Monday, February 23, 2009

An interview not to be missed

Exclusive Interview to the Former PJ Coordinator Gonçalo Amaral

"The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen at the moment, because if there was a political will it would mean that there was a political will before the process was closed, in order to continue the investigation. And when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that’s because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October [2007]." Gonçalo Amaral in Vigo, October 2008



Todos os Direitos Reservados © Joana Morais 2009
All Rights Reserved © Joana Morais 2009



video to follow

A collaborative interview by Duarte Levy, Joana Morais, Astro and Mercedes

All Rights Reserved © Joana Morais 2009

Transcript & Translation

Duarte Levy: You have now seen that the Constitutional Court has authorised the use of phone taps in the [football corruption] “Golden Whistle” case. Do you think it would be possible to see the same happening in the McCann case, taking into account that the judge didn’t authorise access to the registers and taps that were carried out at that time?

Gonçalo Amaral: The issue is not the permission to access the phone taps. He didn’t authorize the access to information concerning the text messages. That is related to a bureaucratic matter. When those text messages took place, there was no phone surveillance. The understanding of that judge… to access that information, that data, there would have to be a duly authorised phone tap first, it’s a procedural matter. Some think it’s not like that, others have a different understanding, the Public Ministry did not appeal the decision of the Appeals Court, and therefore the case was tried and closed.

DL: Did the PJ ever read the contents of those text messages?

GA: Yes it did. Later on, when it was not very interesting anymore. What was at stake was the situation of the national service providers.

DL: During the first phase of the inquiry, after the disappearance of Madeleine, the PJ offered the McCanns a mobile phone with a Portuguese chip that the McCanns never used. On the other hand, they used two phone numbers that were supplied to them by Portuguese friends. Were those phones under surveillance?

GA: That phone that was offered to them, was the one that was tapped, right? That phone was for them to receive calls, this was during those diligences that were related with possible extortions, from the Dutch and the Spanish and it was to find out, for them to give that number when necessary, when they were asked for a contact number and a way to listen into the conversation with the possible abductor asking for money. It’s a perfectly normal procedure. As for the other phones that they may have used, I do not know about that.

DL: In the case, during the first weeks, in some reports, in some cases similar to this one, with the same resemblances, often the parents are advised not to publicise the case, based on the principle that this publicity can place the child’s life at risk. Were the two first press conferences that were held by the McCanns carried out with the agreement, the authorization from the PJ?

GA: No. The same happened in this case. They were advised not to publicise and to be careful with the press. And the person who did that right away wasn’t even from the PJ, but a member of the English social services, who had been working in that area for 25 years, working with endangered children, with abuse situations, who was on vacation in the area, in Praia da Luz, who on the very morning of the 4th [of May] contacts the couple and alerts them to that. But she is thrown out of the house, we can say.

DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

DL: During that whole phase, and until you were removed from the field, the English policemen that were in Praia da Luz, how was the cooperation with them? Was there actually cooperation?

GA: Yes. The cooperation was very tight, very intense; there are no doubts about that.

DL: So which part of the English authorities originated that blockade?

GA: That is certainly, and it was, coming from the top of the English hierarchy.

DL: The English policemen were invited to sign a confidentiality document. At the PJ, is that a normal procedure?

GA: No. And it’s not normal with the English police, either. It is normal in cases with the secret services, and that document is signed right at the beginning. Now with normal police, doing criminal investigation, that doesn’t happen.

DL: Concerning participations from outside of this case, it is normal for the ambassador, this has happened before in the Algarve, unfortunately, other cases involving British citizens. Is it normal for the ambassador to travel there?

GA: No. Neither in British cases nor non-British cases, they don’t have that responsibility. What is normal is for the information to be relayed by the consulate, that is what happens and only then the ambassador may come. And now we think that the ambassador came right away because of those initial suspicions and the first requests that were made which indicated that we suspected the couple, and he intervened in a manner that is not normal. He should have stayed in Lisbon, at the police’s National Directory, speaking with the National Director and not on location. And him leaving Portimão then led to a communiqué that the PJ somehow was “committed” to the abduction theory.

DL: Concerning other individuals that were connected with this case, the appearance of Brian Kennedy, namely during the meeting that he held with Murat, did the PJ ever find out about the purpose of that meeting?

GA: I was not in the investigation anymore during that phase, I had already left, but I know that this gentleman has gone as far as meeting people from the PJ after I left, which is not correct. Even more so because that gentleman brought certain Spanish detectives with him. That behaviour from the PJ’s senior officials in not the most acceptable one.

DL: Concerning not only this case, or other cases, how seriously could the events of the Madeleine case affect future cases?

GA: Well, in this case, like in all other cases, they affect the future [cases]. We have to learn from our mistakes and from the difficulties that we experienced. For example, in an earlier case, from 2004, the so-called “Joana case”, a disappearance as well, us investigators requested for the National Directory of the Police to intervene in a manner that would produce new regulations, new procedures for this type of inspection, to treat these disappearances. For example, there’s a very important issue. The disappearance in itself, when you go to a police station, or to the GNR or to the PJ, for missing persons, there is no specific competence for missing persons. There is no process for that. We have to investigate everything. The disappearance may or may not be related to a criminal situation and the issue may be whose competence is this? This has to be defined very quickly, we have been talking about that for a long time, over many cases and so far, nothing has been done about that. To define the competence from the outset. In all cases, the competence should be, at least in children’s cases, the PJ’s. Because many times what is at really the issue is that the disappearance has the parents’ intervention, in situations of divorce and there is a need and they take the children abroad, because it is the PJ that has the competence and the contacts on an international level, namely with Interpol, so the PJ dominates those channels for international cooperation, and from there, right away these cases should be the PJ’s competence, but that has not been defined. This leads to an initial intervention by the criminal police force that is informed of the disappearance. It’s always an intervention, almost always a disastrous intervention, because the more time goes by, the more pieces of evidence, opportunities to collect evidence are lost and only at a much later moment in time the PJ appears. When one thinks it’s an abduction, normally that’s what happens, it’s an abduction, it’s the PJ’s competence, nobody mentions a homicide or a voluntary disappearance, what is mentioned is abduction then it’s the PJ, and when we intervene it’s at a latter moment.

