|This page contains the actual Civil Court decision to grant an injunction against Gonçalo Amaral's
book: 'A Verdade da Mentira'; the publishing house 'Guerra & Paz'; the producer Valentim de Carvalho;
and TVI, the producers of a documentary - and subsequent DVD - based on the book.
To go straight to English translation
Note: It was this injunction which led to
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal hearing
that began on 12 January 2010.
This is a translation of the text of the Civil Court ruling that granted the temporary injunction on Gonçalo
Amaral's book, 'Maddie – The Truth of the Lie', and the corresponding DVD. It was issued on the 9th of September,
2009. The numbered notes [x] are from astro, for clarification purposes only. It should also be recalled that this injunction
was granted exclusively based on the evidence that was provided by the Applicants. The Defendants were only allowed to oppose
the injunction after it had been granted. As we have no access to the text of the request that was made by the Applicants,
we have no possibility of knowing what articles 13 and 58 (which were 'Not Proved') were about.
CONCLUSION – 09-09-2009
In this process of common injunction
that is being handled at this court and section under the number 1143/09.0TVLSB, the Court decides to reply to the factual
matter that appears in the initial request, and that has been subject to proof in fulfilment of the Appeals Court Decision
[article 13, in the factual segment that appears on page 15 of said decision, articles 58 to 67 and 92 of the corrected initial
request] , as follows:
Article 13: Not proved;
Article 58: Not proved;
Article 59: Proved
that curricular pieces concerning the first Defendant  are published on the internet, referring to him as an honest, structured,
socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;
Article 60: Proved that the media focus hit
the first Defendant;
Article 61: Proved;
Article 62: Proved that the first Defendant knows the meaning
and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;
Article 63: Proved that the first Defendant
knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;
Article 64: Proved that the first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;
Article 65: Proved that the
first Defendant knows what it means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;
Article 66: Proved that
the first Defendant has professional experience and is of adult age;
Article 67: Proved that by divulging his thesis
about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants
, saw his person promoted and earned money.
Also proved that the first Defendant wished to intervene in local
Article 92 – Proved that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over
the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants  and rendering
the search for the third Applicant  more difficult.
For the preceding decision
concerning the matter of fact, the Court has pondered the documents that have been appended to the process, as well as the
depositions from the questioned witnesses , in the segments in which they revealed direct knowledge about the facts that
they were questioned upon. The Court has also used judicial presumptions, namely in the answers to articles 60 and 62 to 66.
Concerning the depositions of witnesses 1 to 4, it has to be noted that those have been essentially characterised
by the transmission of their opinions, deductions and personal convictions. It was nevertheless revealed that they manifested
direct knowledge of the increase in difficulties and obstacles to the ongoing private investigation that searches for the
third Applicant, which is being promoted by the first and the second Applicants, each time that new editions or the announcement
of future editions of the book, interviews with the first Defendant, or divulgations of the DVD take place.
depositions, especially from the third and fourth witnesses, were equally considered, concerning the direct knowledge that
they demonstrated over the intensification of the suffering of the first and second Applicants, each time de first Defendant's
thesis was newly divulged – whether through the existence or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new
divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions that such events have
on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth
and the fifth Applicants .
Concerning the fifth witness, although her knowledge of the facts that she was questioned
about comes from a set of investigative tasks that tend to sustain the allegation that is made in this injunction, what is
certain is that, together with the documents that have been appended to the process, it was possible to establish that the
book in question has already been subject to a Spanish edition in May 2009, a French one in June 2009, a German one (also
for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June 2009, then an Italian and a Dutch one, and Defendant 'Guerra e Paz'
has also launched an edition in Brazil .
This is, in synthesis, the basis for the previous decision concerning
the matter of fact.
five Applicants move the present injunction against the duly identified Defendants on page 38 [given the fact that the initial
request with the corrected numbering, which has been appended on 20/05/2009, is being attended to], alleging, in synthesis,
that the first Defendant's thesis about the events that took place in Praia da Luz in May 2007 – which relate to
the disappearance of the third Applicant, which took place at that time -, which have been put into the book that he authored,
that was published by the second Defendant, that sustains the video that was produced and marketed by the third Defendant
and was broadcast by the fourth Defendant as a television documentary, have already violated several rights of all of the
Applicants and cause them fear of future, serious and hardly repairable damage of the following rights:
rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into
her disappearance, in the future;
b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth Applicants) to their moral
and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of their elder sister, in the future,
as well as their right to the reservation of private and family life and to the good name of the family that they belong to,
their right to freedom and to security;
c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and second Applicants)
to their image, to their good name, to their good reputation and to the preservation of the integrity of their private and
family life, their right to freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity, the right not to be treated in a degrading,
cruel or inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen, the guarantees of the penal process.
