Author Topic: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.  (Read 67491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sadie

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2013, 11:13:35 PM »
These photographs do not make sense at all, becuase peoiple who are walking take the shortest route possible ... and they are detours from the shortest route.

Also for bundleman to have gone west as you describe, he had to circle around Martin Smith.  Where does it say that in the files?

The PJ made a huge mess of the plans of 5A and seems this is a mess up too.

Offline faithlilly

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2013, 11:23:02 PM »
These photographs do not make sense at all, becuase peoiple who are walking take the shortest route possible ... and they are detours from the shortest route.

Also for bundleman to have gone west as you describe, he had to circle around Martin Smith.  Where does it say that in the files?

The PJ made a huge mess of the plans of 5A and seems this is a mess up too.

They do not make sense to you sadie because they don't support your theory. As Martin Smith walked up the street and the carrier walked down they would have passed each other but that's all, no circling involved.

For once sadie admit you are wrong with the good grace that has so far eluded you.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline DCI

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Total likes: 6
  • Why are some folks so sick in the head!!!
Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #122 on: June 28, 2013, 01:38:43 AM »
AnnaEsse

OK, here is the first part from frencheuropean's very detailed notes. Inaccuracies are mine!

Frencheuropean suggests that there may be some cuts in the interviews as broadcast because there seems to be lack of continuity in places.

***********************************Amaral footage*******************

Start of the broadcast. Sylvie Bonnec recalls the circumstances of May 3rd and how G Amaral was thrown off the investigation but remains convinced that sooner or later the truth will see the light of day (images from the documentary) She introduces Paul Lefèvre, a legal journalist. She recalls that 4 years later, the parents were exonerated after having been suspected. She presents surprising images recorded by the police. Kate’s appeal to the abductors is shown from start to finish and then a voiceover says that the official conclusion of the investigation states that the little girl had been abducted while she slept. SB then says that according to Amaral, the little girl died on May 3rd (and that the parents were involved in her disappearance), a version that many would like to see quashed.
She leads into the two documentaries, stating that they are unpublished in France: Amaral’s and the McCanns’ (with no further clarification as to their provenance) If I heard the phrase “4 years after,” correctly, it may be that the programme has been partly remade and the old footage added. It’s quite confusing.

Amaral footage: female voice commentating in French, apparently faithful in translation and intonation.
Return to the set with Amaral. Interview. (rough transcription from what I can remember, but there are certainly gaps)

L. You were taken off the investigation. Why does it bother you?

A. Before replying, I’d like to clarify one point. The parents were not innocent. That’s wrong. The case was closed, the parents could have opposed it but they preferred to use private detectives. It’s wrong to say that they were innocent.
It bothers me because I am telling the truth. The book represents 5 months of the investigation: the theory from the investigation. It’s the conclusion of the process in September 2007. Afterward, only one theory was retained, that of kidnapping. Other people were asked to keep quiet (myself and others)

L. I have experience of police investigations and sometimes the police have convictions and want to fit everything into that conviction. That’s the feeling I have here. No other theory seems to interest you.

A. That’s wrong. There is a beginning, a middle and an end to an investigation. The book ends in the middle of the investigation at a time when it was leaning towards kidnapping. But an investigation needs to run its course. Well, the investigation was prevented from concluding. The book is police work that some would like to be kept hidden.

B. I don’t understand why you attach so much importance to the fact that Kate did not shout from the balcony, took the long way round rather than the shorter route to warn the tapas, bearing in mind the dark night and the cold.

L. It’s a minor point but specialists say that the first reaction is to protect the remaining children. Kate left them alone (in these circumstances)

B. Why not have taken the little girl to the hospital (in the case of an accident)?

A. The investigation was half-way through. We were just beginning to see things. It should have run its course. There were perhaps other theories: a burglar who could have killed the child and taken her body elsewhere, for example….other tracks. (Note: the reply does no really relate to the question. There is a cut in the interview?)

L. OK, you say that the police officer who followed you gave up, lay down and that there was political pressure.

A. Your interpretation is correct.

L. (Explains the different roles of the two dogs) What were the English dogs looking for, a living or a dead person?

A They were looking for a body.

L. You say the child was killed falling from the sofa. Can a child really be killed falling 60 centimetres?

A It’s possible.

B What more could you have done?

A Look for the freezer, who had one. At that time I was dismissed and nobody looked in that direction.

L How could the parents have got rid of a body? They were under constant surveillance that evening.


A We should bear in mind that the police were informed well after the alert was raised. The alert doesn’t coincide with the “kidnapping,” any more than the witness statement from Tanner who says she saw the kidnapper at 9.30pm and didn’t alert the police. Why? In reality, when they parents gave the alert, all worries about transport (of the body) were taken care of.


W9 Part 2
AnnaEsse Today at 19:45

McCanns’s documentary. Return to the set.


