Goncalo Amaral: “Justice works in Silence”

Attrib. http://www.algarve123.com/en/Articles/2-1403/%E2%80%9CJustice_works_in_Silence%E2%80%9D

 

His life has been ripped apart since he led the police investigation into the Millennium’s greatest mystery, and came into legal confrontation with Kate and Gerry McCann. Gonçalo Amaral has lost his family, his business, his assets and the income from his controversial book that states all the reasons why he believes three-year-old Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A in Praia da Luz back in May of 2007. Now, four-and-a-half years down the line, he faces another hurdle: a trial for defamation of the McCanns – due to start in Lisbon in February – in which the couple are claiming 1.2 million euros in damages. Does he think he can win? “Of course”, he says. This is the man whose maxim is “justice works in silence”. He still believes the case of the world’s most famous missing person will be solved. And he told Algarve123 what he thinks is needed to get there…

Natasha Donn, Edition 707 ( 8 Dec 2011)

You wouldn’t miss him in a crowd. Gonçalo Amaral, 52, is strikingly tall with a penchant for hats. He was wearing a long black coat, a black fedora and a bright red scarf when we met him on the terrace of Casa Inglesa in Portimão. He looked much more like an intellectual than a former police officer, but these days his life is spent largely writing - an activity he’s come to love as much as the police work that used to fill his days.
Our first question: “How’s life?” elicited the reply “Bad!” so any further niceties went by the board.
What Amaral has always maintained is that the McCanns’ zeal for litigation “will not bring their daughter back”. He claims various legal suits against him, and a number of other Portuguese public figures who have verbalised “anti-McCann-story” sentiments, are totally out of keeping with the Catholic faith so fervently embraced by Madeleine’s mother Kate.
“Is it Catholic to hold sentiments of vengeance? To seek to destroy a family as mine has been destroyed?” he asks.
“This litigation will carry a heavy price – but I have faith that the mystery will be resolved. “Even if I “disappear” in the process - as Kate McCann has written that she wishes I would in her book - I have a daughter and lots of friends who will make sure justice is done”.
It may sound theatrical - but Amaral is not about theatre. He is about truth – hard facts, solid investigative work.
“The case has to be re-opened, and I have faith that it will be,” he said. “It will either be when this current “procurador” leaves, or when the current chief of police leaves. It’s not something I am pushing for - even if I could - it’s just something I feel certain will happen. And when it does, the first, most essential thing to be done will be a reconstruction of that very first night – the night Madeleine disappeared. Because that’s what happened: she literally disappeared! The reconstruction will have to involve all the parties: the McCanns and their friends. You see, there are so many inconsistencies in these people’s statements that a reconstruction will very quickly highlight where they have not told the truth”.
An example of the power of reconstructions came only weeks ago in Spain where a father claimed his two children were abducted from a park. A police reconstruction quickly proved that the father had never taken his children to the park: witnesses who had seen him arrive in his car but hadn’t noticed the children in the back seat, were surprised to discover that in the reconstruction the child-sized dummies in the back were clearly visible. The children’s father is now in jail – although the children are still missing.
Amaral explained that when Madeleine disappeared police didn’t organise a reconstruction in Praia da Luz “because there were so many journalists on the ground” – and once the heat had died down, “the McCanns refused. They said any reconstruction should be made by actors – but the whole reason for reconstructions is to use the people involved, and see where their stories don’t add up!”
Going back to that first night is logical: the initial 48-hours after any disappearance are crucial. They can literally mean the difference between life and death – but in Madeleine’s case, Amaral is convinced of the latter. The theory that has led to his prosecution by the McCanns for defamation is clearly set out in his book “A Verdade de Mentira” (The Truth of the Lie) – banned from sale in 2009, and then “released” by the Appeals Court a year later. We say “released” because the books were actually never returned to publishers Guerra & Paz, and thus they and Amaral have had nothing to sell…
“It’s another part of the whole plot to assassinate my civil position,” Amaral says matter-of-factly. “I’ve been left with no chances; no way of paying my debts; liens on my property. I’ve had to move away from my family in order to protect them. My marriage, well, it’s not so good. Not good at all, really. My life seems to be all about divorce…”
So how does he find the strength to move forwards?
“Well, I put the McCanns in a metaphorical box and I am not really thinking too much about the trial in February. I think I will win, and then they will appeal – but I have to have a path. I want to open another consultancy. I had one when I left the police force, but that was destroyed when the McCanns went after me over “A Verdade de Mentira”.
So that’s one thing - and the other is writing. I have recently brought out a new book: “Vidas sem Defesa” about missing children cases in Portugal, and I have another one almost ready (I am not going to tell you what it is about!). After that, I would like to take police “mysteries” and study them and write stories, not novels; stories based on facts to show what I believe really happened. There’s a real lack of books of this type.”
So he’s not angry over the agonies and frustrations he’s endured from what came from essentially doing his job?
“I have my anger well-guarded. No feelings for revenge. Like I say, they will pay for what they have done to me and my family – but through the courts. Even after everything that has happened, I still have faith in the Portuguese justice system”.
And does he have any clues as to what catapulted the Madeleine case into the stratosphere of media attention? Why did the McCanns receive so much help from the British authorities right from the very beginning? And why were they and the so-called Tapas 7 never taken to task for child neglect – considering that they all left their children alone at night during the ill-fated holiday?
“Ah, now there we’re getting into politics – and quite honestly, those are questions for the British public to ask. I don’t have to have theories about them. My job was to find Madeleine”.
A job handed to him nearly five years ago – and one that he will never forget.

Jeremy Bamber lawyers challenge refusal of appeal

Criminal Cases Review Commission acted 'unlawfully and overstepped its powers' say lawyers for the convicted murderer

Jeremy Bamber, who was jailed for life in 1986 for the murders of five members of his family, arrives for a court of appeal hearing in 2002. Photograph: Michael Stephens/PA

Attrib.Eric Allison

guardian.co.uk, Mon 7 May 2012 14.41 BST

Lawyers acting for the convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber have issued a legal challenge to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) following itsdecision not to refer his case back to the court of appeal. They say the commission has acted "unlawfully, overstepped its powers and usurped the function of the appeal court".

The CCRC's decision last Thursday came after it considered new evidence, largely relating to a silencer attached to the rifle Bamber was said to have used to kill five members of his family in 1985.

Four eminent ballistic and wounds experts submitted reports suggesting the silencer was not attached to the rifle when the shots that killed Bamber's adoptive parents, June and Nevill, his sister Sheila Caffell and her six-year-old twins, Nicholas and Daniel, were fired.

The silencer was a crucial element of the case against Bamber. The police initially thought Caffell had killed her family before turning the weapon on herself. The rifle was found next to her body, without the silencer, which was discovered later by relatives. The prosecution claimed Caffell did not have the reach to shoot herself with the silencer attached.

The CCRC rejected the new expert submissions, saying they did not give rise to a real possibility that the court of appeal would find Bamber's convictions unsafe. It described the new evidence as "matters of pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".

In a letter of claim to the CCRC, seen by the Guardian, Bamber's lawyers describe this reference as a "gross misrepresentation of the nature and content of the submissions". They say the commission should not dismiss expert evidence without calling for expert opinion countering it. They accuse the CCRC of "advancing expert opinion which, in the absence of the relevant expertise, it is not equipped to do".

The lawyers say the basis of a judicial review of the CCRC's decision will be that it acted unlawfully in applying the wrong test in determining whether to refer the case back to appeal, and failed to provide reasons why the correct test was not carried out.

Bamber, 51, was jailed for life in 1986. He was ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years but, in 1994, the sentence was increased to whole life by the then home secretary, Michael Howard.

A spokesman for the CCRC said it was considering how to respond to the letter.

Jeremy Bamber: How Police and Scientists Colluded....

To corrupt evidence.....

A)     In 1991, the City of London Police (COLP) were requested by JEREMY BAMBER to investigate the following issues:

‘Allegation One’: that there was no Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 from the original Police investigation, case number SC/688/85, when it was tendered in Court.

‘Allegation Five’: that Essex Police failed to investigate whether the sound moderator tendered in evidence at trial was the moderator bought for the murder weapon.

B)     On completion of the COLP enquiry two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by JEREMY BAMBER against Essex Police.  While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986.

The Evidence

1)   That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7^th August 1985.

2)      Indeed this is corroborated by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17^th September 1985,

‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)

3)      And yet in a letter, dated 18^th July 2002, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Glaisyers Solicitors, PAUL CLOSE states that the beginning of the audio tape in question as to the above interview has a considerable section of the tape missing, when Essex Police disclosed it, (see Letter To Ewen Smith from CPS)

4)      The beginning of the interview would have evidenced that the sound moderator SBJ/1 was in fact seized on the 7^th August 1985, which would have impugned the Crown’s case against JEREMY BAMBER at trial and appeal.

