1 Statement, 1 Article

1. Introduction

It’s said that culture is what we remember when we forget all the rest.

Truth is that memory retains only important events. Events that mark humanity for some reason.

And within these, criminal ones do occupy a relevant part of our memory. Not because of any voyeuristic or sadistic trait but because crime is deviancy and as deviancy is out of the norm, it is what points us to what norm is by being its exception.

That’s why we remember OJ Simpson and we will always remember Maddie. We have referred to these 2 for a reason and that is because both have  2 things in common: timelessness and globalisation.

If each nation has its memorable crimes, very few reach a global status. Very rare indeed and these 2 have achieved that.

Time makes dust settle. But sometimes important things may be lost when the dust is cleaned just because they went unnoticed while the air was filled with clutter.

Today we bring you 2 of those important things that went unnoticed in our opinion: 1 statement and 1 article.

2. The statement

When we first spoke of Mr Gonçalo Amaral’s participation on CMTV, in our post “The Sun will go down”, we said then that the programme had just been a repetition of the one aired back in 2013.

We did note that in this “2016 edition” he had decided to make one VERY important revelation and that was he was set on having the translation into English of his book “A Verdade da Mentira” available to all English speaking readers worldwide, and namely those within the UK.

Even noting that VERY important revelation we were unfair to Mr Amaral because in the programme he also made another VERY important revelation about the case, which was about its really interesting timelines in 2007/2008.

With thanks to Joana Morais, who transcribed and translated, this is what Mr Amaral had to say when explaining the circumstances in which he decided to write his book:

“Anchor - Do you feel like a victim of the circumstances?

Gonçalo Amaral - No, I never considered myself as a victim then nor now. I felt at a certain point in time and this was part of the reasons that motivated me to write the book, that there was a full campaign of defamation and insults. A campaign that is likely to begin again given the court result, I have no doubts that it may happen again. That is usual under the circumstances associated with this case. So, I was a target of that. I requested at the time, I almost demanded it in fact, that is, demand between inverted commas, for the Judiciary Police direction to come out in our defence. Not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case and were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on. There were intrusions on our private lives, we were under surveillance, a series of things. Nothing was done about that. Then I began to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough. There was a preceding moment where I went to Faro (PJ headquarters)...

Anchor - After you were removed from the investigation?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, removed from the direction, from being the officer in charge of Portimão. I thought that everything would end there, but no, the attacks went on. I asked at that time to Dr. Alípio Ribeiro, to send me to...

Anchor - The National Director of the Judiciary Police?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, he was the director of the Judiciary Police. I asked him to let me go to the Azores, so I could regain some peace. I wanted to get away of these issues. They understood that I should stay and do my job in Faro, there I stayed, things went on until I've decided to... I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anchor - But you asked to the Direction of the Judiciary Police to write this book? To reveal your truth?

Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, it does have to do with that. There was a problem, either I would write the book and stay in the Judiciary, and then the Judiciary would be liable or I could leave the Judiciary and anything that might happen would be on me. So, I set the Judiciary Police aside of the problem, and I left the Judiciary Police in order to regain the plenitude of my rights.”

There can be no doubt that Mr Amaral retires from the PJ only because he wants to write the book and doesn’t want to drag the PJ with him into the legal implications he foresaw.

Also there cannot be any doubt that the decision came after seeing himself and his colleagues being victims of a fierce denigration campaign, which didn’t stop even after he was taken off the case.

As there isn’t any doubt that the last drop that made Mr Amaral decide to write the book was a conversation that took place which made him realise the process was going to be archived.

It’s VERY important that these 3 things are understood as fact and that they are not deductions made by us. It was what Mr Amaral said on live TV.

Unfortunately, the anchor failed to realise the importance of the words Mr Amaral said: “Then I began to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough”.

From them we unfortunately cannot pinpoint the time when this archival conversation took place. As we will show, it would be VERY important to determine when it happened and it would be very nice if we got to know who took part in it.

With “our defence” and “not only in my defence, but in the defence of all the officers that were working on the case” Mr Amaral seems to be suggesting the conversation in question happened when he was still heading the investigation.

If that was the case then it would have been before Oct 2 2007 the day he was taken out of the investigation.

To reinforce this idea he says “it was then that I decided that it was enough”. This “enough is enough” moment could have been what motivated him to give the interview about the British interference which would result in him being taken away from the investigation.

