|
Sara Carrilho - Manuel Rodrigues, there
isn't another way to say it, the Supreme
Court of Justice was implacable
(scathing, adamant) with the McCann
couple.
Manuel Rodrigues - I have no idea what
to call it, if implacable if something
else. What I think, is that probably for
the very first time in many years, the
Supreme Court treated an issue that is a
recurrent problem in criminal processes,
in a remarkably clear manner and also
educational. In other words, we have
several people going around, freely,
involved in criminal processes, in
respect to the parents it wasn't
possible, despite the numerous
indications that were gathered,
extremely varied of all sorts, to
substantiate the evidence. And then
there is the principle of in dubio pro
reo (Lat. when in doubt, for the
accused), so in those situations the
Courts cannot convict, as such the
criminal processes are archived. So we
have, excuse my expression, plenty "caramelo"
(cocky, brazen-faced), claiming they are
innocent, knowing full well that they
committed crimes, that they have stolen
thousands if not millions, in short,
committed crimes all types...
Carlos Anjos - Of all types, we all
know they have committed those crimes.
Manuel Rodrigues - Exactly, everyone
knows and they themselves know it too,
but Justice doesn't work with
assumptions. Justice works with
substantiations of evidence and
sometimes that is not possible. And it's
not possible not because the
investigation was poorly done,
inadequately performed, defectively
investigated, no! At times the
complexities of criminal matters are to
a such degree that despite the evidence,
it's just not possible.
Sara Carrilho - In this particular case
for example, there wasn't a
reconstruction of the crime because
there were no witnesses.
Manuel Rodrigues - That's where I
wanted to go. Besides the Supreme Court
very clear message when saying "Hold
your horses. Just because the process
was archived, no one said that you are
innocent!", and this was said for the
first time by someone with authority in
Justice, clarifying and bringing this
argument to a closure. In addition, they
went beyond by saying that many of these
problems would have been resolved,
possibly the process (criminal case)
would have had a conclusion, if only the
lack of attendance of the witnesses
hadn't scuppered an investigative step
that was crucial and was never possible
to do, and that was the reconstruction
of the crime. That whole group involved
in this situation, some of which who
might eventually not be good characters,
they all disappeared, they all got a
ticket and got away. And when it was
asked for them to comeback, because they
were needed to do the reconstruction, no
one came back. Now, everything has
turned into a soap opera, but with few
stars, with those that are not worthy of
being followed, there are very unsavoury
games in the midst of all this, there
are protections that have never been
explained. The media, in my opinion,
never did a good job, or rather, failed
in what was likely the most important
thing to do during all this time, that
was to verify the past of the group,
understand the connections and the
reasons behind the protections, the
media has never got to the bottom of
those issues. I do not want to go on for
very much longer, except to say this:
for me, this ruling by the Supreme Court
is a piece that should be framed and
should be displayed to the general
populace.
Sara Carrilho - Wasn't that work made
by the police? Of finding the background
information of this group?
Manuel Rodrigues - We're making an
error of appreciation on this issue. The
police has to investigate this crime,
and prove this crime. Obviously there
were background checks of this group,
evidently some conclusions were reached,
conclusions which have already been
widely mentioned, also in this program,
the most diverse: that the group
eventually engaged in swinging, others
in cha-cha-chá, or another type of
music, it doesn't matter. All these are
parallel processes to the crime itself.
It was also said that in that group
there were people that were paedophiles,
that had connections to...
Carlos Anjos - Secret Services.
Manuel Rodrigues - (nods affirmatively)
So, all this should have been thoroughly
scrutinized, instead of saying that
Gonçalo Amaral ate grilled sardines
or...
Carlos Anjos - That he drunk whisky, or
whatever.
Manuel Rodrigues - This are fait divers
(anecdotes) to cause noise and disturb
the investigation, and sadly we have
reached this point now where there is a
child missing since 2007, and we still
don't know precisely what happened to
her.