What happened in this case of Madeleine, we were called almost when the disappearance took place, only a few hours later, but still things went wrong. Why did they go wrong? Because there is a lack of said procedures concerning these situations. And this sensibility that many investigators have, to understand that an abduction is actually the theft of a person, but it cannot be handled like any theft. For example, all possibilities must be kept open, from a voluntary disappearance to, effectively, abduction, or homicide, or the death of the child. Therefore, it is necessary for the PJ to create this very quickly, I think they are doing that, I don’t think actually, I certain of it, there is already a commission that has been nominated to do that, to define those rules and those procedures for us to act. In my book I even mention it would be enough to follow the English, what the British authorities have concerning these situations. They have much more cases in situations of this type, don’t they? With the number of times that this happens in Portugal, maybe it doesn’t lead to, it hasn’t been that essential element that would lead the Police’s National Directory, or the Ministry of Justice to care for it, to feel the need for these new procedures. That’s where, that’s the manner in which it so often interferes. When there is a likelihood, the PJ acts. The PJ cannot be measured by one case. A PJ is measured through its entire history which is vast and includes many success cases, it is in fact one of the most successful police forces, on an international level, and also in this area of missing children, a very high success rate.

DL: In the Madeleine McCann case, who made the decision to send the analyses to Birmingham, to the FSS? In Portugal there is the National Institute [Forensic Medicine].

GA: This is the question. At that point in time, we were already feeling the pressure of the British media, we felt incompetent, that was what they said, and anything that we might do, would be questioned. It was a political decision by the PJ, but which was understandable at that point in time and it is still understandable now because it was a way of compromising, an attempt to compromise a British institution with the results that were to be found. If you ask me now if I would do the same today, I don’t think I would. Maybe there would be another laboratory, or at least, I wouldn’t have sent all the samples to that laboratory. But I can also tell you that at the IML, the Institute for Forensics Medicine, there was not the full capacity to carry out all of these tests, namely the low copy number analyses. Only in England, at this laboratory or at other laboratories outside of the country. We could have chosen another laboratory, but we opted for this one. It was a disaster. The decision was not disastrous; it was the tests that were disastrous to say the least.

DL: But do those samples still exist?

GA: No. They have all been destroyed. From the hair samples, it’s all been destroyed. There is a situation that is reported that is the following: there are several hairs, lots of hair is found in the car boot, in the car that was rented 23 days later, a comparison is made in terms of colour and colouration where they say yes indeed, these could be from the little girl, but then the laboratory says that they don’t manage, it doesn’t have any roots, they cannot define the DNA, they cannot define whether it’s from a living or a dead person, and when a team of Portuguese investigators go to the lab, accompanied by a Portuguese scientist, Dr. Francisco Corte Real, they ask for that hair, they went as far as holding that hair in their hands. And they had that hair, duly stored, that package with the hair, but then a report from the FSS appears in which they realize that they’d better keep them, and that later on they destroyed them in an attempt to define the DNA, or to discover whether it was from a living person or not, and they destroyed all of that hair. It’s a bit hard to understand how in order to define the DNA, or to carry out another test, such a quantity of hair has to be used, like there existed in Portugal as well, and then it wasn’t possible to perform analyses of other types, namely the possibility of sedatives that the little girl might have ingested or was forced to ingest.

DL: Among the English officers that participated in this case, there’s Stuart Prior, to what extent can we today, after you left the case, with everything that the press has already published from part of the Public Ministry’s process, to what extent can we say today that Stuart Prior cooperated in this case, or not?

GA: Stuart Prior initially appears, he appears as number 2 or number 3 of the British police. The senior officer…, who had a meeting with us, and the first person to come to Portugal on a personal level is him, he always had lots of contacts and interest in the investigation. Stuart Prior appears during a phase, later in Portugal, first it was in England. I particularly wouldn’t like to be in his shoes, with the options that he made in terms of the investigation, and not only that, in his political knowledge. He is a good policeman, he cooperated vastly with us, but it was him who said that he had arrested people in England with much less. So he probably knew the value of these indicia that already existed, but as to whether he made good options, only he can answer those questions.

DL: Last question, at this moment in time, in order to reopen the process, what elements are needed, or what could reopen the process and to what extent do you think that there is a political will in Portugal to do it?

GA: Now a process of this kind that is archived like this and remains waiting for better evidence, it needs just that: new elements of evidence, which means, new data. There are situations in the process which in our opinion have not been taken into account, which have not even been read or became known to those who had the duty to know it. Namely that statement from the couple of English doctors who mention a vacation in Mallorca, those situations where there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people who were on vacation and not even that was taken into account, because they didn’t read it, they had no knowledge. I cannot believe that they read such statements and passed over them.

If eventually those persons would make a new statement, again, with other details, certainly there are details that they didn’t remember, the process might be reopened. But also other data, other situations that might lead to the reopening of the process, namely someone from within the group may come to talk about something, for example, the invention of the surveillance scheme; it would have to be reopened. There are situations, like the FSS’s work, if some report appears, which might exist, that in fact there were not only 15 alleles but more than 15 alleles from the little girl’s DNA profile, situations of this type have to lead to the reopening of the process.

The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen at the moment, because if there was a political will it would mean that there was a political will before the process was closed, in order to continue the investigation. And when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that’s because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October [2007]. That will was lacking, what was necessary was to archive the process, there was a strong will to archive the process. Now, it will be very difficult for the process to be reopened but every citizen has a word to say and there are ways to intervene with the Attorney General in a manner that the process is reopened.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/exclusive-interview-to-former-pj.html


Transcrição em Português

Duarte Levy: Tu viste agora que o Tribunal Constitucional autorizou a utilização das escutas telefónicas no caso “Apito Dourado”. Até que ponto seria possível ver essa mesma situação no caso Mccann tendo em conta que o juiz não autorizou o acesso aos registos e escutas feitas nessa altura.

Gonçalo Amaral: A questão não é a autorização ao acesso das escutas. Não autorizou o acesso à informação relativamente aos sms. Isso tem a ver com uma questão burocrática. Quando esses sms ocorreram não existiam interesses telefónicos. No entendimento desse juiz ……, que para aceder a essa informação, a esses dados teria que, primeiramente, teria que existir uma escuta devidamente autorizada, uma questão processual. Há quem entenda que não é assim, há quem tenha outro entendimento, o Ministério Público não recorreu da decisão do Tribunal da Relação, por isso o caso foi julgado e encerrado.

DL: A PJ chegou a ter conhecimento do conteúdo desses sms?

GA: Sim conseguiu. Mais tarde, quando não tinha grande interesse. O que estava em causa era situação das operadoras nacionais…..

DL: A PJ, na primeira fase do inquérito, depois do desaparecimento de Madeleine, colocou à disposição dos Mccann, um telefone portátil com chip português que os Mccann nunca utilizaram. Em compensação utilizaram dois números de telefone que foram fornecidos por amigos portugueses. Esses telefones estiveram sob escuta?

GA: Esse telefone que foi entregue, é que era o telefone que estava sob escuta não é. Esse telefone era para receber chamadas, foi no decurso daquelas diligências relacionadas com possíveis extorsões não é, dos holandeses e dos espanhóis e era para saber, eles darem aquele número quando fosse necessário, quando pedissem número de contacto e uma forma de saber a conversação com o possível raptor a extorquir dinheiro. É um procedimento normalíssimo. Quantos aos outros telefones que tenham utilizado, desconheço.

