Part 3
Anchor João Ferreira - Gonçalo, what pressures did you feel during the investigation?
Gonçalo Amaral - The pressures were felt immediately with the consul's intervention (Bill Henderson) followed a few hours later after by the British ambassador (John Buck).
Anchor - The consul and the British ambassador?
Gonçalo Amaral - Yes, the consul called us at around 9am, 9:30am of the 4th of May, stating that the Judiciary police wasn't doing anything, that we were not doing anything, and that a different kind of intervention was needed, a diplomatic one. This did took place, the British ambassador who was at the time in Lisbon went to Portimão where he met with us, with me, with Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, who was the director of the PJ of Faro, with Dr. Luís Neves, who was also present.
Anchor - And what was addressed in that meeting? The inaction of the Judiciary Police?
Gonçalo Amaral - Well, if you notice, immediately after that meeting, a press statement is drafted talking about an abductor, I believe that it was Dr. Guilhermino da Encarnação who read it, there and then the parents start talking about an abductor. The pressure was in that sense, to state that it was an abduction from the first moment.
Anchor - From the first moment there's the attempt to construct the narrative of abduction?
Gonçalo Amaral - From the first moment. It was almost simultaneous, that press statement of the Judiciary Police was read, if memory doesn't fail me, at the door of the PJ headquarters of Portimão...
Tânia Laranjo - Yes, at the the door of the Portimão's headquarters.
Gonçalo Amaral - ...and right away, on the other side of the headquarters, was the couple giving a press statement. The meeting with the ambassador had ended only a few minutes before.
Anchor - But when did you and the rest of the team of PJ investigators begin to have the belief that the explanation for this case could be in fact related to an accidental death concealed by the parents?
Gonçalo Amaral - When all the other lines of investigation, namely the abduction, reached a dead end. So we had to go back to the starting point. What should happen now, if the process isn't archived again, is to do what is obligatory when following a determined line of investigation. That is what we did then, we investigated a third party involvement, not of the parents but of others, which enables the press statements and that press statement of the couple, previously mentioned. That was the abduction thesis that was investigated. We came to the conclusion that an abduction wasn't possible. We started to have doubts, we started to question the statement of one person, another person that belonged to the group and was there, Jane Tanner, and the said conflicts, and lies that happened throughout. So, we couldn't go further in the investigation to the abduction thesis, we had to go back to the starting point. And when returning to the starting point, there's a new inspection to the apartment where the dogs brought by the British police were used. We were working in close cooperation with the British police, they were always with us until the day when the couple left. Then they all left. I wondered at the time what exactly they were doing here then, because one thing is to assist in an investigation and the investigation wasn't concluded when the couple left Portugal in September 2007, and they all left in the following day, "good bye, see you again, let's talk on the phone, exchange mails". We were left alone when we had already reached these conclusions along with the British police input. Earlier I spoke about the Judiciary Police's opinion, but it was also the British police's opinion who was always present and present in the investigations.
ongoing
Broadcast by CMTV, S16 EP20, CM Special: Maddie, the Mystery, April 23, 2016 - first draft
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/
