what leads me to believe this is the man you have in mind.

As we are dealing with fact, unfortunately this is a question I can't answer based upon verifiable research. What I can say, and what you should know, is that contained within the files, are pages that weren't made public due to legal boundaries. The investigations into persons with criminal backgrounds, including those with a history of sexual crimes against children, were kept confidential, once it was established that these people were not persons of interest.

Excerpt from the files:

"A - In the inquiry there are passages that contain information that can contend with the right to private life of people, not only British citizens, for whom there was found not the faintest hint of implication in this case, namely:Volume I, fls. 211/212: reference to an individual with a past linked to crimes of a sexual nature with children.Volume II - Fls. 293/297: is a list of individuals connected with the practice of sex crimes with minors and adolescents." 

Click here to read a summary of missing files.

Q16.

"Is it true that the witness Mrs Pamela Fenn said she heard A child crying and did NOT say she heard Madeleine crying?"

Taken from the statement of Pamela Fenn:

"She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below."


3 points to note here:

1.     "...a young child...not a baby of two years or younger"
2.     "...no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. (5A)"
3.     When the McCanns arrived home, through the patio doors, the crying stopped.

Sean and Amelie were 18 months old, Mrs Fenn stated the crying was, in her view, from a child older than two. The only other child present, was Madeleine. I'm sorry if there is some other point you're trying to make, that eludes me.

Q17.

"Mr McCann pointed out to you he thought it was odd that the twins remained asleep during all the commotion, did you not think of getting the twins tested and physically examined by a doctor immediately as he suggested?"

Gerry McCann suggested no such thing to Snr. Amaral, or anyone else. What he did do, was ask two British Police liaison officers if there was any evidence to suggest a substance had been used to facilitate an abduction. He did not request his children be tested, he didn't even mention it until the 5th of May, a bit late to prevent death or long term damage from any unknown drug. Madeleine's bed had already been tested for any signs of chloroform and the twins beds were stripped of all the bedding so theirs couldn't be examined. The truth is Kate McCann requested the twins be tested in August in Gerry's absence, and he cancelled it upon his return.

Click here to read the statement of liaison officer, Stephen Markley

Click here to read the statement of liaison officer Jim McGarvey

Click here to read the transcript of Goncalo Amaral at The Truth of The Lie book launch.

Q18.

"Why did you not order an immediate circulation of this child’s picture, so people knew who they were looking for? Why did you not issue a public appeal? Do you, as a serving detective, not know the European drill for a missing child believed abducted? Where circulating a photo to the media is considered of VITAL importance?"

It wasn't a decision Amaral could make, he was required to seek authorisation from the public minister. This was done on the May 4th.

Taken from The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"MISSING PERSONS POSTER IS ISSUED 

In the afternoon, we ask the Public Minister for authorisation to issue a missing persons poster to the press. It is published on May 5th, accompanied by a photo of the child and telephone numbers. We, thus, hope to obtain new information. We are going to be inundated with witness statements of every kind: people who are persuaded that they can help us thanks to their psychic powers; others who have dreamed about Madeleine and believe they know where she is, and yet others who think they have seen her here or there...A great number of reports come to us, that we have to analyse and check out: none must be neglected, even if most of them, on the face of it, seem absurd. In the hypothesis of an abduction, we might imagine that the abductor has tried to modify the child's appearance to more easily pass unnoticed. So, we create portraits of the little girl, modifying the colour and style of her hair."

Also, from the police files, we know photos had already been printed on the morning of May 4th:


"Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk.

On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POSTERS.htm

Q19.

"Did you check the CCTV cameras of people coming in and leaving the resort?"

You ask this question as if every street in Praia da Luz was adorned with CCTV. The Ocean Club itself didn't even have CCTV, as confirmed by Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista, and Vitor Manuel dos Santos, in the PJ files. PDL is a quiet, resort, it isn't Beijing. Portuguese law states that it is not permitted to have CCTV filming its citizens in public spaces. such as streets, beaches, etc. Private business are however allowed to do so if they wish.

Click here to read more on privacy laws regarding cctv

However, CCTV was monitored on the motorways running to and from Praia da Luz, it was from one of those cameras, that a possible sighting was noted. 

From The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken in a service area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimão in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative."

Q20.

"Why didn’t you think of bringing in sniffer dogs from the UK till several months AFTER Madeleine was abducted?"

Again you show your lack of knowledge of the case. Goncalo Amaral didn't request the dogs, it was Mark Harrison who recommended Eddie and Keela be brought in. You seem intent on smearing Amaral for not thinking of this plan, but ask yourself this; why did no British police force recommend such a course of action, until Mark Harrison did so? The very fact that it was British police dogs that were used should illustrate that Portugal weren't au fait with the workings of EVRD and CSI dogs at that time. You can bet your bottom dollar they are now though, given how their work is so highly regarded. Back to Mark Harrison though.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

"I am the National Adviser in relation to Search for all Police agencies within the United Kingdom for Missing persons, Abduction and Homicide. My role involves advising on searching for persons that are missing, abducted or murdered, using enhanced search techniques and technologies. I attend and review cases providing advice and support on search plans, strategies and resources. I have extensive national and international experience in such casework. I am a visiting Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Southampton.In compiling this report I have driven and walked around the relevant areas of Praia Da Luz during the hours of darkness and then during daylight hours. I have conducted reconnaissance flights using the Civil defence helicopter. Consultation has been made with various colleagues and subject matter experts in the development of this report."

"This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz."

Initial Action

On Friday 20.07.2007 a request was made by the Portuguese Judicial Police to the NPIA for search advisory assistance. As a result of this the following terms of reference were produced."

