Jose Carlos Fernandes da Silva, Driver

[Brietta]

What has not been revealed is where or if Euclides Monteiro fits into the phone analysis linking the 3 "burglars", as I am presuming they were his alleged associates  before he passed away?

The PJ seem to be satisfied of his involvement, I think that has been said officially and not from 'a source close to the investigation'. Initial newspaper reports suggested it was his phone being in the vicinity of 5a which excited their initial interest.

 ... evidence of some kind must have suggested further information was required from the four arguidos and those interviewed as witnesses, whether that was in the files the police have and/or from new witnesses or witnesses ignored by the initial investigation... can only be speculation at the moment. 

[sadie]

How long would it have taken him to drive to, say, Lagos & back? He doesn't have an alibi.

Not long.  Little traffic if any.

4.2 miles going the local route along Rua Direita
5.2 miles along the faster N125

I have measured from PdL church to the top end of Lagos Marina

[Brietta]

This guy is innocent.
The innocent two searchers who told him 11pmish on his balcony about the disappearance are possibly DP and ROB.
And it shows that no-one on this forum has the DVD as if anyone did they would know what building balcony was on.

I am sure if that is the case he will have nothing to worry about.

IMO there is a mind-set which cannot subscribe to any concept which does not point to the guilt of the McCann family. 
I think this mentality may have led to a resistance of investigating and examining others with the vigour which was applied to the McCann party; which has led to obvious avenues of investigation being disregarded until given proper scrutiny by Operation Grange which was set up in 2011.

Every statement made by the McCann party has been dissected and rubbished; statements made by anyone else have been treated as ‘gospel’ particularly proven erroneous ones such as amendment to the originals made by Mr Smith and Mr McClusky both later retracted, but one at least still quoted as an article of faith.

This attitude is illustrated by the proper reaction to the questioning of the four arguidos; one doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too much to imagine the different response if these four were even loosely connected to the Drs McCann and their party. 

Whether or not there is a connection to Madeleine there are reasons why these four have attracted interest; Heriberto, an individual working on his own without the resources available to policing worked out that there were anomalies in the information contained in the files, to which we have access, which are worthy of a further look.

His analysis of the information led him to the conclusion that certain individuals needed to be interviewed to rule them in or to rule them out; I believe that is what is happening now.

The fact that an individual was on his balcony at a time after the event does not automatically clear him. IMO it puts him right at the seat of things at a time when a worried person might look over a balcony to check outside; one who did not take an opportunity to leave his residence to assist in the search.

I do agree that he is 'innocent' until there is evidence which might lead to a conviction.  There again ... so are the Drs McCann ... and according to the PJ and the Met, they are not persons of interest ... so why have the campaigns against them increased at a greater rate as official interest switches elsewhere?

[jassi]

I am sure if that is the case he will have nothing to worry about.

IMO there is a mind-set which cannot subscribe to any concept which does not point to the guilt of the McCann family. 
I think this mentality may have led to a resistance of investigating and examining others with the vigour which was applied to the McCann party; which has led to obvious avenues of investigation being disregarded until given proper scrutiny by Operation Grange which was set up in 2011.

Every statement made by the McCann party has been dissected and rubbished; statements made by anyone else have been treated as ‘gospel’ particularly proven erroneous ones such as amendment to the originals made by Mr Smith and Mr McClusky both later retracted, but one at least still quoted as an article of faith.

This attitude is illustrated by the proper reaction to the questioning of the four arguidos; one doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too much to imagine the different response if these four were even loosely connected to the Drs McCann and their party. 

Whether or not there is a connection to Madeleine there are reasons why these four have attracted interest; Heriberto, an individual working on his own without the resources available to policing worked out that there were anomalies in the information contained in the files, to which we have access, which are worthy of a further look.

His analysis of the information led him to the conclusion that certain individuals needed to be interviewed to rule them in or to rule them out; I believe that is what is happening now.

The fact that an individual was on his balcony at a time after the event does not automatically clear him. IMO it puts him right at the seat of things at a time when a worried person might look over a balcony to check outside; one who did not take an opportunity to leave his residence to assist in the search.

I do agree that he is 'innocent' until there is evidence which might lead to a conviction.  There again ... so are the Drs McCann ... and according to the PJ and the Met, they are not persons of interest ... so why have the campaigns against them increased at a greater rate as official interest switches elsewhere?

Has it ?  Can't say that I've noticed.

[pegasus]

Re the word "furto" (which translates as "theft") annotated in handwriting by PJ next to this name in a list of employees.
Peeps fail to notice that there are other such annotations on the list.
For example another "furto" next to someone who had been in apartment a few days before.
Or a "burla, falsificação, trafico" next to another name.
If you check criminal record system for previous of any large group of peeps you are going to find a few.