fundaments, they conclude by requesting the determination of the following measures:
a) The prohibition of sale
and the order to seize, for destruction, the books and the videos that are still left at shops or any other deposits or warehouses;
b) The prohibition to execute new editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend
the same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be sold or divulged by any means, in Portugal;
The prohibition to cede the editing rights or the author rights on the contents of the book or the video, or of any other
books and videos on the same subject, for publication in any part of the world;
d) The prohibition to cite, to
analyse or to comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or of the video that defend the thesis of death of the
third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the two first Applicants;
e) The prohibition to reproduce
any comment, opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or can be inferred;
f) The prohibition to publish
statements, photographs, or any other documents that are allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.
According to what was established by the Appeals Court's Decision and considering what has resulted from the production
of evidence during trial, the following FACTS are proved in an indicative way:
1 – On the 24th of July of
2008, the first Defendant launched in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant that reserved all rights to itself,
the book that he has authored, "Maddie A Verdade da Mentira";
2 – In that book, the first Defendant
defends the thesis of death of the third Applicant and the concealment of her cadaver by the first and second Applicants;
3 – Said book attained 4 editions until the end of July of 2008, 9 editions until the end of August of 2008,
and 12 editions until the end of September of 2008;
4 – Each edition was of 10,000 copies;
Presently the book is sold out at practically all points of sale;
6 – When said book was published, the first
Defendant gave interviews to all of the media that requested him to, namely to RTP , and defended the thesis that he presents
in the book, in those interviews;
7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to newspaper
"Correio da Manhã", which was published on the 24th of July of 2008, in which he defended the thesis that
he presents in the book;
8 – At the beginning ot May of 2009, the same book was published in France, now
under the title "Maddie, L’Enquête interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé de l’enquête";
9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published
in the newspaper "Le Parisien" and on the matching internet site;
10 – In those interviews, the
first Defendant again mentioned the theses that he presents in the book;
11 – The book's French edition
is systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least on:
12 – Between the publication of the Portuguese edition, on 24/07/2008, and the publication of the book's
French edition, in May of 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a television programme that was produced by the third Defendant,
that reserved the possession of the corresponding rights for itself;
13 – The first broadcast of said television
programme took place on the 13th of April of 2009;
14 – The second broadcast of this television contents
took place on the 12th of May of 2009;
15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least those two times;
16 – That programme/video is intrinsically based on the contents of the book "Maddie A Verdade da Mentira";
17 – In that video the first Defendant again sustains his thesis, that the third Applicant is no longer alive,
that her death took place inside the "Ocean Club" apartment and that the parents, the first and second Applicants,
concealed their daughter's cadaver;
18 – At least two million and two hundred thousand people watched
that programme's first broadcast;
19 – In late April of 2009, the DVD that corresponds to that programme
started being sold, with the title and the subtitle «Maddie A Verdade da Mentira – Um poderoso documentário
baseado no best seller "A Verdade da Mentira" de Gonçalo Amaral» ;
20 – 75.000
copies of that DVD were put on sale;
21 – The DVD is publicised, at least, on the third Defendant's website;
22 – The first and the second Applicants are married to each other and the parents of the third, the fourth
and the fifth Applicants;
23 – In the Criminal Inquiry in which the first and the second Applicants were
made arguidos, an archiving dispatch was issued concerning them, as per appended copy, pages 145-173;
Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007;
25 – There are curricular pieces published
on the internet, concerning the first Defendant, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely
for the performance of political posts;
26 – The focus of the media has hit the first Defendant;
27 – The abovementioned curricula (item 25) reveal a man who "studied engineering", obtained a university
degree in juridical and criminal sciences and was a PJ agent/inspector for 27 years;
28 – The first Defendant
knows the meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;
29 – The first Defendant
knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;
30 - The first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;
31 - The first Defendant knows what it means not
to be at the service of criminal investigation;
32 - The first Defendant has professional experience and is of
33 - By divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant,
with the assistance of the three other Defendants, saw his person promoted and earned money.