"The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's, Murat's House and Garden."

Sorry to break it to you Nigel, but as you can clearly see, Goncalo Amaral was seeking help from the very best. Oh, and one more thing, when Gerry McCann stated it was he and Kate who requested the dogs, live on television...he lied.

Q21.

"If you felt so strongly that the parents were involved then why allow them to drive their car in for examination?"

Again you use Kate's book as a source of information, although you are still innacurate. Kate stated in her book, that the PJ asked Gerry to meet them at a cafe in Portimao. It was whilst Gerry was meeting the detectives, that the car was seized, and taken for forensic analysis. Kate and Gerry did not drive the car to the police station for examination.

Q22.

"When the cars were lined up to be exposed to the sniffer dogs, why did you allow this procedure to take place in a public car park, and not a forensically secure environment?"

Ah, a quick answer. The dogs don't need a forensically secure atmosphere to work in, they can work in any conditions. The car was alerted to, the dogs were proved correct. Bit of a wasted question that one Nigel. Next!

Q23.

"When these cars were lined up to be exposed to the dogs, why did you allow the McCann’s hire car to remain highly identifiable by allowing the ‘Find Madeleine’ bright yellow stickers all over it?"

Why not Nigel? Dogs can't read, and this wasn't a magic trick. Maybe you'd like to see them blindfolded. You wouldn't be suggesting that Martin Grime told them which car to alert to would you? Seen that a thousand times from apologists. Why would a serving British police officer, with an exemplary record, whose dogs have assisted in many investigations, risk his career, by trying to create alerts, that weren't honest and true? I think you ask something along those lines later, so I'll move on, for now...

Q24.

"Is it true that the sniffer dogs walked past ALL cars in the line up, INCLUDING the McCann’s hire car, indicating a NEGATIVE? When the dogs walked past this vehicle and FAILED to indicate a positive reaction, why did you insist that they be brought back and walked around the car until they did indicate a positive?"

You do make this easy Nigel. No it isn't true. Next!

Oh, you want more. Ok. Eddie was the only dog who did the first inspection, so your use of the plural is misleading. I'm a little confused as to why you're directing this question to Snr. Amaral at all to be honest, as Martin Grime was the dog's handler, not Goncalo Amaral, but hey ho. Let me explain a little bit about alerts for you, I learnt, and I'm sure you can too.

We've heard apologists discuss how Eddie was running about all over the indoor car park. They are quite right, but there was a reason for this. As detailed above, in certain conditions, a cadaver scent can be strongest away from the source. The car park had a fan on the wall, Martin will have seen this, and will have known that scent pooling would have occurred. As per guidelines, he encouraged Eddie to do a more detailed search. Hey presto... 

Alert...

Blood found...

Corroborated...

I see no issue.

Click here to learn more about Eddie and Keela. 

Q25.

"Are you aware that one of the T-shirts the dog alerted to, was NOT Madeleine’s, as you claimed, but in fact Shaun’s?"

Fantastic question Nigel, really pivotal. It was however the only T-shirt Eddie alerted to, not, as you say, "one of the T-Shirts". I recommend you email this case cracking query, to every law enforcement agency in the land. before you do however, I have a related question; Can you prove Madeleine never wore the T-Shirt on that holiday, or indeed that it never came into contact with her body? 

Q26.

"Is it true that your OWN officers have expressed doubts about the dogs handling, and the way they reacted to the McCann’s hire car?"

It is true to say that certain "doubts" were raised, yes. Though not by Goncalo Amaral's "own officers", as you put it so inaccurately. The doubts raised were in the ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008, and rightly so. What was being considered at the time, was, amongst many other subjects, the hypothesis of death. How unprofessional would it have been for these people to take, at face value, everything they had been shown. If they were unsure, or had doubts, they were absolutely right to say so. These people weren't dog handlers, they needed clarification. They needed to understand the workings of the dogs.

What was actually said regarding "doubts", was this:

"From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification."

Which was something they asked for within the recommendations at the bottom of the document:

"- To obtain, from the trainers and supervisors of the dogs (ERVD and CSI), further enlightenings about the 'marking' and the friability of their work."

...still think the Portuguese weren't thorough?

Q27.

"If, as you recently claimed, Gerry buried Madeleine on the beach, why did the sniffer dogs not react to any of HIS clothes?"

Therein lies a very simple answer. If indeed, Gerry did come into contact with Madeleine's cadaver, the clothes he was wearing, could not have been in a place for the dogs to inspect. Don't forget Gerry made a trip home to the UK, prior to the dogs arrival in Praia da Luz.

Q28. 

"Is it true that you misinterpreted the DNA evidence from the FSS in Birmingham UK AND that from the Portuguese forensic science lab?"

Now you're asking better questions. Firstly to ask if Snr. Amaral "misinterpreted" the DNA evidence, you must be sure of what the correct interpretation was. Without fully understanding the report, you cannot say, with full confidence, that any misinterpretation was made. The reports available to us from John Lowe, are sketchy at best.

The boot of the McCanns' hire car.

Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic. Following an alert to the side of the boot, Martin Grime instructed the forensic team to inspect further. 

Using the following link from the PJ files as source:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm

"From the observations made inside the vehicle several areas were detected containing stains that appeared to be of haematic origin, they were subjected to tests looking for peroxide existing in blood using the Kastle-Mayer test, all of them reacted negatively."