5)      Other documents that evidence the above allegations will be identified throughout this statement using the ‘HOLMES 2’ computer reference numbers from ‘ACCOUNT A 49.’

6)      It is fact that COLP interviewed Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) DS 219 DAVIDSON on 3^rd October 1991, (HOLMES 76/174).  In the précis of his statement at paragraph 17 he asserts that on the 9^th August 1985, he was tasked with examining a number of objects including a sound moderator, (SBJ/1).

7)      On the 13^th August 1985, DI RON COOK submitted this sound moderator SBJ/1, to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory for examination by scientists, GLYNNIS HOWARD and LESLIE TUCKER, (see HOLMES 67/319 – GLYNNIS HOWARD statement 1^st August 1991).          

8)      See the HOLAB 3, Submission of Articles for Examination Forms, dated 13^th August 1985, (See Holab Forms 1,2,3,4,5) reference the sound moderator, ‘Item 22’ and ‘Item 23’, ‘SBJ/1,’ ‘DB/1,’ and ‘DRB/1,’ with the police investigation case number as ‘SC/688/85.’

9)      GLYNNIS HOWARD’S witness statement for the 13^th November 1985, details that she tested blood on the inside and outside of the sound moderator DRB/1, and in both cases the blood was found to be of human origin, (Holmes 8/224)

While a letter from PETER WINGAD to DR, SCAPLEHORN states, ‘There was no record of blood being seen on the outside of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 78/24). PETER WINGAD wrote this letter in his capacity as Head of the Forensic Laboratory.  While GLYNNIS HOWARD simply stated in Court at trial, that she had found blood on the outside of the sound moderator, (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript), therefore lack of corroboration is in issue.

10)  LESLIE TUCKER states in her 1^st August 1991 testimony to COLP that she assisted GLYNNIS HOWARD on the 13^th August 1985, (see HOLMES 67/321). Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER took notes and made a diagram of SBJ/1, (EXHIBIT REF GH/1).

In her testimony she states,

‘GH/1 has other notes upon it not made by me. These appear to be made by JOHN HAYWARD and ANDREW PALMER. These notes were not made on 13^th August 1985. I am not aware of when they were added.’

11)  Four signatures appear on the General Examination Record made at Bench 4 on the 13^th August 1985, they are LESLIE TUCKER, GLYNNIS HOWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and JOHN HAYWARD.  However, the General Examination Record does not corroborate that of the original sound moderator seized SBJ/1, because this document, the one bearing all four signatures refers to the forensic reference number as DB/1. It can now be evidenced that this reference did not in fact exist until 17^th October 1985.  Thus the General Examination Record cannot be the original one created by LESLIE TUCKER on 13^th August 1985, (see GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD DB/1).

12)  The original sound moderator first discovered was assigned the reference number SBJ/1 on the 13^th August 1985.  A Memo from  DI COOK to MALCOLM FLETCHER states,

‘Change sound moderators number to DB/1,’ (see HOLMES 67/241 MEMO dated 17^th October 1985).

13)  GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP in her witness statement dated 10^th July 1991,

‘I did not have any further contact with DI COOK on the matter, or with Essex Police due to my sick leave,’ (see HOLMES 67/318).

14)  This is corroborated in a report by DR. WINGAD attached to a Memo from  DR. THOMPSON  to  DR. CLARKE  which clearly states,

‘To complicate the issue GLYNNIS HOWARD has been on long-term sick leave since January of this year,’ (see HOLMES 87/3).

15)  How is it that GLYNNIS HOWARD has signed a General Examination Record for a sound moderator DB/1 on the 13^th August 1985, when the General Examination Record she signed was in fact referenced SBJ/1?(see paragraph 8).

16)  Furthermore, GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted in her testimony to COLP dated 1^st August 1991 that when she examined SBJ/1 on the 13^th August 1985, she discovered five stains on the sound moderator, (see HOLMES 67/319).  Four of these stains proved to positively identify human blood, while she tested a fifth stain on the flat surface on the muzzle end of the sound moderator, and identified this as a smear of red paint.

17)  GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to record her discovery of a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator in her Memo to DI COOK, dated 14^th August 1985, or indeed in her numerous pre-trial witness statements and during her trial testimony.  It was not until 1991 that GLYNNIS HOWARD asserted this relevant discovery, in view of the facts turning on there being a fight in the kitchen at WHF, scraping the mantel shelf around the Aga. (See Holmes 67.318)

18)  Indeed, LESLIE TUCKER corroborates this as she has drawn a smear of red paint on the end of the sound moderator at the 9 o’clock position, (see EXHIBIT GH/1).  Thus it is relevant that on the General Examination Record depicting DB/1 and not SBJ/1, as the sound moderator in issue, the identifying smear of red paint is not recorded.

19)  The existence of this smear and it being deemed at the time materially relevant by the scientists is corroborated by JOHN HAYWARD in his hand written witness statement signed 8^th November 1985, where he asserts that he examined SBJ/1 and that,

‘There is a smear of red paint at the muzzle end of the sound moderator,’ (see HOLMES 67/100 PDF page 7).

20)  Indeed JOHN HAYWARD took it upon himself to take a number of photographic images of the sound moderator SBJ/1, when he examined and dismantled it on the 12^th September 1985.  These images are referred to as reference JH/1. See also document 80/10 reference 24J – 6 X Photo albums of silencers, and 24w – 7 X albums of photographs re silencer.

21)  Moreover, BRIAN ELLIOT was shown these photographs by COLP, (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S witness statement dated 3^rd October 1991, HOLMES 67/322).  These images taken on the 12^th September 1985 that are undeniably relevant evidence have never been tendered to the Defence in any event.  Similarly those photographs of silencers mentioned in document 80/10 remain undisclosed.

22)  In 2002, a third Police enquiry was undertaken to investigate the actions of Essex Police in the STOKENCHURCH enquiry.  A number of issues were found as fact.

23)  Action Number A204 states:

‘Examine paint on moderator to establish if there is paint thereon.’

‘FSS to examine paint stain (one) on moderator to establish if there are any blood stains underneath the paint marks.’

Result, 20/02/02:

‘The underside of the paint and the exposed area left on the moderator were tested for the presence of blood. The results were negative.’

24)  In 2002, STOKENCHURCH asked the FSS to examine sound moderator SBJ/1 that had a smear of red paint on the flat surface of the muzzle end.  Sound moderator DB/1 had been found as fact to have numerous red paint flakes impacted upon the knurled pattern, and no smear of red paint on the end of the flat surface, thereby establishing the difference between SBJ/1 and DB/1.

25)  COLP misled the Home Secretary at the time, in their published report submitted to him where they state,

‘That the sound moderator should have been photographed at the earliest opportunity.  Unfortunately this did not happen.  The earliest photographs taken of the sound moderator were taken on the 11^th November 1985,’ (see COLP Report, paragraph 2/57). It can now be evidenced that this statement lacks credibility.

26)  MALCOLM FLETCHER was sent a number of photographs taken of the dismantled sound moderator by DI RON COOK, (see HOLMES 78/14).  These images had been taken by DI RON COOK at Chelmsford HQ Scenes of Crime Department on 21^st August 1985, (see Holmes 8/215 DI RON COOK’S 25^th September 1991 Witness Statement PDF page 33).

27)  It remains to be disclosed whether JOHN HAYWARD was aware when he examined SBJ/1 on 12^th September 1985, that SBJ/1 had been dismantled in the first instance and had its baffle plates spread out upon a work bench where a blood stained rifle had been placed for convenience at the same time, possibly corrupting its evidential integrity.

28)  JOHN HAYWARD stated that he discovered a single flake of blood inside the sound moderator that he used in all his blood grouping tests, the question remains was he aware of the images that MALCOLM FLETCHER had in his possession as to the real possibility of contamination of SBJ/1 by the rifle when he examined it? (see HOLMES 78/14)

29)  Both JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD gave testimony as expert witnesses at trial.  They stated that they had screened the blood stains discovered on the sound moderator SBJ/1, to discern whether they were of human or animal origin.  The Jury were instructed by the two of them, that the blood tested did not originate from an animal but was in fact human.