DL: No caso, nas primeiras semanas, em alguns relatórios, em alguns casos semelhantes a este, com as mesmas similitudes, muitas vezes aconselham os pais a não publicitarem o caso partindo do princípio que essa publicidade pode pôr em risco a vida da criança. As duas primeiras conferências de imprensa feitas pelos Mccann foram feitas com o acordo, com a autorização da PJ?

GA: Não. Aqui aconteceu também isso. O aconselharem que não dessem publicidade e que tivessem cuidado com a imprensa. E quem o fez logo nem foi a PJ mas uma funcionária da Segurança Social inglesa, portanto, já com 25 anos de trabalho nessa área, com crianças em risco, com situações de abusos, e que estava de férias na zona, na Praia da Luz, que na própria manhã do dia 4 contacta o casal e o alerta para isso. Mas é escorraçada de casa pode-se dizer assim.

DL: A partir de que altura é que considerou que os Mccann eram suspeitos?

GA: É assim. Em termos de suspeição, desde a primeira hora. Os procedimentos nestes casos similares é saber quem são as pessoas, saber quem é o desaparecido, neste caso, a criança desaparecida e saber todos os antecedentes. E agora a primeira pergunta que é feita às autoridades inglesas, às polícias britânicas é essa. Quem eram os pais, aquele grupo de pessoas, e quem era a criança, se era alvo de abusos, se não era. Depois, isso vai evoluindo, é um procedimento formal, é geral para todos os casos e quando há as primeiras declarações aí nesse dia começamos a suspeitar de que algo estaria errado. As coisas evoluíram, foram suspeitos até que chegou-se ao trabalho dos cães ingleses e depois as suspeitas tornaram-se em indícios no fundo.

DL: Durante toda essa fase e até que o Amaral foi afastado de campo, os polícias ingleses que estiveram na praia da Luz, como foi a colaboração com eles? Houve uma colaboração de facto?

GA: Sim. A colaboração foi muito estreita, muito intensa, não há dúvidas quanto a isso.

DL: Então em que parte das autoridades inglesas houve aquele bloqueio?

GA: Isso será certamente, e foi, vindo do topo da hierarquia inglesa.

DL: Os polícias ingleses foram convidados nomeadamente a assinar um documento de confidencialidade. Na PJ, esse procedimento é um procedimento normal?

GA: Não. E na polícia inglesa também não é normal. É normal nos casos de serviços secretos, e assina-se esse documento logo que se começa. Agora com a polícia normal, de investigação criminal, isso não acontece.

DL: No que diz respeito a participações exteriores neste caso, é normal o embaixador, já existiu no Algarve, infelizmente outros casos relacionados com britânicos. É normal o embaixador deslocar-se?

GA: Não. Nem com casos britânicos nem sem ser britânicos, eles não tem essa responsabilidade. O normal é toda a informação que é dada através do consulado, isso é o que acontece e só depois virá o embaixador. E nós pensamos agora que o embaixador terá vindo logo por causa dessas primeiras suspeições e dos primeiros pedidos que foram feitos que indicavam que estávamos a suspeitar do casal e veio de uma forma intervir o que não é normal. Deveria ter ficado em Lisboa, na Direcção Nacional da polícia, falar com o Director Nacional e não no terreno. E a saída dele de Portimão levou a que depois houvesse um comunicado de que a PJ se “comprometia” de alguma forma com a tese de rapto.

DL: Em relação a outros indivíduos que estiveram ligados a este caso, o aparecimento de Brian Kennedy, nomeadamente na reunião que tem com Murat, a PJ chegou a saber o porquê desse encontro?

GA: Eu nessa fase já não estava na investigação, já tinha saído mas sei que, esse senhor ter-se-á inclusivamente reunido com pessoas da PJ após a minha saída o que não é correcto. Até porque esse senhor trazia determinados detectives espanhóis. Esse comportamento por parte dos responsáveis da PJ não é o mais aceitável.

DL: Em relação não só a este caso, nem noutros casos, até que ponto o que se passou no caso Madeleine pode afectar os casos futuros?

GA: Bom, este caso, como em todos os outros casos afectam os futuros. Nós temos que aprender com os nossos erros e com as dificuldades que tivemos. Por exemplo, num caso anterior, de 2004, o chamado “caso Joana”, também um desaparecimento, nós investigadores solicitamos a Direcção Nacional da Polícia que interviesse de forma a sair com novos regulamentos, novos procedimentos neste tipo de inspecções, de tratar estes desaparecimentos. Por exemplo, há uma questão muito importante. O de aparecimento só por si é quando se vai a esquadra de polícia, ou a GNR, ou a PJ para desaparecidos não há uma competência própria para desaparecidos. Não existe processo para isso. Temos de investigar tudo. O desaparecimento pode estar ou não relacionado com uma situação delituosa e a questão que pode ser é de quem é a competência? Isso é preciso definir muito rapidamente, nós já estamos a falar nisso há muito tempo, em muitos casos e até agora nada foi feito quanto a isso. Definir logo a competência. A competência deveria ser de todos os casos, pelos menos de crianças, da PJ. Porque muitas vezes pode estar mesmo em causa que o desaparecimento seja com intervenção dos pais, em situações em que há divórcios e há necessidade e levam as crianças para o estrangeiro porque é a PJ que tem a competência e contactos a nível internacional, nomeadamente no âmbito da Interpol, portanto, a PJ domina esses canais de cooperação internacional, e por aí, logo esses casos deviam ser da competência da PJ, mas isso não está definido. Isso leva a que ocorra uma primeira intervenção pela ordem da polícia criminal que tem conhecimento do desaparecimento. É sempre uma intervenção, quase sempre uma intervenção desastrosa porque quanto mais o tempo se passa, mais elementos de provas, oportunidades de recolher provas se perdem e só num momento muito posterior é que se aparece a PJ. Quando se pensa que é um rapto, normalmente é isso que se passa, é um rapto, é da competência da PJ, não se fala de homicídio ou de desaparecimento voluntário, fala-se em rapto é da PJ, e quando intervimos já é num momento posterior. O que se passou neste caso da Madeleine, nós fomos chamados quase logo em cima do desaparecimento, há poucas horas depois mas mesmo assim as coisas correram mal. Correram mal porquê? Porque há falta dos tais procedimentos relativamente a essas situações. E a tal sensibilidade que muitos investigadores têm de ter para entender que um rapto é de facto um furto de uma pessoa, mas não pode ser tratado como um furto qualquer. Tem que se ter, por exemplo, abertas todas as hipóteses, desde desaparecimento voluntário a efectivamente, um rapto, ou homicídio, ou a morte da criança em causa. Portanto, isto é necessário a PJ criar muito rapidamente, penso que estão a fazer isso, penso não, tenho a certeza, já há uma comissão que está nomeada para isso, para se definirem as tais regras e procedimentos para podermos actuar. Eu no livro falo até que bastava seguir os ingleses, o que as autoridades britânicas têm relativamente a estas situações. Eles têm mais casos nestas situações desta questão não é. Com o número de vezes que isso acontece em Portugal, se calhar não leva a que, não tem sido aquele elemento essencial que levasse a Direcção Nacional da Polícia, ou o Ministério da Justiça a ter estes cuidados, a sentirem a necessidade de estes novos procedimentos. É daí, dessa forma que muitas vezes vai interferir. Quando há a probabilidade a PJ actua. A PJ não se mede num caso. A PJ mede-se em toda a sua história que é muito vasta e que tem muitos casos de sucesso, aliás é uma das polícias que mais sucessos têm, a nível internacional, e também nesta área de desaparecimento de crianças, uma grande taxa de sucesso.