"After the examination of the vehicle was complete the human blood specialist sniffer dog was introduced along with Martin Grime of the British police who coordinated the dog?s movements. After a few moments Mr Grime informed the team that they should collect the key and other materials from zone M or from the interior of the luggage compartment given the fact that the dog in reference had identified these materials as places where eventual blood vestiges existed. The undersigned gathered these materials placing them in paper envelopes with the following references:

10. Parts of the vehicle luggage area. 

12. Vehicle ignition key."

Given that Keela alerted to the boot (ref 10), and that Fernando Viegas Um Henriques, of the Forensic specialist team in Portugal, confirmed that areas of the vehicle contained stains that appeared to be blood, it was fair to assume that these stains/areas could have had the presence of blood. We can see from the link above, that a forensic light kit was used. This kit would have lit up bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and vaginal fluids, as they contain natural fluorescents. This isn't the case with blood. Blood will actually show up as approximately  four times darker.
Click here for more information on forensic light kits.

Also more here using the Huber murder case as a source.

The Kastle-Mayer test, which was used in this case, whilst, not confirming the presence of blood, cannot rule it out. 

http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/STR_validation_study.pdf

As can be seen from the above link, the Kastle-Mayer test, has known to give a negative, even when blood is present. A possible reasons for this, is that the test simply isn't sensitive enough. 

However, I digress. You asked if Goncalo Amaral "misinterpreted" the DNA results. The answer has to be no. 

Here is what Goncalo said regarding the DNA samples found in the boot of the car... 

"In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!."

...and here is what John Lowe of the FSS said:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample."

No misinterpretation there whatsoever. In fact, when we look at Goncalo Amaral's summary of the DNA, he confirms, exactly what John Lowe has told him:

"The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog. 

- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards. 

- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile. 

These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed? 

The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established."

As for Snr. Amaral referring to the sample from the boot as blood, and the reason for me opening the answer on the topic of how the sample was retrieved, consider this:

Keela (blood only dog) alerted to the boot, specifically area marked 10.
Visually thought to be blood. Remember under inspection, any other bodily fluid would glow.
DNA confirmed by John Lowe of FSS. 

DNA can only come from tissues such as blood, sweat, skin, semen, saliva etc. 
As all other fluids would have glowed under inspection, and can therefore be ruled out.
You got it, the assumption that the sample was in fact blood, is a perfectly reasonable one.

Oh one more thing, Stuart Prior of Leicestershire police force, who was with Goncalo Amaral, at the time they were discussing the DNA results, stated that in England, the results would have been enough to arrest the McCanns.

Q29.

"Why did you ignore the email from John Lowe of the FSS in Birmingham, three days BEFORE you made the McCanns arguidos, warning that the DNA samples were inconclusive? Why did you still proceeded to make The McCanns arguidos?"

As I have shown above, Goncalo Amaral didn't ignore the email from John Lowe, in fact he mentions it in his book.

Click here to read The Truth of The Lie, chapter 18.

In reply to you asking why Snr. Amaral made Kate and Gerry arguidos. Well that's very simple. 

It was the view of the PJ, that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, based upon the evidence available. Before being made arguidos, Kate and Gerry were bound by law, to answer all questions put to them, by police, as witnesses. As soon as the PJ viewed the couple as having an involvement in a crime, or crimes, they were bound by law to make them both arguidos, before any further questioning could take place. 

The reason for this being, that in Portugal, by law, a person has the right not to incriminate themselves, very much the same as the UK, whereby you have a right to remain silent. 

If of course Kate McCann was innocent of any wrongdoing, she shouldn't have had a problem answering any of the questions she was asked.

Click here to read more

Some of the reasons as to why the McCanns were suspected, and ultimately made arguidos, are quoted below:

"D - Dog searches and Constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos

In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.

Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).

From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);

5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);

6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.

The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.

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

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

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

It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)

* * *

From: "Prior Stuart"
To: "Task Portugal"
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
_________

From: Lowe, Mr J R
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart prior
Subject: Op Task - in Confidence

Stuart,

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contnbutors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John

but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests.

Previously to these indications, is the circumstance that the Parents were the last known persons who had been with Madeleine, alive and traced, a circumstance that in itself made them subject to investigation.

On the other hand, there was information, which was not confirmed afterwards, that the McCanns, while focused on stating an abduction theory, had contacted the British media (Sky News), before calling the police authorities.

Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised.

As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code; thus the disposition from nr. 4 of article 58 (presently 5) - its new redaction was not in force yet, taking into account that they were made arguidos on the 6th of September 2009 - and on the other hand they could benefit from arguido status, with all the rights and guarantees of defence that are inherent to it, despite the stigma that is associated with it, which is techno-juridically misadjusted. In effect, the constitution and questioning as arguidos, while used to confirm indications towards the committing of crimes, are also used, with equal strength and reason, to infirm indications and to eliminate suspects.

As judiciously stressed in the sentence dated 06.10.1990 by the then Judge of the Police Court of Lisbon. "The authority that directs the inquiry is not free to postpone the moment when a witness passes into arguido status (. . .) if diligences are being performed, which are destined to prove her imputation, that affect her personally (. . .)"
Colectânea de Jurisprudência, 1990, vol. IV. p.323 and following.

The constitution of Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos at that moment is nothing more that the practical fulfilment of the right to defence of those arguidos, which is to say, to ensure their concrete rights to "co-determine or conform the process' final decision. Said rights assume consistency and effectiveness, according to the new Code, right after the moment of constitution as an arguido, and therefore, still during the inquiry and the instruction." - Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, "Sobre os sujeitos processuais no novo Código de Processo Penal" Jornadas de Processo Penal, CEJ, Livraria Almedina, 1988, p 28.

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Q30.

