The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police 14 August 2013

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-pj-will-conduct-questioning-that.html

The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police
14 August 2013 | Posted by  Leave a Comment

English police and PJ investigate the Maddie McCann case again

Inquiry. Although in Portugal the inquiry into the little girl's disappearance was archived, the Attorney General has granted a request from the English authorities to investigate new leads and suspects. The situation is unheard of within judiciary cooperation

The Judiciary Police (PJ) will again be requested to hear suspects and to carry out other actions concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, whose investigation inquiry was shelved, without a solution, five years ago by the Public Ministry (MP). The execution of a request for mutual judiciary cooperation made by the British authorities to the Attorney General's Office (PGR), who granted it and forwarded it to the Public Ministry of Portimão, that will be responsible for directing and carrying out the rogatory letter, is at stake.

The situation is unheard of: two countries that opened inquiries into the same case, and after one of them archived it, the other keeps the investigation open and forces the first one to "reopen" the investigation. The Attorney General's Office sustains that "granting the execution of the request is justified by compliance with existing legal norms within the English and the Portuguese legal orders, and it is not impeded by the fact that the criminal case that was opened in Portugal is shelved".

In an interview to DN newspaper, Alípio Ribeiro, who at the time of the disappearance was the PJ's national director, considers it to be "natural and understandable".

As far as DN newspaper was able to establish, the PJ has not received the rogatory letter yet, and only after they know what the English police wants to clarify, can the necessary means to support the detectives from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) be adjusted. According to the MPS, "it has been requested that a small number of British investigators would be present in Portugal to accompany these actions". According to sources that are following this process, said request has not been submitted to the PJ's National Directory, but that could happen at any moment.

This investigation that the English started in 2011 and that also led to the creation of a team with inspectors from the PJ's Oporto Directory, in 2012, has had, according to the Metropolitan, "the full support of Great Britain's Government". Prime minister David Cameron, who was on holiday in the Algarve last week, expressed, at the start of the month, his satisfaction in the opening of the inquiry by the Scotland Yard. ""It is welcome because they say that there is new evidence, new leads to follow, new things to be done", he told The Telegraph.

The Metropolitan's detectives, who can only participate as observers, as any intervention in the questioning that will be carried out is forbidden for them, wish to obtain the "anticipated fulfillment" of the diligences in this manner, keeping the information right away and thus avoiding that it has to be sent through the Portuguese General Attorney's Office.

This request for mutual assistance appears following a revision of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that was carried out by a team of more than thirty MPS detectives.

"It was a complex task" with "true challenges", the Met Police says. The analysis and organisation of "approximately 30 500 documents" resulted in "new leads and new witness evidence". There are 12 English suspects that should be questioned.

Leads reevaluated in different countries produce no results

Investigation. The leads that the Scotland Yard is investigating to try to clarify the disappearance of Maddie McCann extend over 12 European countries, with Portugal taking the centre position of the new diligences. Nevertheless, within the British authorities' offensive, leads have been reevaluated that ended up being unfounded. That is the case of a Swiss suspect who killed a child two months after Maddie disappeared.

Ylenia was five years old when she was abducted in July 2007, in Saint-Gall, in Switzerland. Her body was found in a forest and the suspect, who committed suicide before the police could get to him, was a Swiss pensioner who at the time was a resident in Spain. The close location to the Algarve and the abduction of a child led the English authorities to search for a connection between both cases.

The Swiss police had already set the possibility aside, but after a request from the Scotland Yard, as it now happens in Portugal, they reevaluated the case.

"There is nothing to indicate a connection between the situations", Hanspeter Krusi, the spokesman for Saint-Gall police, stressed earlier this month, further informing that the result of the investigations in Switzerland had already been communicated to the English authorities.

3 questions for Alípio Ribeiro, former PJ Director

"Contributions should be seen in a positive manner"

- The Portuguese authorities could refuse to cooperate, as the process has been shelved?

- Judiciary cooperation is one of the European Union's pillars and it is within that frame that the Portuguese authorities will have to respond to possible solicitations from the British authorities. As the disappearance of an English child is at stake, it is natural and understandable that they continue to work in the sense of finding out what happened.

- This is an unheard of situation, right?

- It should always be stressed that the archiving that took place in Portugal happened due to an insufficiency of evidence and because it was decided that there was no further action to take. Any action or any clarification that the British authorities want must not be seen as a devaluation of what was done in Portugal. On the contrary, all contribution must be seen in a positive manner, as it is the reason why there is cooperation in the first place.