If it was when he headed the investigation, then he would be speaking with direct knowledge as any decision about the case would have been discussed with him.

However the anchor seems to contradict this when he asks if it was “after you were removed from the investigation?” and Mr Amaral confirms it was and also by referring to a “preceding moment” when he was professionally relocated to Faro, and that happened after he was taken off the investigation.

This means that when he requests for the PJ to come out in “our defense” he still sees himself as part of the team in terms of feeling targeted by the campaign against them, although, professionally, he’s no longer a member. The “our defence” can be interpreted as all the PJ officers who had worked on the filed in the case and were being insulted by the British MSM.

This would place the archival conversation to after Oct 02 2007.

As we said, from his words in the programme one cannot be precise as to when it happened, however one can determine a “not-later-than” moment when it had to have happened.

It is a fact that Mr Amaral links his retirement to the writing of the book and the writing of the book to this archival conversation which for him was an enough-is-enough moment.

So, it’s a fact the archival conversation took place before Mr Amaral retired and it’s a fact that Mr Amaral retired on July 1 2008.

Now, one just doesn’t walk in the office on June 30, having decided that morning to retire, fill in a paper and start retirement the next day.

To ask for an early retirement from public service in Portugal, is a bureaucratic process which begins by one requesting to retire.

Then there’s the time for the higher echelon to make the decision, and once it accepts the request there’s the question of the worker having enjoyed all his due holidays before his retirement date.

In Portugal, one enjoys the holidays referred to the previous working year. That means that when Mr Amaral requests to retire he would have 22 working days of holidays due from 2007 and the proportional number of days for the time he worked in 2008, which was 6 months, meaning 11 working days.

This means that Mr Amaral had to have enjoyed 33 working days of holidays before leaving, which would make May 16 2007 his last day in office.

Before that, the bureaucratic process of calculating the time of effective service time and the value of his retirement pension would have taken place.

We would say that between the submission of the request to retire and the date of retirement there would be at least 3 months. That would mean the request had been made around April 1 2008.

But let’s shorten that time to 2 months – less than that is simply not being realistic – and say that Mr Amaral couldn’t have requested his retirement later than May 1 2008.

This in turn means that it is a fact (NOT an assumption) that the archival conversation to which Mr Amaral is referring to and that was the trigger to his book took place before May 1 2008, otherwise it wouldn’t have been the last straw.

How is this important?

It’s VERY important.

As far as we know, there’s a conviction that the McCanns were not charged because the forensic evidence was not considered solid enough. To be very clear, it is supposed to have been because the forensics were not sufficiently conclusive that it was decided to archive the process in 2008.

The consideration that that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone of the McCann family was made by UK’s FSS, in a report signed by John Lowe.

One has to suppose that if the FSS considered the evidence present had enough strength, the McCanns would have been charged.

To say exactly what we want to say, the decision to charge or not to charge apparently waited for the outcome of forensics.

GA comes now and shows very clearly that it wasn’t the case. The decision to archive came before forensics concluded anything.

On May 22, when Mr Amaral was no longer working in his office and had already taken the decision to retire because a decision to archive had already been taken, John Lowe concludes that stain #9 is from C****** Gordon (CG), Paul Gordon’s son.  In our “Super-Kid” post we showed how a 2 yr old boy, CG, 87 cm tall (32 in) couldn’t possibly leave any of his DNA on a stain (stain #9) located 1.50m (4ft 11in) high on a wall in a corner cluttered with furniture of apartment 5A’s living room.

According to FSS, it was CG’s DNA that was found in the semen/saliva stain ('crime stain 1') on the bedspread in the kids' bedroom. Because it was CG’s, according to FSS, then what was found couldn’t have been semen. As our readers know, we think that CG was used to invalidate the presence of semen in the stain found on the bedspread of the kids’ bedroom.

On that same May 22 report, John Lowe says he sends stain #16 for comparison to a national data base and gets matches back. All would be fine if he didn’t state about the same stain that that it wasn’t possible to obtain any decent DNA information from it! Why send it for comparison then? That was the rhetorical question we put in our post “Sweet 16”.

Stain #16 that according to John Lowe has nothing but “two unconfirmed DNA components” but then follows that up by confirming the unconfirmed and say that it made up of “a contribution of DNA from more than one person” after all. Fascinating stuff.

And on June 18, again when Mr Amaral was no longer working in his office and had already taken the decision to retire because a decision to archive had already been taken, John Lowe signs the infamous “in my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” report.