Sara Carrilho - This year marks the ten
years since her disappearance. In
relation to this ruling, Carlos Anjos,
the message that has been sent out is
that the lack of evidence can never be
equated to innocence.
Carlos Anjos - Of course, that happens
in all processes, like Manuel said,
there are many 'fine' people that think
that when a process is archived because
the crime wasn't proved... One thing is
when the judges rule "the defendant is
acquitted because he did not commit the
crime", this is an exoneration but when
they aren't convicted because the
indicia didn't develop into sufficient
proof for an accusation that doesn't
mean an absolution. This is the reason
why I agree with Manuel, this ruling is
sublime, it's without any doubts one of
the best legal pieces that I have read
recently in terms of quality. Also in
the way that presents the problems and
explains them in a clear and easily
understandable way. We have a case where
a man was constituted as an arguido and
didn't provide a statement, any man that
has his child missing wouldn't care
about giving statements (to the police),
if my son disappeared I wouldn't care if
they suspected me, they could even
arrest me as long as they would find my
child, it wouldn't be because they had
suspicions that I would refuse to give a
statement. There is one thing that we
know by reading the statements of the
whole group, is that they all lied, lied
through their teeth, because there isn't
a single statement between those 7 or 8
people that were there that night that
matches with one another.
Sara Carrilho - And the only
reconstruction done so far, was by CMTV
that reveals those exact incongruences.
Carlos Anjos - Yes, when they went back
to England they were questioned and
again they had conflicting versions.
When invited to come back, with paid
expenses, none of them came back, not
even the McCanns, the parents of the
child. This reconstruction would have
solved, one way or another, those
questions. On top of that, they accused
Gonçalo Amaral of breaching the
professional secrecy, what breach of
professional secrecy? When Gonçalo
Amaral wrote the book the process was
already in the public domain, it was no
longer under judicial secrecy, and the
CD's (containing a digital copy of the
process) had already be given to
numerous people.
Sara Carrilho - They themselves talked
several times, the door had already been
open.
Carlos Anjos - That is also another
point, they accused Amaral of writing
the book for profit, I am absolutely
certain that Amaral would swap the
earnings from his book for a single
interview the McCanns gave throughout
the world, namely when they went to
Oprah. I'm sure he would swap it, and
that would have solved all the problems
of a life time. If there was someone in
this case that profited, it's disputable
to understand who that was, but if you
ask me I think that Gonçalo Amaral when
he wrote the book, he retired from the
police to write the book, while we are
still to this day talking about the
money the McCanns will earn from the
10th anniversary interviews, because we
are talking about their daughter, we are
not talking about the daughter of
Gonçalo Amaral. Therefore, there is a
plan, which from an ethical standpoint,
concerning the way they have used the
child's disappearance is difficult to
understand. Another thing, the McCanns
have spoken substantially more about
their daughter's disappearance without
saying anything significant, they should
have explained where they have spent the
funds, everyone contributed the Maddie
fund. Or even the English government -
the protection Manuel was talking about
earlier, why did they give 15 million
euros to a single investigation, that is
almost the operational budget of the
Judiciary Police for one year. And
England is the European country where
more children go missing, children that
don't have a tenth of what the English
government has invested on this case.
Despite everything, for the very first
time in this process someone dotted the
i's and crossed the t's, because what
the McCanns wanted was a certificate
that they were innocent and had nothing
whatsoever to do with the case. This
ruling tell us that the abduction theory
is far-fetched.
Sara Carrilho - Ten years later what is
certain is that we still don't know...
Carlos Anjos - Ten years later, at
least some Justice was done, it was
proved that the abduction of the child
is highly unlikely.
Sara Carrilho - In relation to the
whereabouts of the child, we still don't
know where she is and ten years have
passed.
Broadcast by CMTV, Rua Segura Se.17
EP.28 February 9, 2017 |