L. 3 witnesses (those who saw a man watching the apartment) were heard by their detectives: did you rule out these witness statements or did you miss this?

A. Everybody near that busy road was interrogated. The police interrogated all the witnesses, even a musician who was sleeping in his car.

L. Did you find that man?

A. It was D Payne, the McCanns’ friend who was often with them and the witness statement of the young girl was not reckoned to be of any value. (Note: the one who saw the horrible spotty man, I assume)
Concerning the man carrying the child seen by Tanner: there is a huge problem. J Tanner produced a lot of discrepancies, going from great uncertainty at the beginning through certainty with the progression of successive statements.
The Smiths were 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann…The film (the McCanns’) speaks of two witnesses (with similar statements) but Smith talks about the child carried with her head on the shoulder and Tanner across the arms.

L. You are a well-known man in Portugal, a man of experience. Do you really think that this nice, middle-class English couple, are calculating and Machiavellian enough to have done this?

A. It’s not the problem posed by an individual who believes something. It’s a police investigation, within the context of police work
Someone goes on holiday in a foreign country and thinks the laws are the same. Concerning the law, in England abandoning children is severely punished…

L. (cutting Amaral off by bursting out laughing) Everybody does it!

A. (Raising his voice, sounding angry) Yes, it’s abandonment to leave children on their own like that….it’s non-punishable negligence in Portugal. In England it’s punishable and the tapas know it.

L. Is that why they concealed the body?

A. There could be other reasons: so that the state of the body would not be known. But there wasn’t time to explore the theories. Perhaps if the investigation had been completed they’d all have been done?

End of the interviews. S. Bonnec concludes by saying:

“Maddie’s parents did not wish to come and have their say.”
Kate's 500 Mile Cycle Challenge

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann/

Offline Mrs. B

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #123 on: June 28, 2013, 11:36:25 AM »
That should be renamed "Interview with a Mad Person" - had almost forgotten how much garbage he used to come out with.

Offline Matthew Wyse

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #124 on: June 28, 2013, 11:38:38 AM »
Can I ask what it means by "Kate took the long way round" ???    If I understand the layout at the resort correctly there only is one direct route and that is the one she took which is out the little gate from the patio, down the road and through the reception to the tapas??
Most people suspect the truth but few are able to admit it.

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #125 on: June 28, 2013, 12:06:13 PM »
Is there maybe a suggestion dudes that she went out the front door and out via the car park.   

Can I ask what it means by "Kate took the long way round" ???    If I understand the layout at the resort correctly there only is one direct route and that is the one she took which is out the little gate from the patio, down the road and through the reception to the tapas??

Offline Matthew Wyse

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #126 on: June 28, 2013, 02:56:29 PM »
I am still waiting an answer about the claim that Kate went the long way round when she alerted that Maddie had gone.    Could it be that this is yet more mischief making??
Most people suspect the truth but few are able to admit it.

Offline Mrs. B

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #127 on: June 28, 2013, 03:02:10 PM »
I actually don't know what Amaral meant - there's so much in that interview that doesn't make any sense either way.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #128 on: June 28, 2013, 03:22:02 PM »
Can I ask what it means by "Kate took the long way round" ???    If I understand the layout at the resort correctly there only is one direct route and that is the one she took which is out the little gate from the patio, down the road and through the reception to the tapas??

This is most certainly what is being referred to, a part in GA's documentary, see second paragraph, first one included for context

10.38 – It is just after 22 p.m. when Kate goes to her children’s bedroom using the shorter route, entering the apartment through the sliding window, and sees Madeleine is missing. She asserts that the bedroom’s window and shutters had been opened. She drops everything, leaves the twins, who continue sleeping, in a room with an open window, and heads for the Tapas bar, to raise the alarm.

11.04 – This is where part of Kate McCann’s behaviour on that night becomes incomprehensible. Instead of stopping right here, (he is standing at the balcony in the documentary when he is narrating this)and shouting out to the people who were at the restaurant, where her husband was, what she does is climb down these stairs, and walk a distance that is certainly twice as much as the distance from here to the restaurant, which is located approximately 50 metres from here, as the crow flies.

Offline Lace

Re: Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #129 on: June 28, 2013, 05:32:37 PM »
No,i agree, burying children at the beach doesn't work. However concealing them in a disused building, municipal bin etc, hot tailing it back to the OC for the alarm, which Gerry himself was at about 10.13, does.



The Smiths sighting was about 5 minutes past 10,  the person carrying the child was on his way to the beach then.

So if as you say it could have been Gerry and that he could get back to the OC by 10.13 that is almost 10 minutes after being seen by the Smiths.

What time would he have had to leave the OC and find Madeleine to do this procedure?

Remember the waiter said all nine people were sitting at the table when he took the order for dinner.



