The £10,000,000 Man

The game continues. This week we had 5 articles that we wish to call your attention to:

- On Tuesday 04NOV2014, Jornal de Noticias, by Marisa Rodrigues, “Maddie Case: 10 witnesses to be questioned within the scope of the English investigation”.

- On Tuesday 04NOV2014, the Express, by Levi Winchester & Gerard Couzens, “Maddie McCann: British police to return to Portugal for fresh interviews”.

- On Wednesday 05NOV2014, Correio da Manhã, by Rui Pando Gomes, “More questionings with new arguidos”.

- On Wednesday 05NOV2014, the Mirror, by Tom Pettifor & Gerard Couzens, “Madeleine McCann: Scotland Yard cuts number of detectives working on the case ”.

- On Thursday 06NOV2014, Jornal de Notícias, by Marisa Rodrigues, “DNA clears crucial suspect in the Maddie case”.


If the information contained in the press reports are accurate, we now know SY’s 5th rogatory request has been authorised.

It seems SY has opted out of asking permission to re-interview the 3 previous suspects, or the “July arguidos”, as is reported in the 04NOV Jornal de Noticias article: “Even though the English police has expressed their interest in questioning again the four men constituted as arguidos, that had been questioned back in July, the English ended up leaving them out of this rogatory letter”

This is confirmed in the 04NOV Express article: “It was thought three of the suspects would be given a new grilling when the Operation Grange team led by DCI Andy Redwood returned to Portugal.”

It is understood that Mrs Sequeira only authorised interviews with witnesses whom British police have never questioned directly. So, apparently, in their 5th rogatory letter, SY opted out of asking for permission to reinterview the suspects.

The 05NOV Correio da Manhã article says nothing about the “July arguidos” although they’re implicitly mentioned when it’s said about these new hearings that “all will be formally heard for the first time after the green light by the MP magistrate”.

We do find it strange how SY knew, in August, the opinion of a prosecutor who had just landed in her new job in the middle of a chaotic situation caused by the implementation of the new Portuguese Judicial Map and the yet to be clarified glitch in the supporting software CITIUS that simply paralysed the whole system nationwide.

Apparently, in AUG2014, during the Portuguese judicial holidays, SY anticipated that Inês Sequeira wouldn't allow hearing any of the “July arguidos”. 

However, in our opinion, the fact that it took Mrs Sequeira 2 months and a “pressuring visit” to Faro from SY to dispatch what apparently had been coordinated with her, appears to indicate that she is not exactly playing ball the way the British would like her to be playing it.

Then we have the 06NOV Jornal de Notícias article saying: “Euclides’ DNA also wasn’t found in the apartment in Praia da Luz where the child disappeared from, seven years ago.”

Really?

Then that means ALL the 444 hair-strand vestiges found have been clearly identified as to whom they belong to and none of them belongs to Euclides.

And isn’t it a little too early to exclude for certain Euclides’ DNA from apartment? Isn’t there, supposedly, going to be re-testing done of the vestiges found that is supposed to be requested by SY via a 6th rogatory letter yet to be sent to Portugal? Are they already sure they won't find any of Euclides' DNA in the new results? From what we read, it appears that is the case.

And, even if it were true, that no DNA no Euclides will be found, why does that exclude him? Is there any reason for one to be excluded from a crime just because one’s DNA doesn’t show up at the crime scene?

If one’s DNA is found at a crime scene, then that puts one there (which doesn’t in any way mean one is guilty of anything because there may be plausible reasons for it to be there) but the absence of one’s DNA certainly doesn’t exclude one from it.

For example, we think Euclides was never in Apartment 5A - making it VERY unlikely for his DNA to be found there - but it's our opinion that he is a person of interest to the case.

Another reason also for him not to be linked to Maddie is because, according to 06NOV Jornal de Notícias, it wasn’t Euclides' semen that was allegedly found in one of the alleged sex-assaults - that no one has heard of and that no one remembered to speak about when Maddie disappeared - against British little girls on holiday in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006.

Again, and supposing these fictitious sex-assaults were even real, in what way does the fact Euclides didn't participate in them exclude him from being involved in Maddie’s disappearance?

Where is the link between Maddie’s burglary and the sex-assaults? Wasn’t the assaulter a pot-bellied white man wearing a long-sleeve burgundy shirt with a white circle logo? Euclides was a tall, black man.

