If Madeleine McCann died on Sunday 29 April, what was really going on behind the scenes that week?

If Madeleine McCann died on Sunday 29 April, what was really going on behind the scenes that week?

There are a great many indications that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday 29 April, which have been discussed on CMOMM and elsewhere, notably the films of Richard D Hall and the ebook by PeterMac.

If Madeleine McCann did die on Sunday 29 April, then, very obviously, there must have been a carefully constructed plan to deceive the police and the world that Madeleine had been abducted. 

The theory of Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese Police is this. They believed that Madeleine was at a 'high tea' with her parents and that Catriona Baker, a children's nanny, and the McCanns, were enjoying a 'high tea' together at the Tapas restaurant, until after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May. This theory requires the following to be believed; namely that:

1. Madeleine died some time after 5.30pm that evening
2. If she was badly hurt or unconscious, that they tried to treat or revive her
3. If the twins were present or nearby, the McCanns would have moved them out of the way whilst they decided what to do
4. (Once sure that she was dead) they presumably considered whether they should report her death to the authorities 
5. Decided not to do so
6. Got over the initial shock 
7. Hid Madeleine from view whilst they considered what to do
8. Cleaned up e.g. if there was any blood 
9. May have washed the curtains
10. Arranged to disposed of any evidence
11. Deleted messages on their mobile 'phones1
12. Contacted some or all of their Tapas 7 friends to see if they would co-operate with a faked abduction 

13. Got every single one of them (with the possible exception of Dianne Webster) to agree with them
14. Put the children calmly to bed
15. Got dressed for dinner
16. Both ate with their friends at the Tapas restaurant, from 8.30pm to 10pm, with only short interludes for 'checking'
17. Moved and hid the body so well that it was never found, and, finally 
18. Staged an abduction.

Manifestly this was impossible. 

The purpose of this new thread therefore - if this was indeed a planned hoax abduction as some believe - is to discuss how such an audacious and successful plan might, or could, have been put together, to explore various possibilities and theories, and to consider some of the people who are likely to have been involved in the planning and execution of such a hoax. 

The primary focus is intended to be on all the hidden actions of various actors that might have taken place before 10pm Thursday 3 May 2007, rather than (if this was a cover-up) to dwell on all of what happened after that date.

The key questions, then, are:

Who was involved?

What did they do?

When did they do it?

Why did they do it?

See also the OP on this thread for some related ideas:

Below is a background for discussion


In the MMRG’s Letter to Portugal dated 28 February 2018, which was sent to the then Portuguese Attorney-General and forwarded by her to the Portuguese Police, these main lines of evidence pointing to Madeleine’s death on Sunday 29 April 2007 – four days before she was officially reported missing – were listed:

A.  A large number of false statements made at the outset, containing a huge amount of fabricated evidence

(These included, for example:
(i) The wholly contradictory accounts of an alleged meeting between David Payne and Kate McCann around 6.30pm on Thursday 3 May which suggest that such a meeting never happened
(ii) Jane Tanner’s numerous changes of story about the abductor she claimed to have seen, making one doubt that she actually saw anyone
(iii) An unconvincing account of Madeleine being at the beach for a min-sail with the Lobster group on Thursday 3 May
(iv) A photo of Madeleine holding some tennis balls, known as the ‘Tennis Balls Photo’, claimed to have been taken by three different people on three different dates, making its authenticity extremely doubtful)
(v) The multiple contradictions surrounding an alleged 'high tea' said to have taken place between 5pm & 6pm on Thursday) 

B.  The photograph of Madeleine McCann, Dr Gerry McCann and Amelie, taken by the Ocean Club pool, which was clearly taken on Sunday 29 April 2007 and not on 3 May 2007 as claimed by the McCanns.

C.  The absence of photographs of Madeleine taken after Sunday. 
D.  The fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco, who had framed Wojcek Krokowski as Madeleine’s abductor
  The unreliable evidence of the children’s nanny (and McCann family friend), Catriona Baker, Dr Gerry McCann and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged ‘high tea’ at the Ocean Club Tapas restaurant about 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May
 The lack of any independent or credible independent evidence by anybody that Madeleine McCann was seen alive after Sunday 29 April. 
G.  The mystery of the strange ‘Make-Up Photo’ of Madeleine, which appears to have been taken on Sunday 29th April

H.  Clear photographic evidence that the same pyjamas Madeleine had with her on holiday in Praia da Luz were later held up by the McCanns at two press conferences, one in London on 5 June 2007, the other in Amsterdam on 7 June 2007.

In each case, particulars of each of these lines of evidence were given to the Attorney General.

Since then, additional evidence that Madeleine may have died as early as Sunday has been obtained, as follows:

1. According to evidence from the internet site, the Wayback Machine, during Monday 30 April 2007, an employee of CEOP (The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre), presumably with the full approval of its boss, Jim Gamble, uploaded a dummy (blank) page to the CEOP website, featuring a photo of Madeleine when she was about two years old. What prior knowledge did CEOP have about Madeleine's disappearance, and how and when did they obtain a photo of Madeleine, apparently taken a year or two before the McCanns' Praia da Luz holiday?   

2. Evidence (on his own admission) by Jon Clarke, owner of the expat newspaper The Olive Press, that he arrived in Praia da Luz at 1.30am on Friday 4 May, strongly suggesting that he had been tipped off by one or more newspapers – before the abduction alarm was raised – that there was going to be a story about her abduction.