"Why did you then LIE to Gerry about the DNA in the hire car? As previously stated, the British FSS made it clear that the test results were inconclusive, and should in no way form part of any investigation. Yet four days later, you lied to Gerry McCann, telling him the results were 100% positive. Is it usual to ‘overstate the strength’ of evidence in this way?"

Nowhere, in any of the statements, does it state the PJ told Gerry McCann that the DNA results, were a 100% positive match to that of Madeleine. It is you who is the liar here Nigel. 

Q31.

"Is it true that pieces of paper which could have contained vital information in this investigation were just strewn about the PJ offices?"

Yet again you provide no primary, or attributable source for this question. I have seen articles about this, but not any confirmation whatsoever. I can only conclude, you have added this to paint Goncalo Amaral in a bad light, as was your motivation for writing your blog.

Q32.

"If you wanted Kate to answer your questions, why didn’t you leave her a witness, explaining that under Portuguese law, witnesses are obliged by law to answer police questions?"

See my reply to Question 29.

Q33.

"Did she stop answering questions on the advice of her Portuguese lawyer?"

Surely that would be a question for Kate McCann to answer. Gerry seemed ok answering most of his questions, despite being an arguido. I wonder if perhaps they were scared their version of events, wouldn't match up? 

Q34.

"And how, given the secrecy order, did the fact that she had not answered these questions leak out from the investigation you were then heading?"

There could be a great number of reasons for this, Kate was accompanied by Justine McGuinnes at the time, there were also representatives from the UK, as well, as friends of the McCanns. This leak, as you put it, could have sprung from anywhere,

Q35.

"Is it true you made the McCann’s arguidos “too hastily” just 8 days BEFORE the law was Due to change in Portugal? Is it true that if you had waited to make the McCann’s arguidos, you would have had to produce hard and fast evidence to do so? Is it true that you made the McCann’s arguidos then because you had NO evidence to back your suspicions?"

Please! Do you get all your spin from newspaper articles Nigel? Carlos Pinto de Abreu, the McCanns lawyer suggested that might have been the case, but as you can see above in reply to question 29. There was plenty of evidence against the McCanns. The decision to make the couple arguidos, was as already explained, to make sure that their legal rights were upheld, and as part of a  natural progression of the investigation; to try and discover more information regarding the disappearance of Madeleine. The decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann arguidos, was firmly backed by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes, and the Joint General Prosecutor, Joao Melchior Gomes, as late as August 2008.

Desperation is a terrible trait Nigel. 

Q36. 

"Who do you think as been leaking highly sensitive reports to the Portuguese press?"

Let's see, so many possibilities, Clarence Mitchell, "a friend close to the McCanns", "a source close to the McCanns", Philomena McCann, Justine McGuinness, Lori Campbell... The McCanns have had many, many leaks attributed to them over the years, and not just to the Portuguese press. Clarence Mitchell spoke to press agencies worldwide: 

"In an astonishing attack today Portuguese police union chief Carlos Anjos told respected Portuguese daily Jornal de Noticias: "Mr Mitchell wants to discredit the Policia Judiciaria and invent excuses so the McCanns do not come to Portugal to participate in the reconstruction of the night she disappeared."

"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth.

"Finally we know what side truth is on."

"While the Policia Judiciaria were fulfilling their duty of investigating what happened to Madeleine, her parents' spokesman was manipulating public opinion."

Sourced from Gerry McCann's blogs by Pamalam.

Isabel Duarte

I doubt Goncalo Amaral, spent much time thinking about which of their employees/friends/family was doing it at any one time.

Heck, even Isabel Duarte  (the lawyer the McCanns used to unsuccessfully sue Amaral), was at it.

Click here to read how McCanns' lawyer leaked court reports before their release.

Q37.

"Is it true that you dismissed many sightings, one in particular in Morocco, on the grounds that you assume Madeleine is dead and her parents are to blame?"

Ah, Morocco. I'm so glad you brought this little gem up, though I suspect you won't be happy it's being answered. After all, you will know that the Moroccan sightings were brought about by a paid "witness" from Metodo 3. The dodgy private detectives, hired by Kate and Gerry to "find"
Madeleine. Before I answer your question though, let's have a little delve into the seedy, illegal past of Metodo 3. 

Metodo 3 were a private investigator firm, used by the McCanns, and based in Spain.
Despite claiming to have reunited 23 missing children with their families, Metodo 3 actually had never found a missing child.

Were paid £50,000 a month from the Find Madeleine fund, as confirmed by Clarence Mitchell.

Had a history of money laundering, and were found to be in possession of handguns,     ammunition, listening equipment, cassettes and transcripts of taped phone calls.
Francisco Marco - head of the firm bragged; 'We know who the kidnappers are and we are very, very close to catching them.", yet never once provided any evidence to substantiate his bold claim.

Offered money to lawyer Dr Marcos Aragão Correia, who stated that; "the Spanish detectives asked me to arrange for evidence against Gonçalo Amaral".

Used a detective, Antonio Giménez Raso, with connections to drug cartels. 

Kate McCann confirmed Metodo 3 were working for them, in her book "madeleine". She also confirmed that the corrupt agency had links to the Spanish police:

"Our first investigators the Spanish company Metodo 3, began working for us in October.  With private investigations technically illegal in Portugal,  we felt the closest we would get would be a firm from somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula which would have the advantage of familiarity with local systems,  culture and geography and the best network of contacts in the region.  M3 also had links to the Spanish police"

She is quite correct. The particular links were to Antonio Giménez Raso, former Spanish police officer, who left the force after being accused of his part in the theft of 440kg of cocaine from a Spanish dockyard in 2005. An offence Giménez was remanded for in 2008, for a total of 4 years, with a recommendation that he serve 18 years in prison. 