The FSS final report.

The report in which John Lowe lets his mouth run to the truth and says that stain #3 (made up of two stains of 1 cm each as shown in our post “Does size matter?”) was either from Maddie or from her parents: “Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann”.

Having this very specific to the McCanns either-or in mind, John Lowe surprises all by coming to the amazing conclusion that stain #3 “in my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result”, as we showed in our post “FSS: It’s Maddie’s blood”.

Both dates, May 22 and June 18, are after Mr Amaral could have taken his decision to retire after he heard, or took knowledge, of the archival conversation.

Mr Amaral shows very clearly that the forensics input was tailored to a decision already taken. Not as should have been, which would be waiting to decide after the forensics came to a conclusion.

With the words “then I began to understand that the process was going to be archived, a conversation on that subject took place and it was then that I decided that it was enough” Mr Amaral exposes the entire pantomime this process was in 2008.

It was archived because there was a political decision to archive. Nothing to do with existing evidence, forensic or otherwise. A decision with absolutely nothing to do with any sort of police work.

We have established that it had to be before May 1 2008 but most likely it was much earlier than that.

We have the indication that Mr Paulo Rebelo wanted to do a reconstruction in March 2008. That certainly doesn’t seem to be in line with an archiving decision.

Speculating, we would say that it was exactly this failed attempt to do a reconstruction that triggered the decision to archive.

The embarrassing response from the Tapas group – having the McCanns showing availability to go but making sure the process would be stopped by the other T7 – most likely made whoever was deciding at the time feel that the best was to speed up the archival so the Portuguese would stop quickly their silly detective games.

We think that the archival conversation took place shortly after the failed reconstruction. It allows the time for Mr Amaral to request and be authorised to retire on July 1 2008 and allows time for him to have written the book.

The archival conversation obviously took place on the Portuguese side, otherwise Mr Amaral would have never heard of it.

And it was not a passing comment, it wasn’t a suggestion to archive among colleagues. It was a decision to archive. A decision with enough certainty to make Mr Amaral end his professional career and embark on a fight for the truth. And what a fight was there waiting for him.

Only the naïve, to not use a harsher word, would believe that this decision to archive was a Portuguese one, that it was imposed on the British by the Portuguese because that that would be really astonishing!

As we are certain it happened the other way around, or to be very clear, it was the British who imposed the archival on the Portuguese before the forensic results were out, those having the audacity of saying that some wonderful British values will have survived this journey intact namely the rule of law, the principle of justice, freedom of press and expression, and the appropriate level of diplomatic respect for the Brit’s good friends and allies should hang their heads in shame, in whatever name they choose to sign their texts with.

We know they won’t as shame is something they have lost long ago together with any sense of decency.

But then again, he who says that, or anything similar, and fails to notice the laughter it causes is because he’s deluded, or compromised, beyond hope. We let the reader decide which is which.

We just hope the 30 silver coins have brought some sort of compensation.

3. The article

In our post “The Sun will go down” we showed how much of a taunt James Murray’s article “We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night” had been to the UK Establishment.

In it Mr Amaral taunts the UK by saying there’s a second book coming even before the first one hits the stands and is available for the British public to read and then continues by humiliating the SY when he proposes that a reconstruction be done with the participation of those present that night, including SY’s Crèche-Dad.

Not only taunts but even dares UK when he says “we seem to be getting towards the end of the Operation Grange investigation, the last roll of the dice, so what is there to lose?”

Now will the UK stand up to the dare or cower away? We bet it will pretend that it didn’t hear… Even if it opts for the truth, a reconstruction would be just too embarrassing.

In this article James Murray emphasises that against what certain media had been saying, all is well between PJ and SY:

“In Algarve’s capital, Faro, inquiries by the Sunday Express last week indicated there was cooperation between the police forces.

A source said: “If detectives are asked to help with a reconstruction I’m sure they will.””

If one was to sum up this article one would say that the UK’s “Oh-woe-the-Portuguese-won’t-let-us-speak-to-the-evil-burglars” move met the Portuguese “how-about-a-useful-reconstruction-instead?” one and was literally humiliated by it.

The royal flush bluff being called out as the 7-high hand it really was, the weakest poker hand there is.

A powerful blow as we said last week that it had been.

But the article we want to point out as VERY important is not this one but the one that followed it.