3. Evidence recently obtained about Michael Frohlich and Tricia Moon, the two members of Resonate Communications who we know were in Praia da Luz well before Thursday 3 May. While we were told that Resonate was merely an independent ‘subsidiary’ of PR giant Bell Pottinger, we now know that Tricia Moon had been the Company Secretary of Bell Pottinger and that while she was in Praia da Luz that week, and for four months afterwards, she was actually a Director on the Board of Bell Pottinger. 
For more information on this, see this recent thread:


We have accounts of that week’s events (from the McCanns’arrival in Praia da Luz on Saturday 28 April onwards), from the McCanns and their ’Tapas 7’ friends. These tend on the whole to be in very general terms, vague and with few checkable details. They are not helpful in establishing what events took place that week that went towards creating an audacious abduction hoax that Thursday. The aim of this thread is to explore what actions were taken, and by whom, to create the abduction hoax.

Below we have set out a timetable of some known, checkable events (with approximate dates and times) that may have a bearing on how the abduction hoax was developed and planned that week.

Below that we add a large list of events that we say must have happened that week, most of which have been largely hidden from public view. We take some educated guesses as to when these events might have taken place.


Sunday 29 April

about 10am - Madeleine enrolled in Lobster club

about 10-11.30am - Lobster group with multicoloured parachute 

about 1.15/1.30pm - Madeleine and family seen by cleaner, going up to join the Payne family for lunch

probably 2.29pm - Madeleine photographed by the pool - but McCanns said the photo was taken on Thursday

8.18pm SUNSET

around 8pm-10pm  A tall man, accompanied by a young child, apparently late in the evening, makes an urgent request to Ocean Club reception on behalf of the McCann group to book the Tapas restaurant for the rest of the week. The receptionist says the girl is Madeleine McCann, but that is very doubtful. This version of events is later contradicted by Kate McCann herself AND Matt Oldfield, who says Rachel made the booking on Monday. that there were in fact two visits to make the booking, the ‘tall man’ on Sunday night, and Rachel on Monday morning]

evening meal - McCanns say Matt was not at the meal (stomach ache). Stephen Carpenter says he saw Gerry McCann at the Tapas restaurant that evening

Monday 30 April

morning - Apartment cleaned by middle-aged lady

sometime - Gerry had trouble with the shutters (said to be in the parents'  room) and reported them for repair. Matthew also had trouble with his shutters?  [It is not wholly clear if these shutters were in the children's room or the parent's (back) room where the children were originally supposed to be sleeping?]

The McCanns and the Tapas 7 give very little detail about what happened this day, they all seem to stutter and are unable to remember anything.

8.19pm SUNSET

11pm? - Robert Murat books a ticket to fly to Faro Airport

Tuesday 1 May

7am - Robert Murat leaves Exeter Airport

9.30am - Robert Murat arrives at Faro Airport. Is met by his mother

10.00-11.00am  Washing machine and blinds/shutters fixed by two men, between 10-11am. Kate was there, not Gerry. The men show McCann how to use washing machine (these actions COULD suggest preparation for (a) having to wash clothes in the week and (b) a hoax abduction later in the week, involving the shutters)  

lunch-time - It was raining. Gerry allegedly bought sunglasses this day according to Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine': “All 5 of us were at the beach”. Was this because the ‘Last Photo’ had been taken on the Sunday, so, by saying in the book that he didn't have sunglasses and needed to buy a pair, was this intended to lend credibility to it having been taken after Tuesday )

8.20pm SUNSET

evening meal - Russell not at dinner, not sure about Jane Tanner as well?

10.16-10.27pm - unusual flurry of six calls to Kate McCanns’ mobile. We can’t be certain where she was at the time

Wednesday 2 May

7.00am-9.00am - Very early, around 7am, Kate has 3 calls (deleted) to her friend in England, Amanda (who is married to a pathologist). Shortly after, at around 8am, Gerry starts receiving the first of 14 text messages. ['The calls that day also include the ‘strange’ Swansea number…the only
number that Kate never deleted.

morning - Apartment cleaned by middle-aged lady - Maria Julia. At some point during Wednesday morning the cleaner is let into Apartment 5A and the McCanns say “we are going on the balcony” but actually they leave the apartment via the balcony door. The cleaner makes the beds and notices a cot in the McCann’s bedroom. Gerry and Kate both later deny that the cot is there]

Kate McCann “Today it rained” (confirmed by weather charts)

8.21pm SUNSET

‘Rachel’s turn to feel under the weather’

very late evening - the group stays at the Tapas until late that night. The waiters want to leave at midnight but the group stays until approx 1am. Is there perhaps something very important to discuss/plan?

Thursday 3 May

morning - Kate washes Madeleine’s pyjamas because of a tea stain (confirmed in her book). Photographs of these pyjamas later appear in newspapers with a false claim that they are ‘stock’ photos from a sales brochure - see many analyses of this by by Dr Martin Roberts, e.g. 'A Nightwear Job'.

5pm -6pm Tapas 7 seen at Paraiso Bar, but not the McCanns

8.30pm-8.55pm Gerry, Kate & Jane to Tapas, followed by Matthew & Rachael, then David, Fiona & Dianne to Tapas. Russell O’Brien delayed.


Has disgraced journalist Jon Clarke (Olive Press) just compromised the entire 14 year Maddie investigation with his blatant lying and ludicrous boasting?

 Bonfire Night just wouldn't be the same without some Fireworks and a (fall) Guy

November 5th 2021

Two new chapters for PeterMac's FREE e-book:

Just when we hoped Jon Clarke had finally run out of invented stories - along comes ANOTHER ONE

This is possibly the most important, and potentially the most explosive, Chapter so far.

Posted on the CMOMM forum:

Has Jon Clarke of the Olive Press been actively involved from the start (or even before the start) in the official, Clarence Mitchell-run promotion of the official, but false narrative that Madeleine McCann was abducted?

Bearing in mind, inter alia, that he has...