DL: No caso de Madeleine Mccann, quem é que tomou a decisão de enviar para Birmingham, para o FSS, as análises? Havendo em Portugal o Instituto Nacional.

GA: A questão é esta. Naquela altura já estávamos a sentir a pressão da Comunicação Social britânica, sentíamo-nos uns incompetentes, era o que diziam, e tudo o que nós fizéssemos seria colocado em causa. Foi uma decisão política da parte da PJ, mas que entende-se na altura e agora também é compreensível porque foi uma forma de comprometer, uma tentativa de comprometer uma instituição britânica nos resultados que iam ser apurados. Se me perguntasse agora se hoje faria o mesmo, penso que não. Talvez haveria outro laboratório, ou pelo menos, não teria enviado todas as amostras para aquele laboratório. Mas também posso lhe dizer que no IML, Instituto Medicina Legal não tinham todas as capacidades para efectuar todos estes exames, nomeadamente, nem fazia exames em low copy number. Só na Inglaterra, neste laboratório ou noutros laboratórios no exterior. Poderíamos ter escolhido outro laboratório, mas optou-se por este. Foi desastroso. A decisão não foi desastrosa, o exames é que foram muito desastrosos no mínimo.

DL: Mas essas amostras ainda existem?

GA: Não. Foram todas destruídas. Desde os cabelos, está tudo destruído. Há uma situação que se relata que é: há vários cabelos, monte de cabelos são encontrados na bagageira do carro, no carro alugado 23 dias depois, que se vão fazer pela comparação em termos de cor e coloração em que dizem sim senhora, pode ser da miúda, mas depois o laboratório diz que não consegue, não tem raízes, não consegue definir o ADN, não consegue definir se é de uma pessoa viva ou de uma pessoa morta, e quando há uma equipa de investigadores portugueses que se deslocam ao laboratório, acompanhados por um cientista português, Dr. Francisco Corte Real, pedem então esses cabelos, chegaram a ter esses cabelos nas mãos. E eles tinham esses cabelos, devidamente guardados, essa embalagem com os cabelos, mas depois aparece um relatório do FSS que se recordou que diz que era melhor ficar com eles, e que depois foram destruídos nessa tentativa de definir o ADN, ou descobrir se era duma pessoa viva ou não e destruíram os cabelos todos. Em Portugal também foram destruídos. É um pouco incompreensível como é que para definir o ADN, ou fazer outro exame se gasta uma quantidade de cabelos, como cá em Portugal também existiam, e depois não houve possibilidade de fazer outros tipos de exames, nomeadamente à possibilidade de sedativos que a miúda pudesse ter ingerido ou ser obrigada a ingerir.

DL: Dentro dos oficiais ingleses que participaram neste caso, existe o Stuart Prior, até que ponto hoje, depois de ter deixar o caso, com tudo aquilo que a imprensa já levou parte do processo do Ministério Público a ser conhecida, até que ponto se pode dizer hoje em dia, que o Stuart Prior colaborou ou não com este caso?

GA: Stuart Prior aparece de início, aparece como o nº2 ou nº3 da Polícia Britânica. O responsável…, que teve connosco uma reunião, e a primeira pessoa a deslocar-se a Portugal no âmbito pessoal é ele, que sempre teve muitos contactos e interesse com a investigação. Stuart Prior aparece numa fase, mais tarde a Portugal, antes era na Inglaterra. Particularmente eu não gostava de estar no lugar dele, com as opções que tomou em termos da investigação e não só e no seu conhecimento político. É um bom polícia, colaborou muito connosco, mas, foi ele que disse que com muito menos já tinha detido pessoas em Inglaterra. Portanto ele lá saberia o valor destes indícios que já existiam mas se fez boas opções só ele poderá responder a essas perguntas.

DL: Para terminar, neste momento, para reabrir o processo quais são os elementos necessários ou o que poderia reabrir o processo e até que ponto pensa que há vontade política em Portugal de o fazer?

GA: Ora um processo deste tipo que fica arquivado desta forma a aguardar melhores provas, necessita disso mesmo: novos elementos de provas, portanto, dados novos. Existem situações no processo que, quanto a nós, não foram tido em conta, que nem foram lidas ou conhecidas por quem tinha o dever de conhecer. Nomeadamente aquela declaração do casal de médicos ingleses que se referem a umas férias em Maiorca, áquelas situações onde houve gestos e palavras a indiciar a existência de um abusador de menores naquele grupo de pessoas que estavam a passar férias e nem isso foi levado em linha de conta, porque não leram, não tiveram conhecimento. Não acredito que tivessem lido tais declarações e tenham passado por cima disso.
Se por ventura, essas pessoas viessem declarar novamente, outra vez, com outros pormenores, de certeza que há pormenores que não se lembravam, o processo poderia ser reaberto. Mas também outros dados, outras situações que pudessem levar a reabertura do processo, nomeadamente alguém dentro do grupo vir a falar de alguma coisa, por exemplo, da invenção daquele esquema de vigilância, teria de ser reaberto. Há situações, como o trabalho do FSS, se aparecer algum relatório, que poderá existir, que de facto não haveria só 15 alelos mas mais do que 15 alelos lá do perfil do ADN da miúda, situações deste tipo terão que levar a reabertura do processo.

