Since joining this board and learning about the case I came to the conclusion that MM was abducted from 5A and that the abductor was aware MM was inside 5A without adult supervision/baby monitor and that the patio doors were left unsecured. On this basis I concluded the abductor, who I believe is female, entered via the patio doors.
Was there really no evidence of an abduction? Possibly not and imo the lead detective, GA, may well have written off the following in order to pursue his theory that MM came to some harm in apartment 5A at the hands of her parents.
- First respondents, Jose Maria Batista Roque and Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa, 2 GNR officers, arrived at OC main reception where they were told by GM, via a translator, that MM had been abducted. They all then went to 5A. The officers entered through the front wood door.
- When the officers entered they searched 5A. The officers wit stats are contradictory as to who searched and what was searched. However neither make reference to exiting or entering via the patio doors, searching the balcony or adjoining garden. Reference is made to Jose Roque searching the area around the apartments and tapas bar.
- Fingerprints were collected on 3rd?/4th May.
- One fingerprint taken from the side of the patio door was unidentified. As such PJ sent requests to counterparts in other countries seeking assistance from their fingerprint databases. No match was found but Germany provided additional comment by stating that the fingerprint could have originated from a woman or youth but not a child.
- PJ concluded that the fingerprint originated from first respondent, male officer, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa, despite the comment from Germany and the fact that first respondent, Jose Maria Batista Roque, told his colleague to wait in the hall whilst he searched 5A. In any event at no time does Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa mention handling the patio door to exit/enter the property for whatever reason(s).
- We are led to believe that written communication re the above originated from Assistant Specialist, Irene Trovao, to the Coordinator of the invetigation: Goncalo Amaral. However the printed name and signature on the communication is lighter than the main body of the text.
- Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of falsifying documents in an unrelated case.
Imo the above needs investigating. The fingerprint needs reexamining and the authenticity of the written communication said to originate from Irene Trovao needs examining by a forensic document handler.