30)  JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD failed to inform the Jury that they in fact screened the blood for two types of animal – dog and hen, (see HOLMES 12/194 PDF page 5) but the .22 rifle in issue (Exhibit DRH/15), was used to shoot rabbits, foxes and rats.  No evidence has been submitted to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory to suggest that the sound moderator was ever used to shoot hens or dogs.  Why then select these two animal types as possible sources of the blood staining on the sound moderator SBJ/1? Indeed, why did JOHN HAYWARD and GLYNNIS HOWARD fail to inform the Jury that they had not tested the blood for obvious farm pests such as foxes, rabbits and rats but instead for hens and dogs?

31)  In 1986, on the basis of their expert testimony the Jury were led to believe that all types of animal screening had been undertaken, with a negative result, thus their credibility is in issue.

32)  Had it been brought to the Jury’s attention that the sound moderator could well have been contaminated with rabbit blood, then the Defence would have been able to rebut the prosecution’s proposition and illustrate that the positive result for AK/1 an enzyme attributed to Sheila Caffell, as asserted by JOHN HAYWARD, could also be attributed to the AK/1 enzyme found in all rabbit blood (see R-10).

33)  Moreover, on the 25^th September 1985, BRIAN ELLIOT was prima facie given ‘SBJ/1’ to examine including the smear of red paint on the flat surface on the muzzle end, as discovered by GLYNNIS HOWARD and JOHN HAYWARD, (see HOLMES 67/319, HOLMES 67/100).

34)  BRIAN ELLIOT instead found a large quantity of red paint flakes impacted into the knurled end of the sound moderator, and no smear of red paint adhering to the surface of the flat end piece.  At the time BRIAN ELLIOT believed he was examining SBJ/1 due to its packaging and labelling, however this sound moderator was in fact DB/1.  This fact can be corroborated by BRIAN ELLIOT’S realisation in 1991 when he was shown JOHN HAYWARD’S photographs by COLP of SBJ/1, (see HOLMES 67/322, statement dated 3^rd October 1991).

35)  Indeed, the sound moderator in photos JH/1 had blood in the dips and the grooves of its knurled pattern (see GLYNNIS HOWARD’S Trial Transcript).  These photographs had none of the twenty-five plus red paint flakes that BRIAN ELLIOT found in the dips and grooves of the knurl, and as evidenced in his trial testimony he found no blood in the sound moderator’s knurl (see BRIAN ELLIOT’S Trial Transcript).

36)  The diagrams drawn by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT on the 25^th September 1985 shows that the sound moderator had a large piece of sticky tape adhering to it that was not present when JOHN  HAYWARD examined it, and then photographed it on 12^th September 1985, (see HOLMES 67/193).

37)  It is fact that the sound moderator SBJ/1, also had a white film of super glue covering its outer surface owing to the fingerprinting process undertaken on the 15^th August 1985.

38)  But DB/1, the sound moderator examined by BRIAN ELLIOT and LOUISE FLOAT did not have such a white film on its outer surface.

39)  Indeed DB/1 was found in the same gun cupboard as SBJ/1 by DAVID BOUTFLOUR on the 10^th August 1985.  It then remained in a card board box at his sister, ANN EATON’S house until 11^th September 1985, (see P35).  It was then collected by DC OAKEY on 11^th September 1985 and handed to DCI WRIGHT SOC Chelmsford.

40)  On the 12^th September 1985 DI COOK and DC BIRD attended WHF to take photographic images of scratch marks on the underside of the kitchen’s mantel shelf.  On that same day they also took photographs of the kitchen in its tidied state, (see Police Reference Number Negative Strip YELLOW LABEL – 34, NEGATIVES 7-10, these appear in the Master Copy Album as Photographs Numbers 148, 149, 150, and 151).

41)  It can be clearly seen from NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34 that it is an area of red painted surround to the left of the cooker (at waist height), it can be seen to be free of scratch marks or chips/gouges in the red paint work.

42)  While it can be seen that NEGATIVE NUMBER 9, of YL-34 shows the same area of this red painted Aga surround, when this area is enlarged it shows that the left hand vertical fascia at (waist height) now has a deep ‘U’ shape, white coloured scratch mark upon it.  Also, near the ‘U’ shaped scratch mark is a deep, white coloured gouge in an area of the small cupboard door.  This area on the cupboard door was previously covered by the kitchen calendar in the crime scene photographs.

43)  These two distinct marks must have been made either by DC BIRD and/or DI RON COOK, as no other person was present at WHF on the 12^th September 1985.  NEGATIVE NUMBER 7 of YL-34, has been taken in a chronological order and is taken prior to NEGATIVE NUMBER 9 of YL – 34, therefore it is logical to assume that these later marks were gouged using the sound moderator DB/1.  Indeed there were over twenty-five flakes of red paint upon DB/1 which would corroborate an intensity of impact upon the Aga surround by the sound moderator and the depth of the mark made, that was later used to bolster the prosecution’s proposition.

44)  In 1991, DR. BAXENDALE, using ESDA testing, was requested by COLP to examine the Exhibit Labels for the sound moderator SBJ/1 (Exhibit Label AH/1), (see HOLMES 24/170).

45)  Indeed, DR. BAXENDALE’s 23^rd September 1991, witness statement shows clearly that he found as fact that the Exhibit Label signed by GLYNNIS HOWARD, DI RON COOK, JOHN HAYWARD, MALCOLM FLETCHER and BRIAN ELLIOT was originally written out specifically for sound moderator DRB/1, case reference number SC/786/85, (see HOLMES 6/109).

46)  While GLYNNIS HOWARD testified to COLP that she only signed one Exhibit Label for the sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13^th August 1985, case number SC/688/85.  Furthermore, she stated that the Exhibit Label shown to her by COLP bearing her signature, (AH/1) shows that SBJ/1 had been changed to DB/1 then DRB/1 subsequent to her signing it, (see HOLMES REF 67/320).  This clearly contradicts the findings of the expert witness DR. BAXENDALE and impugns GLYNNIS HOWARD’s credibility.

47)  Moreover, COLP were aware of his findings from his 23^rd September 1991 Witness Statement, and that GLYNNIS HOWARD was not a credible witness due to what she stated on 3^rd October 1991.  Instead GLYNNIS HOWARD signed a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, a sound moderator she had neither seen nor examined for case reference SC/786/85.  To create a false Exhibit Label in order to mislead a Jury is to pervert the course of justice.  JOHN HAYWARD was never interviewed by COLP in 1991.  He has not explained how his signature came to be on the exhibit label marked DRB/1 when he examined SBJ/1.

48)  It may be fact that Essex Police misled Huntingdon’s Forensic Scientists into creating a new set of examination documents and a new Exhibit Label for DRB/1, without them realising that they were facilitating SBJ/1 being swapped for DB/1 and then being merged evidentially to form a third fictional sound moderator, as being the one removed from WHF.

49)  However, it is believed that Essex Police had at least one Forensic Scientist who conspired to help switch SBJ/1 to DB/1 prior to BRIAN ELLIOT’s 25^th September 1985 examination.  Unless an admission is made by the scientist in question their identity will remain concealed.  Indeed it is not known how much of the information provided thus far the scientists in question were aware of in 1985 and 1991.  Yet there are over one hundred additional documents that contain information corroborating and evidencing all the above facts.

50)  In any event, the Defence request a full account as to how it was that Essex Police instructed Huntingdon Forensic Scientists to fabricate a set of false documents, purporting to follow a chain of evidence that bolstered the credibility of an exhibit item, for a sound moderator DRB/1, which it is fact was fictional.  This ‘sound moderator’ DRB/1, was used to mislead the Jury in 1986 by merging the forensic evidence of two sound moderators SBJ/1 and DB/1, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

51)  It is considered that complicity and lack of credibility by certain scientists as adduced by other expert witnesses not involved in the trial at first instance, i.e. DR. BAXENDALE, in addition to the documents now in the hands of the Defence, suggests the mens rea regarding the offence of perverting the course of justice.

Conclusion

It is only now twenty-six years later, that JEREMY BAMBER’s Defence team were eventually disclosed case photographs and documents previously withheld under Public Immunity Interest.  This evidence clearly shows that the Jury were misled regarding the provenance of the sound moderator material to the facts of the prosecution’s case.  In addition to it being corrupted and fabricated as to its identity in any event.

The Huntingdon Forensic Scientists had a duty and obligation to make accountable to the Court at the time of trial as to the re-writing and signing of numerous sets of documents, including the Exhibit Label for alternative sound moderators.  The fact that they did not and indeed in two instances at least, committed perjury during the COLP enquiry allowed Essex Police to pervert the course of justice by fabricating it as fact that only one sound moderator featured in the case.

ACC SIMPSON himself was aware that two sound moderators featured in the evidence of the case and that the Jury were misled by the tainting of evidence as facilitated by the Forensic Scientists named in this document.  None of the expert witnesses who were in a position of trust, or serving Police Officers tendered evidence that actually illustrated the truth of the facts as shown in this document. This resulted in the jury being misled in 1986.