A vontade política não é nenhuma, não há vontade política para reabrir neste momento, porque se existisse vontade política era sinal que existia vontade política antes do encerramento do processo, para continuar com a investigação. E quando se arquiva um processo deste tipo, com tantas diligências por tratar, com tantos factos que tinham de ser esclarecidos, é porque não havia vontade de continuar com a investigação e isso foi nítido quando saímos da investigação no dia 2 de Outubro. Essa vontade faltou, o que era preciso era arquivar o processo, houve uma forte vontade para arquivar o processo agora será muito difícil o processo ser reaberto mas todos os cidadãos têm uma palavra a dizer e podem de alguma forma intervir na Procuradoria-geral da República de forma a que o processo seja reaberto.


by Joana Morais

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/entrevista-exclusiva-com-o-ex.html

49 comments:

dylan said...

Hi Claudia,

Thanks for posting the interview. It raises some very interesting points, especially the part about the PJ having to sign the secrecy statement. It just goes to show that there are some very deep and dark secrets surrounding this case for 'higher' organisations to have got involved above and beyond standard policing.

Also, I was surprised to see that GA mentions the possibility of there having been a child molester amidst the T9, I always thought this was a myth but it appears not. I am very surprised, as GA says, that the couple who raised this, were never followed up. Why, I wonder? I think that there was a determination from some parties, to stop the whole picture being painted and to disrupt the police inquiry, and again, I just cannot understand why.

I love the photos of the children's festival BTW. Wish we had something like that here to brighten up the winter months and it demonstrates just how much your country loves her children.

Have a good day.

xx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan!
I had never heard about the secrecy statement up until yesterday. There is something terribly wrong with all this.
That suspicion of innapropriate behaviour is in the files, as far as I know. The 3 Arguidos may have the testemonies.
And today children and adults are on the streets again. It's a holiday! :-)
Enjoy your day, Dylan!
xxxx

Zodiac said...

Hi Claudia and Dylan,

I have never heard/read anything regarding the PJ having to sign the secrecy statement until I read this interview. The mentioning of the British Social worker and her being asked to leave I have read about on 3 A's, so perhaps this woman did recognise whom she says she does for a valid reason. Hmmm! Well let's hope that info filters through to the right official agencies and this case is re-opened in PT for the right reasons and justice does prevail for a little child who was then only 3 when her parents claimed that this was responsible parenting before the crying incident and after it:

1485 “Did she say whether she had locked or?”
Reply “No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.
1485 “Left the patio?”
Reply “And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine’. Because I don’t imagine she would have said anything otherwise if it hadn’t been on her mind. And the fact was she, she, you know, commented on it being really strange that, that Madeleine had said this about waking up and them not being there and she’d mentioned that in the context of that conversation”.
1485 “And can you remember exactly what she said that Madeleine had said?”
Reply “Tut, just words such as, erm, ‘Sean and I woke up and we were crying mummy and where were you’”.


The above is part of FP's statement/rog int.

GM has stated in the Press/Media their behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting! I would like to know what official body told him that?

I reiterate the Doctor claims he and his Doctor wife's behaviour before the crying incident and after was well within the bounds of responsible parenting:

“And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine’.

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zodiac!
I didn't know that detail either.
Everytime I reador re-read parts of those interviews, I always feel like I can't believe what I'm reading. These people are unbelievable. If they were friends of mine (God forbid), I could slap them. Are they that stupid or is it a defense mechanism? I wouldn't trust a plant to those idiots. Let alone a child.
xxxx

nancy said...

Hi Claudia, Dylan and Zodiac,

The more reports and personal statements I read the more certain I am that there is something (a terrible secret) between not only the McCanns and the tapas 7, but also by others who know exactly what went on but are keeping it under wraps to save their own necks. And even though it's been hinted that national security could be at stake if the tapes were disclosed, I find that a bit too James Bond for me to believe. Something certainly going on though, that's for sure! Time is running out for those neglectful, selfish, parents!

JUSTICE FOR MADDIE!

Cláudia said...

Hi, Nancy!
Great to read you!
Those rogatories are pathetic. All the 'erm' 'uhms' and 'you knows' make them look as if they are illiterate or deeply in need of time to think about what they are going to say next.
I completely agree. I also find that a bit too James Bond to believe.
I still find it amazing how they could all have fun and enjoy their holiday while the children were left to fend for themselves. "It will be fine" some of them said. I think Madeleine would disagree.
xxxx

Maria C.Lopes said...

Olá Claudia,

Se bem entendi, quem foi convidado a assinar os acordos de confidencialidade, foram os policias INGLESES e a pedido das hierarquias INGLESAS.

estarei errada ????

beijinho

Cláudia said...

Olá, Maria C. Lopes.
Tem razão. A minha pergunta é porquê? Claro, pode invocar-se a desculpa da 'Segurança Nacional'. como aconteceu recentemente, mas a propósito de quê? Isto cheira muito mal...
Um beijinho!

Zodiac said...

Hi Claudia,

I watched GA, as you know I do not speak Portuguese therefore all I had was body language and the tone of the voices on the tape. GA is very relaxed and I do not think there was any PT equivalents for err, um, yer know or stutters. I find that when someone speaks clearly, concisely and with confidence they speak truthfully. The DVD's/Rog. Int's certainly do not read like that! I have read that DL has videos of the Int's and will release them at some point. I hope that is true as it will be really interesting viewing!

Hi Nancy,

'Time is running out for those neglectful, selfish, parents!'

I do hope that is the case. This whole affair by that lot is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the UK.

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zodiac. Good to read you!
The differences are incredible, aren't they? When people tell the truth, have nothing to hide and are confident about what they are saying, the number of errrs', ums and yer knows is dramatically reduced or even non existent.
Those interviews are a nightmare to read. For several reasons. Those people just make normal citizens' blood boil. Can you imagine the videos? I hope they are made public someday but I would probably have to take a chill pill before watching them.
xxxx

Maria C.Lopes said...

Boas tardes, como isto é um resumo feito por mim, de que assumo inteira responsabilidade.... cá vai. Claudia, poderás por favor traduzir, se o entenderes necessário.
Vamos lá ao que intressa.

Programa “ Voce na TV “, TVI , 27 Fevereiro 2009

No estúdio : Hernani Carvalho e Paulo Sargento.
Ao telefone : Duarte Levy

No caso Maddie , houve intervenção dos Serviços Secretos Ingleses, em Portugal, desde o dia 4 Maio 2007.

O gabinete de “ crise ” que foi criado em Inglaterra, para acompanhamento do caso, começou a funcionar QUASE antes da PJ ter chegado à Praia da Luz.

A PJ chegou à Praia da Luz cerca da meia noite. À meia noite e vinte já havia noticias nas televisões Inglesas.

Quanto a agressões ou intimidações...

O Hernani afirma que não vai contar o que lhe aconteceu , porque diz ele, não fica bem falar de si próprio. Vejo o Hernani em televisão há muito tempo. Seja o que for que lhe aconteceu é algo que o deixa MUITO perturbado .