- But could it be assumed that the PJ has not done enough?

- The Portuguese judiciary authorities cooperate with the judiciary authorities in many other countries, on a daily basis. I do not believe that the cooperation that is requested in this particular case may cause specific difficulties and cannot or should not be carried out within the score of habitual practices.

Good to see some sense written about the situation at last, as opposed to the high drama displayed on the front of our national newspapers here in GB.

Yes, standing back and looking from the outside in, yes it was right I think that Britain got itself involved because Madeleine is British. It is also right that the Portuguese stay very much involved, because it is their case at the end of the day.

However, hand on heart, how many of us over here, if we had a child taken abroad whilst on holiday, would not want our own cops involved?

Now, I would not lose a child on my holiday through her being left alone but abductions do happen from parks and beaches and streets, so its feasible a child could go that way and if it happened to one of us on our holiday, wouldn't we be a bit more assured if our own cops were involved?

I do believe Portugal's police have tried very hard but as a Brit, I know I would want my own force involved in something so serious.

I know Leics. cops helped out in the early stages but eventually you would want the guys at the top helping you, wouldn't you?

All that said, I believe she is dead and I think the cops know she is dead, otherwise British activity there would be rushed through I feel.

Its about getting answers now and, at the end of the day, we all want the truth and I sincerely hope, this time around, on this latest excursion over to Portugal, the cops both Portuguese and British, get to the bottom of this.

Surely this is the last throw of the dice now. Surely once these 'new leads' have been thoroughly explored, there is nowhere else to go with this enquiry other than back to the parents!!!

i hold a different view to yours LJC. Putting aside the fact that the children were left night after night without proper adult supervision or observation, i do not believe that the UK police force is any better than the one on the ground at the time. The McCanns had more than the normal service and intervention from the British Ambassadors than would normally be accorded to someone. telephone calls to the PM and associated colleagues seems to have produced difficulties for the investigating force rather than assisting. You are correct in that the Leicestershire police also assisted, the dogs famously.

It is my opinion that this investigation is not so much about finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann it is more about trying to get back the reputation of the two doctor parents who admitted leaving their children in an allegedly unlocked apartment whilst they went on the lash with friends. If this investigation means that the McCs and their friends go back for a reconstruction or for questioning with the Portuguese im all for it. but it doesn't sound like it. For me the investigation is far too public with too many stories saying the UK police force is going, gosh how many times. it is being led by someone i think is too close to the McCs, with BHH actively raising funds and setting off lanterns. No the UK police were involved from the start and the McCs didn't like the way it was going. after all wasn't it the Leicester police who said look at the parents. So whilst i can understand your point of view that they speak the same language etc, it happened in Portugal and people there speak Portuguese, so is language still going to be a barrier. I also understand the all the PJ have to have specialist law training before becoming part of the PJ, im not sure that happens in the UK. so for those reasons i disagree, but i understand the points and the reasons you make them.

I think Soctland Yard should start - right at the beginning: the 48questions Lady Kate refused to answer and focus on the one she did.

She was specifically asked if she knew her non answers would jeopardise the investigation and has the cheek to reply with a snotty comment - that in itself should set the alarm bells ringing for anyone - never mind and Elite Copper - a recon should follow.

I will be leaving for the Algarve on three/four weeks - hopefully I will see for myself if there is anything going on there - will also be staying a few nights in Portimão - going to visit my grandchild.

I would just like to add that last year (on my grandchilds birthday) when I was with him in Portugal he fell of the couch and knocked his head, luckily he was not hurt too badly - had one hell of a bruise and a bump but he was fine - since day one I have the feeling that Maddie was possibly jumping on the couch - either she fell off or was whacked off - most of the apartments have tiles, the damaged could be very serious - hence the blood behind the couch that HAD been moved forward before the "real" Elite GA arrived!

It should always be stressed that the archiving that took place in Portugal happened due to an insufficiency of evidence and because it was decided that there was no further action to take.

Exactly. The case was archived because there was insufficient evidence to make a credible case against the parents  (not that they were 'cleared' of any involvement) and because there were no other 'people of interest', no further action was required.

Wintabells wrote:It should always be stressed that the archiving that took place in Portugal happened due to an insufficiency of evidence and because it was decided that there was no further action to take.

Exactly. The case was archived because there was insufficient evidence to make a credible case against the parents  (not that they were 'cleared' of any involvement) and because there were no other 'people of interest', no further action was required.