* rushed over to Praia da Luz sometime in the early evening of Thursday 3 May
* gleefully pronounced that he knew 'straightaway' that the McCanns were innocent
* has recycled his view that 'the McCanns are innocent' multiple times in the Olive Press
* was the virtual creator of the false story that Madeleine was kidnapped by a violent paedophile gang, one of whom knocked the front teeth out of Marcelinho Italiano
* cooperated fully with the 8-part Netflix series on Madeleine McCann which was full of untruths from beginning to end
* and now has written his book proclaiming Christian Brueckner as the abductor and murderer of Madeleine...

...we can surely answer that question as Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes - purely on the above six facts alone.

Is this 'the smoking gun'?

I would contend that it is one of several smoking guns, e.g.

* Last Photo represented as Thursday when it was Sunday
* No photos of Madeleine after Sunday
* CEOP dummy Madeleine McCann page set up Monday 30 April 2007
* Absence of credible, independent evidence Madeleine was alive after Sunday
* The framing of Wojcek Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco...


Gonçalo Amaral. "In the Maddie case, we only don't get to the truth because of a purely political reason"

Gonçalo Amaral. "In the Maddie case, we only don't get to the truth because of a purely political reason"

Translated by Joana Morais for CMOMM

by Maria Moreira Rato

Gonçalo Amaral - 'Enough of the Lies':  Promotion and Reviews 79656410

"We can't learn anything by talking to the English and Germans", guarantees the former PJ inspector and author of the book 'Maddie: Enough with the Lies!'

On the night of 3 May 2007, after 10pm, a three-year-old child went missing in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve. "Planned abduction? Abduction motivated by sexual gratification? Voluntary disappearance? Responsibilities of the parents or of others with the duty of guardianship of the child? Accidental death? Death in the hours or days before the disappearance alert?" these are questions that constitute the motto of the book Maddie: Enough with the Lies!, written by Gonçalo Amaral and launched by Contraponto. In this book, the former Inspector of the Judiciary Police, who coordinated investigations into the Maddie case between 3rd May and 2nd October 2007 (when he was removed from the police force), stresses that, 14 years later, the truth is still not known. However, even though he has been retired since 2008, he does not give up thinking about the case and believes that Madeleine McCann, "the mysteriously missing child", "deserves an objective and serious investigation".

"This book comes out of the necessity I felt to restore my good name, which was sullied in the public square without the institution to which I belonged to for 26 years, the Portuguese Judiciary Police, having allowed me to defend myself or to do so institutionally," he wrote in the introductory note to "The Truth of the Lie", published in 2008. Did you expect the PJ's position to be different?

Both then and now I thought it would be different, but it has always been a politically correct stance. In fact, as Doctor Luís Filipe Menezes says, there is a political intent, from the very first moment, in this case, which not only covers the issue of the image and the expenses of the British government, but also has ramifications at a national level. This positioning of the PJ is interesting because, at the time, they did not come out - and we can make the comparison 14 years later - in our defence. On mine and those who worked with me, as well as those who were my superiors, such as Dr Luís Neves, the national director of the PJ. For all we know, in 2008, he would have been nominated to occupy that position, but he was prejudiced because of the case. They said he was too closely connected to the case. If what is said is true - that there was a statement from the PJ about the declarations of the German prosecutor, alerting that there is no tension between Portugal and Germany... First of all, this (German) prosecutor never retracted his statement and the ones who come out to defend what he said or didn't say is the PJ, something they didn't do with its collaborators. It's all very strange, but the fact is that what has happened and that's the way it is.

When you released "The English Gag" in 2009, Madeleine McCann's parents claimed that the book and the video marketed after a documentary aired on TVI disseminated your thesis, which they considered untenable. Did this surprise you or were you always expecting this to be the succession of events?

I have no thesis, everything is open and there is an interim report of September 2007, prepared by the Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, with preliminary conclusions that should have been followed up. In this report, the possible responsibility of the parents in the disappearance of the child is addressed. What is there is not my thesis: they are the conclusions of the PJ, which are still valid today. There is a strong possibility that the parents were involved in Maddie's disappearance. And we'll leave it at that. As for this book, it is a response to the claim for compensation and the civil suit they brought against me in which I won in court, even in the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court at the end of 10 years. But, at this moment, and as nothing happens by chance, there is still a lawsuit against the Portuguese State in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). As I've been doing this for some time, at least for 14 years, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a total interest on the part of the parents of the child for all this to be happening: for the German police, or any other authority, to come and say that there are open investigations, that they have a suspect... Because all this, in their minds, can influence the ECHR. We will await for the outcome, but there is that (underlying) thought.

That year, the couple asked the court for the withdrawal from the market, albeit provisionally, of the book and video, which was eventually decreed on 9 September. At the same time, they accused you of statements considered defamatory, requesting compensation of at least 1.2 million euros. Was there an economic motivation that overlapped with the desire to find the child?

I'm not talking about the motivation of money, but of the image. There has been a lot of talk over the years about cleaning up and treating the/their image. The primary thing is this. Even this action at ECtHR is about the image of Madeleine's parents. They almost need to have a positive outcome "like bread to their mouths" and then, there, they came out of this on top. Since the release of the Netflix documentary - strangely, I didn't even know I was being interviewed as part of that production - I realised straight away that things weren't quite independent ( i.e. the production wasn't unbiased). The lady was carrying around a book of mine, translated on the Internet, a horrible translation, and I told her "If you want the original, I'll bring it to you and there are Portuguese people who can translate it easily". And then they introduced a new piece of information, about the violation of the secrecy of justice, which is the narrative of the mother of the disappeared child, and I asked "Won't you interview the parents?" and they answered "No, they don't want to". And I understood that there was a movement where the parents let themselves be in the background, everyone else is talking and the German police, in this case, said she is dead. Then they said "No, no, maybe she's alive", but none of this happens without the consent of the parents. The British police did not move on to this suspect without the consent of the parents, of that we have no doubt.