On May 8, James Murray delivered another blow, and what a blow, with his article “‘Maddie police were ignored’ Detectives have waited five months for Scotland Yard leads”.

As we’ll explain, this time it isn’t only against the farce Operation Grange is, but also one significant blow against the archival option.

Just the title says all: hey, Scotland Yard, are you awake? If you are, please note that we ARE HERE, twiddling our thumbs but ARE HERE, waiting for you to tell us what you want us to do…

“A small team of highly experienced officers at Faro on the Algarve want to resume investigations on the case but have been left frustrated by having nothing to do.”

We hope Maddie is not costing as much to the Portuguese tax payers as Operation Grange is costing those in the UK. Operation Grange has 4 Officers assigned and PJ has “three senior detectives in Faro [who] are poised to act on any Yard requests but have been left virtually twiddling their thumbs for at least five months, so have started doing other work”.

At least we get to know the Portuguese are making sensible use of their time by doing other work, which is something which cannot be said about the SY officers.

Hogan Howe has said Operation Grange is waiting for the response to a rogatory letter, which would finalise the very last line of inquiry that is left to be pursued.

However, PJ in this article is quite clear in denying it: “The last rogatory letter came through at the end of last year and officers gave it their full and prompt attention. Since then it has been very quiet. The detectives in Faro are enthusiastic to pursue any useful leads but there has been nothing for them to do for months and months.”

The “full and prompt attention” given to that rog followed by a “has been nothing for them to do for months and months” leans more toward the rog received has already been answered.

Can there be another new one?

PJ contradicts this by saying clearly that the last one that arrived was months ago, at the end of 2015.

The Portuguese newspaper Público, had already said on April 29 that PJ had received nothing new, as translated by Joana Morais.

PJ is really set on contradicting Hogan Howe.

But is there a problem between SY and PJ?

In the previous article it was clear there wasn’t and in this article the idea all is fine between them is made crystal clear:

“Years ago there were problems with the British and Portuguese police but Scotland Yard has smoothed over those issues and there is a good working relationship. The officers in Faro will give priority to requests from Operation Grange.

“They realise the Yard’s investigation is slowing down but they want to make it absolutely clear they will help in any way they can as long as the prosecutor approves any further requests.”

Please read in the words above PJ sending a clear message to the UK: don’t attempt to say things won’t reach a proper ending because we put up resistance, we didn’t, you know we didn’t and we want to make that perfectly clear.

And that is why this article is so VERY important: it shows very clearly that PJ is taking a stand.

About Maddie we’re not up for games Britain, that’s what the PJ is saying and using a UK paper to get that across. Not sending messages across the channel but directly into the ears of the British public.

Does UK say the final inquiry is about the 3 burglars? Then PJ asks back, where’s the rog for that? There isn’t? Then it cannot very much be about the burglars, can it?

So UK, please be careful as to what option you’re going to follow. If you are thinking of archiving and putting the blame on the PJ, you best think again.

The message is very clear: SY, PJ is not up for games with Maddie- Accept that fact and deal with it. Don’t like it? Tough luck.

Last thing to be noticed in this article is the language used.

Right up it starts by saying that on the PJ side there is “team of highly experienced officers” handling the Maddie case. How different from the times when the PJ working the case “were called names such as drunks, alcoholics, of being lazy, incompetents, and so on”, to quote Mr Amaral.

We ask readers to note how differentially and politely the British MSM has been referring to Mr Amaral lately, either calling him detective or former chief inspector. Even The Antonella has refrained from using derogatory words when referring to Mr Amaral.

And now the compliments are extended to the PJ.

It’s easy to conclude that if the good guys are now Mr Amaral and the PJ, it’s a no brainer as to who the bad guys are.

If this was a tennis game, PJ served: “frustrated by having nothing to do”, “want to resume investigations”, “are poised to act”, “gave it their full and prompt attention”, “are enthusiastic to pursue any useful leads”, “will give priority to requests from Operation Grange” and “they want to make it absolutely clear they will help in any way they can” and SY returns the ball with a humiliatingly weak “Scotland Yard has declined to comment.”

The ball doesn’t even reach the net. It’s not exactly ‘game, set and match’ because the game, as we explained, is still a while to be over. But it can be said that SY is losing at the moment 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 and has walked onto the court for the next game holding a ping-pong bat to play.