Now, let's say for argument's sake, I was you, at this point, I would end this topic there. However, I'm not here to smear, and throw out half truths, so I will add that Giménez, was in the end found not guilty, on the basis of "not enough proof to convincingly convict". As a Portuguese friend of mine always says, "a decision from a court may not be agreed with, it must though, be respected."

However, the judge did state, that there was an existence of a "strange marriage" between the drug dealers, and the agents. Relationships were "intertwined", and that "favours in excess of professional ethics" were apparent.

Click here to read more. 

No surprise then that it was Giménez, who, whilst working for Metodo 3, brought to the attention, several alleged sightings of Madeleine in Morocco. The precise location of these "sightings", was the Rif mountains. 

Morocco is reportedly responsible for 70% of cannabis resin imported into Europe, with the Rif mountains being the hub of it's cultivation, and production. It then makes it's way into Europe via Spain. More alarming though, is the passage of cocaine from Morocco to Spain.

Click to read more here.

Ah, those relationships intertwining once more hey Nigel?

Giménez, who worked for Metodo 3, and who is the man reported to be the source of these "sightings" stands accused, by Moroccan security services, of paying witnesses for false leads. 

Click here to read more.

We know the McCanns love a good "sighting" when the heat is turned up. A more cynical man would say, what better time for one, than when you have just been named arguidos, and what better time to employ a corrupt, private detective agency, with no previous experience of finding children, when all you could do with, is a sighting to feed the press. More importantly, put into the minds of the the Great British public, that Madeleine is alive and well, possibly living behind a high walled building in Morocco. Those backwater Portuguese police have it all wrong, and therefore they must be innocent. Donate, donate, donate!

I of course, digress. The Moroccan sighting, despite your weak attempt at a good old bit of smearing, was investigated:

"Leaping forward in time and in the chronology of the investigation, we come to the end of September, a few days after the McCanns' return to Great Britain. Repeated statements from clan McCann, who are not budging from the Moroccan trail - will we ever know why? - encourage a young Spanish woman to examine more closely photos she had taken during her holiday in Morocco. Before leaving, she had not been aware, she said, of this Moroccan lead. In one of her photos, taken from a vehicle, a North African family is seen, walking along a road. A woman is carrying a little girl on her back: it can only be Madeleine. Someone tells me about this witness statement and wants to know what I think. I have obviously still not seen the photo and even so I respond, convinced: "Unfortunately, it's got to be a mistake." 

We ask the chief of Leicestershire police, Stuart Prior, where he is up to with it. He explains that the English police, after having seen the photo, immediately submitted it to the McCanns, asking them if they recognised their daughter. To which they replied with a, "perhaps." Incomprehensible to say the least. We are shocked by the behaviour of the English, who took that initiative, without consulting us, us, the people responsible for the investigation, which is all the more ludicrous given that the McCanns were already considered as suspects. That way of doing things disrupts the strategy adopted for the investigation, which the Portuguese and English police agreed on. 

It's only in the morning papers the following day, that I get to see the photo. There is a group of people, obviously Moroccan, with a woman whose clothes practically cover her from head to foot. She is carrying a blonde child on her back. Those who thought this photo constituted an important lead were missing an important detail: this woman's face - it was plain to see - was white; perhaps she was dressed like that for protection from the sun. So, the little girl could well be hers. This will be confirmed later on: the mother, of European origin, is married to a Moroccan. Once again, it's wasn't Maddie...Another false hope."

Source, The Truth of The Lie, chapter 5.

Q38.

"In your opinion would a family oriented resort catering largely to British visitors suffer if it became known that a British child had been abducted by a human trafficking ring operating in the Algarve?"

This has to be one of your more stupid, and agenda riddled questions Nigel. It's like asking if a restaurant would suffer if a customer got food poisoning. Unless you can provide any evidence of human trafficking in the Algarve, I suggest you stop typing utter rubbish. I find it most perplexing, that you and those like you, seemingly wish for a none existent paedophile/human trafficking ring. 

Q39.

"According to rumours leaked about the McCanns from these sources “close to the PJ” the group were said to have drunk 14 bottles of wine on the night of May 3? The bill from the restaurant in your files indicates ONLY 2 bottle of wine and several bottles of non-alcoholic beverages (for the entire group) — how would you explain that discrepancy?"

Oh dear, another fail on your behalf Nigel. The source for the 14 bottles of wine story came from a journalist, Fabricia Carbrita, and was published in Sol, on August 18th 2007. There was no mention of the PJ having given the information.

Click her to read the translation of Sol article 18/08/2007

A waiter however, Jose Baptista, did tell the press the McCanns and their friends drank 8 - 10 bottles of wine. No leak from the PJ on this one I'm afraid. Next!

Q40.

"Why are you so adamant that Madeleine died in the apartment, yet are totally unable to explain why, with not one shred of evidence to back this ‘hunch’ up?"

The dogs - possibly the most damning element against the McCanns.

Let's have a look at their findings:

Keela, a 16 month old springer spaniel, was at the top of her field when she went to PDL in 2007. Trained by Martin Grime (who later went on to work for the FBI) she could sniff out the most microscopic specks of blood, even if the item had been cleaned or washed. To avoid any confusion Keela was trained to alert to nothing but human blood. So any talk of her alerting to anything else is pure fiction. 

Eddie, who was 7 at the time, boasts an outstanding record of success. The FBI rated Eddie and Martin Grime as "two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed." Eddie was trained to alert to smell of human cadaver (the smell given off from a human corpse), as well as human blood. 

