Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[insider]

I have been given special permission to start this thread to explore the reasons why the McCanns and Murat were suspected by the Portuguese Police of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.


I will add that this topic is extremely important to the case given what happened to the parents.  I expect all posters to stick to the facts and refrain from speculations.

Senior Editor
 

[AnneGuedes]

The first one was Mr Murat. The carrier's way of carrying was very tiring, he wasn't heading to a car, so he couldn't be walking very far. At the expected distance was the house of Mrs Murat and her son. Weird.
Unfortunately for Mr Murat a "journalist" taking herself for miss Marple denounced him to the LC : he was sneaking and snooping and talking about the daughter, Madeleine's age, he didn't live with. 3 TP swore he was next to the 5A which he denied. Weird.
Then UK profilers found him as a model of perpetrator. He was having an affair in a sort of ménage à trois situation. Weird.
No, I don't think that at that point the issue was to find an abductor at all cost, I think the issue was to find a little girl in good state which meant every second was precious.

[Matthew Wyse]

And about time to insider.  The reasons why they became suspects are many, it could have turned out so differently had the forensics following the dog reactions come back as a match to Madeleine.

[insider]

The suspicion that the McCanns had an involvement in the disappearance of their 3 year old daughter started very early on in the investigation according to Gonçalo Amaral the coordinating detective in the case.   As early as 24 hours following the disappearance he was secretly concerned that the parents story just did not add up.

[Matthew Wyse]

The suspicion that the McCanns had an involvement in the disappearance of their 3 year old daughter started very early on in the investigation according to Gonçalo Amaral the coordinating detective in the case.   As early as 24 hours following the disappearance he was secretly concerned that the parents story just did not add up.

Wasn't there much consternation among the PJ detectives that the initial group statements conflicted whereas the later ones were so obviously the result of collusion ?

[insider]

Wasn't there much consternation among the PJ detectives that the initial group statements conflicted whereas the later ones were so obviously the result of collusion ?

That's exactly how it played out.   Amaral had his suspicions but he writes in his book of the event that although he was concerned he dared not report it to his bosses.

One of the factors which influenced the PJ was the absence of any incriminating fingerprints on the shutters or footsteps on the window sill of the childrens bedroom.  They were convinced that no abductor could have entered or exited that window which left the parents story lacking credibility.

[AnneGuedes]

"It's a badly told story" (a story to sleep standing we say in French)  tells to the Diário de Noticias a PJ source taken aback  by the statements of the TP9. On the following day (the 5th) the DN publishes an article with this subtitle : "the parents speak of breaking in, the GNR denies".

[insider]

"It's a badly told story" (a story to sleep standing we say in French)  tells to the Diário de Noticias a PJ source taken aback  by the statements of the TP9. On the following day (the 5th) the DN publishes an article with this subtitle : "the parents speak of breaking in, the GNR denies".

The 'breaking in' claim can be explained very easily and put down to a lack of knowledge by the McCanns as to how window shutters worked in Portuguese apartments.  They didn't know that they could be lifted from the outside.  They also didn't know that they could be locked in the down position but still be raised sufficiently to allow some air and light through them without compromising security.

Had they been informed the outcome might well have been so different.

[Albertini]

I also think one of the things that alerted Amaral was that within a few hours of the diappearance Gerry put the point of entry for himself and Kate as the front door, which Kate contradicted and then Gerry subsequently changed.

Amaral could not accept that you could get such a fundamental detail wrong so close to the event itself.

I believe he thought that the only explanation could be that they were actually trying to create a point of entry AFTER they open shutter story didn't fly.

[Carana]

I also think one of the things that alerted Amaral was that within a few hours of the diappearance Gerry put the point of entry for himself and Kate as the front door, which Kate contradicted and then Gerry subsequently changed.

Amaral could not accept that you could get such a fundamental detail wrong so close to the event itself.

I believe he thought that the only explanation could be that they were actually trying to create a point of entry AFTER they open shutter story didn't fly.

Amaral had assumed that Gerry was lying about how he entered. But there was little point in Gerry saying that he had entered via the front door, whilst saying that Matt entered via the open patio door all in the same statement. I don't think it occurred to him that there could have been a misunderstanding.

[Albertini]

Amaral had assumed that Gerry was lying about how he entered. But there was little point in Gerry saying that he had entered via the front door, whilst saying that Matt entered via the open patio door all in the same statement. I don't think it occurred to him that there could have been a misunderstanding.

And i think that an asusmption that Gerry was lying would be a valid one, how can you get so spectacularly wrong the door you went in through only 14 hours after the event?

I believe (and i also agree) that Amaral and his team thought they were trying to create entry points to support the ability of an abductor to get in and the inital story for the group was that the entry point was through the patio door and then out through the window for said abductor.

When that didn't fly because of the Wilkins meeting at the bottom of the steps to the patio the 10th May statement then said he didn't go through the front door and it wasn't locked.

To any investigator it is not unreasonable to assume that such fundamental changes and alterations to statements concerning entry and exit points coupled with locked and unlocked would raise suspicion.

[Jean-Pierre]

And about time to insider.  The reasons why they became suspects are many, it could have turned out so differently had the forensics following the dog reactions come back as a match to Madeleine.

But the forensics did not show a match for Madeleine.   Which would have told a professional policeman something. 

Instead, it seems Amaral et al chose to ignore the negative result, and indeed the PJ also chose to lie in the "arguido" interviews.  Questions 43 to 47, and particularly 47, crossed the line.   

[stephen25000]

But the forensics did not show a match for Madeleine.   Which would have told a professional policeman something. 

Instead, it seems Amaral et al chose to ignore the negative result, and indeed the PJ also chose to lie in the "arguido" interviews.  Questions 43 to 47, and particularly 47, crossed the line.

The forensics were inconclusive, which is not quite the same thing. Probably due to contamination of the crime scene, by the Mccanns and associates, and subsequently.

[Jean-Pierre]

The forensics were inconclusive, which is not quite the same thing. Probably due to contamination of the crime scene, by the Mccanns and associates, and subsequently.

The apartment being relet in the meantime may not have helped. 

and as for the car - are you of the opinion that the PJ were right to lie to the "suspects"?

[stephen25000]

The apartment being relet in the meantime may not have helped. 

and as for the car - are you of the opinion that the PJ were right to lie to the "suspects"?

,

To answer the question.

When police interview potential suspects, do you always believe they tell the truth ?

i.e. they feed misinformation to suspects to try and get a breakthrough.