In the court decision, it was possible to read that the author and the publishers were also forbidden to "proceed with the reproduction or comment, give opinions or interviews, where such thesis is defended or from where it can be inferred". Even so, you went ahead with the launch of your second book. What was it like to have your freedom of expression threatened?

At that time, there was censorship, a fierce attack on freedom of expression and, above all, on my economic independence. They attacked my retirement pension, a third of it was seized, as if they could find the child in that way.

"I am fully convinced that my early retirement from the PJ was an exercise of my own free will, but as a consequence of one or more acts of the responsibility of others," you write in the first chapter of your latest book.

Exactly, it goes along with what we just talked about. One of the parents' main goals was also to drive me to ruin and shut me up that way. Techniques that maybe they use a lot in the UK but don't work here.

On page 20, you write that "the excuse of sunburn does not stand up, since the mark was on the wrist, as if someone had grabbed it and pulled it with excessive force". The same was visible in a photograph taken at the Ocean Club, however, you point out that, until today, there has been no reference to it in the media. Why? Were they manipulated?

Over the years, it had no journalistic interest. These are facts that are in the process: a CD was given to all the journalists when the case was archived, but it gives the idea that, at the time, they didn't read it. This is there, in the mother's statements.

In your first book, you write that "what the investigators saw was the paradigm of the sacred and the profane". For example, the mother had photographs of the girl on her bedside table and the Bible, while the father had three police manuals with restricted access to police and government entities. What do these details say about each of them?

The parents of long-term missing children have to be supported and they are advised to speak and write about the issue and to be careful about a number of issues. But here, for example, when the monetary support fund for the search is set up, it should not have been the parents themselves running it, because they will be publicly scrutinised, what has happened is a bit the opposite. They follow that so-called survival guide for families but with certain nuances: they manage the millions, they accepted everything that is information event from the beyond (i.e. mediums, etc) and the cooperation with the police does not work properly. They want to know more than to help. The passage that was marked in the Bible was about the death of a child and, on the father's side, those manuals and a self-help book. There is a preparation there for what is to come: an almost assumption that the child is dead.

"And you can never claim that 'the child is already gone'. What do you do after a statement like that?". Did Maddie's parents always act as if they knew she was dead? Not least because you mention that "the first time the hypothesis was raised that the girl was dead it was, effectively, suggested by her parents."

This information was uttered by a distinguished Portuguese lawyer on television. And the hypothesis was raised by them: it was not that everything was not on the table (i.e. all hypotheses were considered), but the first searches were made with the aim of looking for a living child. But it was as if she had left the house alone and not on anyone's arms. I no longer remember if it was the mother or the father who handed over emails from psychics who had written that the child would be dead in a sewage collector and someone said that they saw a programme, with a colonel from the South African Armed Forces, who had a special machine that, with hair, would be able to locate the child's corpse. So, at the beginning, it was the parents who asked to locate the body and not the PJ. This strategy was altered when they were constituted arguidos, because they began to say that she was alive. But, if they did read the manuals and spoke with specialists, they should know that female children, at this age, are not known to have been recovered alive years later. Those that are, when they appear, are close to puberty, almost having their period. Then, yes, they become sex slaves, as some theorists of the matter say.

Were you surprised by the publication of book signed by the mother, Madeleine: Our Daughter's Disappearance and the Continuing Search for Her? Do you believe that the money raised really did fund the search for the child?

I don't like to make comments about what they did or didn't do with the money: it's the people who contributed who have to question it. It is indeed the case that, right from the start, they fully amortised the mortgage on the house and so on. The funds serve to support families beyond the search, however, in that survival guide, which exists in the USA and many people use, I stress that it says that it should not be the family in charge of the fund. But I leave that to the public opinion.

The way the parents described Maddie's alleged sleep disturbances seems to have inconsistencies. Apparently, she would have started sleeping (well/the whole night, see KM book) when she went with her parents to Italy, but at her parents' home there was still a board of rewards she would receive if she slept. Does this make sense?

The witness who supports the theory that the sleep problems have disappeared is the person who is said to have last seen the child alive, David P., the doctor who organised the whole trip. It's a bit odd. It's always that couple or that person who is/are used to say that the sleep problems are gone, that she was alive at x hours on May 3, 2007... And he is denounced by another couple of doctors for having allegedly made obscene gestures and phrases bordering on paedophilia with regards to the missing child. He liked to bathe other people's children and everything else. It is strange that this friendship is maintained with this individual, that it is always he who is pulled in to "defend" them in some way and.... What can I say? There was no need to get this couple to justify the sleeping problems. And even stranger is that this gentleman has never been interviewed by journalists: neither he nor the others (The Tapas 7). Journalists can't or aren't interested in doing so.

Regarding the apartment where the McCanns were, it seemed that there had been almost an attempt to plant evidence or to hide them. By way of example, the situation of the blanket, which was folded and tidied up.

What seems to have happened is a simulation of abduction. There are strong indications of this with the mother's handprint on the window, for example. When it is said that a real abduction took place, why is there a simulation of it? It doesn't add up. What may have happened, but that's up to whoever did it, is that one may have wanted to give the impression that those who are responsible for the child's care had done everything to ensure that both she and her siblings were safe while they were away. But it seems that this is not quite the case because the shutter leading to the back door was not properly closed and neither was a window in the bedroom where they slept. There could be a chance that someone had broken in and these parents thought that by not locking everything, they had been careless and that they could be blamed for that. Hence the simulation. Someone has to explain this: the police can consider hypotheses, but they can only go further if the person who simulated the abduction is willing to assume the possible simulation of the abduction and explains why. The explanation may even be acceptable, although not very understandable.

It has always been suggested that the alleged entry into the apartment took place through the bedroom window, but no evidence of forced entry has been found.