Confirma no entanto que ele e o seu colega Luis Maia ( autores do livro Maddie 129 ) foram abordados por umas pessoas , MUITO BEM VESTIDAS ( disse isto com ironia ) MAS QUE NUNCA SE SABE BEM QUEM SÃO, só que essas pessoas não souberam como fazer as perguntas, não deveriam conhecer bem a manha dos Portugueses, diz o Hernani.

O Paulo Reis foi OBRIGADO a partir para Macau, dado que em Portugal , era impossível resistir à vaga de “ AZARES “ que lhe aconteciam... acidentes estranhos com fuga dos intervenientes, perseguições por carros cuja matrícula o Paulo Reis publicou no seu blog ( EU TENHO ESSE ARTIGO BEM PRESENTE NA MEMÓRIA , por acaso ), etc

O Paulo Sargento viu o seu carro arrombado 2 dias depois da publicação do 1º video a 3 dimensões sobre as “ idas e vindas “ dos Tapas 9.
Por um ACASO, só lhe foram roubados os 2 computadores portáteis....

O Duarte Levy....

Logo em Maio 2007, meia dúzia de dias depois do “desaparecimento” foi contacto em Bruxelas por elementos dos Serviços Secretos Britanicos, sobre uns artigos que tinha publicado .

Em Inglaterra foi já detido pela policia 2 vezes, para identificação ( ? ) tendo-lhe sido apreendidos documentos que tinha em seu poder.
Esses documentos foram entregues, segundo a policia , a uns SENHORES MUITO BEM VESTIDOS ( penso que de preto ) MAS QUE NUNCA SE SABE MUITO BEM QUEM SÃO.

Há pouco tempo, quando se dirijia ao Aeroporto de Barcelona, para apanhar um voo para Portugal, foi vítima de uma tentativa de atropelamento que o deixou ferido numa perna.

Pelas imagens das camaras de vigilancia do aeroporto, a policia espanhola identificou o carro, que havia sido roubado 24 horas antes.
O Hernani fez questão de frisar que nessa viagem o Duarte vinha a Portugal trazer documentos importantes.

Ainda sobre os Serviços Secretos, foi relembrado o diário de Kate McCann, que fala da presença dos “ rapazes do exercito “, tratando-os pelo nome de guerra, que teriam ido com Sandy ( a irmã de Gerry ) tratar do assunto APARTAMENTO. Foi depois detalhado o “ curriculum “ desses rapazes ...

Ex elementos do exercito Britanico, trabalhariam agora para o Governo Ingles em operações especiais no Iraque, Afeganistão, China, etc....

Perguntas...

Tratar de quê ? Que havia a tratar lá ? O apartamento já tinha sido analisado pelas policias, encontrando-se dísponivel para aluguer.

Hernani a Paulo Sargento : Doutor, que é preciso para uma criança “ desaparecida “ para ter este tratamento especializado dos Serviços Secretos de um país ???

Resposta: Talvez ser filha de Gerry e Kate McCann. Não nos podemos esquecer que foi dito durante muito tempo que Gerry McCann poderia estar para ser nomeado para um cargo no Governo Ingles.

O Hernani sublinhou, relembrou, que o Paulo Reis e o Duarte Levy, são os jornalistas que afirmaram ter tido acesso ao primeiro relatório du FSS, que não é igual ao depois apresentado à Policia Portuguesa.

Isto é o que de momento recordo como mais importante.
Se “ algo mais “ recordar.... acrescentarei.

Entendam-me os esquecimentos, a IDADE NÃO PERDOA, RS

P..S.: Duarte, sinta-se LIVRE para corrijir, acrescentar ou rectificar tudo ou algo do que escrevo aqui.

Cláudia said...

Olá, Maria C. Lopes!
Muito obrigada! Não vi o programa todo e, por isso, agradeço muito o trabalho e dedicação.
Um beijo grande.

dylan said...

Hi all,

I cannot fathom the umms and errs at all. They even popped up when asked about the children's names and ages. A sign of gross guilt, IMO or maybe just major jitters of a very worried mind.

Zodiac is right about the 'you knows'. I am no psychologist but I do know that backing up a comment with a 'you know' is seeking affirmation that the person you are speaking to believes you. This is rendered as unnecessary if you have faith in what you are saying to be the truth!

GA has every conviction in what he is saying to be his utmost truth and he therefore speaks confidently and without hesitation. People only get nervous and jittery when they have something they are uncomfortable in saying.

The 3as have talked about Operation Ore, recently, and have suggested that the reason the case has not been moved on is because one or more of the T9 have bribed/blackmailed somebody high up with what they know, such as David Payne, as a doctor has reported his inappropriate behaviour towards Maddie on a previous holiday. Given that GA mentions the possibilty of child molestation, I wonder if there is any truth in this? I still believe that poor Maddie died in the appartment on 3/5, but what if... I can't even bring myself to say it. It disgusts me.

Have a good day all. xx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan. Great to read you.
I think that all those speech hesitations give them time and when you are not sure about what you are saying, time must be precious.
It seems speaking the truth and talking about what you know helps your speech. GA is a good example!
I have no idea if those allegations are true or not. Maybe they have no relevance whatsoever in the case and they may be even false (a misunderstanding is possible). However, they should have been investigated because a 3 year old child went missing and all possibilities have to be checked.If a witness mentions such a thing, then it should have been ruled out.
Have a great day too, Dylan! :-)
xxxx

dylan said...

Hi Claudia,

I hope you don't mind my posting this here. I had a comment deleted on the purple blog which was polite and helpful. The deletion was followed up by more threats and insults and the naming of my children (christian names - big deal!) has been raised again to such an extent that I fear any lurkers may try to get to them. I doubt they will publish it, so here goes:

I have not been given the boot by Viv, I have just decided that for the time being (and for personal reasons) I will not post there. You can put whatever nuance on that as you wish. And yes, that means that I cannot remove my comments. In fact I will not remove my comments. There are 240,000 people in Norwich, and thousands with the same christian names as my children. Nobody knows my surname or where I live. If a paedophile wishes to track them down based on words (no photos) then I think that very unlikely based upon the time and effort involved for a child that they haven't even seen. However, some people (mentioning no names) chose to leave their children unattended whilst they go out drinking, thereby putting their children on "a plate" for a potential abductor, not to mention serious threat from accidents.

I have honestly put in an abuse complaint to google blogger because the more you mention my children, the more likely soembody is going to take an interest, because before you lot started to bang on about it, it was a "nothing". Now it has become a significant "something" because you lot won't let it go and so anybody lurking out there may think there is something worthwhile tracking down. Stop it! and now, and leave it or I will go to the police, and I mean it. You are stalking me. I don't care about you calling me a dyke or a bitch but I will not tolerate you inviting paedophiles to visit my children.

