Investigations to missing people never expire/J Morais

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/01/investigations-to-missing-people-never.html

PRIORITIES Cases involving children are considered urgent. Very often a disappearance turns out to be a crime of homicide.

by Rute Coelho

92 missing people appear in the Polícia Judiciária's database, including adults and children. The inspector Ramos Caniço points out a fundamental difference between homicide cases and the investigations to missing people: “Missing people cases never expire. Homicide cases lapse 15 years after the crime, if an arguido [formal suspect] isn't constituted.”

In the investigations to the missing there is also a principle investigators have already in mind. “Most adults disappear on their own free will.” This means the investigations to missing children are always a priority. And then there are cases that are kept in the missing persons database even though they are classed with a different category. “Madeleine McCann is a case registered as an abduction, even though there aren't any evidences that she was kidnapped.”

In the cases of the missing found dead, the cause of death is, usually, an accident. Ramos Caniço gives the the example of an elderly man who was found dead by the police section that investigates missing person cases in Lisbon, just six days after being reported missing. “He fell down in a ditch close to a river three kilometres away from his house. He died of cold.”

In 2010, the missing persons section of Lisbon started investigating a case that turned out to be an homicide. “The corpse of a man was found floating in a dam in Alentejo. The man was reported as missing, however, it was an homicide case. We found the suspect in Lisbon withdrawing money with the victim's credit card and the case was transferred to the Homicide unit.”

In cases of missing children, the missing persons section of Lisbon guarantees that “at present, there is no child aged up to ten years old missing in the Lisbon area.” The exception to this being the very old cold cases.


“Processes: In 2011 the PJ had almost 60 homicide cases to solve.(...) This year alone the Homicide section of the Polícia Judiciária had to investigate 56 homicide cases carried over from last year. In 2010, the PJ initiated 187 inquests for homicide, of which 131 were verified as such, clarified and concluded. In addition to the homicides there are 92 persons still to be found. That is, over 150 ongoing investigations remain open in two areas alone: homicides and missing persons. (....)” (Note: extract from the article “More than 150 crimes waiting for a solution”, page 18, paper edition of Diário de Notícias)


“Solution of the Maddie Case is in the Process”
3 questions to...
Gonçalo Amaral
former Judiciary Police coordinator of investigations

Do you feel somewhat frustrated because the Madeleine case wasn't concluded?
Not exactly, in the Madeleine McCann case there was always plenty evidence and those are in the process. The solution to the Maddie case is in the process. I never had any doubts whatsoever of what took place that day of May 3, 2007. I didn't have doubts nor did the British police, the parents of the child were the ones who had doubts. There are more ideas of what happened in this process than in Rui Pedro's case.

How to prove the Judiciary Police thesis?
If a reconstruction of the events of that day had been enacted that would be enough. However Kate and Gerry McCann refused to participate. It's a shame.

Did you have many unsolved cases in the 30 years working for the Judiciary Police?
A few, not many. But I've spent most of my time working in drug trafficking cases. In the Azores, I got two unsolved homicide cases, but they were old cases of the 80's.


in: Diário de Notícias, January 2, 2012 - page 18, paper edition

I don't see how a reconstruction could have proven that Madeleine died in 5A as Amaral claims in the Process. If that is the case, then why couldn't a reconstruction have been done without the Tapas lot?

It appears that the McCanns made the right choice (for them) in refusing to participate in a reconstruction, as clearly the purpose of that reconstruction was to prove that they were responsible for Madeleine's demise.

What does Amaral mean by "the parents of the child were the ones who had doubts?" Is he implying that they don't know what happened or that they were lying about what happened?

jinvta wrote:I don't see how a reconstruction could have proven that Madeleine died in 5A as Amaral claims in the Process. If that is the case, then why couldn't a reconstruction have been done without the Tapas lot?

It appears that the McCanns made the right choice (for them) in refusing to participate in a reconstruction, as clearly the purpose of that reconstruction was to prove that they were responsible for Madeleine's demise.

What does Amaral mean by "the parents of the child were the ones who had doubts?" Is he implying that they don't know what happened or that they were lying about what happened?

Morning Jinvta! - Interesting reaad thanks Annabel.

Of course you could do a reconstruction with actors or anyone come to that. That would achieve a little bit in terms of seeing how people were supposed to be moving around and when. But the most important thing aboout doing a reconstruction with the T7 would be that thhey would have to follow their statements and the police would be able to challenge them on the discrepancies. For example they could have Gerry and Jez in place, JT walks by - they could stop the action there and challenge Gerry and Jez on how they could not have seen her. Their responses to the challenges would show up the contradictions and the witnesses then challenged further for an explaination.

This is why a reconstruction with the key witnesses is vital as it would prove who was lying and that there was no abduction.

As for Amaral's statement about the parents having doubts - I think this is probably just down to the language used and the translation.. He said the PJ had no doubts - it was the parents and only the parents that came up against their conclusions.

jinvta wrote:I don't see how a reconstruction could have proven that Madeleine died in 5A as Amaral claims in the Process. If that is the case, then why couldn't a reconstruction have been done without the Tapas lot?

It appears that the McCanns made the right choice (for them) in refusing to participate in a reconstruction, as clearly the purpose of that reconstruction was to prove that they were responsible for Madeleine's demise.

What does Amaral mean by "the parents of the child were the ones who had doubts?" Is he implying that they don't know what happened or that they were lying about what happened?