And finally, wasn’t it Sandra Felgueiras who back in June said clearly that Euclides was no longer a suspect of the PJ? That PJ was looking for a foreigner who had left the country?

Is Euclides being exempted after having been exempted? Does he require to be exempted every 5 months?

Could there be another reason for Euclides to have popped up again? We think there is.

The 06NOV Jornal de Notícias article opens with this phrase “The investigation line that had Euclides Monteiro as a suspect, which led to the reopening of the “Madeleine McCann case” has fallen down”. According to this, Euclides was the reason for the reopening of the process in Portugal.

In Portugal, all legal processes have timelines. Times in which they have to be concluded. There may be, for many valid reasons, the need to ask for a prorogation.

We think that a criminal investigation has one year to be completed and now is coming the time for a prorogation to be asked about this process, that was reopened in NOV2013.

If Euclides was the reason, and if Euclides has been cleared, then, apparently, there’s absolutely no reason to keep process open in Portugal.

No justification to ask for a prorogation of its deadline. The reason, Euclides, for it to have been reopened has been cleared, so logic and legal proceedings dictate that process should be again re-archived in Portugal

So, maybe, is it possible that again bringing Euclides into the picture is Portugal pressuring UK into making a move? Portugal saying to UK listen, as you can see, we have no reason to keep this open, do you? Oh, you do? Care to show us? And could you do that quickly because we need to ASK to keep this open, you know…

About the 05NOV Mirror article, about SY cutting number of detectives in Operation Grange, remember when we explained the main reason for SY to do the PdL Humiliating Week was to set foot in “enemy” territory and use the proximity to infiltrate the PJ investigation?

The 05NOV Mirror article now seems to give us reason: “The force has withdrawn six officers from the Algarve” and “the force has removed six officers despite enquiries in Portugal intensifying - with the team making an average of over a flight a week to the Algarve so far this year.”

A team of six, over once a week, doorstepping the PJ? It should call for a restraining order, we would say.

It does beg the question, why did Redwood feel the need come to Faro? Didn’t these 6 officers adequately report on everything that was to be known, updated to the day?

Then, the 05NOV Mirror article tells us that its own suggestion that the “British police have begun scaling back the search” is not quite accurate as “two detective sergeants and four detective constables” go out but “at the same time six civilian staff have been brought in”.

Six out and six in. Simple math. Cutting back only if on weekly plane trips.

Could these six new civilians be forensic related? A reaction from UK showing commitment and withdrawing its claws to a Portugal not appearing to be playing along?

The 6th rogatory letter has not yet been sent to Portugal. As Andy Redwood is reportedly retiring in a few weeks, we assume his replacement, whoever that may be, will assume responsibility for pursuing the 6th rogatory request.

The authorisation of the diligences contained in the 5th rogatory letter means that 10 (or so) new witnesses will be interviewed, some of whom were interviewed during the original PJ inquiry.

SY is facing an issue of timing with these rogatory letters. 

The 5th rogatory is about hearing people. The 6th about forensics. The 5th was supposed to have happened in September, the 6th has been anticipated because of the September events.

So we have this very peculiar situation of a diligence – hearing people of interest – happening but being obfuscated by the one that is to follow it – the forensics.

This lack of coordination has led the odd situation of hearing people of interest before knowing the results of the new forensic testing that is still to be done. 

Will a person of interest be asked “In case we find your DNA on the curtains of the apartment, can you please explain why it was there? Please answer freely because we will disregard this question in case the result comes back negative about you. We’re just trying to save you and us time and an extra trip here in case it comes back positive, hope you understand.”

We think Operation Grange’s operation room must be similar to a studio of an animated movie: filled with storyboards to fit storylines. We think the only investigation done there is to come to a conclusion about what story is to be spun and coming, we hope, to the conclusion the only story that now is viable is the truth.

The storyboard with the 5th rogatory was to hear the persons of interest without the forensic cards being yet on the table. It was meant to draw attention to some people specifically. The 5th rogatory has a very clear objective and we’re afraid it might be missed because of this mistiming.

About the 5th rogatory the 05NOV Correio da Manhã has these 2 key phrases that we think important: “in the list for questioning, as CdM found out, there are about ten people, between Portuguese and British” and “among the new SY suspects, as CdM found out, there are former Ocean Club employees, the place from where the child disappeared in May 2007, and residents of Praia da Luz, Lagos.”