As for this: "Unlike Viv, we publish all comments, all theories, as long as they are not libellous, even those from Viv
herself."

....why did you chose to not publish my comment? It was perfectly polite and not in any way libellous. In fact I was trying to say to Tony not to get his knickers in a twist about what Viv says. Ie., if you know you are not what they say you are, why bother? And I signed off with "kind regards".

Post this if you are brave enough to show your fan club that what I have said is fair. If not, no worries, I will copy and paste this and put on Claudia's blog.

Take this as a final, kind request:

Please will you leave me and my children alone.

Thank you.


----------------------------

Thanks Claudia xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan.
Don't waste your time on creatures who are a waste of oxygen. Act.
You know what I mean (just e-mailed you).
xxxx

Zodiac said...

Hi Claudia,

'I have no idea if those allegations are true or not. Maybe they have no relevance whatsoever in the case and they may be even false (a misunderstanding is possible). However, they should have been investigated because a 3 year old child went missing and all possibilities have to be checked.If a witness mentions such a thing, then it should have been ruled out.'

I agree with what you say above Claudia.

Dylan,

There is, imo, no point trying to converse with the Purple one's they're only aim is to be foul and abusive. They thrive on it. I do not read they're backed up toilet of a Blog. It is such a shame that little MBM has such people using her name and image worse if they are actually related to her!

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zodiac.
You agree with me and I agree with you. You put it in such a more elegant way than I ever could. :-)
xxxx

Zetta said...

Olá Cláudia
Espero que as férias tenham sido boas.

I also hope you don’t mind me writing a quick note to Dylan.

Hello Dylan.
Don’t worry about the hypocrites on the purple blog.I too tried to write a comment on that place regarding you indirectly.
I asked why Vee8, who told the world that his daughter had been sexually abused and now has her photo up on his homepage (how disgusting is that, poor girl), isnt being referred to as XXXXXXX, hasn’t had threats of the social services being sent to sort him out, hasn’t been told to remove the picture, etc.Not surprisingly the blog that supposedly prints all posts didn’t publish what I wrote.

They arent convincing anyone that they really care about children. Just a gathering of hypocrites and Rosie sycophants.

Anway I don’t want to turn this place into a Supertroll#2 which was even more disgusting than the purple place.

Muito obrigada, Cláudia.

Anonymous said...

Hi Claudia and Zodiac,

You both put it as eloquently as each other! :-) They can all take a run and jump, especially the turncoat Gina who seems to take great delight in jumping upon the bandwagon of hatred, even though I never uttered a bad word against her. She should be ashamed.

Dylan xx

Back on topic, what is Amarel up to at the moment? Do you think his book will ever be released in the UK?

xx

Cláudia said...

Olá, Zetta!
Foram boas, obrigada. Mas curtas!
I do not mind at all. And I couldn't say it any better. The hypocrisy is hilarious. There are people there who have put up photos of their children and grandchildren. Photos where the kids are very recognisable. Not that I find that a crime. If it was, half the people in the world who have children and who surf the internet would be criminals when, in my opinion, criminal is to leave a toddler home alone. It is, however, highly hypocritical, that people who criticise Dylan are the ones who did that. I'm not even going to comment on the poor girl who was sexually abused. I think she already was enough of a victim.
To be honest, nothing from those creatures surprises me. No, they aren't convincing anyone. I don't think they even convince themselves.
I don't know if I agree with you regarding the 'more disgusting' assessment. I find it a hard competition with no clear winner. :-)
De nada, Zetta. Sempre às ordens!

Anonymous said...

Zetta,

Thank you darling! Whatever sex you are, I love you!!!

PS. I am not a "dyke", so if you are female, I love you in a way that only women would know as not sexual, but just really grateful from a fellow woman ;-)))) xxxx

Dylan

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan.
Gina, especially, has been very interested in what you have to say, apparently. She's been visiting us. Either that or she misses us. Hola, Gina! Como estás, chica?
As for the book and all the rest, patiente is a virtue. :-)
xxxx

Cláudia said...

"PS. I am not a "dyke", so if you are female, I love you in a way that only women would know as not sexual, but just really grateful from a fellow woman ;-)))) xxxx"

ROTFLMAO! :-)
xxxx

Zetta said...

Hello Dylan!
Yes I am a woman, youre welcome and I know you dont fancy me!

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zetta!
You mean you don't fancy me either? ;-)
xxxx

Cláudia said...

Anon 19:54, sorry. Not available! ;-)

dylan said...

Claudia, think that may have been me - blush! I have now signed in so that I am not anon!

Sent you and Zetta a rose as a symbol of womanly lurve :-) Sending it again:

@->-->--

Off out now. Have a nice eve! Gutted that neither of you fancy me ;-) xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan!
LOL
I liked that symbol of womanly lurve! :-)
I'm going to complain to Blogger. I think we need some emoticons here. :-)
I have to confess that I'm also heartbroken that Zetta doesn't fancy us. ;-)
Have a nice evening!
I just founf out that I have a three page essay to translate. TODAY!
xxxx

Zetta said...

Cláudia and Dylan
Give me time . . . I need time!

Cláudia said...

Zetta, you mean time to fancy us? LOL

dylan said...

Hi all, and especially my lady friends ;-)

Re Goncarlo's book. I know we have to be patient here, but I don't understand why we don't have it yet. Just before Christmas, there was news that it was being released and now.....nothing! I think it has been blocked by our government which is in contravention of a "free" country. After all, we allowed a very contraversial book to be published here which made the man (now resident of our country) have to live under a fatwa. That did nothing for our relations with the arab world so how come two "lowly" doctors are so powerful that they get a book banned here? I imagine that the first we will get to see it is when it is published in America. Shame on GB!

xx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan! :-)
Well, I heard something about summer. But I can try to know a bit more. If I do, I'll share!
Enjoy your Friday! :-)
xxxx

Zodiac said...

Hi all,

Dylan wrote:

‘Back on topic, what is Amarel up to at the moment? Do you think his book will ever be released in the UK?’

Dylan I agree with Claudia that patience is a virtue. I do think the book will be published in English no matter what the mumwarrior's of the Blogs and Fora post. Such as the crapola she said on 3 A's recently that it is not libel if the book is printed in another language and that is why GA has not been sued thus far. As far as I know libel is libel no matter what language it is in. Surely the papers that have paid out of court settlements for libel could have used in their defence oh we must have mistranslated the Portuguese Press and Media...sorry! I think possibly, they have not sued GA for libel because they know he will not accept an out of court settlement. Therefore K sips her tea whilst forensically scouring the case file. G pedals to work on his bike. Whilst GA travels around Europe as the Author of a best selling book printed in many languages, and we who cannot read the languages that the book is printed in wait patiently for our English version! With thanks to Claudia who translated a lot of the book we have knowledge of a lot of the content (as do the McC's) for now. Anyway if it is all about language then we should make up our own blog language, then we could really post what we want to post about anything and anyone!

