Amaral answers to the McCanns: exclusive interview to Portuguese newspaper "The Crime":

Amaral answers to the McCanns: exclusive interview to Portuguese newspaper "The Crime":

"I did what I could to help find Maddie, but, I made some mistakes".

The former PJ coordinator considers that "a cop is not obliged to obtain results", but to do the best he can. And he claims convinced that he is going to win the case which opposes him against the British couple about the injunction on his book. "Don´t underestimate me", he warns.

Question: How do you respond to the observation of the couple McCann, in an interview at our newspaper, that none of PJ investigators did more then their work, contrary to you, that accused people that the Attorney General and the judge declared innocents?

Answer: The couple is badly informed. The case does not reach the sphere of any judge, it stayed by the Attorney General (AG). Then, the AG did not made a definitive interim (case archived), leaving the process in "stand-by", waiting the production of better evidence.

Question: However, the dispatch of the interim concludes that, to the parents, could not be given any responsability in the disappearance of their daughter...

Answer: Also not true. What the AG told in the dispatch of the interim was that the not involvement of the parents in any illicit act "seems to result" - from a group of elements about those he gave an opinion. An opinion that goes for the process, but does not establish any absolute true that limits the public discussion. We are not at the Middle age.

Question: Don´t you think you had the obligation of finding little Maddie, just like the couple says?

Answer: A cop is not obliged to obtain results. He is obliged to do the best he can. That is what I and my Portuguese and British colleagues have done. With mistakes, I admit. I have already made the self-critic of the investigation in the book "The truth of lie".

Question: If mistakes were not made in the investigation, would it be possible to find the girl alive?

Answer: Maybe the girl could have been found. I cannot say more because of the injunction.

Question: The McCanns are convinced that the thesis of the supposed death harms the steps which are being carried with the purpose of finding her alive...

Answer: The AG closed the inquiry - and in the dispacth of the archived case distributed to the press worldwide - wrote in that dispatch that the death seems the "most likely" cenario. And it has not be processed / challenged.

Question: The McCanns accuse you of pronouncing about situations related with their family, which they don´t do about yours...

Answer: I pronounce about a criminal process and not about situations related with their family. And they don´t need to pronounce about situations related to my family because they don´t need. Maybe there are someone who professionally do it and without their knowledge. There are many who forgets that I worked 30 years in the criminal investigation. At certain time I will request the steps of evidence suitable to discover the truth and repair the damage that I have suffered.

Question: Is it true that, so far, you have not lost anything, not even the two euros which you maintaned deposited in your bank accounts?

Answer: So far, I have not lost anything, nor I´m going to lose. I´m going to win the process, you can be sure of that. What happened to me was my cash income with the purpose of prevent me to face the expenses of a court and to the payment of fees to lawyers. Do you have the notion of how much costs to bear such a process like this? It costs a fortune, Besides, much more them my Jaguar...

Question: Speaking about the Jaguar, it says that has been bought with the profits of the book "The truth of lie"...

Answer: But, it doesn´t say that before this Jaguar bought in second hand, I had another one, much older.

The new book:

Question: In your new book "The British Gag" you forcefully criticizes the judicial decision who ordered the removal from the market the book "The truth of lie". Do you want to comment?

Answer: I say it´s a illegal decision, a unfair decision, therefore, a case of censorship. The court, by not listening to me before ordered the injunction, decided only based in the elements which were presented by the McCanns. The court was not aware of the statements I presented in the book, so, it took my words a a free offensive and not as a statement grounded.

Question: Do you think that after the hearing of the witnesses which you presented, the decision will be changed?

Answer: Yes. I presented witnesses and will present the criminal process itself to be analyzed in court. Such elements of evidence will be, in my opinion, enough to the Mrs. Judge to obtain the clarification which until now she had not. I contacted with many judges for almost 30 years. I have between judges many friends. What they do is well grounded in the elements they have at their disposal, and, right now, Mrs. Judge of the Civil Court of Lisbon has much more elements then before. So, I´m convinced that she will decide in my favour.

Question: The couple McCann felted smeared with your conclusions in the book "The truth of lie".

Answer: It´s not the fact of a person felted offended, or to say that is offended, that legitimates the censorship of a publication. If so, and if most of citizens had the financial capacity of the McCanns, no paper would be in the newsstands. Half of the pages would be in white. As news, such as public opinion, it does not have to be accurate to be freely reported and published. It has to be grounded. It has to be conceived without the purpose of attack someone.

Question: The "British Gag" also criticizes violently the politicians. Why?

Answer: Any respected politcian of this country has rebelled against what happened to me? But when are themselves or their friends, targets of a judicial procedure, even paedophile or corruption, attacks judge, attorneys and PJ, saying they are being manipulated politically, that are incompetents, etc.