Remember how we have been explaining how the circle of “people of interest” has progressively widened?

First it was the Ocean Club employees, then Ocean Club itself, followed Portuguese locals. Now the level of this particular part of the game has moved up a significant notch: “British” and “resident in PdL”. Or, as they are commonly known, ex-Pats.

Another key-phrase of the 05NOV Correio da Manhã article is this: “these are people who British investigators consider suspects of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, following the theory that the child was abducted during a failed burglary.”

SY looked for a body in June2014, having said before there were reasons to believe that Maddie was dead when she left the apartment and now the renewed interest for forensics, we think we all agree that abduction is not the correct word to be used. No one abducts a dead body.

So let’s play along and correct the phrase in accordance with what appears to be SY’s storyline: “these are people who British investigators consider suspects of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, following the theory that the child was killed and taken during a failed burglary.”

This sounds more like it. More like the whitewashing so many believe is happening.

Let’s continue to play along with this and bring in the forensics.

Where the 04NOV Jornal de Noticias and 04NOV Express articles differ is their emphasis on SY’s interest in hairs or curtains.

The 04NOV Express refers to 98 hairs with no DNA results and 19 with partial results and that in order to re-test hairs, a 6th rogatory letter will be required. This may involve a request to take the material to the UK. The location of these unidentified hairs in apartment 5A isn’t specified but no mention of curtains.

05NOV Correio da Manhã mentions a 6th rogatory request for a re-analysis of hair samples and curtain fabric.

Re-analysis means the items have already been analysed. The only curtains which have been analysed are the living room curtains. No hairs were found on the curtains when they were examined.

So it seems SY are interested in evidence from the living room. Curtains which may have stains that contain material yielding DNA evidence. Just like stain 16.

There seem to be legitimate concerns expressed by various blogs about a possible request by SY to take the material to the UK for testing, given the traumatic experiences with the FSS in 2007/2008.

Why to the UK? Are testing methods in Portugal inferior to those in the UK and if however unlikely that is so, why not tests in an independent lab in another country?

One of the concerns expressed has been the possibility of “contamination” of the samples once received in the UK. And an attempt to link this “evidence” with a chosen “abductor”, whether living or dead.

Raymond Hewlett, deceased, was once considered to be a likely candidate; at least for knowing what had happened, if not for his direct involvement, but the moment for his candidacy seems to have passed. Who can forget the allegedly incriminating letter burned by his son?  Could he, in all seriousness, ever be revived as a suspect?

Now, we’ll play LET’S SUPPOSE… and look at the obstacles SY would have to overcome in order to achieve a whitewash.

LET’S SUPPOSE Portugal agree to samples of curtains and hair being taken to the UK for testing.

Would they not request some oversight of the procedures and retention of some control samples?

But LET’S SUPPOSE they don’t and SY are now free to request the as yet unspecified lab to “find” some incriminating evidence. 

LET’S SUPPOSE the lab agrees, despite the extremely serious nature of what they are involved in and produces the “find”.

LET’S SUPPOSE SY have DNA samples of a suspect/s which just happens to match the “find”. They have the Abductor/s!

LET’S SUPPOSE the “Abductor” is alive. Is he meekly going to plead guilty? Would any amount of money or threats make an innocent person confess to the crime of the century, with the prospect of serving a custodial sentence as the most reviled man in Portugal? The most reviled man in the UK? The most reviled man in the world?

This, lest we forget, is the crime of the XXI century. This is the £10,000,000 criminal. And that's just counting what the Brit taxpayer has paid up to now. Add what the Portuguese have paid and he comes second to none in being the most expensive criminal of all time.

And what of his family? Will his family live with the fame of having one of its members as the world’s most notorious criminal without being it? Won’t he take that into account before confessing?

But LET’S SUPPOSE he does confess. Would that be the end of the mystery?

Of course not! The press would begin a new news-feeding frenzy. Every detail of his life would be raked over, strange anomalies in his abduction story would be noted.

The reputation of Portugal would be tarnished. ONLY the UK police were able to resolve this crime. Portugal had failed to apprehend him.

What would happen if he retracted his confession in prison and decided to appeal against his sentence? And spilled the beans about any inducement to plead guilty.

But, more importantly, would he be able to demonstrate what became of Madeleine?