Nothing (was found). One of two things is true: when the child came out of there, it was either taken by someone who had the responsibility to be in there with her or someone came in through the sections that were open and took her. In the first or second case, we don't know what happened. The child might have gone out by herself, something that the parents do not admit: they wrote that this hypothesis puts their intelligence in question. This is a cry to the heavens (i.e. it's appalling, Portuguese idiomatic expression). Here comes again that part about focusing on the idea that they took proper care of their children. And perhaps that's not true. And it all adds up to the confusion, leading to the point where there are other hypotheses , such as the child disappeared or died before May 3.

"The scene of the possible crime, whatever it was, is not in line with what it would have been at the time of the missing person alert. When the police arrived at the apartment the scene was already altered," you wrote. To what extent has this hampered the investigation?

There had already been a lot of people there, the GNR tracker dogs... There may have been intent for this to happen, sloppiness, too much alcohol on the part of people who should have been a bit more careful... Let's not forget that they had been dining and drinking well and that was usual every night.

If Maddie's parents were looking for her, why did they excoriate an official from a British child welfare body?

Exactly, and this brings us back to Mr David P. We have the name of the official, she worked on several cases, and on his, and never has the British police made a rundown of the cases that lady worked on throughout her career. It is not known whether the doctor is a witness or a suspect. Maybe we are still in the realm of political correctness.

"What resulted from the interference of political power was an unfinished criminal investigation, abruptly or tacitly interrupted, giving rise to speculations and conspiracy theories, with which I do not agree," you wrote.

When the British ambassador went to the Algarve on Saturday, May 5, to meet with the police directorate in charge of the case, he almost diplomatically demanded that a statement be issued saying that there had been an abduction and that the parents were not involved. The police did this and it was the biggest mistake. Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação came out, he was surrounded by journalists, and Dr. Luís Neves and I were barely acquainted, and he said "This is all wrong". He used another term that is not worth saying here. The parents were waiting for that moment. Soon after, the ambassador went to Praia da Luz and the parents also came out with a statement. From then on, a abduction began to exist, and this is inconceivable. Dr. Luís Filipe Menezes speaks a lot about this, for example: the British budget, every year, dedicates millions of pounds to the search or the pseudo-search for a suspect and the child. But only for this child. There are others who have disappeared.

It seems that the rest are not worth looking for.

Yes, and I remember that there was support from millionaire businessmen for this type of work. And when it was the civil case against me, Scotland Yard did the courtesy, each time a hearing was about to begin at the Palace of Justice, there came the news that the child was still alive and they were looking for her. The ECHR case is still to be decided. And then, we cannot forget the consequences in Portugal: on 2nd October, I was removed from my commission as head of the Portimão department, and had to return to Faro. I resigned after Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, said - as he was leaving a meeting with José Sócrates, Prime Minister at the time, at the European Union's Lisbon Summit - that he had already spoken to the Portuguese Prime Minister about the Maddie case. José Sócrates subsequently denied that this had ever happened. However, a few hours later, I was fired. I vented my frustration to Diário de Notícias. I don't want to get personal about these things, but I was - and still am - one of the PJ coordinators with the best CV. I remember, for example, before this, Dr Santos Cabral went to the Algarve and he told me "You're that Gonçalo Amaral, the one they're talking about". This was in relation to the work we were doing, for example, in the fight against drug trafficking. We, the Regional Section for the Investigation of Drug Trafficking of Faro, seized more hashish than the national directorate in Lisbon. This is a reality. The Section was about  to be honoured when the time was right and I understood that it would be on the anniversary of the PJ. My name was there as coordinator of the Section. Later, when these awards were given, Dr Alberto Costa was still Minister of Justice (PS), and my name does not appear in the Republic Gazette (Diário da República). It is as if those collaborators of mine had worked alone. There is this "pushing back". And then there is what is happening now: a scandal that cuts across all the governing political parties. Both the PS and the PSD. When the case was reopened in 2013, Dr Paula Teixeira da Cruz (PSD) was Minister of Justice. The case was only reopened because Scotland Yard had already eliminated, through a re-enactment*, the suspicions about the father and had ended with the important testimony of Mrs. Jane T. saying that, after all, there was a man there with a child on his arms, who was another doctor...

Regarding the sighting of a man with a child on his arms, you reminded us that there is an 80 per cent chance of being the father of the child and a 60 per cent chance of being the child herself.

This was said by the Irish (witnesses), but Scotland Yard said "no, no, it's just a person who looks alike". And only then was the Portuguese police allowed to re-open the case. And there's a story being told that there was a minister's wedding and that the lady minister (of Justice at the time, mentioned above) was late for the wedding, but she confided that she was late because she had just solved the Maddie case. From then on, Portugal began to be subservient to the British. And a strategy to find a suspect began. The solution to the case involved an employee of the Ocean Club who, some time later, died after being crushed by a tractor. So, it was solved, that was the suspect. Had the man's wife not come to the public to speak out against this situation, I don't know what would have happened. They started trying to find a suspect, to the point where we ended up with a German.

To Brueckner.

Yes. I have witnessed, throughout  all these years, the so-called political intent of the case and political correctness. Journalists also have some responsibility in this. I am not a journalist, but I put myself in the position of one who poses questions. If you question, you have to question thoroughly. For example, if they say that there is a strong belief that there is this certain individual who was the one who did and happened, who abducted and killed.... How is it that no journalist has ever asked why? They have so many elements to present to public opinion the name of a person... And then there's another issue that isn't just about journalists: nobody questions why an individual is arrested in order to investigate a crime. It doesn't work like that: first, the crime is investigated, and then people are arrested as a result. First they arrested him, and then they investigated.

Brueckner is the scapegoat, so to speak.