34 - The first Defendant
wished to intervene in local political life.
35 - The Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all
over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants and rendering
the search for the third Applicant more difficult.
OF THE LAW
From the Applicants' allegation, it becomes clear that they understand that several of their rights – all within
the scope of personality rights – have already been violated by the divulgation of the first Defendant's thesis
concerning the events that are related to the third Applicant's disappearance in May of 2007. A thesis according to which
the third Applicant would have passed away on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Praia da Luz apartment, and her cadaver concealed
by the first and second
After the production of evidence, performed in fulfilment of the Decision, it was established
that the book that was authored by the first Defendant [and although after the injunction was interposed] was in the meantime
the subject of a Spanish edition in May of 2009, a French one in June of 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian
markets) in June of 2009, and later on, an Italian and a Dutch one, and the Defendant "Guerra e Paz" also launched
an edition in Brazil, facts that allow for the conclusion that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD over
the world, obtaining financial, commercial and social profit (cfr. answer to article 92).
On the other hand, it
resulted demonstrated that the dissemination of those materials (book and DVD) deepens the suffering of the two first Applicants
and renders the search for the third Applicant more difficult (cfr. answer to article 92): each time the first Defendant's
thesis is newly divulged, the suffering of the first and second Applicants intensifies – whether through the existence
or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews –
mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to
potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants.
Thus translates the threat of
future lesions or the worsening of those already verified to the Applicants' personality rights.
of personal integrity in its two dimensions, physical and moral, is consecrated by the Constitution (cfr. article 25, number
1 of the CRP ), and it should be articulated with other means for the protection of personal rights, such as those foreseen
in number 1 of article 26 of the Constitution, that is, the rights to personal identity, to the development of personality,
to civil capacity, to citizenship, to the good name and reputation, to image, to word, to the reservation of intimacy of private
and family life, and to legal protection against any form of discrimination, constituting the fundamental seat of the designated
general personality right, as well as the direct expression of the basic postulate of human dignity as admitted in article
1 of the Constitution, a basic value and the first reference in the matter of fundamental rights.
law, on the other hand, generically names, in article 70 number 1 of the Civil Code, the defence of individuals against illicit
threats of offences against their physical and moral personality (from that mention and from the precepts that are subsequent
to it, one infers the existence of a certain set of rights that are connected to personality, as the right to image, to the
reservation of private intimacy, the right to a good name and reputation), with number 2 foreseeing that the person that has
been threatened or offended can request the injunctions that are adequate to the case's circumstances, with the purpose
of avoiding the consummation of the threat or to attenuate the effects of the already committed offence.
other hand, number 1 of article 381 of the Civil Process Code, and concerning non specified injunctions, establishes that
whenever someone shows a based fear that someone else causes a serious and hardly repairable lesion to his or her right, that
parson can request the conservatory or anticipatory injunction that is specifically adequate to ensure the effectiveness of
the threatened right.
By handling the preceding juridical considerations with the established facts, the objective
fulfilment of the conditions for the establishment of the injunction that is destined to safe keep the Applicants' rights
Nevertheless, and just as mentioned in the Appeals Court's Decision, one must pay attention to
an eventual conflict of rights.
In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis
that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and
as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.
Those rights of the
Defendants, as well as those of the Applicants that were noted above and that are at stake, have equal constitutional standing,
and therefore it is peacefully understood that when there is a conflict in their exercise by different holders, and because
there is no relationship of predominance of one towards the other, one must seek within the circumstances of the specific
case, the fair measure of contraction of one of them, or even of both, in order to render the adequate exercise of each one
of those rights viable. That solution is contained in article 335 number 1 of the Civil Code.
into account that the thesis that is presented by the first Defendant, through the adequate means that are placed at his disposal
by the other Defendants, raises the suspicion of the involvement of the first and second Applicants in the practice of criminal
actions, albeit in a negligent way, among the general public, and that they, having been made arguidos at a given point in
time, saw the criminal inquiry archived in relation to them, one has to conclude that it must be the rights of the Defendants
that cede to the rights of the Applicants.
On the other hand, the divulgation of the thesis that the third Applicant
passed away on the 03/05/2007 raises difficulties for the investigation into what happened and the search for her whereabouts.