To give a better idea a dogs nose is 10,000 times more sensitive to smells than our own. They can pick out every ingredient of a smell and separate it, much in the same way you or I could sort out different shaped wooden blocks. If we were handed a box of blocks containing sphere's, cubes, and pyramids, and told to put all the cubes to one side we could do it. A cadaver dogs nose works in the same way, it separates all the elements of one scent, examines each one in it's own right, and determines if human cadaver is present.

So what did the dogs find? Having gone through several other apartments at the Ocean club, and alerting to nothing, both dogs alerted to a number of places in and around the McCann's apartment, and their hire car.

Keela alerted to human blood in:

The living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.

In the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic, hired 25 days AFTER Madeleine's disappearance.

On the car key.

In the interior of the car boot.

Eddie alerted to the scent of human cadaverine:

The wardrobe in the McCann's bedroom.

In the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. (the same place as Keela).

The flower beds in the back of 5a.

On two items of Kate's clothing.

On one of the children's t shirts.

On cuddlecat (Madeleine's soft toy)

Not only that, but out of several cars in a car park Eddie only alerted to one, the McCanns' hire car.

Couple that with the fact that it was Eddie and Keela's findings led the forensic team to the discovery of DNA that could have belonged to Madeleine, and I think you'll agree (quietly), that those pesky dogs, were truly fantastic.

Below are three videos showing Eddie and Keela's searches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHJjpXii9o#t=28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4Uhoik6qI#t=66

....and here more information on their findings:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html#aug3

Q41.

"How likely is it that Gerry could have returned to Madeleine’s alleged burial place twenty six days after you claim she died, disinterred the body, and moved it to a new burial site, under the full glare of the world’s media, without being spotted?"

Interesting that you only mention Gerry. As for the McCanns being under the full glare of the worlds media...

August 3rd Jon Corner films Gerry loading the Scenic, the one Eddie and Keela alerted to, a trip to Huelva, Spain is about to commence.

What we have below is the version of events according to the Sun newspaper, and then what actually happened:

According to the Sun:

09:00 Leave Praia da Luz

12:15 Arrive Huelva (expected at 11:00am)

13:00 Distribute leaflets and posters at train station

13:30 Distribute leaflets and posters at cathedral

14:00 Distribute leaflets and posters at bus station

14:20 Leave to return to Praia da Luz

But the police have the phone ping records and a witness statement which tell a different timeline:

Phone records:

Ping Assumadas mast 08:49

Ping Tavira mast 13:45

Ping Luz 14:38

Witness statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HUELVA.htm

Saw Mccanns in car at traffic lights in Huelva 11:20

This gives us a new timeline:

Leave Praia de Luz 07:49

Assumadas ping ( from Luz 84k 57 mins ) 08:49

Arrive Huelva (from Assumadas 122k 1hr 20) 10:10 (11:10 local time - 1 hour difference 
between Portugal and Spain)

Sighting in Huelva 11:20 (10:20 Portuguese time)

Leave Huelva latest 12:45

Tavira ping (from Huelva 85k 1hr) 13:45

Praia de Luz ping (from Tavira 115k 1hr 15) 14:38

So what is the importance of this contradiction? Well what it shows is that the McCanns made a concerted effort to drive some 118km passing through some highly populated towns in Portugal namely:

TOWN POPULATION

Lagos............................................ 30,700

Portimão......................................... 50,500

Albufeira......................................... 13,600 

Faro................................................ 42,000

Tavira.............................................. 10,600

Vila Real de Santo Antonio.............. 18,000

That's a total of 165,400 people, all living in Portugal in towns where the McCanns could have put up posters and handed out leaflets. 

Not only did the McCanns pass through these areas without stopping, they also alerted the press to their presence in Huelva, only stayed for 2 hours, and perhaps crucially, lost the press for two hours. So what did they do during those two hours, and where did they go?

The PJ were known to have investigated the McCanns as to a great number of miles clocked up on the hire car that couldn't be explained. Kate McCann claims that this isn't possible, giving the following excuse:

"The meticulous record of events in my journals enabled us to account for every journey we made in the Renault Scenic"

But Kate didn't have her journals did she, they were seized by the PJ's forensic team the previous day.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm

Q42.

"How many 3 and 4 hour long lunch breaks did you take during the 4 months you were meant to be looking for Madeleine McCann?"

Oh, we're up to 3 and 4 hour long lunch breaks now are we. Keep adding an hour, and soon you'll have Snr. Amaral having 25 hour long lunch breaks every day.

You are of course referring to the article that originated in The Daily Telegraph, dated May 26th 2007.

"Rarely observed at the scene of Madeleine's abduction or available for comment, those leading the investigation have frequently been spotted lunching at the Carvi seafood restaurant in Portimão."

A man's got to eat, right?

That one sentence, became the magic bean that Jack's mother cast out the window, as you have perfectly demonstrated here.

To prove this, I'll put a link up to Winn's blog, who catalogued the story's hyperbolic growth perfectly:

Click here to read more.

Q43.

"Do you always drink alcohol while on duty?"

Do you always smoke crack when you write a blog Nigel? 

Baseless, defamatory, and a blatant smear.

Q44.

"Is it a part of your investigative techniques to talk about, and reveal, highly sensitive information during an ongoing high profile police investigation?"

Again, you seem to be throwing out unfounded allegations in the sneaky form of a question. During an interview with The Portugal News, Snr. Amaral had this to say of leaks to the press:

"The Portugal News: Did you leak information about the investigation to the media?