The Germans are very used to certain types of things like covert actions, using prisoners who are not prisoners but police officers to try to get others to talk about certain facts... The same thing will have happened here. At the time of the Baader-Meinhof Group, the leaders of the group were arrested because of the excellent work done by the German police, who managed to dismantle it, but after a few visits by psychologists and other people they all committed suicide in prison. One person is in prison and after I don't know how many years he says, "He confessed to me, he told me that" It's hear-saying. And they state that it was an individual (Helge B.) who was in prison, in Greece, for human trafficking and yet he had no motivation and his statement was credible despite the fact that he lied and omitted in his own statements. When he became a suspect (C.B.) in 2016, he was in Portugal. And if he was here, if the process and the investigation are Portuguese, why on earth are the English going to pull the Germans into the case? Why are the English, in 2018, formally hearing his statements because of a pseudo-rape of an American female citizen in Praia da Luz?

He is the ideal suspect. You even indicated that "it is necessary to find the ideal suspect, the paedophile who satisfies the parents".

That's right. I have been saying that in these recent days and I write it in this book, the national sovereignty is at stake. That is because it is not only about this case: there are other processes that have no direct relationship with the Maddie case, but they want it to have a direct relationship with the suspect for the manufacturing of the same. The investigation takes place in Germany and nothing is done in Portugal. There is no positive or negative conflict of competence. The Portuguese state is responsible for crimes committed in Portugal. Only in very exceptional cases is another country allowed to do so, but not here: right now, the Germans will have about four cases against that individual. Going back a little, this is transversal to all the political parties: the State Budget is being discussed and nobody talks about it. Doesn't the Minister of Justice know? Do they only talk about the criminal cases that concern corruption? Are there no other problems? There's talk that Eduardo Cabrita (Minister of I.A.) was responsible for driving the car that crashed on the A6, for example, but who's allowing this to happen? It's a problem of sovereignty. Not even the nationalist or far-right parties talk about it, which is odd. I remember at the time of the "The English Gag", I asked all the parties for audiences and was only received by the PCP (Portuguese Communist Party) and Dr Pedro Quartin Graça, who was then leader of the Earth Party. And that was it. The only one that answered me, apart from them, was BE (Left Bloc) saying that it didn't comment on specific cases of justice. Yet so many cases have already been commented upon. Why does everyone run away from this one? This German prosecutor seems to have told an English newspaper this weekend that Portugal wants peace. I believe those words, that is exactly right: 'Don't bother us. If you want to solve it, solve it". This inertia is incompatible with the exercise of sovereignty in terms of justice. And that should be of concern to all political forces. What is the position of the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor of the Republic? Do they allow the investigation to be continued by the Germans, have they given instructions in this respect?

Among other sexual crimes, Brueckner allegedly raped a woman aged between 70 and 80, but at the Hospital of Barlamento Algarvio in Portimão, the doctor who observed the victim submitted her to a gynaecological examination and concluded that there were no lacerations and that there was "intense vaginal atrophy". This is one of the "stitches in a badly conducted, or rather, intentionally conducted investigation to build a paedophile abductor" as you explained?

Exactly. This individual has a profile almost suitable, but it needs to be filled in. Last year, the individual was sold: they were so sure, but he was not charged. Then other cases were picked up to say that he raped an elderly woman, an Irish child, a friend's daughter and so on. But in all this, there is not a hint of the Maddie Case. We already know he's a thug, but please show even one tiny thing related to this case. There are people who are tried and convicted not for what they do, but for their image. In 2016, he was in Portugal and it was allowed for him to leave here (i.e. Extradited) with the collusion of the Portuguese authorities - be it the PJ or the Public Prosecutor's Office - so that the Germans would arrest him for other facts and start investigating with him in prison. I was a criminal investigation coordinator, I know what should have been done: he was here, we had to "get on top of him" with physical and electronic surveillance. And, if possible, make interventions (i.e. operations) with an undercover agent and not put him in a jail in Germany, place an individual there who was an undercover agent, who tried to find out things, but nothing was achieved. Arrest and investigate or investigate and then arrest?

The process has been reversed. For this reason, do you still believe that the German police acts in a "clearly biased way with lack of objectivity, objectivity that should guide any criminal investigation"?

The example in the rape case proves this and is a bad indicator for the rest. There are two testimonies: the first one says x and y, and stops; then another comes along, from another person who apparently committed a burglary in Brueckner's house, and adds more details, calling into question other details as well. What do we do when faced with this? We have to check the veracity of the testimonies. It's a question of common sense. For example, Manfred Seyferth says that Helge B. saw a videotape of Brueckner having sex with a person. He thought it was Italian ( an Italian woman). He took it and showed it in a bar owned by a person who did reiki. It's easy to identify that person in Santa Clara-a-Velha. They just had to go find him and question him. There are many details like this. Yet the German police are saying, "Okay, we have enough. We can't go any further because this calls into question the motivation".

"The Portuguese have been trailing behind, limiting themselves to press releases saying they are investigating in cooperation with international police authorities, without publicly committing themselves to eventual suspects." Why?

It is peace that the authorities want. For example, in the case of the rape of the North American woman, it was necessary to know what happened. Who discovered that process? This man, Helge B., says that he saw the rape of a lady with a British accent. How did they arrive at the rape of that elderly lady? We have items that were sent to a lab after this. How did they plug the hole (i.e. concealed) of the prior processing of those objects having occurred in a Portuguese laboratory? Why isn't this being talked about? When they were sent to Germany, they had already been partially or totally examined here. Where is the report of that examination? Something's not right here, and explanations must be forthcoming. The Prosecutor's Office has to carry out an investigation because here, too, there's a violation of rules regarding the custody of evidence: it came from the laboratory, went to the court, from there to the police, the packages were opened and closed, it went to the PJ for a few years - and it wasn't even kept in a safe - it stayed in the squad room and was handed over to the German police who left it inside the car and, after five or six days, it went to the laboratory. How is this possible? The chain of custody of the evidence has been placed in question, but everything is taken for granted. 13 years later, a hair turned up that is even one that has a root because only with it can a more correct test be made.

