Maddie case: “They don't seem to be very sure about concrete evidence”

Carlos Carmo, former coordinator of the Judiciary Police, analyses new developments in the investigation.

The former PJ inspector considers that the English police works with a budget that allows paying informants and that, therefore, “from time to time some suspects will appear”, but that there does not seem to be any certainty concerning tangible evidence about the German man considered as a formal suspect

in: Sic Notícias https://sicnoticias.pt/especiais/caso-maddie---10-anos/2020-06-03-Caso-Maddie-Parecem-nao-estar-ainda-bem-seguros-relativamente-a-provas-concretas, 4.06.2020

Sic Notícias Night Edition News (Jornal da Noite), broadcast on June 3, 2020

Journalist and News anchor Rodrigo Pratas (RP)

Former PJ inspector Carlos Pinto do Carmo, commentator on SIC TV news channel (CC)

Video Transcript:

Rodrigo Pratas (RP) – Carlos do Carmo, former coordinator of the Judiciary Police and commentator on the Sic programme ‘Linha Aberta’ [Open Line], is the guest of this night edition. Very good evening, thank you for being here.

Carlos do Carmo (CC) – Good evening.

RP – We were talking earlier about the Metropolitan Police press release, I have it here, it’s four pages of a press statement with very specific information, with appeals, these phone numbers, the photographs of the vehicles, etc. And yet, the Portuguese Judiciary Police (PJ) issued a notice that has one, two, three, four paragraphs, five paragraphs. Ahem, can you find an explanation for this (discrepancy), for the PJ’s communiqué having less information than the English police one? Knowing as you do the Portuguese Judiciary Police, as you know the Metropolitan police?

CC – Before anything else, good evening. The Judiciary Police communiqué certainly is one that translates the belief of the police forces that are working together, there’s cooperation, an international police joint effort, and undoubtedly our Judiciary Police, the holder of the process, which is now archived and controller of the investigation, certainly collaborated with the German authorities, right? With the German police authorities.

RP - But they don’t advance much information, they just say, “investigative steps continue to be carried out for the complete clarification of the situation”, in close cooperation with the German and English authorities but nothing truly specific. And here we are, a little bit after thirteen years since the disappearance of the child, once again another investigative line. From the experience that you have, the contacts and the knowledge that you have about the way the English police authorities conduct their investigations, could this mean that this is a will-o'-the-wisp, so to speak, just like other investigative lines that ended up with zilch.

CC – We just recently had the anniversary marking the disappearance of Maddie McCann. Over the years, occasionally some suspects emerge, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the English police works with quite a high financial budget, what I mean by this is that it is possible to use informants, to pay to informants, to see if the police can gather criminal intelligence. Therefore, I would not be surprised that the case, this case of the German man, that is detained, in jail, is also a case stemming from intelligence collected by the BKA [German Police acronym for Bundeskriminalamt]. However, we do not know what the reliability of that information is; note that the communiqué of the German police is broad, but simultaneously also looks to grasp at something more, it speaks of vehicles, two vehicles, speaks of the stay of this individual in the area of Portimão. So, they do not seem to be very sure about concrete evidence.

RP – But apparently the British television, sorry, German television, the inspector of the case, said that he was convinced that more than a kidnapping, there had been a homicide. What is your interpretation of these two methods of presenting the case by the two police forces of the two countries, one just as a disappearance and the other also as a homicide?

CC – Yes, the understanding that I have is as follows; from the beginning that in view of the given facts, all the hypotheses were placed on the table, that is, the hypothesis of a crime of abduction, the hypothesis of a crime of homicide, the hypothesis of an accidental death, in actuality the accidental death was the one that attained more substantiation, because we cannot forget that the first person responsible for the investigation (Gonçalo Amaral) was guided by the hypothesis that the child had died in that apartment and that eventually the parents had, at least, collaborated with someone in the disappearance of the cadaver.

RP - And of the vestiges.

