The conclusions of Goncalo Amaral re disappearance of Madeleine

The conclusions of Goncalo Amaral re disappearance of Madeleine #McCann http://pic.twitter.com/tU1hesDs

Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within
the principles of the law

and many members of the public will not be aware of these statements.

Although some may be aware of them, but choose to ignore them and instead besmirch the reputation of the PJ in general and Amaral in particular.

One day, Amaral should be made an Honorary Knight of the Realm.

Although some may be aware of them, but choose to ignore them and instead besmirch the reputation of the PJ in general and Amaral in particular.

Spot on!

What do we know about Amy the Playworker?

HideHo's posts on Jills site has a lot of info about Amy
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2073-the-nannies-info-statement-highlights

Processos Vol II

Pages 229 -231


Witness statement

Amy Ellen Tierney

2007.05.06
(statement translated by Robert Murat)
Creche Worker
Time/Date: 15H45 2007/05/06
England


' Questioned about Madeleine, Amy notes that Madeleine was timid but very intelligent for her age and would play with the older children;
' Also knows Madeleine's parents' although it is the father who would normally pick her up from the club;
(NOTE: Gerry McCann only picked up Madeleine on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday morning, the rest of the week it was Kate)
' Did not notice anything out of the ordinary with the parents;
' Affirmed that the McCann's never took advantage of the complementary children services which ran from 19H30 to 23H30;
' Affirms that on the night of the disappearance, she went to the room to check and see if the child was hidden and noticed that the window was open and the blinds lifted;
' The first idea that came to her was whether Madeleine would leave on her own accord. She asked the parents the whereabouts of Madeleine's shoes and they responded that they were in their proper place. These facts led her to later believe that Madeleine had been taken by someone;
' Even though there was a bed right under the window, and that the child could have climbed on the bed to get out through the window, the witness does not think it would be possible for her to lift the blinds. Nor does she believe it would not have been possible for a child of her age to climb out the window without falling as the window was very high off the ground;
' Responding to questioning, responds that the front door was locked but was not aware whether the patio door was locked; as when she got there, the McCann's and a friend (whose name she does not remember) were standing at the open doorway;
' Witness also affirms that the child's father went to the reception to call Police, shortly after hearing about the disappearance, and that 20 minutes had passed;
' The G.N.R arrived in 20 or 30 minutes to the site;
' Did not notice anything out of the ordinary with anyone or with the children;
' Witness notes that when she entered 5A on May the 3rd, the two toddlers were sleeping, and noticed that on the bed next to them was wrinkled clothing' as if someone had been sitting on it [the bed];
' Madeleine's bed, she noticed, had the covers pulled back and on top of the table was a small comforter and a stuffed toy;
' She states that the distance from the apartment to the restaurant was about 30 seconds on foot but that there is no visual contact to the patio doors.


Alternative Translation (Ines)

Processos Vol II

Pages 229 - 231


Witness Statement

Amy Tierney

Date: 2007 – 05 – 06

Place: P da L

Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club

Place of Work: Ocean Club



She comes to the process as a witness.

As she does not understand Portuguese and is of English nationality she is assisted by the interpreter Robert Murat who accompanies her during the questioning.

When asked, the witness confirms that she has been in Portugal since the 18th March 2007 having come to Portugal to work in this tourist resort.

She confirms that she works as head of the Baby Club and Mini Club, the former being for children aged up to eleven months and the latter for children aged between three and five.

She confirms that Madeleine is known by her as frequenting the Mini Club, as she was aged almost four.

When questioned about Madeleine’s behaviour, the witness says that she is a shy girl but very intelligent for her age, she tended to play with older children, the witness describes her attitude and behaviour as perfectly normal.

The witness confirms that she also knows Madeleine’s parents as they would go to fetch her from the club, but she adds that it was normally Madeleine’s father who did this.

(NOTE: Gerry McCann only picked up Madeleine on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday morning, the rest of the week it was Kate)

When questioned, the witness states that she has not noted anything abnormal in the relation between the child and the parents.

The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.

When questioned, she says that if the guests wish so they can request services from the “Staff” who would look after the children from 19.30 to 23.30, however Madeleine’s parents never did this although the service is free.

She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.

The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.

However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.

In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn’t know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.

After having searched the apartment and verified that the girl was not there, the outside searches were begun.

The witness confirms that the girl’s father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.

She says that at no moment did she notice anyone behaving strangely as concerns the children or anything that appeared at all suspicious to her.

She adds that the staff looking after the children were eleven employees, who worked in shifts regarding the hours from 19.30 to 23.30.

The witness remembers that upon entering the bedroom at the time of the disappearance, she saw that the bed that the two babies were sleeping (reparou que a cama que os dois bebés encontravam-se a dormir) and she saw that the bedclothes of the bed near the window were rumpled as if someone had been sitting there, that the bedclothes of Madeleine’s bed had been pushed back and that on top of the bed was a small child’s blanket and a cuddly toy.

She states that the distance between the apartment and the restaurant where Madeleine’s parents were was 30 seconds by foot away but that there was no visual contact with the back window of the bedroom where Madeleine was. From the restaurant just the front window of the apartment could be seen.

The witness does not remember any element that could be useful to the investigation.

No more is said.

Reads, ratifies and signs.




Last edited by Ines on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Adding my own translation


Processos Vol XI
Pages 4193 - 4194


Witness Statement

Date : 2008 ' 04 '17
Time. 10.00

Place: Praia da Luz

Name: Amy Tierney


Has made previous statements in May last year.

Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.

When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, (NOTE: Was this in the reception area that the 'comings and goings' would have been seen by her?) inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.


She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a 'Kodak', model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.

In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.

No more is said. She signs the statement together with the interpreter.




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

found this forum where case discussed and this poster has it spot on in relation to Amaral

The dogs findings will never be explained by anyone. The car boot left open for days on end, the same car that coincidentally the dogs alerted to have been in contact with a (dead) cadavar. The 'kidnapper' never leaving a single trace of evidence, not a fingerprint, hair fibre nothing. Even the kidnappers proposed route in and out the apartment didn't add up. The mccans cleaning the apartment from top to bottom(from the looks of it by bleach given the small amounts of dna of anything that could be found by the investigation team) the mccans washing the curtains and kids toy. The same kids toy that once again the dogs alerted to have been in touch with cadavar.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence that is completely unexplainable, and not a single trace, eye witness sighting, or remote piece of evidence of an abductor.

Comparing this to wacky conspiracy theories is laughable I'm afraid.

Even the detective in charge in charge of the case is convinced the kid died and was covered up. A detective who at the beginning of this high profile case was seen as the best man for the job. Yet by the end of it when he had clearly come up with a conclusion that was going to embarrass a great many people, he was suddenly discredited and tarnished as a liability. A man who had a solid 30 year career record before him. Again amazing coincidence(and luck) for team mccann.

http://forums.redissue.co.uk/showthread.php?s=095aaae1bba1a0ef64d146648bd4b9d2&t=236679&page=16

Is there any evidence that the McCanns washed the curtains?