Jeremy Bamber: Evidence of Innocence

Much of the tainting of Jeremy Bamber’s trial was conducted around a second sound moderator (gun silencer) which was introduced by Jeremy’s relatives over a month after the crime was committed.  Instead of questioning this sudden appearance Essex Police and others chose instead, to collude with it.

Documents intended for Public Interest Immunity (PII) were ‘inadvertently’ sent to Jeremy.  PII is a principle of common law under which English courts can grant an Order allowing one litigant to keep evidence from the sight of the other litigants if they consider disclosure to be damaging to public interest.  So it is clear that the plan was for these documents to be buried, safely out-of-sight, intended never to see the light-of-day

Jeremy’s most recent sixteen page letter to me provides an in-depth account of what he has found within these documents.  Jeremy’s letters are handwritten.  He writes in detail including reference and exhibit numbers revealing proof of what he has always maintained – his innocence.  Details of documents which evidence beyond dispute the existence of two sound moderators and the ‘losing’, editing and re-writing of crucial evidence.  Jeremy has given me permission to reveal his entire letter and the corruption of documents which he has discovered.  I shall not record it all here though will forward relevant information to the City of London Police (COLP), the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Home Secretary.

For those of us who believe that the administrators of justice in our so-called Great Britain, would not comprehend such malpractice and deceit, Jeremy states on more than one occasion, ‘I have the documents to prove it’. 

The following (in red) are direct quotes from Jeremy’s letter and for brevity I have paraphrased others.

‘COLP (City of London Police) discovered that Glynis Howard and her assistant Leslie Tucker; John Hayward and his assistant, Andrew Palmer; Brian Elliott and his assistant, Louise Float and Malcolm Fletcher all signed a set of falsified documents for a second sound moderator to create a chain of evidence paper trail capable of deceiving the jury and it did.......I have their lab notes.’

‘They(sound moderators) are both the same, Parker-Hale MM1 type and someone simply took SBJ/1 out of its cardboard tube packaging and slipped in DB/1 that had been contaminated with red paint from the scene.

‘And in any event they admitted this to COLP in 1991 but COLP and Essex Police just covered it up under PII.  John Hayward took photos of SBJ/1 on 12^th Sept ’85, well him and his assistant Andrew Palmer, COLP showed these photos to Brian Elliott in 1991 and asked, “Is that the same sound moderator you examined?” 

Elliott replies indicating that he did not accept it could be the same sound moderator and provides an explanation as to why that is the case, including a description of how the sound moderator he examined differed from the one in the photo in relation to the positioning of red paint on it.
Jeremy writes further:

‘Everyone examined the sound moderator under a  microscope as well as by eye and it’s clear that the first one SBJ/1 had blood on it and this smear of red paint and the second one DB/1 was switched with SBJ/1 after being sent to the lab on 20/Sept/85.’

Jeremy continues:

‘I can prove every word of the above – I have all the PII primary documents showing exactly how my relatives and Essex Police and the forensic scientists at Huntingdon and COLP and PCA (now the IPCC) all worked together to either directly corrupt the sound moderator evidence or actively assisted in concealing that Essex Police found SBJ/1 and it was switched between 20th and 25^th Sept ’85 at Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory with DB/1 that had been used to scratch and score the kitchen mantle shelf at White House Farm to falsely implicate me as a murderer. ....I have the documents showing that it was.......These are the document references: Exhibit signed by Glynis Howard, Malcolm Fletched, John Hayward and Brian Elliott:- ‘Police Crime Number’ SC/786/85, ‘Description of Article ‘Silencer’ DB/1, crossed out, and DRB/1 in brackets:- Serial Number 22, as the identification marker.’

Jeremy has no doubt that lawyers, judiciary as well as the Home Office must have known about this; and what about the media?  Considering the damage much of the press did in promulgating biased views, influencing public opinion through their coverage of Jeremy’s case, I wonder if they will attempt to compensate in some small way by publishing this evidence?  The truth!  Though I appreciate it might be difficult for them to recognise the truth 'even if it jumped up and bit them!'

I feel it reprehensible that those to whom we look for justice would rather lie and deceive than admit they were wrong.  That those who set themselves up in public office as upholders of the 'Law', can collude to send an innocent man to prison and then leave him there for over TWENTY SIX YEARS rather than face up to their own shortcomings.

It doesn’t bear thinking about and maybe some people would rather not think about the enormity of the true crime here.  Heartbreaking.

I do not believe there is a Heaven for the just and a Hell for the unjust but for one brief moment there I wished there were!

Full story here: http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/home

Latest here: http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/

McCann:Journalist scoffs, 'Abductor?' Priceless!

NEAR THE END OF THIS CLIP A JOURNALIST RESPONDS TO GERALD McCANN'S COMMENT ABOUT AN ABDUCTOR

DOES ANYONE HAVE THE NAME OF THIS JOURNALIST?

HE DESERVES A MEDAL AND COULD GIVE LESSONS TO THE GUTLESS, 

BRITISH, MAINSTREAM MEDIA & PRESS

Madeleine McCann's Fund: Changed Objectives

New inquiry over Omagh bomb presented.......May 2012

Attrib: http://www.u.tv/news/New-inquiry-over-Omagh-bomb-presented/3abb9b72-f0a0-48bf-af80-67f83b261901#.T7amUrx0rrE.twitter

Fresh evidence that police could have intercepted the Omagh bombers before they committed the atrocity has been uncovered in a new independent inquiry, victims' relatives have claimed.

Bereaved families, who commissioned the report, said it has identified "hard proof" that officers on both sides of the border were involved in a live operation on the day of the attack.

Twenty-nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA bomb ripped through the Co Tyrone market town on 15 August, 1998.

The family campaigners have previously demanded a cross-border inquiry into whether the authorities in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland could have done more to prevent the bombing.

Relatives who commissioned the report met Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson in Belfast on Thursday ahead of presenting the final version to the UK Government next month.

Michael Gallagher, whose 21-year-old son Aiden was murdered in the attack, said the meeting was "hot and heavy".

"We told him we have evidence that there was a live police operation going on on August 15 that could have intercepted the bombers," he said.

"This is new evidence that hasn't been made public before."

He added: "We also have evidence that public officials lied to the general public about the Omagh bombing.

"We will be producing all of that evidence to him on June 18."

Mr Gallagher said he would not be outlining full details of the evidence unearthed until the report had been passed to the Westminster Government.

The Omagh Support and Self Help Group commissioned the report from a group of London-based consultants who have interviewed key figures associated with the case.

The consultants have also examined material already compiled on the bombing.

The documentation includes police reports from both sides of the Irish border, a probe carried out by the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland, plus a government-sponsored review of how intelligence on the attack was handled.

The relatives also secured disclosure of other documents linked to the case.

Four men have been held responsible by a civil court for the bombing. A man accused of murder was cleared by a court in 2007

Madeleine McCann: The first 72hours...

Edits from Chapter 3 of 'The Truth of the Lie'

Attrib: GONCALO AMARAL http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/ 

(Original translation by Anna Esse)

ANNOUNCEMENT OF A DISAPPEARANCE: THE FIRST SEVENTY-TWO HOURS

On this evening, May 3rd 2007, I decide to dine at the Carvi Brasserie, in the centre of Portimão, before going home. I have been living for a year in this town, where I lead the Department of Criminal Investigation of the police judiciaire. In 1982, when I was 23 and I had just taken up this career, I had already gone there. There, I had made the acquaintance of someone who was to become my friend, Manuel João. Former local official and sporty, a charismatic person. He always lent a hand to members of the police judiciaire who went to the town for the purposes of an investigation. As an elected local official, he originated the creation of a police judiciaire department in Portimão. Thus, that evening, while savouring fruits de mer, we discuss the problems of Portuguese society.

It is midnight when I receive the news about the disappearance of a little four-year-old English girl. The police officer on call was informed about it by the National Guard of The Republic (GNR) At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away. An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence. I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge.

(*The river on the frontier between Portugal and Spain.)

THE REPORTS LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED

The examination of the premises by the investigator and the representative of the forensic police just after the announcement of the disappearance turns out to be quite unproductive. A concise report, where their observations are written up, is accompanied by numerous photographs taken inside and outside apartment 5A - which don't give an account of, according to us, everything they could have observed. This error is explained by the absence of procedures in case of a child's disappearance, notably concerning the actions to be taken when examining the scene.

Lots of people were already in place; however, nobody appeared in the photos. We don't know, for example, how they were dressed. Such observations can turn out to be important later on. The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there.