CC – And of the vestiges (nods agreeing). But I want to stress the following; there is at least one hypothesis of the practice of a crime, of exposure to abandonment of that child. Note that, the parents were with other friends celebrating their holidays, eating, and drinking, near-by the apartments. The children were in the apartment. We cannot forget that the child in question was four years old!

RP - And her brother and sister were even younger.

CC – Well then, someone that is enthralled about having fun and pays little to no attention to children that they have in the apartment, what might happen then? What can happen is that that person is placing at risk the very life of the child, because the child can be abandoned, without protection. The parents had the duty of care, of watching over those children. That did not happen. Even if it was considered as eventual intent [dolo eventual], not thinking that there was an intention by the parents for something to happen purposefully to the children, - that for me is out of the question - but in reality, if the parents were distracted with diversion, going out several times to check upon the children, the risk of death or of harm to the physical integrity could still occur. That hypothesis was weighed on right at the start. But the truth is, the parents weren’t constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] for this crime, and this crime, in my opinion, is applicable. In my view, the actions of the parents embody that crime, that is foreseen in the Penal Code, in the 138 article and is a serious crime! Since the descendants, my apologies the ascendants, are responsible for the creation of situation of danger, the crime is punishable from two up to five years, and if the child dies, the sentence can go from three up to ten years, it’s a serious crime!

RP – Let me go back to the Metropolitan police press release to examine further this issue of the phone numbers, of the two phone numbers and the press release appeals for people who might know those phone numbers, and they are 912730680 and 916510683, these are the numbers that are in the release. Someone that might have still these numbers in an old phone or in a current one, or have these numbers saved in any kind of electronic device, any of these numbers so people may be able to help the investigation. Hence, I ask, but isn’t reasonable to expect that the three countries authorities’ investigation should already have accesses to a log of the route of these phones? Since they have the information of the existence of a thirty minutes phone call, how come they don’t have access to the phone log data and the location through the antennae?

CC - We don’t know if the Judiciary Police…

RP – We don’t know if they do or don’t have that, that’s right.

CC - We don’t know if they do or don’t, yes.

RP – But if they are appealing for these contacts, one can assume that they don’t have that information. Or no?

CC - Well, I believe that no; I think that at the beginning several means were used, of the Judiciary Police, of our Judiciary Police, and also of the Metropolitan Police who came to Portugal immediately in order to cooperate in the investigation. I believe that at that time the phone data was requested to the telecom operators, the log of the phone numbers that were eventually activated in the area.

RP - Activated in the antennae of the area.

CC – Precisely. In the cell phone antennae. I believe that this is what might have happened, but there’s something that I want to state here; all of that, what purpose can it serve? That is, the person in question might have even talked for thirty minutes, but what was the conversation about? What was the content of the conversation? Look, this person that is in jail was already questioned, and it seems, from what it is known, that he didn’t cooperate in elucidating if he was or not in Portugal at that time, in that moment of Maddie’s disappearance and if whether he has any responsibility in her disappearance. He didn’t clarify any of that, he didn’t cooperate. And why should he cooperate? Does he effectively have any responsibility to the facts that were investigated, that appear in the process that is archived? We don’t know. So, it seems to me that all of this is minimal to get to the objective conclusion and to the gathering of evidence that may finally explain what exactly happened to Maddie. It’s not, therefore, nor it ever was out of the question the initial investigative line that entails the responsibility of the parents as they did not take care to watch over, did not take care of the child. Moreover, I can tell you if they had done in London, or in any English town what they did here in Portugal, they would have had serious criminal and judicial liabilities.

RP – Carlos do Carmo, thank you so much for coming to the night edition with your views about this situation. Have a very good night.

CC – You’re welcome.

// Translation by J.M. for the Textusa sisters //

*****

Comment from the blog:

A huge thank you to Joana!

We would like to highlight the date of this interview: June 4. This was on the next day after this story broke out on the evening of June 3.