Gonçalo Amaral: I never had anything to do with leaks. We have to look at from where these leaks could have originated. A number of entities worked with us during the investigations and we cannot rule out the possibility that some of these leaks originated in Britain. As a matter of fact, when the FSS handed over their report to Portuguese police, we kept it under wraps, but a British daily was the first to appear with extracts of the FSS’s findings.


TPN: But how does that explain that some sections of the Portuguese press have printed confidential information that later proved to be accurate?

GA: Perhaps they had good sources of information, but we cannot conclude that they were given information by police in the Algarve."

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788

Q45.

"May 5 – Portuguese police reveal they believe Madeleine was abducted but is still alive and in Portugal, and say they have a sketch of a suspect.

May 25 – Detectives finally release a description of the man reported by Jane Tanner three weeks earlier following pressure from the McCann’s, their legal team and the British Government. Why did it take the PJ 20 days, and more importantly, so much pressure, to release a sketch of a suspect?"

Ah, Jane Tanner. From the get go, Jane Tanner's descriptions seemed not to be credible. She failed to mention the man, more commonly referred to as "Tannerman" to Kate and Gerry on the night Madeleine was reported missing. Her reason for this being that she didn't want to "torture them more in their suffering". I'm willing to take that at face value. However, Tanner described a man travelling in an easterly direction, whereas the scent that the tracker dogs all followed was in a southerly direction. From the files: 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm

So immediately, Jane Tanner's sighting, isn't holding much water. The sighting became of even less importance, when Tanner stated that she only saw the man from the back, and therefore couldn't describe his features.

Click here to read Jane Tanner's first statement.

Click here to read Jane Tanner's second statement, and PJ analysis.

All of the above, is of course irrelevant. Scotland Yard ruled out the man Jane Tanner claimed to have seen, stating that he came forward, and eliminated himself from the investigation. The pressure put on the PJ, proved pointless, and could in fact have hampered the investigation.

What of course is of greater concern, is the fact that despite this man being ruled out, the McCanns still have his efit up on their website. Even more worrying, is the situation of the McCanns not publishing, for five long years, the efit of a man Scotland Yard claim "could be the man who took Madeleine". The McCanns had this efit in their possession since 2008, yet it never made it onto OFM until after Crimewatch, when Scotland Yard produced it for the first time in public. The efit in question became centrepiece of the programme in October 2013. Even after the Crimewatch episode the McCanns weren't quick out of the blocks to splash this newly released efit onto their Official Find Madeleine Page.

So Nigel, whilst you ask why the PJ didn't produce a sketch of a man they rightly believed wasn't involved, I ask this. Why did it take the McCanns five years, to publish the efit, they had in their possesion, who clearly could have been?

Q46.

"Concerning you professional career, how many missing child/abduction cases have you investigated? Was there any controversy over those cases?"

Goncalo Amaral has been involved in one high profile missing child case before. As you know that was the the murder of Joana Cipriano, (you'd do well to learn how to spell her name correctly, and perhaps then move onto the particulars of the case itself). The simple reason for this being, that there have been no missing children in the Algarve for Snr. Amaral to coordinate investigations over. Apart from what could be described as the 'normal' parental abduction cases, which thankfully are very rare and usually solved swiftly or at least identified as parental abductions, there just haven't been any missing children at the hands of a stranger. I realise that must be disappointing for you, and your agenda, but it's true.

Controversy over the Joana Cipriano case? You really shouldn't go there. We've seen apologists make excuses for the killers of Joana Cipriano for years. You've even managed to brainwash a few, into believing the convictions weren't sound. Quite honestly, the contempt I have for you, and anybody else who knowingly defend convicted child killers to serve their own agenda, is palpable. I only hope some of those who follow your views, and unknowingly support you, will finally see through you.

I'm not going to write a narrative here, instead I will use bullet points, of just some of the points, considered to be proven in court:

Joana Cipriano disappeared in September 2004, at just 8 years old. A victim of neglect and exploitation at the hands of her mother, Joana was used to look after her two younger brothers, and was often seen in the village of Figueira running errands for her mother, Leonor Cipriano. 

Joana Cipriano, was one of 6 siblings, she lived with her mother Leonor, and her 2 younger brothers. The other 3 children were given away to various family members. It was later proven to the courts that having given these children away, Leonor didn't keep any contact with them, for at least 14 years. 

Leonor Cipriano, tried to give Joana away on numerous occasions, twice with the little girl's father, with whom she had had no relationship, only for him to return her. Joana was even left with a couple who were alcoholics, and had a sick child of their own. 

One of the children, the fourth born, was found buckled to a chair, aged just 7 months old, whilst Leonor went out. He was later found by neighbours.

On Joana Cipriano's first day at school in 2003, her mother Leonor, left her to find her own way. Joana was found wandering, and lost by a neighbour, aged just 5 years old. 

On the night Joana disappeared, her mother, had sent her daughter to the village shop, 420m away to buy groceries at 8pm.

Upon Joana's return, both Leonor Cipriano, and her brother Joao Cipriano, both beat Joana about the head, causing her mouth, temple, and nose to bleed.

Due to the severity of the beating, Joana fell and hit her head against the corner of a wall. 
It was this blow, that ultimately caused her death.

Both Leonor and Joao Cipriano, upon realising Joana was no longer breathing, embarked upon a plot to conceal both her death, and the body.

Joao Cipriano headed to the village, whilst Leonor cleaned the crime scene with petroleum, scouring pads, and a mop and bucket.

Traces of blood were found consistent to the attack, and subsequent concealment of the cadaver, were found in all areas described in the confessions of both killers.