That evening, on arriving home, I see Inès, my younger daughter, who is sleeping close to my wife, Sofia. In silence, in the dim light of the bedroom, I sit on the edge of the bed. Outside, far from her mother's warmth, a child of the same age is lost. Sofia wakes up and asks me what is happening. I tell her about Madeleine's disappearance and instinctively, she holds our daughter tightly in her arms and makes room for me.

I make lots of phone calls and send a text message to the director of the Faro Department of Criminal Investigation (DIC) child, English, aged 4, disappeared from a Praia da Luz hotel. It's sufficient. Reading the message, he will understand the gravity of the situation. Three years before, we had dealt with a similar case, a few kilometres from Praia da Luz. We had not been informed at the time of that disappearance, and we are convinced that if the investigation could have been started immediately we would have been able to discover some physical evidence. The police response is fundamental. The first 72 hours are essential.

FIRST INTERROGATIONS AND REQUESTS TO THE BRITISH POLICE FOR INFORMATION

Friday May 4th

This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events: the little girl allegedly disappeared at 10pm while she was sleeping close to her brother and her sister. They were alone in the apartment because their parents were dining with friends. A system of checks had been put in place by the adults. Every 30 minutes according to some - every quarter of an hour according to others, someone went to have a look at the children. It is Madeleine's mother who realised she was gone and is immediately talking about abduction.

We need information about the parents and their friends, to know who they are, what they do, if they have problems in their country, if the children were victims of abuse, if the family, neighbours, friends could have noticed any suspicious behaviour, what are their jobs, if they work full-time, etc. Is any member of their family depressed or suffered from depression in the past? Do the couple maintain good relationships? Are they implicated in serious litigation? Do they have enemies? For what reason? So, I telephone Glen Powers, the English liaison officer in Portugal, inform him of events and request that he relay our requests for reports. We consider these to be of the greatest importance and await sensitive responses to guide our investigation.

While I am on the phone and my daughters are sleeping, Sofia makes breakfast for me. She is quiet and regards me with a questioning look, as if she suspects that from today, she won't see much of me. It's not the first time this has happened: she knew that I wouldn't count my time in a case like this.

THE ORGANISATION OF THE INVESTIGATION

Since dawn, chief inspector Tavares de Almeida has been getting down to the job at the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão. He is following through with the first measures taken within the context of the investigation. At this time, he should have been going on holiday, but faced with the gravity of the case, he has decided to put it off until later. Neither the director of the Faro police judiciaire nor myself are going to have the time take our holidays anytime soon.

The disappearance of a child must be flagged up as widely as possible, on the national as well as on the international level. All Portuguese police are already on alert, as well as Interpol. During the night, the National Guard, supported by the civilian population, has started to organise searches. They will be continued and widened tomorrow.

The search and examination of the scene were carried out in difficult conditions: when they arrived, the police were met with a large number of people coming and going - family, friends, resort employees, including dogs and members of the National Guard. The contamination of the premises risks bringing serious prejudice, as a consequence, to the investigation. We must ask ourselves if that contamination has been deliberate or not - it can make the search for clues particularly complicated. The Lisbon scenes of crime technicians come as reinforcements to start the examination of the residence, which is from now on empty.

On arrival at the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation, I call in chief inspector Tavares de Almeida to take stock of the situation and take the measures that are necessary in the immediate future. After the searches undertaken in the surrounding area - dustbins, containers, sewers, it is necessary to proceed with the interrogation of certain potential witnesses. The parents and their friends will be heard quickly. The first statements are of prime importance: memories are still vivid and crucial details could thus be obtained, which would risk being lost later. The witness statements of the restaurant employees, those from the day centre and the playgroup where Madeleine and the twins spent their day are also all important. The search for witnesses will be widened to all the tourists present, whose names must be submitted to the parents and friends. Perhaps they will recognise someone....The English police are involved: they are being asked to cross-check that list with their files in order to pick out individuals known to their services.

All of the video recordings from the tourist complex - hotels, banks, pharmacies, supermarkets and service stations -, including those from the CCTV cameras of two motorways - one leading to Lagos and one linking Lagos and Spain, will be viewed. The Spanish customs service has been asked to increase vigilance at the two ports maintaining links with Morocco,Tarifa and Algeciras. The Algarvian coast, very popular with sailing enthusiasts, is bordered by a large number of marinas. Pleasure boats from every province berth here. Situated 120 nautical miles from the African continent, between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, it is the most accessible coast for entering the continent of Europe. It attracts many yachtsmen, who appreciate the beauty of its beaches and its inlets, but it also attracts all sorts of traffickers.

- Make contact with the marinas and the maritime police; we must have access to video recordings as well as the registers of boats entering and leaving in the last few days.

- I am going to contact them and make sure they have started the sea searches.

In anticipation of the volume of information we are going to have to deal with, we decide to fit out a room dedicated to the investigation, our crisis unit.

THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS SOMETIMES UNOBTAINABLE

We need reliable information. Apart from all the searches already undertaken, we must also examine the photos and films taken by the McCann family and their friends. From amongst the onlookers, these images could help to identify a suspicious-looking individual or someone whose attitude might be suspicious. Trivialised since the general use of computers, photography is a source of information which the investigators know not to neglect: each holiday-maker takes, in general, hundreds of photos. The McCanns and their friends who were in Vila da Luz make all of theirs available to the investigators, but none of those dating from the evening of the disappearance help us to understand what happened.

NO SIGN OF A BREAK-IN

At this stage of the investigation, the hypotheses are numerous, and each one must be considered. It is necessary to locate and identify all the paedophiles who live in or who have passed through the Algarve, in order to check that they were not in the proximity of Vila da Luz on the days preceding the disappearance.

The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information. Even if the examination of apartment 5A reveals no trace of a break-in - contrary to what the parents insist and that Sky announced - we have to take stock of the petty crimes committed in the seaside resort and at the tourist complex. We are counting on the management of the hotel so that no incident of this nature remains hidden. Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected.

FIRST MORNING OF THE INVESTIGATION;
AN ABDUCTION?

Still May 4th

When drawing up the report of the first observations, which must be forwarded to the district Judiciary Court of Lagos, we are undecided about the legal denomination of the events. Finally, we opt for "abduction??," adding two question marks after the word to express our uncertainty. The decision was not taken lightly. That decision preserves the interests of the various opposing parties, those of the parents, those of the child, not to say those of the investigation itself.

The report by the team who conducted the analyses of the apartment records all observations carried out and statements gathered. It sets out the list of people present and potential witnesses. It also includes fingerprints taken as well as photographic documentation.

On reading this report, which was given to me on the morning of May 4th, I understand that there is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.

The hypothesis of abduction widens and complicates the investigations; it allows the mobilisation of means and resources that would have been difficult to obtain otherwise, such as the arrival of reinforcements, absolutely indispensable faced with the magnitude of the task, notably in the course of the first 72 hours. In a more calm climate, we could have got down to the search for evidence more effectively, allowing us to understand how that child disappeared, without worrying that suspicion might fall on the friends of the family.

THE VISITS BY THE CONSUL AND THE AMBASSADOR; INFORMATION IS TAKING A LONG TIME TO COME FROM GREAT BRITAIN

At ten in the morning, twelve hours after the disappearance, the British Consul to Portimão goes to the Department of Criminal Investigation. We inform him of the actions taken up to then and the next stages being considered. He doesn't seem satisfied. Someone hears him on the telephone saying that the police judiciaire are doing nothing. Now, that's strange! Why that untruth? What objective does he have in mind? Giving another dimension to the case? Perhaps, I don't know a thing about it, but this is not the time for conjecture; we have to concentrate on our work, of finding the little girl.

We're not getting any response from Great Britain. We've had no reports on the subject of the couple, their children and their friends, which doesn't help us to tighten up the investigation. We would like, for example, to know if Madeleine was adopted by the couple, which would allow us to eliminate the hypothesis of parental abduction. If the information is not reaching us, it's obviously reaching the British Ambassador. We are astonished by this prompt mobilisation of the English authorities. So, who are the McCanns? Who are their friends? We don't need diplomatic intervention: what we would like, is answers to the questions sent to the British police authorities by Glen Power.