Hi Wintabells, the case wasn't archived because of lack of evidence, the case was archived, because the McCanns requested the case was archived. Or so Goncalo Amaral states in this link.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

From what I've seen and heard of Goncalo Amaral, I have never found him to be a liar and I believe he was speaking the truth, when he said the McCanns requested the archiving of the case. If he wasn't speaking the truth, the McCanns would have sued the pants off him and they would have made it known via the media, that Goncalo Amaral, was making false accusations against him.

Also if Goncalo Amaral, had not made that statement, that is in the above link, I feel sure, he would have made it clear by the media, that he had not made that statement.

I guess I'm referring to the lifting of the suspects' arguido status rather than the archiving of the case (although both were linked) - and my point is that their arguido conditions were lifted because of lack of evidence linking them to a crime.... but this doesn't mean they are innocent nor that there were grounds for seeking other culprits.  And this seems to be the point that Ribeiro is making in the response I quoted (" insufficiency of evidence and because it was decided that there was no further action to take") .The PJ were unable to take the investigation any further because there was insufficient evidence of criminal actions on the part of the people they were interested in and there were no other suspects, but the UK police have sought agreement to delve deeper into the enquiries made.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well, but it read to me as if he was saying 'we knew who needed to be arrested, charged and tried in court but we didn't have enough evidence to achieve that. The UK police seem to want to have a go at doing the same thing'.

But it can't be 100% correct kathybelle, because all arguidos would request their cases are archived then!

I agree with wintabells.

Unless the Mccanns their tapas friends are going to be questioned again, properly, then in my opinion this whole thing is a disgraceful waste of money and time.

Ribeiro also says "Any action or any clarification that the British authorities want must not be seen as a devaluation of what was done in Portugal. On the contrary, all contribution must be seen in a positive manner, as it is the reason why there is cooperation in the first place".


The word 'clarification' seems to suggest that the UK police are wanting to revisit existing evidence (presumably partly via rogatory-style interviews conducted by the PJ in their presence) and requesting certain 'action' to be taken (maybe further forensic testing/reconstructions etc.) all of which sounds (as he says) very positive.

We've all seen and read some of the red flags ourselves. Why, for example, would the McC's claim that they 'almost didn't go to the Tapas that night' believing they might not get a table, when they had a block booking? UK police may want to interview the person who made that block booking to confirm when it was made and by whom. They may want to interview the nannys who signed the McC's children in and out of the crèche to 'clarify' why there are discrepancies in the McC's stories about the dropping off and collecting of the children. Were the children's clothes washed the very day after Madeleine's disappearance? perhaps they'd like to interview the person who dealt with that washing. What about the cleaner who noticed there was a cot in the McC's bedroom (didn't she? or am I wrong about this?) And what about the alleged note in the bookings record kept on the restaurant desk advertising that the Tapasniks were all leaving their children home alone. Is this real? where is it?

These sorts of actions and clarifications could all be extremely fruitful.

mara thon wrote:Unless the Mccanns their tapas friends are going to be questioned again, properly, then in my opinion this whole thing is a disgraceful waste of money and time.

There may be no point in questioning them at this stage. Other witnesses evidence may need to be scrutinised and double-checked first.

It's not over until the fat lady sings ;)

Wintabells wrote:I guess I'm referring to the lifting of the suspects' arguido status rather than the archiving of the case (although both were linked) - and my point is that their arguido conditions were lifted because of lack of evidence linking them to a crime.... but this doesn't mean they are innocent nor that there were grounds for seeking other culprits.  And this seems to be the point that Ribeiro is making in the response I quoted. The PJ were unable to take the investigation any further because there was no evidence of criminal actions on the part of the people they were interested in and there were no other suspects, but the UK police have sought agreement to delve deeper into the enquiries made.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well, but it read to me as if he was saying 'we knew who needed to be arrested, charged and tried in court but we didn't have enough evidence to achieve that. The UK police seem to want to have a go at doing the same thing'.

Hi Wintabells

Shortly before the McCanns were released from their arguido status, I read a link on a forum, which stated that the PJ wanted to charge the McCanns, but they were forbidden to do so, by a higher authority. It was something to do with a favour that Jose Socrates owed the British Government. I don't know if the information in the link was true, but what I do know, there has certainly been something going on behind the scenes, which has helped the McCanns evade justice.

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

I know I've put the above link on here before, but if one reads the information in the link, there was plenty evidence that showed the McCanns to be culpable for Madeleine's disappearance. The former Portuguese police Chief Inspector, Tavares de Almeida, is not a stupid man. In my opinion, he would not have sent the evidence, to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, if he did not believe the evidence would lead to the conviction of the McCanns.