Traces of blood were also found on the stem of the mop used to clean the crime scene.

The presence of ticks in the house indicated an attraction to the presence of fresh blood.

Joao Cipriano provided a confession, in front of a judge, a forensics expert, and members of the PJ, on video tape, under no duress, detailing the crime. Included in Joao Cipriano's confession, was a full description of how both he and Leonor, cut up the body of Joana into 4 parts, head, torso, and legs. The forensics expert stated that the description of the body parts that were more difficult to cut apart was anatomically accurate.

Joao Cipriano also described the implements used to cut up the body, these being a metal cutting saw, and a knife.

Joana's dismembered body was placed into 3 bags, before being placed into a freezer, where more traces of human blood were found.

Joao Cipriano stated that he didn't hurt Joana (sexually), but that he only killed her.

Joao Cipriano has various previous convictions, including one for attempted murder, whereby his victim was left blind.

Joana Cipriano's shoes were found inside the house, thus proving she had indeed returned from the shop.

Leonor Cipriano originally stated that she didn't report Joana's disappearance, due to having no credit on her phone.

Giving testimony, António Leandro, Joana's stepfather, told the court how Leonor, had not only told him that she had been having a sexual relationship with her brother Joao, but that she also confessed to the pair murdering Joana. 

Both Leonor, and Joao Cipriano were found guilty of the murder of Joana Cipriano, and the subsequent concealment of her cadaver. They were sentenced to 16 years imprisonment each.

There are so many more horrific points to this case, all of which can be read here:

Joana Cipriano case. Judgement of the Supreme Court.

As for controversy surrounding the case. Yes, there has been a certain amount of controversy. Leonor Cipriano, in a desperate attempt to withdraw her confession, accused members of the PJ, of torturing a confession out of her. Leonor accused 3 members of the PJ, and took a list of their names into court. All of the men accused were acquitted. This was because Leonor Cipriano's account of what she alleged, lacked "credibilty". 

Below is an excerpt from Diario de Noticias, with thanks to Astro for the translation:

Leonor has no credibility

"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.

Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened".

Goncalo Amaral, who wasn't in the building at the time Leonor claimed to have received her injuries, was found guilty of falsifying a document. A little unfairly, as he was only writing what was conveyed to him by one of his inspectors. Nonetheless the law is the law, and whilst it may have seemed harsh, it was accepted. The document in question, had no impact on the investigation, and no bearing whatsoever on the conviction of Leonor and Joao Cipriano. 

Still that didn't stop Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer from reporting back to Metodo 3 by exclaiming: 'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'

It's all about the smear campaign hey Nigel?

Despite all that...

Leonor Cipriano was given 7 extra months on her sentence for lying about being tortured.

Due to Leonor Cipriano being convicted of lying about being tortured, Amnesty International hold no further records of the allegation. Have a look:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/annual-report-2013#.VzZA89QrLwc

Q47.

"Due to the very close proximity (about 7 miles) that Joanna Cipriano went missing, did you ever consider that there may be a connection between the abductions of Joanna and Madeleine?"

Nice try Nigel, I think the reply above answers this question. Oh, and FYI Figueira is 12.7 miles from Praia da Luz; don't give up the day job.

Q48.

"How would you have handled a connection between these two missing children if it had emerged?"

There was no connection - your question is vacuous.

Q49.

"Is it true you spent most of your career in the drug enforcement branch of the PJ, hunting down and prosecuting drug smugglers and suppliers? If so, in what way do you think your past experience qualifies you to head the search for an abducted little girl?"

Goncalo Amaral was born on the 2nd of October 1959 in the village of Torredeita near Viseu, Portugal. 

In 1973 he joined the Public Administration, aged 14.

November 1981 Began to study the formation of agents of the Judicial Police, and took office in 1982 as Agent. 

1992/1997 Studied at night time, the Faculty of Law of Lisbon, having graduated in Law and Criminal Sciences. 

1997/1998 Attended the course of sub-inspectors of the PJ, being ranked first among 100 students. 

2000/2001 Completed the course coordinators of PJ. He served in Lisbon, the Algarve and the Azores. Snr. Amaral was involved in solving a multitude of illegal activities, including of violent and organized crime: theft, robbery, murder, drug trafficking.

Q50.

"During this time, did you come into contact with any other smugglers of a different kind, e.g. child traffickers?"

Why would he? There are no unsolved cases of missing children within the Algarve during Snr. Amaral's time with the PJ.

Nigel then signs off with the following 3 sentences:

"I think that last one is, quite probably, the most important of all. Sadly, I doubt that we’ll ever get any truthful answers from him. Cowardice is another of his many failings."

I think I've just proved you wrong Nigel, all the answers were out there, freely available at your fingertips. Pity you either didn't bother to look, or didn't want to. I suspect, knowing what I do of you, that you hoped these questions would go unanswered, and that because of the way they were worded, people would draw their own conclusions. Sorry to wreck your little smear campaign there.

I think what this piece proves, is that you and those like you, will go to any lengths to sully, defame, and drag through the mud, anybody who dares to suspect the suspicious. You don't care who you hurt in the process, or the extremes you got to. What was it you said on the day Brenda Leyland died, ah yes "Trollmageddon."

I think it's obvious who the real villains are here Nigel. You see one of them every time you shave, though with your malicious lies, and appetite for defending convicted child killers, I doubt you can look in that mirror for long...

All the information presented within this blog, was gathered from the following links:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/

Anna Andress' translation of The Truth of The Lie

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

http://newsoutlines.blogspot.co.uk/
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/