LET’S SUPPOSE he decides to plead not guilty. Then all the evidence, dogs in apartment and cars, contradictory statements by T9, challenges to forensic evidence, an alibi previously unknown to SY… would all be resurrected. 

LET’S SUPPOSE he is found guilty. Then most of the above applies. Surely there would be an outcry in Portugal about a miscarriage of justice? And a UK police force have conspired to send a man to prison for life. If this ever emerges, it will have severe consequences for those involved.

LET’S SUPPOSE a living abductor is too risky.

LET’S SUPPOSE instead that SY can match the “Find” to a dead paedophile who they can place in PdL on May 3rd. Forensic evidence with a suspect who could have been elsewhere will not do. Far too suspicious, with shades of Barry George and Jill Dando.

Would SY be able produce any evidence of what happened to Maddie as a result of this conclusion?

Would the story end here?  Would Portugal accept this outcome with resignation?

Then a final - LET’S SUPPOSE …

Can UK rely on the £10,000,000 man, on his family and on all who know him to be a patsy to keep their mouths shut forever?

Some years later, files emerge, politicians change, people face death and their conscience nags, new facts or alibi information is forthcoming, partners confess to new partners – loyalties change and ex-partners refuse to keep dark secrets, someone decides to sell a very big story...

It’s not unknown for some or many of these things to have occurred in real life crimes and this case has badly shaken the confidence of many bloggers in our justice systems. It’s not surprising that a whitewash is suspected, given the antics of SY digging in Portugal.  We have had to contemplate that possibility, but given the high-profile nature of this case, we also have to ask if it’s really a viable option.

Apart from the truth, are any other possible scenarios?

Maybe the only one is for SY, after £10 million, 3 years and massive publicity, is to say “We believe it was an unknown abductor, but we don’t know who or why or where Maddie is.” - which would bring them back to the position where they started. 

Explain that to the taxpayers of the UK. 

Explain to taxpayers all about the Maddie PdL JUN2014 Circus. Explain to taxpayers the renewed interest in forensics. Explain to taxpayers the list of people of interest. Explain to taxpayers the reasons they believed Maddie left the apartment dead.

We can’t see this happening. It’s gone way too far for that.

And the following has to be asked: if whitewashing was the pursued objective, why bring up the forensic trilogy so much feared by the BH: hair, blood, Scenic’s boot? Like we showed in our “Frontline News” post the 28OCT Correio da Manhã article says “25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room from where the child disappeared and in the boot of a car”.

Bringing the car (Scenic) into the picture and specifically its boot, is to automatically exclude anything that doesn't have to do with the McCanns. And that includes any alleged bungled burglary.

And why bring in British ex-Pats (if this is the case, we will be waiting to see as it hasn’t happened yet) for questioning? What can they possibly have to do with a burglary done by locals and/or Ocean Club employees?

Many people are being involved. Too many for a whitewash, in our opinion. 05NOV Correio da Manhã article says that in July, besides the 4 “July arguidos”, “at the time, eleven witnesses were also heard”. We confess we didn't realise 15 people had been heard then. If one adds the new 10, then that totals 25 people.

Maybe the correct phrase in the 05NOV Correio da Manhã article should be “these are people who British investigators consider suspects of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, following the theory that the child was killed and taken from apartment.” Maybe that's the way that sentence really is being read by some.

To those who may think we support SY, we don’t. We think it’s shameful, to say the least, to have the Met play the clown in such a sickening circus.

We are bystanders in this process, but as Redwood once said “We are fighting for Madeleine” (not “We are fighting over Madeleine”)

Our mission is to pressure those who are making decisions for SY into having SY do the right thing. We do that by explaining why any other option than the truth will only make worse an already more than oversized problem.

In this post we tried to imagine what we would do if we were Andy Redwood and asked to find someone other than the McCanns/T7 to blame for what happened to Maddie. Apart from coming up with a zero result, which would be safe but humiliating, anything else requires him and some of his team at least, to undertake a series of criminal activities in order to send an innocent person to prison, or find a convincing dead person to fit the bill, leaving Portugal humiliated in the process.

With very little, not to say any, chance of success.

Want an example of a misfired creation? The abduction. So much has been done to create it. Using almost limitless resources by the powerful and influential and yet it fails to convince anyone.

The same is certain to happen if the £10,000,000 man is indeed to be created.

We are fighting for a justice system that applies to everyone and one in which we can place our trust. LET’S SUPPOSE it’s possible.