Offline Lace

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #130 on: June 28, 2013, 05:47:23 PM »


Witness Statement

Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira

 Date: 2007.09.07

 Having already given a statement to this process, he confirms what is already on record, a copy of which is made available for this investigation

 That he comes to the process as a witness and with the hope that he may help in the localisation of the child Madeleine Beth McCann, missing since the 3rd May, 2007, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

 Questioned if he was the person who called the reception to tell them that a child had gone missing, he states that he cannot definitively remember if he did or not. He admits that he could have been the one to call.

 Clarifies that on that night when he took the dinner orders, the entire group was seated. He remembers that there were nine adults? four men and five women. He did not notice any strange behaviour on their part.

 Asked to describe the positions in which the group sat, he states that he can only recall that of the taller man (Russell), as he saw him leave the table, and the older woman, who remained seated after the rest of the group had left the table. Russell, he notes, was seated looking toward the front of the apartments and the older woman occupied a seat that was more or less facing away from the apartments. He is not able to describe the groups clothing that night.

 He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar. Immediately, he put two white wine and two red wine bottles, along with a bottle of water, on the table. He cannot be sure that he served more wine that night. The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes. He remembers that at this moment, the taller male, whom he now knows to be Russell, had left the table. He did not know where he had gone. The witness was asked to keep Russell?s meal warm. After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Asked if he remembers having seen all the elements of the group at this time, he cannot remember exactly. He also cannot state the length of time Russell was away from the table. The witness states that he had already served all the clients of the bar and for this reason, believes that Russell was away for some time.

 He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
 David Payne and Matthew were nervously searching the area.

 The witness went to them, he does not remember which one, and asked what was happening. One of them responded to the witness in English stating 'A GIRL IS MISSING?' that a child had gone missing. After a few moments, around 5 or 10 minutes, he heard screaming from the apartment zone and saw a woman on the balcony of 5 A. He did not understand what she was saying. As it was night, and given the distance from the Tapas bar to the apartment, he was not able to determine if there was someone else next to the woman on the balcony. At that moment his colleague, Joe, met up with him and asked the witness to call the police, and that a child has gone missing and could not be found. Immediately afterwards, Joe left toward the street. He does not know who gave this information to Joe but the witness (or his colleague who believes the witness did so) called the reception asking them to inform the police.

 Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.

 The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. He also remembers that they would normally be the last clients to leave. Wednesday was the last night they were at the bar after dinner.

 When questioned, he states that his colleague Joe is of British nationality and that he left at the end of August to go and live with his parents in England.

 And nothing more was said.
 Reads, ratifies, signs.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #131 on: June 28, 2013, 11:07:41 PM »
The Smiths sighting was about 5 minutes past 10,  the person carrying the child was on his way to the beach then.

So if as you say it could have been Gerry and that he could get back to the OC by 10.13 that is almost 10 minutes after being seen by the Smiths.

What time would he have had to leave the OC and find Madeleine to do this procedure?

Remember the waiter said all nine people were sitting at the table when he took the order for dinner.

Seems the food orders where taken not long after everyone had sat down.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #132 on: June 28, 2013, 11:41:37 PM »
B What more could you have done?

A Look for the freezer, who had one. At that time I was dismissed and nobody looked in that direction.



Offline Benice

Re: Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #133 on: June 29, 2013, 12:22:17 AM »
Seems the food orders where taken not long after everyone had sat down.

True and that night they were late all sitting down because of the Paynes - so probably didn't order until almost 9.00p.m.    Gerry went off to check at 9.05 obviously before the meal arrived.  It was around 9.20ish when he returned from chatting to Jez Wilkins.  So he could not have started his first course until after then.    He obviously was there long enough to get through all the courses as the only meal left half eaten on the table  was Russells.  Nine meals were ordered and nine meals were served.   

Once again - no time for Gerry to have left the table to do anything - let alone go to the apartment, change his clothes and go off walking around PdL carrying a body in time to be seen by the Smiths at 10 oclock.   Totally physically impossible IMO.
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline faithlilly

Re: Re: The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.
« Reply #134 on: June 29, 2013, 12:27:12 AM »
True and that night they were late all sitting down because of the Paynes - so probably didn't order until almost 9.00p.m.    Gerry went off to check at 9.05 obviously before the meal arrived.  It was around 9.20ish when he returned from chatting to Jez Wilkins.  So he could not have started his first course until after then.    He obviously was there long enough to get through all the courses as the only meal left half eaten on the table  was Russells.  Nine meals were ordered and nine meals were served.   

Once again - no time for Gerry to have left the table to do anything - let alone go to the apartment, change his clothes and go off walking around PdL carrying a body in time to be seen by the Smiths at 10 oclock.   Totally physically impossible IMO.

Change his clothes ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?