We had already seen SY officers on their hands and knees in Praia da Luz but now it’s the institution itself, SY, in that position. Really pitiful.

Isn’t the language used by James Murray in this article just an injection of some sort of positive fluid directly into UK’s veins about Mr Amaral and the PJ? It will be very hard, if not impossible to go back to the times one could insult Mr Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese.

4. The consequences

But the real importance of this article is that it makes it very hard (not impossible because stupidity is limitless) for Operation Grange to opt to archive.

As we said, this insurgence by the PJ is important because it stops the UK Establishment from playing games with them. But more important than that, it represents a huge risk to those trying to hide the truth, the archival apologists within the Establishment itself.

Why? Because the truth is not sealed only within the UK. The insurgent PJ know it as well.

Let’s speculate for a moment.

Let’s imagine that there is real proof. That all the evidence needed to charge is already in the hands of the authorities, simply waiting to be or not used.

If option is truth, then the order will be to use it, if it’s archival, then it’s not to be used.

But if it won’t be used, then the evidence has to be destroyed as if it isn’t it may one day come back with disastrous consequences. If allowed to exist, it will be possible to be found and that simply cannot be allowed to happen.

Even if one is only among trusted friends, how sure can one be that all will be really destroyed when one orders for that to be done? How many copies exist in reality? How can one really say?

Everyone instinctively knows that this will be worth a bundle of money in the future, when the right time comes and the right time always comes.

It’s too risky to order it destroyed. Even among friends. Loose ends will always exist, and will always come back to haunt. Their bite is always painful but there are times when it is really vicious and merciless.

That alone should deter anyone to opt for archival. The only way to not have loose ends is to come out with the truth.

Now, imagine those loose ends being in the hands of insurgents.

Let’s speculate a little further.

Let’s speculate that the damning forensic evidence has always been in the INML since 2007.

That the Portuguese had the proof then but didn’t use it back in 2007/2008 because they were pressured not to use it by the Brits, in a case they decided to let the Brits deal with among themselves as apparently concerned only them.

But that was before the UK embarked on a fierce and obsessive campaign to humiliate Mr Amaral, the PJ and the Portuguese.

The UK decided to use Mr Amaral, the PJ, the Portuguese and Portugal as the scapegoat to hide the truth from its citizens.

Remember how the Algarve was a rampant haven for paedos who preyed on more than a dozen little Brit girls and the Portuguese not only did nothing about but apparently hid it? What did that say about the PJ? Not exactly a compliment, was it?

All the reader has to do is put themselves in Portuguese shoes for a minute. Being in the position of being “asked” to play along with something with which one had been arrogantly humiliated with.

Plus, when one is holding the key to the door that will make the dam burst.

Understand how important it is the PJ insurgent stance which was shown in the article?

UK, if it decides to archive, not only cannot destroy the evidence the Portuguese hold but that same evidence will be held by the now untamed and unhappy Portuguese who seem to have no qualms to use it in case they feel the need to do just that.

Isn’t that just exactly what the PJ is saying in this Express article?

It may not have any legal value when used but one just has to ask the McCanns to understand that it’s not only in the court rooms sentences are handed out. In fact, those for life – even after-life – without parole are handed outside them.

Let’s imagine it’s used for example and speculating of course, when Mr Amaral decides to write a 3rd book about the case.

It may not have any legal value then but the public will ask why it wasn’t used when it did.

And who is to say that Portugal will not use it when it does have legal value?

There’s a Portuguese saying that says “the first time anyone falls, the second only those who want to fall, fall”. The Portuguese fell once in 2008, so will only fall again only if they want to fall.

If the PJ stance doesn’t deter the archival option, it should.

5. Conclusion

If it was up to the UK Establishment, Operation Grange wouldn’t conclude but it has to.

Its conclusion will throw the name of some right into history. Some, like the McCanns, have no choice. Their names will forevermore be tarred.

But it’s not only the McCanns. Antonella Lazzeri, Lorraine Kelly, Martin Brunt, Jim Gamble and on a political level, Gordon Brown are names that come to the mind. Not only these, far from it.

Some, are fighting with all they can for their names to remain unknown. Those are the fiercest enemies of the truth.

But the key lies in those whose names will be linked to the case one way or the other. Those who have their fate in their own hands. What they cannot decide is whether their fate will be or not linked to the case. It will, that’s a fact.

Now, whether they will enter history as The Unveilers or The Hoaxers, is totally up to them.