Hi Jinvta, I believe that the PJ had, and still have, information/evidence that they hold
that would totally discredit the tapas group's timeline/statements. Maybe its the 'stand-alone'
peice of evidence that is being deployed as an 'ace in the hole'.
This maybe what G.Amaral is alluding to by having no doubts, but the McCanns have.
The McCanns, by not knowing what this 'ace' is, did not consider it a good idea to
accept any reconstruction.

They refused to do a recon for the PJ but did their OWN recon even after the mccanns stated that doing a recon wouldn't help the investigation .

Doing a recon with the mccanns and the tapas would show them up for what they were and are.....LIERS...I would love to off seen and been there when they did that, seeing them flounder and look ridiculous and off course ONE off them would off caved in.....

kitti wrote:They refused to do a recon for the PJ but did their OWN recon even after the mccanns stated that doing a recon wouldn't help the investigation .

Doing a recon with the mccanns and the tapas would show them up for what they were and are.....LIERS...I would love to off seen and been there when they did that, seeing them flounder and look ridiculous and off course ONE off them would off caved in.....

Kitti - they could string a washing line full of different coloured PJ's along the place JT saw the egg man - have her stand in position and get her to tell them which ones were coloured pink under those sodium lights!! That in itself would blow apart the last vestiges of the aevidence for the abduction!!!

Of course the PJ could have an ace up their sleeves as Marxman suggests - but I wonder if thhis was the casse - why would the PJ not declare it as definitive proof there was no abduction????

Not doing a reconstruction, not answering police questions, not providing bank details, deleting messages, pointing blame onto another, hampering the whole investigation - WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

Simple, surely.

Oldartform wrote:Not doing a reconstruction, not answering police questions, not providing bank details, deleting messages, pointing blame onto another, hampering the whole investigation - WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

Simple, surely.

Indeed - the only possible reason is to conceal guilt.

And they have got away with it for four and a half years.

Time to pack enough toiletries for a long spell of detention now, though.

Not forgetting to hire a Laptop as well, of course.

I agree that a reconstruction would show all of their inconsistencies and lies. I am just not sure that a reconstruction would prove exactly what happened to Madeleine that night. It seems that if a reconstruction were so important that all of the parties could be made arguidos and required to attend. It seems as if Amaral is saying that only a reconstruction is preventing the McCanns from being convicted. I also live in hope that the PJ do have more evidence that implicates the McCanns, and am hoping that some of that evidence will be revealed in the libel trial!

jinvta wrote:I agree that a reconstruction would show all of their inconsistencies and lies. I am just not sure that a reconstruction would prove exactly what happened to Madeleine that night. It seems that if a reconstruction were so important that all of the parties could be made arguidos and required to attend. It seems as if Amaral is saying that only a reconstruction is preventing the McCanns from being convicted. I also live in hope that the PJ do have more evidence that implicates the McCanns, and am hoping that some of that evidence will be revealed in the libel trial!

A reconstruction would prove they are lying several times, the McCanns and the tapas. When people in such a situation are lying, isn't it enough for the police to put them under arrest till they explain the reasons of their lies?

I have always been surprised, nay perplexed, by the absence of coercion.

When did Police Forces start the "would you mind terribly helping us with our enquiries" stuff?

Very odd indeed.

frencheuropean wrote:

jinvta wrote:I agree that a reconstruction would show all of their inconsistencies and lies. I am just not sure that a reconstruction would prove exactly what happened to Madeleine that night. It seems that if a reconstruction were so important that all of the parties could be made arguidos and required to attend. It seems as if Amaral is saying that only a reconstruction is preventing the McCanns from being convicted. I also live in hope that the PJ do have more evidence that implicates the McCanns, and am hoping that some of that evidence will be revealed in the libel trial!

A reconstruction would prove they are lying several times, the McCanns and the tapas. When people in such a situation are lying, isn't it enough for the police to put them under arrest till they explain the reasons of their lies?

I agree, frencheuropean. A reconstruction would have shown up certain inconsistencies, and also puzzles and impossibilities. One of the puzzles is why Matthew Oldfield thought there were two windows in Madeleine's bedroom. Another is why neither Gerry nor Jez saw, or even heard, JT slip-slapping within a few feet of them on her way along the path on the same side of the road. Once the flaws had shown up, the house of cards that was formed from the alleged events of that night would fall and the police would know what questions needed to be asked of whom.

Perhaps a reconstruction would show up inconsistencies in their accounts and their timelines, but do inconsistencies necessarily mean they are lying? I am convinced they are lying, but in a court of law is an inconsistency enough to prove a lie is told?

I think the recon would definitely highlight the discrepancies in their statements because the OC STAFF statements would have been used. Remember
Silvia Batista said that had Tanner have stood where she said , there was no way she could have seen a Man at the top of the road carrying a child.

Once you break down their Statements and the discrepancies are known, the whole investigation would have changed.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I have always been surprised, nay perplexed, by the absence of coercion.

When did Police Forces start the "would you mind terribly helping us with our enquiries" stuff?

Very odd indeed.

When did Police Forces start the "would you mind terribly helping us with our enquiries" stuff? - - - when governments become involved and the big government leans very heavily on the smaller and more democratc government ..............and the big governments police force have a big yellow streak down their back.

Silvia Batista said that had Tanner have stood where she said , there was no way she could have seen a Man at the top of the road carrying a child.

This will be (just one) of their stand alone bits of evidence, that one day they will pull out of the hat imo.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:Silvia Batista said that had Tanner have stood where she said , there was no way she could have seen a Man at the top of the road carrying a child.

This will be (just one) of their stand alone bits of evidence, that one day they will pull out of the hat imo.

There was also the Waiter who supposedly had startling evidence Lillyof the valley, so much so that the PJ went searching for him and supposedly kept him under wraos.