The contrary hypothesis that is defended by the Applicants, that the third Applicant is still alive, must be taken into account,
and if it is verified, then her life and her wellbeing may depend on the search for her whereabouts, and these rights of her
must also make those of the Defendants cede.
Therefore, and having reached this point, we conclude that the injunction
is to be granted, nevertheless, and as far as the requested measures are concerned, it has to be taken into account that those
requested under d), e), f) and, partially, under b) are directed against an undetermined universe of addressees, and can therefore
only be granted concerning the Defendants.
As for the compulsory pecuniary sanction, taking into account the financial
capacity of the Defendants that are companies (to which the requested injunctions of apprehension of books and DVDs are destined),
the profits that have already been obtained through the sale and the divulgation at hand, and taking into account the interests
that are in conflict, we see it as adequate under article 829-A of the Civil Code.
Under these terms and due to the exposed fundaments, the Court grants the present injunction
and, as a consequence, decrees as follows:
a) The prohibition for the Defendants to sell the books and the videos
that are still in stores or in other deposits or warehouses, and the obligation for the Defendants to collect them and to
deliver them to the depositary that is nominated below;
b) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform new editions
of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the same thesis, and that are destined to be sold or
published by any means whatsoever in Portugal;
c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editing rights
or the authorship rights over the contents of the book or the video, or of other books and other videos about the same theme,
for publication anywhere in the world;
d) The prohibition for the Defendants to cite, analyse or comment, verbally
or in writing, on parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of concealment
of her body by the first two Applicants;
e) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform the reproduction or comment,
opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or from where it can be inferred;
f) The prohibition for the
Defendants to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video
or said thesis.
Moreover, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant societies to pay a compulsory pecuniary
sanction in the amount of 1000 euros for each day that the prohibitions or the order to apprehend the books and the videos
are not respected.
The depository of the books and videos, whose collection is ordered, is the lawyer who represents
Expenses by the Applicants to be attended in the main action.
To be registered
(The Judge of Law, Amélia
This reference to an Appeals Court decision is due to the fact that the first request for an injunction that was filed by
the McCann couple and their children, was not granted. An appeal was filed, and the present injunction was granted after intervention
by the Appeals Court.
 The first Defendant is Gonçalo Amaral.
 The three other Defendants
are Guerra & Paz, Valentim de Carvalho Filmes and TVI.
 The two first Applicants are Kate and Gerry McCann.
 The third Applicant is Madeleine McCann.
 The Applicants' witnesses are mentioned here.
 The forth and fifth Applicants are Sean and Amelie McCann.
 The Brazilian edition does not exist, as was
later clarified during a hearing on the 13th of January 2010.
 Rádio Televisão Portuguesa
 «Maddie The Truth of the Lie – A powerful documentary based on best seller "The Truth of the Lie"
by Gonçalo Amaral»
 Portuguese Republic's Constitution
The following two articles are referenced
in the Injunction
Cadaver was frozen or kept
in the cold, 24 July 2008
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
Exclusive Interview with Gonçalo Amaral: Cadaver was frozen or was kept
in the cold
Gonçalo Amaral regrets that a 'fact-finding inquiry (sindicância) to the investigation was done".
In the first interview where he talks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched
today in Lisbon and promises to re-launch controversy.
Interview with Gonçalo Amaral in Correio da Manhã today
investigation was syndicated"
Gonçalo Amaral laments that "the investigation was syndicated". In
the first interview during which he speaks about the process, he defends that Maddie died at the Ocean Club. The book is launched
in Lisbon today and promises to launch the controversy again
Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator,
what is your thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book,
which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police
and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the
exposure or abandonment were proved.
What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?
all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's
testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which,
according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.
was it proved?
Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with
Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person,
completely different from Robert Murat.
Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.
order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction.
And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether
or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only
person that mentions the open window.
Does that undo the abduction theory?
There lies the solution. To be closed or not, is a strong indicium for simulation.
And why does one simulate abduction, rather than simply saying that the child has disappeared? She could have opened the door
Do Kate's fingerprints reinforce the simulation theory?
They are the only fingerprints
on the window. And in a position of opening the window.
Did Kate have suspicious attitudes?
goes out for dinner and supposedly leaves three children asleep. She returns, one is missing, she goes out, leaving the window
wide open with the twins asleep. And the night, according to what she says, was very cold…
It carries no signs that anyone was in it. Nor does the chair or the bed under the window. And
there are no imprints from strangers.