THE SEARCHES CONTINUE; THE ASTONISHING INVASION BY THE PRESS

The searches on the ground continue, with the help of a helicopter from Disaster Management. Interviews of holiday-makers and the resort's employees multiply. We're worried, aware that it's a race against the clock: tomorrow, many tourists will be leaving the resort. As for the McCanns and their friends, who should also be leaving on this date, we are totally unaware of their plans. For the needs of the investigation, it is imperative that they stay put, but we have no legal means of preventing their departure. During the morning, the deputy director of the Faro police judiciaire joins us. Until the end of September, his life will be split between Faro and Portimão, where he will travel to every day. He asks how the searches are going and decides to go to Vila da Luz to check for himself the operations that have been set up. I go with him. When we arrive, we find that the media, Portuguese as well as English, are present en masse. It seems that the McCanns' friends have reported Maddie's disappearance to the press before informing the police about it. Another point which we must clarify.

TECHNICAL FAULTS

Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palmar prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of police judiciaire technicians.

It's obvious that no one has broken in and the lock has not been forced. No prints are lifted that are likely to belong to an unknown person, nor the slightest trace of gloves which could have been worn by a hypothetical abductor. In the middle of this desert of clues, two prints are perfectly easily found: the very distinct mark of a palm print on the balcony window at the rear of the apartment, and a clearly visible one of fingers on the window pane of Madeleine's bedroom. The excellent quality of the palm print seemed suspicious to us. Later, analyses confirm our suspicions: it belonged to one of the officers who were present the previous night.

In Portugal, no protocol exists for coordinating the work of the different police services in the event of the worrying disappearance of a child, perhaps because until now this type of case has been rare. We have been fighting for several years for the creation of just such a resource. However, we don't have to invent anything: it would be sufficient to adapt the protocols already existent in other countries more used to cases of this type - Great Britain, for example.

A SUSPECT WHO, VERY QUICKLY ISN'T; THE SEARCHES CONTINUE

While we continue to gather statements from resort employees, we are informed of the presence in the region of an individual suspected of abusing children. Of British nationality, he would frequent a pub situated 150 metres from Madeleine's apartment. In 2005, sought by the police in his own country, he fled abroad and the English authorities had then lost track of him. But we discover that the pub in question doesn't exist any more, and that the information that the man is in the area has no basis in fact. His step-father, contacted by the police, states that he is currently in Iraq, information later confirmed by the British police.

In the main street of Vila da Luz, there are open trenches because of improvement works. They leave the waste water mains exposed. On the night of May 3rd searches were conducted there, with the help of sniffer dogs from the National Guard of The Republic. (GNR) We'd like to proceed with another inspection, but the site foreman assures us that access to the mains is closed during the night and the workmen noticed nothing abnormal when starting work the next morning.

STATEMENTS FROM THE PARENTS AND FRIENDS; FIRST INCONSISTENCIES

Still May 4th

Madeleine's parents and friends of the family go to the Department of Criminal Investigation to be interviewed. Their statements should help us to better understand the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. Each must be questioned at the same time, but separately, in order to avoid "contamination," of the witness statements - which happens often when witnesses have the opportunity to exchange information. Sometimes an important detail is held in the memory, but can be lost after a conversation with another witness. This is the usual procedure. In this way, we can establish relevant cross checks, confirm or invalidate certain assertions. But that was not possible today, certain adults having stayed at the resort to look after the children.

We have to retrace their comings and goings very precisely as well as those of the children. What they did during the holiday, where they went...In possession of this information, we will attempt afterwards to collect photos and films taken by holiday-makers who were in the same places: we will succeed perhaps in pinpointing a detail that could be of significance. These same tourists might quite simply help us to better understand the way in which the group of friends was working.

The personality of the victim and of the parents has significance. We have to find out if they were threatened in the past, if they have enemies. We must consider the possibility of a mistake: the target may not have been Madeleine but another child of the group of friends. Therefore, they too must give answers to similar questions.

None of the adults possessing a vehicle, they never go very far and in general stay within the confines of the resort. Their knowledge of the surrounding area is limited and we assume that they limit themselves to the roads linking the beach and their apartments.

During the morning, only Madeleine's father, Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner are interviewed. However, already contradictions and improbabilities are appearing from one to another of the statements, notably concerning access to the apartment.

An example: during the course of the evening, Jane encountered Gerald McCann and Jeremiah busy chatting in the street. At that time, Gerald was coming back from his apartment, where he had gone to make sure the children were sound asleep - which he confirmed in his statement. Jane asserts that she noticed a suspicious individual carrying a child in his arms - probably Madeleine, according to her - immediately after having passed the two men. Gerald and Jeremiah should also have seen her, but that was not the case.

The mother of the missing little girl, Kate Healy, and all the other members of the group, David Payne and his wife Fiona, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Diane Webster, are heard later. They might already be aware of the questions put to their friends and of their responses. In that case, there won't be the element of surprise. The presence of an interpreter doesn't make the interviews any easier either. The witnesses benefit from the translation time to prepare their responses.

Madeleine's parents are insisting on the theory of abduction. They want to convince us of it at all costs. Gerald stresses that the front door was locked; Kate states that she entered the apartment through the rear sliding doors, which weren't locked, and that the window was wide open with the shutters raised.

This theory does not hold water, which will be observed during other interviews. The only witness statement corroborating that assertion is Jane Tanner's.

From now on it's important to shed light on the contradictions raised in these first witness statements.

Here is the chronological sequence of visits to the apartment:

- 21.05: Gerald McCann (the children are fine);

- 21.10/21.15: Jane Tanner (states having observed the alleged abductor with a child in his arms);

- 21.30: Matthew Oldfield: (goes into the apartment, but doesn't go into the bedroom. He only sees the twins);

- 22.00: Kate Healy (goes into the apartment, and finds that Madeleine has disappeared).

If, as Kate states, the window was open when she went into the apartment, how come Matthew didn't notice? At the time when the latter went in, Jane had already seen the alleged abductor with the child. So, logically, if the crime had already been committed, the window should have been open.

Matthew says that the bedroom door was half open, Kate that it was wide open. It can be concluded that Madeleine was already no longer in the room - which Matthew should have noticed, if the other witness statements are to be believed.

Another inconsistency - unexpected - appears. When Kate refers to the individual who allegedly abducted her child, she has no information other than that given to her by Jane, since she, herself, did not see him. But, the description she gives of him differs from that of Jane Tanner. The latter - extremely sure of herself, and who will be interviewed on several occasions - portrays a man dressed in light-coloured trousers, with hair down to his collar. Kate refers to long hair and jeans.

Gerald tells the police that Jane described to him - after midnight, during the night of May 3rd to May 4th - this stranger she allegedly saw going up the road; his hair was brown, he was between 30 and 40 years old and he was wearing light-coloured trousers. The first police officers to arrive on the premises are convinced that the parents put forward the hypothesis of abduction because Jane had talked about this man with the child. In their report, Jane's description is as follows: it was an individual dressed in light-coloured trousers and a dark shirt, he was 1.78m tall and was carrying a child, probably in pyjamas. She does not describe the pyjamas and doesn't mention any other detail.

Later, during the course of the morning of May 4th, the father gives the same brief description and refers back to Jane for additional details. The latter appears at the offices of the police judiciaire in Portimão at 11.30am. This time, the description is very precise: the individual, aged between 35 and 40, was thin and 1.70m tall; his hair was dark brown, falling over his collar; he was wearing cream or beige trousers, probably linen, a sort of anorak - but not very thick - and black shoes, classic in style. He was walking hurriedly, with a child in his arms. He was warmly dressed, the reason she thought he was not a tourist. The child appeared to be asleep - she only saw the legs -, had bare feet and was dressed in pyjamas, which were obviously cotton, light-coloured, probably white or pale pink, with a pattern - flowers maybe, but she isn't certain. Concerning the man, she states that she would recognise him from the back by his particular way of walking. The importance of this statement will be seen later.

Hardly fourteen hours have gone by since the child's disappearance and already Jane's version is known by many people. The father even referred to it during his statement, as can be seen above. Jane insists that she spoke solely to Gerald about this individual and then without going into details. It is only later that she related it all to the police.

Again, we notice an inconsistency. She was not aware, she says, of how Madeleine was dressed, which seems unlikely: on the night of the disappearance, Kate immediately gave a precise description of the clothes the little girl was wearing when she was put to bed.

Everybody knew they were looking for a little girl of nearly four, bare feet, dressed in light-coloured pyjamas on which there was a pink animal design. This description was relayed to all those who mobilised to find the child. How come Jane Tanner took no notice, she who, at that time, was the main witness in the case?

FIRST EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS; KATE HEALY'S SURPRISING REACTION

Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken on an area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimão in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative.