Hi Zetta,

I did not know that about Vee8 and his child. It just shows the mentality of the posters whom post on that blog imo! Utterly disgusting!

Claudia,

I am off out shopping later on to treat my husband to a pair of slippers and flip-flops. Still PMSL!


Dylan,

The @->-->-- is beautiful.

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zodiac.
I agree with everything you said. Libel is libel. I still remember the pink one threatening 'swift legal action' on our tv (TVI) just before the book was published in Portuguese. At that time he didn't think libel was only libel if it was in English...
Zodiac, don't forget to buy good glue either! ;-)
xxxx

Zodiac said...

'swift legal action'

Claudia maybe he meant the same definition of 'swift' that they used to search for the missing child and are still using!

They seem to have their own measurement system i.e.: 120mts = 50mts.

They seem to have there own interpretation of the English language (no wonder mumwarrior is confused) i.e.:

Leaving their 3 children in a holiday flat with no adult supervision whilst they eat and drink at the Tapas Bar night after night interpreted means:

Being well within the bounds of responsible parenting whilst dining in their back garden!

Therefore I wonder what swift really means. Possibly:

Sitting on their backsides doing absolutely nothing!

Wonder what 13.3% on searching really means?

Wonder what M3 really did?

Hmm with all the news of late I really am wondering about a lot of things, especially the visit to Portugal and the other ones he hinted at!


'Zodiac, don't forget to buy good glue either! ;-)'

Claudia LOL! Thanks for reminding me. They would be no use without that.

Cláudia said...

Zodiac, that's it. They just have a different understanding of the English language. Or of human language, for that matter. That explains it all. Almost all.
Super glue, Zodiac! ROTFLMAO!
xxxx

Anonymous said...

Zodiac, lololol!!! You speak such sense. Must be the Scottish in you :-)))

Off to my parents' for the eve now. Take care & much lurve @->-->- ! ;-) xxx I will be back tomorrow.

Dylan

Cláudia said...

Hi, Dylan!
Have fun.
'See' you tomorrow!
@->-->--

Anonymous said...

http://help.forumotion.com/general-discussions-f7/an-e-mail-i-received-t37459.htm#231119

Now who is the "stupid lying tart" Bum?

nancy said...

Hi Claudia, Dylan, and Zodiac -

I am getting a tad impatient myself to read Goncalo's book.It seems to be taking forever, but it could be that invisible obstructions are being placed in his way to keep it off the shelves.

As for the idiots on the purple blog saying it's because it's in a different language he can't be sued for libel - I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking on their part.

Let's see how fast the McCann's move when it is finally published here.

Have a nice Sunday everyone and let's hope we are one day nearer to getting justice for Madeleine.

Nx

Cláudia said...

Hello, Anonymous.
Well, I take it that is a rhetorical question. :-) After all It's the House of Filth. :-)

Cláudia said...

Hi, Nancy!
I can understand the impatience. :-)
It's not wishful thinking, I believe. It's an example of the same old lame excuses. Libel is libel and the pink one was very clear before the book was published in Portugal. Swift legal action. Oh well, just another pink idiocy.
Have a great weekend, Nancy. And yes, let's hope.
xxxx

Anonymous said...

Olá Cláudia

Vee8 has gone into hyper mode. Rosie and sycophants have gone into "youre a wonderful man" super hyper mega overdrive.I wanted to set the score straight with this, but it naturally it wasnt posted. Dont post if you dont want.I understand you dont want this becoming the same as the HoF.

CU
Zettipops

VEE8
If you are implying that I MYSELF was the perpetrator, then I WILL take you for every penny you own. The whole case is recorded in the police files, so be VERY, VERY CAREFUL what you say, and who you say it to. As for the family picture on my site, why should I be ashamed of my children, my family?
-----------------------------------
Oh for goodness sake when was it ever mentioned that you were a perpetrator?
When was it mentioned that you should be ashamed of your family?
I was trying to point out that if Rosie & (P)syc(h)os werent so hypocritical then you would have had the hell Dylan had from them.Lets not forget Dylan only mentioned first names.You said what happened to your daughter then put up a picture.Which is worse, sweetcheeks?
Start reading and a bit of critical thinking wouldnt do you any harm either.

Cláudia said...

Hi, Zettipops.
Well, that's the normal reaction when they know their behaviour is hypocritical in the extreme. I'm not going to make any comments on the poor girl (she's been enough of a victim already), but the double standards are pathetic. Had any anti talked about such private details and then made a photo public, that person would have been crucified. Oh well, you know the inhabitants of that planet.
Enjoy your weekend.

helmylin2 said...

Hi Cláudia,

This "FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed" thingy really fasinates me. It used to show me as Burnley which I thought was pretty good as it is six miles from my house. Now it has me pinpointed it shows Nelson. How scary is that?

I have just been reading Dylan's post and can't believe that people can be so full of venom.

I hope that they stop stalking Dylan and her children that is simply not on.

Have a nice weekend.

L.
xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Helmy!
Feedjit can be a bit innacurate. There are other software tools much more precise and which can be 'hidden' - only blog owners can access the info.
It's very generous of you to call them people. ;-)
Loved your e-mail, by the way. What wonderful pictures of our beautiful planet.
Have a great weekend too, L.
xxxx

helmylin2 said...

Good morning Cláudia,

I just read this on the 3A's.

Clarence Mitchell is a decent human being.

http://the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=29136

WTF I guess we never would have thought he was a decent human being without him telling us. So he thought it was best to enlighten us!

It has to be one of the worst articles I have read.

Funnily enough Brian Kennedy is not mentioned as a source of income for him. Hmmm, strange that.

It is very spring like here today. I saw the first woodpecker down the park this morning.

Have a good sunday.

L.
xxx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Helmy! Good morning!
I just read your link, thanks. LOL while I was doing it, of course. It mus be very sad not to find anyone willing to praise you and having to do it yourself. I'm glad he took the time to evaluate himself because those wouldn't exactly be the adjectives I would use to refer to him. ;-)
I also loved the fact the he had no problems dropping Gerry in the doo doo. Of course it wasn't me who had the idea to photograph Kate in a swimsuit for the newspapers. It was Gerry! The typical reaction of a father with a missing child abducted by a predator. Hey, what can we do to help find our daughter? Oh I know, Kate, put on your swimsuit. Pinks, call the press.
Pinks, are you really paid to say those things? Man, if I had hired you, I would be asking for my money back and probably an extra compensation.
Here it's cloudy but not cold.
Enjoy your Sunday too, Hemly.
xxxx