The reconstitution is missing.
It was not carried out
10 or 15 days after the facts, because the resort was full of tourists. We trusted that it could be carried out at a later
date. It couldn't.
Did you request data about the group?
At 8 a.m. on the 4th, the request
was made to the English liaison officer, but [the data] never arrived.
What did you want to know?
the people are, their antecedents. And the child, whether or not there are complaints against the parents or others. How she
behaved in school, to find out if she was the target of abuse.
How important is the Irish witness within the
He explained where he and his family had seen, at 10 p.m. on the 3rd of May, a man carrying a little
girl. And it wasn't Murat. They did not see the face, but they described the athletic and clumsy manner in which he carried
That was back in May.
When the McCanns returned to England, the witness, watching
Gerry get off the plane and walking across the asphalt carrying his child, had a realization. By the manner in which he walked
and the clumsy way that he carries the child, he is 70 to 80 percent certain that it was the person he saw that evening. Says
he and say the other members of the family.
What did you do?
On the days before I left Portimão
we were taking care of that trip to Portugal. Then, the hearing of that witness was requested through a liaison officer from
the Irish police in Madrid, which took months. During that time, the witness was approached by persons that are connected
to the McCanns' staff, I don’t know with what intention. They felt pressured. Later on, the hearing arrived and he maintains
the probability of 70 to 80 percent that it was Gerry who carried the little girl towards the beach.
that have been included in the rogatory letter?
It could and it should. The ideal would have been for him
to come to Portugal, as a key witness. Just like the couple of doctors that describe the situation in Mallorca.
the abduction theory was set apart, how was the death theory built?
With the elements that exist, we could
only reach an accident, natural death, any cause without the intervention of another person. We were cementing evidence and
advancing to understand what happened to the little girl's body. Also based on information from the British lab, about residues
that were found inside the car that was rented by the McCanns.
Where and how could they have hidden the body
for over twenty days?
That was what we were trying to find out. Searching within their friends, because the
couple had a lot of acquaintances. We tried to understand where the little girl could have been during those twenty something
Out of reach from the searches.
Yes. There was information that the couple had been seen
walking towards a certain apartment block, we were trying to understand which apartment it was. Who had access to that apartment.
But everything stopped.
How do you interpret that stopping of everything, when you left?
almost looks as if the investigation was syndicated.
It was even said that the blood that was found was not
The dogs only smell human blood. The sample that is collected and taken to England, to be analysed
with the Low Copy Number technique, is microscopic. The technique does not allow them to state whether it is blood or any
other type of fluid – but it guarantees that it is human.
The family tried to justify itself.
on, a brother-in-law and a cousin of Kate said that they had carried steaks in the trunk that had thawed, even garbage, but
no. The dogs follow neither garbage smell nor non-human blood. Then there is a witness, that was never heard, a jurist that
lived next to the couple, in the second house [villa] outside of the apartment, saying that the car trunk was left open during
the night, for airing. But maybe that was because of the garbage…
Within the theory of the parents' involvement,
can you reconstitute that night?
We had already concluded, long before the Irish witness, that if those persons
were involved, there was only one possibility. It pointed towards the beach. Not only because of what [locations] they knew
but also due to the terrain’s conditions. In that area, it is not easy to dig a hole. One either knows where holes already
exist, or it is not possible, within a short time lapse, to decide where to place a corpse without knowing the area. If there
was involvement, it would have been towards the beach area. Which is later corroborated by the Irish witness.
At the time when the Irish tourist reportedly saw Gerry, there are various witness statements
that place the child’s father at the Ocean Club.
They are not credible. The employees are unable to
tell at what time the persons were there, for how long each one of them stayed away when they say they went to the apartments.
And the group is not credible. They say that on the previous nights, every 30 minutes, each one of them went to check only
on his own children; but on that night, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., someone curiously goes to check that apartment, almost every
five minutes, leaving the rest unchecked.
And what about Gerry?
justifies some of the time with a trip to the toilet. That is not five minutes, then he meets another individual outside.