Question: Were you expected that the politicians criticized the decision of the Civil Court of Lisbon?

Answer: The least I expected was that the politicians came to public square saying that the Institute of injunctions had to be rethinked to allow no judge to decide the limits of free speech of a citizen based only in elements presented by those who says offended. This is censorship and there is no turning back.

Question: Depending the result of this process, will you stop here?

Answer: The future belongs to God. But, if I have financial capability, it may have surprises. I was almost 30 years in the PJ. Don´t underestimate me.

It doesn't sound like he's going to give up the court case, then.

GA

Fighting words indeed

Nice one Dr Amaral
Shouldn't someone should tell the McCanns not to start spending that 1.2 mil yet? because Amaral doesn't seem to want to roll over and lick their hands like a certain UK newspaper.

Edited to add.

I like the timing also....... Merry Christmas Mr. & Mrs. McCann...

All that without a pr spokesperson or government help. Well done that man.

I hpe and pray he stays strong.

Reading that made a very nice end to a very nice day.

Once again, thank you, Annabel, for bringing another good article to the forum.

Well Done Mr Amaral! Hope he has some suprises up his sleeves.

welshy wrote:Well Done Mr Amaral! Hope he has some suprises up his sleeves.

I hope that he won't need to have any surprises up his sleeves. I would hope that all he would need to do was stress that his book was a narrative about the investigation and about the interference with that investigation, which even included communication from Buckingham Palace.

May The Lord bless Mr Amaral and his family. Hope 2010 will bring justice for Fam. Amaral and for
"our little Madeleine".

Question: If mistakes were not made in the investigation, would it be possible to find the girl alive?

Answer: Maybe the girl could have been found. I cannot say more because of the injunction.


Here Mr Amaral appears to be admitting that it may have been possible to find Madeleine alive. He does not seem to be supporting his own scenario, that Madeleine died in the apartment as the truth, merely that was his scenario, one that others shared and that he has a right to freedom of speech.

The McCanns claim, apparently they were declared as innocent, this is clearly not true. Stating that no evidence was found sufficient to involve clear implication in her disappearance/charges or exactly what happened to her is by no means declaring the McCanns innocent. Such a result is only ever possible after there has been a court hearing.

I personally feel it would be better if both the McCanns and Goncalo stopped posturing now, shut up completely and let the court decide who is at fault. But it can never be the case that two wrongs make a right. Goncalo was ambiguous in stressing this was merely his scenario, he stated Madeleine was dead as a fact. I think the book was almost OK, but when it came to the documentary, I will prove, he just went too far and played into the McCanns ever grasping hands. How a court will now resolve this will be interesting to see, but clearly, neither side feels confident otherwise they would just shut up. The McCanns have to fear a lot of police witnesses Goncalo is to bring to court, I am sure they have much to fear but continue to believe it is highly possible they disposed of Madeleine, alive and fundamentally that makes Goncalo wrong.

No he doesnt Viv, he did not say ALIVE.


What he is stating is....IF, perhaps, IF the mccanns had been interogated PROPERLY and the rest off the tapas THEN PERHAPS she could off been found i.e. he doesnt say alive but FOUND.

kitti wrote:No he doesnt Viv, he did not say ALIVE.


What he is stating is....IF, perhaps, IF the mccanns had been interogated PROPERLY and the rest off the tapas THEN PERHAPS she could off been found i.e. he doesnt say alive but FOUND.

The question he answers is could Madeleine have been found alive. He says nothing about the McCanns being interrogated properly as you suggest, I am sure he would not say that because he was in charge of the investigation!

and i am saying whether he answers the question that was put to him he DIDNT say alive.

I read between the lines.

kitti wrote:and i am saying whether he answers the question that was put to him he DIDNT say alive.

I read between the lines.

Exactly. Oh, and by the way, as a result of the McCanns' injunction Dr. Amaral is prohibited from saying anything about Madeleine and her diaappearance, so I think it's a bit strong criticising him for not answereing a question about it. What he was definitely saying was she could possibly have been found. Whether dead or alive he did not say, but because he has been quite clear in his book and film that the child died in the apartment it is logical to assume that the answer would have to be dead. I don't see any argument for placing Dr. Amaral on the same level as the McCanns when it comes to answering questions; he's answered as much as he may without being held in contempt of court.

viv wrote:

kitti wrote:No he doesnt Viv, he did not say ALIVE.


What he is stating is....IF, perhaps, IF the mccanns had been interogated PROPERLY and the rest off the tapas THEN PERHAPS she could off been found i.e. he doesnt say alive but FOUND.