[pegasus]

On topic, I pointed out that there is the word "furto" ("theft) handwritten next to this name in a list in the files.
But there are also words (such as "furto" theft, "trafico" trafficking, "burla" fraud, "falsificação" forgery) handwritten next to a small % of other names in the list.
So why focus on this one man? - it seems unfair and unbalanced.

[ferryman]

On topic, I pointed out that there is the word "furto" ("theft) handwritten next to this name in a list in the files.
But there are also words (such as "furto" theft, "trafico" trafficking, "burla" fraud, "falsificação" forgery) handwritten next to a small % of other names in the list.
So why focus on this one man? - it seems unfair and unbalanced.

I certainly agree, evidence of (comparatively minor) dishonesty in unrelated matters is no basis, on its own, for suspicion of some involvement in something much more serious concerning a child ...

[pegasus]

I certainly agree, evidence of (comparatively minor) dishonesty in unrelated matters is no basis, on its own, for suspicion of some involvement in something much more serious concerning a child ...

When checking out peeps with "previous" it seems unbalanced to pick on one guy of whom there is no indication he ever entered that apartment, whereas another had been in there a few days before, and another was in there after the alarm that night. I am assuming all these peeps are innocent, it's reasonable to check them out to rule them out, just pointing out the imbalance of picking on just one.

[Brietta]

When checking out peeps with "previous" it seems unbalanced to pick on one guy of whom there is no indication he ever entered that apartment, whereas another had been in there a few days before, and another was in there after the alarm that night. I am assuming all these peeps are innocent, it's reasonable to check them out to rule them out, just pointing out the imbalance of picking on just one.

Without prejudice - there must have been further information which led to him being 'singled out' ... a handwritten annotation would not be sufficient.

[pegasus]

Without prejudice - there must have been further information which led to him being 'singled out' ... a handwritten annotation would not be sufficient.

Well one of the bits of further information was that JS had phonecalls with RR who supposedly resembled one of the charity collector efits.
BTW JS never had phonecalls with the other man PR.

[Brietta]

Well one of the bits of further information was that JS had phonecalls with RR who supposedly resembled one of the charity collector efits.
BTW JS never had phonecalls with the other man PR.

Basically all we have are press reports ... experience has taught us the value of those.

If an official statement is made we shall have the truth of it; till then we will just have to content ourseves with the knowledge that the authorities who have access to much more accurate information than is available to us or the press (whose main interest is in sales) are getting on with the job of investigating the case.

[pegasus]

Basically all we have are press reports ... experience has taught us the value of those.

If an official statement is made we shall have the truth of it; till then we will just have to content ourseves with the knowledge that the authorities who have access to much more accurate information than is available to us or the press (whose main interest is in sales) are getting on with the job of investigating the case.

One of the phone communications (a 58 second phone call between the mobiles of JS and RR) was confirmed by Heriberto from actual mobile network records in the published files, so that is substantial, not conjecture.

[Brietta]

One of the phone communications (a 58 second phone call between the mobiles of JS and RR) was confirmed by Heriberto from actual mobile network records in the published files, so that is substantial, not conjecture.

I have followed Heriberto’s blog since September last year; I have the highest regard for his meticulous work on Madeleine’s case; I know that he has communicated his findings to the authorities, which may well have been noted and acted on. Heriberto is very generous in explaining exactly the methodology he uses to reach his conclusions. I would never suggest that anything he has to say is speculation.

I do take on board what you have said about the phone calls and agree that it is substantial information from a learned source, but still do not trust what the press get hold of and the spin that is sometimes put on it.

[sadie]

I have followed Heriberto’s blog since September last year; I have the highest regard for his meticulous work on Madeleine’s case; I know that he has communicated his findings to the authorities, which may well have been noted and acted on. Heriberto is very generous in explaining exactly the methodology he uses to reach his conclusions. I would never suggest that anything he has to say is speculation.

I do take on board what you have said about the phone calls and agree that it is substantial information from a learned source, but still do not trust what the press get hold of and the spin that is sometimes put on it.

I echo Briettas words.

He is meticulous in every way.  A real in-depth sleuth, accurate with his findings .... and a very nice man. 


The worst thing this forum ever did, in the early days, was to rubbish Heribertos work.

He is a BIG man to have come back here and explained his findings.  This time please listen to him and consider sensibly.


As Brietta says, it is the spin that the press and others put in his findings that we have to be aware of and watch out for.

What Heri says will be accurate.

[Brietta]

Data does not require translation just a lot of meticulous work and perhaps a mathematical brain.

Heriberto indicated a line of inquiry based on meticulous research ... despite gaps in the documentation available to him, for which he made an appeal ... he identified an individual who should be questioned, to be ruled in or out of the inquiry.
He was not named in Heri's blog, but his name was forwarded to Portuguese and British police.

That individual has been questioned as an arguido.