POLICE REINFORCEMENTS

A team from the Central Crime Fighting Directorate (DCCB) arrives from Lisbon, accompanied by their director. I wasn't informed of this decision, but I agree with it. The reinforcements are welcomed, because we must get on very quickly. The experience of these police officers in the field of abductions and the taking of hostages is a plus for the investigation and the ways they operate are largely superior to ours. In addition, their experts are the most qualified of the police judiciaire. From now on, two deputy national directors, assisted by the coordinator of the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation, will direct the investigations. A few months later, chief inspector Tavares de Almeida was to share one of his convictions with me: if we had remained solely responsible for the investigation, we would have advanced more quickly.

In reality, I don't know. I don't think we can rewrite history with "if." At that time the directorate of the police judiciaire had decided on it, and we had favourably welcomed the arrival of that team. It was about doing our best with these new participants and taking advantage of their ways of working. The motivations behind that decision, whatever they are don't interest us in the slightest.

MISSING PERSONS POSTER IS ISSUED

In the afternoon, we ask the Public Minister for authorisation to issue a missing persons poster to the press. It is published on May 5th, accompanied by a photo of the child and telephone numbers. We, thus, hope to obtain new information. We are going to be inundated with witness statements of every kind: people who are persuaded that they can help us thanks to their psychic powers; others who have dreamed about Madeleine and believe they know where she is, and yet others who think they have seen her here or there...A great number of reports come to us, that we have to analyse and check out: none must be neglected, even if most of them, on the face of it, seem absurd. In the hypothesis of an abduction, we might imagine that the abductor has tried to modify the child's appearance to more easily pass unnoticed. So, we create portraits of the little girl, modifying the colour and style of her hair.

THE WEAKNESSES IN JANE'S WITNESS STATEMENT

Friday May 4th, at 8pm, we criss-cross Praia da Luz to take note of the activity in the village at dinner time and to check the street lighting. We stay there until 10pm while the forensic team from the police laboratory get on with their investigation.

Certainly, today there are people who wouldn't normally have been here: police officers and journalists. But, even so, it is noticeable that there is very little movement. The place where the abductor happened to be is dimly lit: how did Jane manage to describe him so accurately? Witnesses confirm that the streets were also deserted yesterday.

Why did the potential abductor choose to walk around like that, in the open, running the risk - in spite of the darkness - of being recognised by a passer-by? If he had planned the abduction, he would have taken the time to study, not only the habits of the family, but also the topography of the place. If he wasn't from the village, he would probably have come by car, and he would have sought to conceal it in a dark corner. But the darkest area is situated in exactly the opposite direction to that indicated by Jane Tanner. Did she actually see that man going towards the east? Wouldn't he rather be going towards the west? Leaving by car, he would inevitably have had to go towards the centre of the village, in which case, he would have to go either past the entrance to the restaurant where Madeleine's parents were dining, or by the main road that leads to EN125*

(*The road running west out of the village towards Sagres and east towards Lagos.)

We walk around Vila da Luz, covering all the roads, trying to imagine the options that presented themselves to the abductor. Without a car, and not knowing the place, the safest approach to the village is the beach. In the few bars, restaurants and cafés open at this time of year, no one noticed anything at all strange during the evening of May 3rd, no suspicious behaviour, nothing out of the ordinary. Most of the establishments had closed at around 9pm.

DISCUSSION IN THE CRISIS ROOM

The crisis unit has been operating for several hours now, on the top floor of the building. Basing ourselves on the details gathered in the course of this first day, we are trying to understand the sequence of events. The original hypotheses are still valid: voluntary disappearance, abduction or death. Divergent opinions and heated discussions fire with enthusiasm. But we always finish by returning to an objective analysis of the facts to refocus the discussions.

We are opening the window to let the fresh air expel the smoke from countless cigarettes smoked during the meeting when, suddenly, someone poses a question that shouts out to all of us:

- Tell me then, what is this story about the raised shutters in the bedroom where Madeleine was sleeping - or not sleeping?

We have in mind the statements from Gerald McCann and Kate Healy.

When Gerald saw his daughter for the last time, at around 9.05pm, she was sleeping in the bedroom with the twins. He entered his apartment by the front door, using his key. No windows were open, but he cannot say if they were locked. On the other hand - everybody is in agreement in saying -, the patio door at the rear wasn't locked.

Then, at 10pm, Madeleine's mother goes in her turn into the bedroom, she sees the open window, the raised shutters and the curtains waving in the breeze. This scenario is highly improbable, since the shutters cannot be operated from the outside. Normally, that window is never opened, she says, but she can't say either if it was locked. This vagueness perhaps serves the interests of the witnesses, but arouses the suspicions of the investigators.

Finally, we were able to conclude with certainty that the only opening that wasn't locked was the patio door at the rear of the building, opening onto the area with the swimming pools and the Tapas restaurant, where the parents were dining.

You ask yourself why Gerald went into his apartment through the front door while the one at the back is closer to the restaurant and doesn't need a key. The parents insist that it was visible from the restaurant and that no one could have walked in without being noticed.

But that's false, as we were easily able to verify. At night, with the surrounding vegetation and the opaque plastic tarpaulin that protects the dining room of the restaurant, visibility is nil: anybody could have got into the McCanns' apartment without being noticed, particularly as most of the guests had their back to the apartment.

We understand their insistence. The parents need to affirm that the children were sleeping in complete safety, and they were looking out for their well-being. But, whatever the arguments, one thing is indisputable: Madeleine was not safe.

- Strange, all the same, this burglar who enters by the door and goes out through the window with a four-year-old child in his arms. It would have been easier to go back out by the same door.

- In fact, something isn't right.
- Someone is hiding something...
- You could say they were sharing a secret.

Little by little, clearly because of tiredness, everyone starts speaking at once, words are confused. But, gradually, calm is restored, and the information gathered so far allows us to put forward several hypotheses.

- It's hard to understand how a potential abductor would have had the audacity to enter an apartment and abduct the child, knowing that the parents could burst in at any moment.
- Or: either the man was informed about the habits of the family, and in that case we would have to also suspect employees of the restaurant; or else he hung around in the vicinity for a while to study the lie of the land.
- Only, if he had studied the lie of the land, he would have taken one and the same door for entering and leaving.
- The parents say that the bedroom window was open and the front door was closed at the time they became aware of the disappearance.
- And if they are not telling the truth?
- Put yourself in their place: you are on holiday in a strange place which you don't know; you leave three children under 4 to sleep alone; one of them disappears while you and your wife are quietly dining at the restaurant. You would take on the blame? You wouldn't be afraid of the reaction from the local authorities?
- OK, but if, in one way or another, the parents had something to do with the disappearance? They would inevitably have to invent a story, so logically, lie.
- That's not right, is it? Don't forget you are dealing with well-educated people, nearly all doctors, the child's father is a surgeon. What a ridiculous idea!
- Right, if I understand you properly, you mean that family dramas are the reserve of the simple-minded and the underprivileged...
- We must not put aside any hypothesis, even if it doesn't really grab us, cuts in one of our colleagues, who was listening to our exchanges.
-OK, but for the moment, we must not raise suspicions. They are totally unfounded in the current state of the investigation.
- Apparently, it's the examination of the window that might provide us with an answer. And the fingerprints?
- In the process of being identified.
- Are there copies of the front door key?
- Yes, of course, they are used by employees responsible for cleaning and maintenance and kept in a safe.
- Everybody has to be interviewed.
- Yes. And have the English responded to our requests for reports? We have more and more need of them.
- No, not yet, they are efficiently waiting to collect all the details before sending us a complete file.
- Well, I hope they won't leave us waiting much longer, Every hour counts.

Obviously, we don't end up with any conclusion that night, ....Dawn is breaking already when we finish: the next stages have been decided upon and teams set up. Thus ends the first day of the investigation. Journalists are lurking around the offices of the police judiciaire and in the streets of Vila da Luz. News of the disappearance has spread like wildfire. The eyes of the world are riveted on the Algarve. Little by little the pressure mounts and we have the feeling that our lives will never be the same.

Saturday May 5th

The accommodation we are occupying in the town centre rapidly becomes overcrowded: we need more sheets and blankets. Beds are allocated; some investigators have to sleep on sofas, others on the floor. Astonishingly, in this place, however jam-packed, total silence reigns. We all need to rest. Our dreams are disturbed, our worries are multiplying. Thirty-four hours after Madeleine's disappearance, we tackle our second day of the investigation. In this apartment of temporary refuge, it's the morning bustle; we mustn't lie around. In spite of the lack of sleep, no one shows any sign of fatigue: on the contrary, we are all in a hurry to getting back to work and impatiently wait our turn outside the bathroom.

Before going out, we check that there are no journalists in the area. In spite of their pugnacity, they were never able to find our hiding place. A stop for breakfast, and the day begins. Destination DIC (Department of Criminal Investigation.)