"I very much doubt that this prosecutor has read the Portuguese process relative to the investigation into the disappearance, not least because he doesn't need to read it in order to 'create a paedophile suspect'." So, are the German authorities collaborating with the British authorities to feed the idea of the so-called perfect suspect?

Unfortunately, 14 years later, all hypotheses are still out in the open. It is necessary to continue investigating in whatever way is necessary, even if the PJ forms three or four teams, each one dedicated to a different angle. Resources are wasted, yes, but perhaps we will manage to get to the truth. There are people who say that the prosecutor has found nothing that links the parents to this. Excuse me, but where is the investigation? He's only investigating the suspect. He wants to arrive at an abduction theory and, if possible, get Brueckner to confess. But to know about the Portuguese process... He doesn't want to hear about it.

There are some mysteries that have been compounding about Maddie. For example, why is the girl's exact date of birth not known?

The British police came to that conclusion early on and they came to suspect that Maddie's father was not Gerald. Then they concluded that it was through DNA testing. It is incomprehensible how in a country like the UK, someone is born in a hospital and only registered two months later. We are talking about a daughter of a couple of doctors. I don't know what happened.

Interestingly, on the night of 3 May 2007, Maddie's mother's mobile phone has a record of an incoming call from her husband, but on her husband's mobile phone there is no record of the outgoing call. Why is this?

It was deleted.

You also wrote that the likelihood of Maddie leaving the apartment dead is thought to be fairly slim, but from the first moment you believed she died in that very same place.

That hypothesis is strong because these are the indications that, for example, the British dogs give. Those that detect the smell of a corpse and biological vestiges have never failed before, so they wouldn't fail in Portugal.

Michael W., "who would have had military training, is connected to the area of new information technologies", and it is also said that he has "links with the pharmaceutical industry", would have come to Portugal to support Maddie's parents. Do you believe this man was involved in any way in the concealment of evidence?

At the time, we didn't investigate that properly. At that point, he appeared in a photo in a Portuguese newspaper, with the father of the missing child, on the beach, by the rocks, early in the morning, and he certainly wasn't looking for limpets or anything like that. They were doing something or wanted to have a quieter chat outside a more enclosed space, where they would have been easily controlled. There are people in the middle of this affair who are connected to secret services, who know how to control with counter-intelligence and have the proper precautions. This person is interesting because at one point in time, in the period when it is thought that Maddie's body may have been transported in the car, he appears as the driver of the car. He's careful to say it right away, that he's there as the driver but he never drove the car. There's a period there where it seems he's even here in Portugal without the child's parents being here. There is a talk of a christening in the United Kingdom, of one of his children, I think, and one has to know if it was booked in a hurry or not.

You have always maintained that Kate and Gerry McCann are guilty of the death of the child and of the concealment of a corpse. You also claim that the girl died accidentally in the apartment and that the parents then hid the body in a freezer, and that British police dogs found the scent of a dead body and blood in the apartment and in a car used by the couple. They then reportedly cremated Maddie hidden in another British woman's coffin.

Anglican people don't die in the Algarve every day. Nor are they cremated. Or end up in that church. It is possible that there was a speeding up of something when it was known that there was a body in the church and it was a good opportunity to. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but that the police, in terms of the investigation, have to think logically. That this individual appears as a strategist of, I have no doubt. The connection to the pharmaceutical industry takes me into another field: what was the role of the medicine Calpol in all this?

Even because it was not possible, for example, to hear the child's grandfather about the regular use of this medicine.

We do not know the health history of this child, she could have heart problems, one may suppose. What is this really about? Pharmaceutical labs or Maddie's parents? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but there are some strange things going on here that need to be thoroughly investigated. With the time that has passed, the PJ should have gathered all the investigators who worked on the case, with a signed term of confidentiality, and discuss the case.

The parents were seen praying and had the keys to the church. You explained that these indications, as well as those we spoke of earlier, "are still valid, and will remain so until the investigation manages to conclude otherwise". Has this been sufficiently investigated?

No. The police only found out about the funeral of the Anglican woman after September 2007. I remember that, in 2008 or 2009, I spoke with a female Italian journalist, who was an intern here, and she had written in her notebook the correct date when someone came up to her and said: "This happened. A woman's corpse was there, the funeral took place and two or three people with a heavy bag were seen entering the side of the church at night". She pointed it all out, she spoke to her older colleagues and they said "Ah, forget it, you're too young for these things". I've already spoken to undertakers and, because of the size of the child, and the size of the lady who passed away, it was possible for her body to be placed under the body, namely, under the lady's legs without it being detected. That body went to Ferreira do Alentejo to be cremated.

Were the ashes delivered to the family?

Yes, but nothing can be found on them in terms of DNA.

Has anyone talked to the relatives?

No one. And it's easy to know who it is: it's been confirmed that there was this funeral and it happened in mid-June.

And you still think Maddie's body was in a freezer?

I don't think so, logic and reasoning make us think that way. I admit all the other hypotheses, but this one is not overlooked. You can't move towards one while the other is still open.

How long would have she been in the freezer?

Considering the blood found in the boot of the car, it was at least fifteen days frozen. If the form of concealment of the corpse had to do with this funeral, death occurred much earlier and the only hypothesis is that it was preserved.

So why would the abduction have been staged so many days later?

Being dead longer is one hypothesis. That Mr Michael we spoke of earlier is married to a cousin of the child's mother. At the time, there was an Anglican priest in the church, but he was only there for two or three days. Immediately, a priest from the USA came, and both he and his wife are neighbours of Michael's mother-in-law. He may have come to give spiritual support only. Regarding the day: the missing person alert would always have to be given before going to England. And it had to be given in a timely manner. The last possible time was indeed Thursday because Friday was the eve of the trip. But it might even have occurred that the girl did indeed go missing on May 3 at night. It was another of the nights when she was alone with her siblings.