Hence the need for the reconstruction. To find out how long it took them to get to the apartments, what route they walked,
etc. A reconstruction that should be joint with the restaurant's movement, because when it is said that they asked for the
food from 9 p.m. onwards, there was one person who ordered a steak. And that steak was heated again because someone was not
there. It is necessary to find out whose steak that was. He was away for a much longer time period…
adult carrying a child, until the beach, how long [does it take]?
it possible for the apartment to be rented out after the crime?
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.
You admitted the possibility that the children had been given sedatives.
twins, with the lights on, with the lights off, with a crowd of people going in and out, slept until 2 a.m., when they were
carried into another apartment. Even then, they continued to sleep. That sleep is not normal.
But the Judiciária
Once again, we were inhibited. We thought about asking the parents to test their hair, in order
to understand whether there were sedatives, but as soon as it was found out, it would be said that we were suspecting the
parents, and it was being avoided at all costs that it became public that those suspicions existed.
How is there room for speculation about the DNA tests? It was those results that allowed
you to advance with the arguido status.
The speculation is done by the scientist who performs the test. He
starts out by saying, in his preliminary report, that it was easy to say that it was Maddie. Then he raised other questions.
Of course nobody can be accused, based on that data alone.
"The cadaver was frozen"
da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body,
after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues
that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
How can you state that?
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the
cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part
of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that
this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
If the body was hidden in the beach
area first, was it always out of reach for the searches?
The beach was searched at a time when it is not known
whether the body was still there. Using dogs, but sniffer dogs have limitations, like the salted water, for example. Later
on, it may have been removed.
"We should have done phone
Correio da Manhã – Did you feel political pressure during the investigation?
– Inhibition. One of the mistakes was that we did not advance on this group with everything that legally was within
our reach: Tapping, surveillance. It was necessary, for example, to recover the clothes that the little girl was wearing when
she left the crèche to go home. There, we thought: if we go, it will immediately be said that we suspect the parents. That
inhibition happened throughout time.
And that led you towards
We had to prove that there was no abduction, in order to focus on those persons afterwards…
does the pressure appear?
Right on the morning of the 4th of May, with a consul calling the embassy and saying
that the PJ wasn't doing anything. Then an ambassador. Next, an advisor and the English prime minister.
is the last one to see her"
Correio da Manhã –
When do testimonies concerning David Payne's behaviour indicating sexual practices with minors arrive?
Amaral – In May. Something went wrong with that group during a holiday: David Payne made revealing gestures concerning
behaviour towards children. Even towards Maddie. We asked for information but it arrived after the 26th of October. They sent
the information without giving it any importance.
What exactly did arrive?
A couple of doctors
spent holidays in Mallorca, in 2005, with David Payne, the McCanns and another couple. The lady says she saw Payne with his
finger in his mouth, making a movement in and out, while rubbing his nipple with the other hand. And he was talking about
Maddie, next to her father. Those statements should have been given a different treatment by the police. It was relevant to
access the information, about doctors, who are just as credible as anyone else.
What else remains unclear concerning
He will be the last one to see Maddie alive after 5.30 p.m., when she leaves the crèche. He meets
Gerry playing tennis and asks him about Kate and the children. Gerry answers that they are in the apartment and he goes there.
He returns 30 minutes later. Kate says it was 30 seconds. There is something not quite right here.
The evidence and the results of the case
this far, it is important to make a deductive summary about this case. Which means, to reject what is false; to set aside
what cannot be proved, because it is insufficient; to consider as valid and certain what has been proved.
1. The abduction theory is defended by Maddie's parents since the first
2. Within the group, only her parents stated that they observed the
open window in the missing girl's bedroom; the majority cannot witness it faithfully because they arrived at the apartment
after the alarm was raised;
3. The only statement outside of the group that mentions the open window
and the raised shutters comes from Amy, one of the Ocean Club's nannies, who points her observation towards 10.20/10.30 p.m.,
which is some time after the alarm was raised and does not prove that it was open like that at the time when the crime happened;
4. The set of depositions and witness statements exposes a high number
of imprecision, incongruence and contradictions – which, in some cases, may be typified as false testimonies. In particular,
the key statement for the abduction theory, from Jane Tanner, which loses all credibility due to the fact that it successively
evolved throughout various moments in time, becoming ambiguous and disqualifying itself;
5. There is a cadaver that has not been located, a conclusion that
is validated by the English EVRD and CSI dogs and corroborated by the preliminary lab test results.