What I'm trying to say is, the fact that nothing came of Mr Tavares report, is a sure sign that there has been some kind of a deal done, which prevented the McCanns from facing justice and Madeleine receiving justice.

I'm just hoping that if and when Scotland Yard do go over to Portugal and the PJ take over the questioning of whoever, the PJ insist that the McCanns are brought over to Portugal to be questioned. If the PJ are not going to question the McCanns, then it is quite obvious that the PJ are being controlled by a higher authority, who for reasons best known to themselves, do not want the McCanns being implicated in Madeleine's disappearance. Even though the world and his wife, know that they are the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance.

margaret wrote:But it can't be 100% correct kathybelle, because all arguidos would request their cases are archived then!

I agree with wintabells.

Margaret, I would imagine that Goncalo Amaral stated the truth, when he said the McCanns requested the process was archived, while they were still arguidos. When the McCanns were made arguidos, the terms of their arguido status were waived by the Portuguese Authorities. Their passports were returned to them and they were allowed to return to the UK. They were even given a police escort to the Algarve airport.

On the other hand, Robert Murat, who requested the arguido status, had to remain in Portugal and adhere to the terms of his status, even though he had been given the all clear by the police. Mr Murat was later given permission to visit his little girl, who lived in the UK, but it was only a short visit. The McCanns on the other hand, could go here there and everywhere, even though they had never been cleared of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Goncalo Amaral was lying, the McCanns would have sued the pants off him. They would also have sued the pants off the former police Chief Inspector, Tavares de Almeida, whose report can be read in the files, the files the McCanns have in their possession.

So the only time an arguido who wanted to have his/her case archived, would have their wish granted, was if they were in the same position as the McCanns, immune from prosecution. Whether the McCanns remain immune from prosecution, is anyone's guess.

Any investigator, be they Portugese, British or 'armchair' would know that when the mother of a "missing" child refuses to answer ANY question (never mind 48) regarding the child's disappearance, she is 'acting' in her own self-interest.

interested wrote:Any investigator, be they Portugese, British or 'armchair' would know that when the mother of a "missing" child refuses to answer ANY question (never mind 48) regarding the child's disappearance, she is 'acting' in her own self-interest.

Good morning Interested

I agree entirely with your post. Do you know if Kate McCann was asked those questions as a witness or an arguido? If she was questioned as a witness, she was legally bound to answer the questions. So if she was questioned as a witness, do you know if she said no comment or stayed silent, when she was asked each question? If she replied no comment, to each question, would no comment, suffice as an answer? If she stayed silent, then in my opinion she should have been charged with whatever offence she committed, by refusing to answer and would have been charged, if she didn't have the protection of the British Government.

If she was questioned as an arguido, then she didn't have to answer those questions. However as you say, what mother refuses to answer questions regarding her missing child. When Kate McCann was told that by refusing to answer the questions, she was jeopardising the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she gave a flippant answer, when she said if that's what the investigation thinks. This to me showed that she either didn't give a stuff where Madeleine was, or she knew exactly where Madeleine was and if she was dead or alive.

Common sense would dictate that the only way forward is the rigorous questioning of those people who were the last to see Madeleine. And comparison of one statement against the other and timelines constructed. And the Smith sighting looked at again with a maginifying glass. Anything else is a total farce.

And that flippancy would also suggest that she knew that she was being protected.

Question 50:

"WHY did you and your husband BOTH SAY that your friend Jane Tanner had seen a man carrying a child from a distance of 50 (FIFTY) METRES, in your 4th May 2007 interviews before you knew JT had been interviewed"?
"that would mean she was a lot, lot further away from the man you BOTH said she saw, from that distance, than your own husband, who was chatting to a tennis partner outside the gate to your apartment"

MaryB wrote:Common sense would dictate that the only way forward is the rigorous questioning of those people who were the last to see Madeleine.  And comparison of one statement against the other and timelines constructed.  And the Smith sighting looked at again with a maginifying glass.  Anything else is a total farce.  

I agree with you but would add that perhaps they will first question the witnesses who witnessed the activities/demeanour of those people who were last to see Madeleine (including, as you say, the Smith family).  The original investigation started at the centre (both in terms of the geographical searches and the witness statements taken - with the people closest to Madeleine giving their general story first) then the searches and interviews spread outwards (all the while the McC's being assured they were not suspects) .....  until finally, and it seems with little warning, they were questioned as arguidos. I can see the new investigation following a similar pattern in the sense that they already have the general story from those closest to Madeleine and will perhaps work their way outwards until honing back in on those people.