POLISH LEAD IN SAGRES

Hundreds of statements continue to be gathered in Vila da Luz. All the people of the area are interviewed: resort employees, tourists, play leaders from the crèches, residents. Most of them will be of no use to us, but none must be neglected.

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and put up in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.

A lead is only valuable in as far as it is followed to the end, which was not the case with this one. We will realise that we shouldn't have ruled it out so quickly, and that it is still a topic of interest.

MORE LEADS, STILL NO RESULTS

Other individuals were seen lurking around the apartment, acting suspiciously, shortly before the events. On May 2nd or 3rd, according to an English tourist, an individual in shabby clothing was staring fixedly in the direction of the apartment. He went off in a white van. Other witness statements go in the same direction. For each, we set in motion the research procedures which sometimes include the development of an Identikit picture.

On the outskirts of Lagos, in the direction of Aljezur, there is a Gypsy encampment. Of course, travelling people are no longer thought of as child-stealers. Nevertheless, it is important to make sure they have nothing to do with the case before they hit the road again. As soon as they are informed of our searches, they collaborate voluntarily and let the agents do their work and conduct a search of their tents and their cars. No one has seen little Madeleine in the area.

Throughout the day, numerous apartments are visited in the resort and neighbouring areas: the investigators search more than 400, without result.

QUALMS ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE McCANNS; THE THEORY OF ABDUCTION GAINS GROUND.

Someone puts forward the hypothesis according to which Madeleine would have died in her apartment, and that a member of the group would have removed her. It's a possibility, but nothing so far, no evidence, happens to support that theory.

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

- I'm sure this check is necessary.

- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?

- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.

- Of course, but with this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower.

THE PJ'S DIFFICULTIES IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE MEDIA; THE PRO McCANN PRESS OFFICE.

From the start of the investigation, we ask for the presence of a press attaché to accompany us and take on communicating with the media. The Justice Minister fulfills this request. Very quickly, however, this decision is contested. The reaction of the press itself is feared and public opinion, which might interpret that presence with direct intervention in the investigation by the minister.  Finally, the person retained is an investigator, who is not working on the case, speaks English and has some experience in this field. With hindsight, it can be said that it wasn't a good decision. In fact, after the reading of our first press release and the parents' press conferences, the press let fly.

We were convinced that the people directly involved in the investigation should remain distanced from the media whirlwind. We needed help: the police judiciaire would have to engage staff to dissect published articles, focusing on the analysis of press statements from the parents and their friends but that didn't happen. The media circus was in full swing; all the time, new articles, live TV, a growing number of journalists running around the streets of Vila da Luz.

It didn't seem normal to us either that a couple whose child has just disappeared engages press attachés to deal with their relations with the media. It is not a question here of minimising the role of the means of communication and ignoring that a subject like this stirs up a lot of curiosity, but that constant preoccupation with the management of their communication by the parents, appeared to us, to say the least, astonishing.

TELEPHONE CALLS ON THE NIGHT OF THE DISAPPEARANCE.

The tracking of Portuguese and foreign paedophiles - the majority English - residing in the region or simply on holiday, continues to be checked. In spite of the kilometres covered, the interviews and the searches carried out, there is nothing concrete that leads us to suspect any of them.

The investigators continue to deal with the information collected. They look into all the statements, in particular those of the Ocean Club employees, and go through the lists of telephone calls that have been made available to them.

We must also check all communication via mobile phones during the night of May 3rd. It is possible that the abductor had used a mobile. We locate the relay antennae of various operators covering the sector in order to obtain the summary of calls and messages made or received that transited their antennae. Finally, the only suspicious communications are those involving Robert Murat, a person who is central to this case, who will later be placed under investigation.

The walls of the crisis unit are little by little covered in analytical charts, time-series charts, sketches, plans, task lists, photos and other important elements with, at the centre, the photo of Madeleine, to always remind us of the object of our mission.

LOG OF CALLS ON GERRY McCANN'S MOBILE PHONE DELETED

Between 11pm and 3 in the morning, all members of the investigation team meet in the crisis unit; in the same smoke filled atmosphere, we take stock of the situation. Some don't agree with the police judiciaire's press release and think that the information should not have been disclosed, even by way of official press releases. Others think it's possible to interpret the visit by the British ambassador as a form of British government intervention, which may not be impartial. Is it usual for them to get involved with cases of this kind or is it specific to this case, and why? Only they hold the answer.

Until now, the results have hardly been conclusive. New means - in all other investigations, they would already have been put in place - must be deployed.

- Why not monitor and tap the phones of the parents and friends? Their statements are far from convincing. The story about the window is unsound, and Jane's witness statement is not convincing either.

- In that way new details could be obtained.

- We have already discussed it. That would be ideal, only we have to get the judge to give us authorisation with the scant details we have at our disposal. And if the parents get wind of it, we risk having the sky fall on our heads.

- In a kidnapping case with a ransom demand, that procedure would be normal, at least for the monitoring of the parents' phone calls.

- That's for certain, but in our case, that comes back to practically accusing them. Further, we don't even know if there's been a crime.

- Yes, I am well aware but I insist. This would allow them to be ruled out.

The questions raised are relevant. Telephone taps would also allow unfounded suspicions to be destroyed. In our legal system, that procedure is only used with the sole purpose of gathering evidence. At this stage of the investigation it's very tricky for us to express our doubts as to the sincerity of the parents and their friends.

On May 4th, the parents authorise us to check the phone calls logged on their mobile.

- Here's a copy of the summary of calls.

- I only have that of the couple. We have yet to receive the summary from BTS*

- OK, what have we got?

- Do you see what I see?

- Yes, I think so: between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum...

- None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.

- Kate mustn't like making telephone calls...

- For Gerald, there's nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am

- What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?

- Wait, there's something here. Look at the number at the top of the list.

- Yes, so?

- On her telephone, her husbands' number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald's, nothing, no trace of that call!

- How can that be explained?

- It's simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.

- Always the same old question: why?

Summing up: the first phone calls were exchanged one hour after the disappearance. It could be imagined that in that lapse of time, they were busy looking for their daughter. Nevertheless, it's astonishing that they didn't need to speak to each other at such a difficult time.

Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed.

(* Base Transceiver Station of mobile phone operators)

THE POLISH TRAIL LEADS TO AN IMPASSE

Sunday May 6th

Meeting room. Seventy-two hours have gone by since the disappearance. We are going through a difficult time: in spite of the searches carried out on the ground and the considerable means deployed, we haven't found Madeleine. The day gets off to a difficult start with bad news from Poland. From all accounts, the police badly interpreted our request for collaboration; all they did was approach the couple and verify that Madeleine was not with them, but didn't seize either their photographic equipment or the photos taken during their holiday. Another lead that remains pending. Perhaps it would have led to the discovery of a paedophile ring.

We are seeking to piece together the couple's itinerary, to find out if anyone noticed them in the vicinity of Praia da Luz, to establish any relationship between them and Maddie's disappearance. We circulate a photo - which we obtained thanks to a surveillance camera in a Lisbon shopping mall - amongst holiday-makers, clients and employees of Praia da Luz restaurants. Fruitlessly. Nobody saw them.

On the other hand, employees of the restaurant they usually went to, in the Burgau-Budens area, remember them: the woman was usually in a bad mood, and both wore clothes totally inappropriate to the place and the time of year. The forensic police won't be able to investigate their hire vehicle, which we managed to locate, because it has already been rented out again. All that's left to us is to find the bin in which the cleaning team dumped the rubbish left in the vehicle. Analyses of the rubbish reveals nothing. Fortunately, no one else has yet occupied the apartment the couple stayed in - it's low season. We go ahead with a thorough search, looking for evidence of a child's presence: shoe prints, fingerprints or footprints. Nothing. We then gather various hair samples - doubtless coming from adults - and notice drops of blood on a kitchen unit. Nothing conclusive, it's probably from an everyday domestic accident.

In the course of a meeting, I ask the director what follow-up to bring to this case, now that the person who took the photos knows he is being sought. The director gives a common sense response.

- It's unfortunate, of course. However, they were never seen in Praia da Luz, much less close to the apartment.  The father of the little girl in Sagres was wearing spectacles and we aren't 100% sure of the accuracy of his description.

- Yes, but he took photos of the car. Yet again, it could quite well belong to someone else, but...

- If, in the course of the investigation, there are update details on this lead, we will request a rogatory letter and we will go to Poland to interview them and conduct a search of their apartment.

We doubt that a rogatory letter would be of any use to us. The way this lead was handled makes us think not, but we can't hold it against the Polish police, who collaborated as well as they could.

We refocus our efforts on other leads. Information on more individuals behaving suspiciously continues to flood in......