"For me, and for the investigators that worked with me on the case until October 2007,
the results that we reached were the following:
1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club,
in Vila da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;
2. An abduction was simulated;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the
concealment of their daughter’s cadaver;
4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident;
5. There is indicia of neglect in the guard and safety of the children."
"Decisive diligence was never carried out"
"The Smith family [Irish
witnesses] is available to make a formal recognition. We had already contacted the Smith family, from Ireland, whose patriarch
was prepared to travel to the Algarve, to give a new statement and for a formal recognition […] following the recognition
that he had made on television of the man who on the 3rd of May, in Vila da Luz, walked towards the beach carrying a little
girl, a little girl that they had recognized as being Madeleine McCann.
"The man that the Smith were talking about
was, with a high degree of certainty, Gerald McCann, who they had seen on the English television news, on the day that the
McCann couple returned [on their definitive trip] to the United Kingdom. That man that came down the airplane stairs and walked
on the asphalt, carrying a child, was apparently the same man who, on the evening of the 3rd of May, walked into the direction
of the beach, carrying Madeleine, who seemed to be deeply asleep.
"When the situation was presented to the National
Director of the Polícia Judiciária [Alípio Ribeiro at that time], he agreed with what was being suggested to him, [namely]
the coming to the Algarve, at our expenses, of the elements of the Smith family that were able to testify the facts."
erased all the telephone calls
The calls on the couple's mobile phones were erased, with the exception,
in Kate's case, of a call from her husband at 11.17 on that night of the 3rd of May, minutes after the disappearance was known.
But this call is not registered on the mobile phone that belongs to Gerry, who erased all the phone calls of that day, presumably
after he called Kate at that time. This fact, that was never clarified in terms of its motivation, intrigued the investigators.
"Maddie's parents don't want the truth", 07 May 2009
The Portuguese policeman, who was in charge of the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie, remains convinced
of the responsibility of her parents. He has published a book against the McCann couple.
Translation by Nigel Moore
Gonçalo Amaral led the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie, in Portugal, for several months before being dismissed
for having publicly criticised the attitude of the English police. Since then, he has retired early. In a book out today in
France*, he delivers his truth. According to him, the investigation is definite: Maddie died accidentally in the apartment
where the family spent their holidays.
The parents would then have staged an abduction. Without formal proof, his book, very much against the parents, raises
What evidence do you have to support your version?
Gonçalo Amaral: There are several. We constantly noted the contradictions
in the statements of the McCanns and their friends. An Irish couple say that they saw Gerald McCann, on the evening of the
events, with a child in his arms. In terms of findings, we discovered the fingerprint of Kate McCann on the window of Madeleine's
room. The shape of the fingerprint indicates that it has opened this window. But she says that the window was open when she
entered the room. It is therefore clear that she wanted to steer the investigation toward the thesis of the abduction. Finally,
there is scientific evidence. The dogs detected a scent of corpse in the living room and discovered a trace of blood in the
same place. Traces which were also discovered in the rental car.
Rather, they are clues, not evidence. Blood, for example, has not been identified 100% as
that of Maddie...
True, but the results still indicate that the samples resemble the DNA profile of Maddie. These indices are in addition
to one other.
Why would the McCann couple lie?
Because they had been negligent with their children. They went for dinner and left them alone. Such behaviour was condemned.
They therefore made up the kidnapping story.
Your book shows that the investigation by the Portuguese police has not been flawless. Including
the crime scene...
That's true. At the time, there was no specific procedure in case of a missing child. The site has not been well preserved.
Since then, these shortcomings have been repaired.
What is your main regret about this investigation?
I think it would have been to very quickly organise a reconstruction. We could then have realised the contradictions
in the statements of Kate McCann and other witnesses. Unfortunately, my leader considered that it was impossible to implement.
Then, the parents refused.
How was the collaboration with the English police?
With the investigators on the ground, it went very well. However, it was much more complicated with the headquarters
in Great Britain. The information we had asked for created a lot of trouble to be taken up. The McCanns have managed
to influence the opinion of the British police and to win their case. In Britain, the vision of the record is political. On
the ground, it remained the police.
Will Maddie be found one day?
Today, the file is archived. The parents do not feel it will be reopened. They do not want the truth to be
known. Yet I am convinced that there are still avenues to pursue. Unfortunately, it is a dead body which we need to search
* « Maddie : l’enquête interdite ». Bourin Editeur. 19 €.