The investigation was not shelved because of lack of evidence and the authorities could go not further. In fact, it was the other way around, the investigation could go no further because of the decision made to shelve the case and lift the arguido status of the McCanns. There were plenty of other leads that could have been followed up on, such as the Smith sighting, the sighting of the McCanns going into an apartment block, etc. These sightings were simply not investigated any further.

kathybelle wrote:

interested wrote:Any investigator, be they Portugese, British or 'armchair' would know that when the mother of a "missing" child refuses to answer ANY question (never mind 48) regarding the child's disappearance, she is 'acting' in her own self-interest.

Good morning Interested

I agree entirely with your post. Do you know if Kate McCann was asked those questions as a witness or an arguido? If she was questioned as a witness, she was legally bound to answer the questions. So if she was questioned as a witness, do you know if she said no comment or stayed silent, when she was asked each question? If she replied no comment, to each question, would no comment, suffice as an answer? If she stayed silent, then in my opinion she should have been charged with whatever offence she committed, by refusing to answer and would have been charged, if she didn't have the protection of the British Government.

If she was questioned as an arguido, then she didn't have to answer those questions. However as you say, what mother refuses to answer questions regarding her missing child. When Kate McCann was told that by refusing to answer the questions, she was jeopardising the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, she gave a flippant answer, when she said if that's what the investigation thinks. This to me showed that she either didn't give a stuff where Madeleine was, or she knew exactly where Madeleine was and if she was dead or alive.

Kate McCanns was an "arguido" when she was asked the 48 questions. It is said that she and Gerry had decided before the questioning that he would answer all the questions put to him while she would refuse so that there would be no discrepancies in the answers.

I was under the impression that K McC refused to answer the questions once she realised that the investigation was now focussing on her (and her husband) hence her response, ' ’Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.’ when asked 'Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?'

Carolina wrote:The investigation was not shelved because of lack of evidence and the authorities could go not further. In fact, it was the other way around, the investigation could go no further because of the decision made to shelve the case and lift the arguido status of the McCanns. There were plenty of other leads that could have been followed up on, such as the Smith sighting, the sighting of the McCanns going into an apartment block, etc. These sightings were simply not investigated any further.

I believe the Smith family's sighting was followed up - the family were interviewed on more than one occasion. In fact, once Mr and Mrs Smith had seen the footage of the McC's returning to the UK, they contacted the police again and made another statement in which (I think) Mr Smith said that the man they saw on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance bore an 80% resemblance to GMcC. I'm not sure what more the PJ could have done, given GMcC claimed to be 'dining' at the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith's sighting and several witnesses (albeit his friends) corroborated this.

As for the story of the McCs going into an apartment block - do you have a link to this information from the official files?

Wintabells wrote:

Carolina wrote:The investigation was not shelved because of lack of evidence and the authorities could go not further. In fact, it was the other way around, the investigation could go no further because of the decision made to shelve the case and lift the arguido status of the McCanns. There were plenty of other leads that could have been followed up on, such as the Smith sighting, the sighting of the McCanns going into an apartment block, etc. These sightings were simply not investigated any further.

I believe the Smith family's sighting was followed up - the family were interviewed on more than one occasion. In fact, once Mr and Mrs Smith had seen the footage of the McC's returning to the UK, they contacted the police again and made another statement in which (I think) Mr Smith said that the man they saw on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance bore an 80% resemblance to GMcC. I'm not sure what more the PJ could have done, given GMcC claimed to be 'dining' at the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith's sighting and several witnesses (albeit his friends) corroborated this.

As for the story of the McCs going into an apartment block - do you have a link to this information from the official files?

The police were to talk to the Smiths in 2008, after he had contacted them and said that he thought that it was GM he saw on 3 May, but the rogatory letters were sent to the UK instead of the Republic of Ireland and after that nothing was done to rectify the mistake or even to talk to the family. This was even more frustrating as Mr. Smith was willing to come to Portugal to testify. The family was not interviewed more than once unless you want to count Brian Kennedy's interference. This was done during the reign of Paulo Rebelo who was put in the investigation in order to wrap it up not to solve it. As for the McCanns going in the apartment block, Kate even mentioned it when she said that she and Gerry helped a drunk man they found in the road get back to his apartment. Very strange story indeed.

I remember the drunk story. The man was so drunk, he was laying in the road, yet, he managed to recognise Gerry straight away!