At one point in the book, you wonder about the hypothesis that they continued to dine and drink merrily knowing that their daughter was dead. Would this be possible?

It is all possible, but they gave us a short window of opportunity, they sold us a picture: they said it was like this and like that. We have just talked about the last person to see the child alive, Mr David, saying that it happened in the late afternoon. There are suspicions regarding him. The people who show this picture to the police are the ones who are responsible for the child's care and, therefore, we should always be suspicious of what they tell us. Nothing is certain. As for the attitude of people, I know that at least the father of the child, a cardiologist, has great self-control. Any one of them is used to dealing with death. No one can assume that the child was alive or dead when they went out to dinner.

"The parents did not insist, nor seem to have encouraged, family members, and others close to the child, to collaborate in the investigation process. And they did nothing to get friends to participate in the reconstruction of the facts." How bizarre is this?

Scotland Yard did a re-enactment with actors, one of whom was a pornographic actor. We have to go and get the people and check their reactions.

As in the case of Joana Cipriano, in which her uncle showed the fridge and even sharp objects such as a saw.

Yes. The uncle said " We have killed her". To come to these conclusions, we have to have the people. And in the Maddie case, they made the testimony of Jane T. vanish. She was the one who smoked, dressed in purple and was outside the apartment because one of her daughters was sick. From where she was standing, she could not see, as she says, the man walking down the street with the child on his arms. She could only see that person if he had come in the opposite direction and passed by her. It is possible that she saw him and thought she recognised him. She even told a member of staff of the Ocean Club that she couldn't see anything because there were trees in front of her. Over the years, she would always add something, she lied a lot.

At one point, you clarify that one might think "that Jane T. knows more than she said, perhaps she suspects or knows" who the man she saw was. Was she afraid to admit it was Gerald?

She knows more. About that question, I believe she is like the Irish family: she thinks she saw someone who looks like Maddie's father. And the English police themselves confirm this. I ask if Brueckner looks like Gerald. So much so that they compared old photographs and never any from 2007. If he had been arrested in Portimão in 2006, there would at least be the photograph taken at the entrance to the jail.

Because they would be so disparate, it wouldn't matter.

And therefore, when the English and the Germans published Brueckner's photograph, it was in black and white.

In chapter 19, you recall that "in Portugal, in the case of criminal investigations, the activity of private detectives is prohibited", yet they were always present during the investigation. You stress that "they were contractually employed to investigate an abduction, and only an abduction".

I have no doubts at all about that. What is needed from these private detectives is to know the contracts, what they were asked to do and the reports they compiled so that the police can know everything. Let's imagine that, in reading the process, they manoeuvred the police in relation to Brueckner. What is the interest?

"A group of investigators prepared a detailed document with their doubts and referred the findings to the PGR on February 28, 2019." They concluded that Maddie died between April 29 and 30. Why has this analysis never been valued?

I don't think they ever did anything about it, but that brings us to another point: I may not agree with the dates, but it's a job very well done. The police and the newspapers were sent photographs, particularly the one of the swimming pool, which doesn't match the weather at the time. As if they wanted Gerald to appear like a good father who even accompanied his children in the pool. They take the photo and, as that was not the weather on April 29 or 30, using satellites, they suggest that she would still be alive on those days. But they leave open the major question: did nothing happen before?

You have been holding conversations with colleagues of yours who also do not agree with "the abrupt end of the investigations". Have they remained silent for fear of reprisals?

It's not like that. It seems to me that they really just want peace in the sense of "Don't bother us too much, we just want to be quiet". These are people who want that meeting of the investigators of the case.

At the end of the book, you offer a wide range of suggestions to the Portuguese, British and German authorities. Do you think they will be followed? Or will they not because they might arrive at an inconvenient truth?

I don't know if they would get to the truth but at least they would get close to it. Why do I talk about these proceedings in the book? Because nobody listened to me, nobody asked me anything. Neither me nor to the other colleagues. They don't want things to move forward. I remember a case in the Azores, when Dr Fernando Negrão was the national director of the PJ, the murder of a shoemaker. During one of his visits, he spoke about this and the case was reopened. When I arrived there, on the first or second commission, I was in Velas de São Jorge, we had a different line of investigation from the other colleagues. I picked up the phone, called Francisco Moita Flores, who had worked on the case, and asked him what his opinion was. He always said, and continues to say, that for them, the suspect was so-and-so. But we couldn't even prove the contrary, and the case had to be closed and is still unsolved today. It's important to talk to those who were involved in the investigation. You can't learn anything about Maddie's disappearance by talking to English and German people.

"The mysteriously missing child deserves an objective and serious investigation, not a monster stitched together haphazardly, i.e. badly stitched up. Will that ever be achieved?

I am beginning to have doubts. This will depend on the ECHR's decision. If it is against the Portuguese State, it will come to a halt. If it is favourable, other stories and confusions will be created and we will never again have this objective and serious investigation. I have no doubt that what has been happening is related to what will happen in this respect: in the Maddie case, we only don't get to the truth because of a purely political reason. It seems that, in politics, nobody cares about what is happening.

I newspaper, 20 October 2021 https://ionline.sapo.pt/750051
Also on the cover page of I newspaper

Gonçalo Amaral - 'Enough of the Lies':  Promotion and Reviews Capa_j10

Note: MCCANN ET HEALY c. PORTUGAL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207898
* Filmed in Spain with actors, not with the real witnesses nor with the former arguidos, reference https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id462.htm

PeterMac's Free e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Gonçalo Amaral's 'Maddie: Truth of the Lie

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'
Please click on image to view all three Madeleine films

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Popular Posts