The question he answers is could Madeleine have been found alive. He says nothing about the McCanns being interrogated properly as you suggest, I am sure he would not say that because he was in charge of the investigation!

Because of the injunction, he would not be able to say she could not have been found alive, in his opinion, so his answer in relation to the question is incomplete and somewhat cryptic.

Has he ever said ALIVE even BEFORE the injuction, maybe he did in the beginning, i dont know, but he wouldnt, when asked NOW.....the word ALIVE..... that would be going aginst everything that is written in the files and the synopsis that.....madeleine mccann died in apt 5a....THERE WOULD BE NO COURT CASE HAPPENING NOW.

Because of the injunction, he would not be able to say she could not have been found alive, in his opinion, so his answer in relation to the question is incomplete and somewhat cryptic.

I think that is fair comment Anna, he does qualify his response to the question by saying he cannot say more because of the injunction. I often find with Goncalo that he does give rather vague answers to questions anyway that leave people arguing what he meant! Maybe it is just me but I find the whole piece difficult to decipher and when he is injuncted it is probably not the best time to try and respond. To me I think it does show concern and weakness from both the McCann and Amaral camps that they need to comment to each other in this public way. If either side were so certain ( and I am sure they could not be) they would just sit back and wait for victory!

Mr Amaral is fall off 'cryptic' answers.

Thats why i like him.

Unlike the McCanns...you can see right thro them.

I think, viv, he answers like that because he 'knows' something that the mccanns dont want US to know about..AND THE MCCANNS KNOW HE KNOWS!!

hiya Kitti

If Goncalo wants to instil fear into the McCanns, that is a good tactic and what people, especially criminals are generally very fearful of is the unknown. I think the McCanns have often demonstrated a real need to know what the police are up to. That is understandable for a couple who must, at all costs, get away with what they did to Madeleine. I am thinking of examples like Gerry saying it was good for them to stay in Portugal to "control the investigation". I am thinking that most parents of a missing child are not geared up to thinking that they personally will be "controlling" the police investigation. I am also thinking that their act in seeking to try and enforce the 2007 order of Mrs Justice Hogg in 2008 when they were under serious investigation was an act of sheer desperation and they had to humiliatingly back down. It pays for us to remember that the McCanns do not win all court cases they commence. In this instance they were opposed by the Attorney General, The Chief Constable of Leicester Police and other British agencies who are known to investigate serious child abuse and fraud cases.

I just have a feeling that neither side in this particular court battle are going to walk away very happy!

True....Mr Amarl will walk away KNOWING that his hypothesis was RIGHT and lets face it....knowing a child is dead is not a very nice feeling whether he was right or wrong.


And...the mccanns will walk away WITHOUT £1.2m in their pockets and KNOW that they cant stiffle the truth and the flood gates are now well and truly OPEN.

I will tell you one thing, wheher GA is vindicated or not....

..he's put a stop to some of Gerry's nasty little schemes. That HAS to be a good thing.

Gerry said so himself. "The book has harmed DONATIONS..." -that was the very first thing he said.

GOOD FOR YOU, GA!

kitti wrote:True....Mr Amarl will walk away KNOWING that his hypothesis was RIGHT and lets face it....knowing a child is dead is not a very nice feeling whether he was right or wrong.


And...the mccanns will walk away WITHOUT £1.2m in their pockets and KNOW that they cant stiffle the truth and the flood gates are now well and truly OPEN.

But if you know you are right then it is not a hypothesis that you hold it is knowledge of firm facts. He cannot know that the child is dead, if, as you say he may be right or wrong. That is the nub of what has seriously got him into trouble, trying to elevate his hypothesis into an absolute fact.

It is not the place of a civil court to determine criminal guilt or innocence, I fear that if this is what people expect to see they are going to be very disappointed. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate precisely what happened to Madeleine and where she went. This is why I feel, from a moral point of view, it is completely unacceptable to be insisting that she died/ is definitely dead. Whilst there is any hope for that child we should hang onto it. But there is one thing that is certain for me, whatever happened to her, the McCanns know exactly what that was. Whether they have a right to their reputation in all the circumstances is a moot point but it is very settled law in UK at any rate, that you cannot positively accuse someone of a criminal offence without hard evidence to back that claim. He is not saying they were culpable in her disappearance, he is saying they were responsible for her death by neglect and then disposed of her body and faked an abduction. That is a lot to accuse people of without clear evidence to back those claims and does mean that technically he has libelled them. Of course from a moral point of view, do they deserve damages for this when they were clearly responsible for her disappearance, the answer to that question has to be no. I think it was Lord Denning who said, "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands". In short if you are a sinner yourself do not expect the court to help you and I think that is the big problem the McCanns face.