Posts Tagged ‘Gonçalo Amaral’

Madeleine Beth McCann alive or dead?

January 17, 2010

Liars claim Amaral a liar

Gerry and Kate McCann claim that Madeleine is alive, whereas Gonçalo Amaral claims that Madeleine died on 3 May 2007 in Apartment 5A. In my view, Mrs Justice Hogg erred in law by stating in her judgment below: “there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”. This appears to be a rather convenient way to dispose of the case. Whilst I would not presume to claim that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, I do contend that the McCanns were wrong to invoke The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, simply because there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted.

If it is valid to presume Madeleine is alive, surely it is equally valid to presume that Madeleine is dead?


Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
7th July 2008, in open court

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

“The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”.

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden.

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

Death in absentia

“In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”.

Facts, circumstances, and the “balance of probabilities”

“In most common law and civil code jurisdictions, it is usually necessary to obtain a court order directing the registrar to issue a death certificate in the absence of a physician’s certification that an identified individual has died. However, if there is circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual is deceased on the balance of probabilities, jurisdictions may agree to issue death certificates without any such order. For example, passengers and crew of the Titanic who were not rescued by the RMS Carpathia were declared legally dead soon after the Carpathia’s arrival at New York City. More recently, death certificates for those who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks were issued by the State of New York within days of the tragedy. The same is usually true of soldiers missing after a major battle, especially if the enemy keeps an accurate record of its prisoners of war.

If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

* The jurisdiction the individual lived in before death
* The jurisdiction where they are presumed to have died
* How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
* the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect”.

Legal aspects of death in absentia

England and Wales

“In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is legally dead”.

Perhaps Gonçalo Amaral should consider seeking a court order declaring Madeleine is dead in absentia in Portugal? Or, someone maybe attempting this in England?

Photo: Hat-Tip


McCanns taped admission unlawfully obtained

October 3, 2008

In my view, Gonçalo Amaral knows more than he is letting on about what happened to Madeleine on the night of 3 May 2007. This is based upon his telling a British TV journalist that he had heard Clarence Mitchell tipping off the McCanns that they were the subject of electronic surveillance. Given that there was no lawful authority for the PJ to use electronic surveillance upon the McCanns and the remaining members of the Tapas bar 9, the PJ were unable to use the evidence on the tapes because it would be inadmissible in court.

A very plausible case against the McCanns

August 3, 2008

At approximately 10pm on 3 May 2007, at Praia da Luz on the Algarve in Portugal, Kate and Gerry McCann presented the world with a mystery, the disappearance of their 3 year old daughter Madeleine.

Today, Ned Tenko writing in the Observer and reviewing Gonçalo Amaral’s book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira (The Truth About the Lies) states, after briefly putting Amaral’s main points, “This reviewer – as well as any objective person – would surely by now have ruled out any of these possibilities. The book does nothing to change one’s view that there is no plausible case against the McCanns”.

Whilst Ned Tenko’s review of Gonçalo Amaral’s book is quite good, his view that the McCanns are innocent of guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine is mistaken.

Kate and Gerry McCann claimed that between 8-8.30pm they had left their three children under 4 years of age unsupervised in their locked apartment, only to return at 10pm to discover Madeleine was missing. They claimed that an abductor must have broken into the apartment, whilst they were away, and kidnapped Madeleine.

Rather than state “that there is no plausible case against the McCanns”, the abductor theory is not plausible, which means that the last people to see Madeleine alive, after 6pm,  were Kate and Gerry McCann. Ned Tenko describes the McCanns as “an ordinary, middle-class family”. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The McCanns in my book are best described as an odd couple. There is quite a bit about them which is strange to say the least.

According to Kate and Gerry McCann, there was no mystery surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, because it was obvious to them that she had been abducted. They were certain of this. The McCanns have yet to explain why it is that they were so certain as to the fate that had befallen Madeleine. Whilst other holiday makers, locals, and the police and Mark Warner staff were out searching for Madeleine, the McCanns stayed in the apartment. This was odd. Because, if the McCanns were innocent, and returned from a night out to find their daughter missing, they would not have a clue what had happened to her. However, the McCanns claimed to know just what had happened to Madeleine. All they needed to do was to convince the rest of the world to accept their version of events.

Initially, the McCanns claimed that their apartment was locked and that an abductor had broken into the apartment and damaged the shutters when they were jemmied open. The McCanns had phoned their family and friends to give their version of events and told them to spread the word. Newspapers, radio and television picked up these reports and broadcast them as though they were factual reports. However, there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in. Much later, even Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns media spokesman, confirmed that there was no evidence of a break in. However, the McCanns personally have not yet made any public statement why they lied about a break in. It has to be said, it is plausible that the McCanns lied to cover up their own involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

It is plausible that at 10pm, before she raised the alarm, Kate McCann opened the apartment window. It had been cleaned the day before. Kate McCann was asked whether she had touched the window, and she claimed that she had not. However, only Kate McCann’s fingerprints showed up on the window during the PJ fingerprint testing. Once again, the McCanns have yet to provide an explanation to refute this evidence against them. Not only is there no evidence of a break in, there is evidence against the McCanns that they have lied twice in relation to the break in and setting the scene to look like someone broke in. It must be plausible that the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, and their attempts to blame someone else must be suspicious to say the least.

One of the most disturbing things about this whole case is the way that the McCanns keep changing their story of events. When the break in version starts to crumble, the McCanns then claim that they left the apartment unlocked. So, instead of an abductor breaking into the apartment, he simply walked in through the unlocked patio doors and supposedly climbed out of the window. Surely, it would have made more sense to walk out the same way? But, there needs to be an explanation for the opened window. It is plausible that the McCanns were desparate to keep hold of the abductor theory and adapting it later to fit the police findings. In my view, once the break in story was rejected the abductor story should also have been rejected. Then this leaves the McCanns with no explanation for the disappearance of Madeleine.

Kate McCann’s fingerprints all over fake break in attempt

July 25, 2008

In the PJ’s Final Report it states that only Kate McCann referred to a window being opened by the so-called abductor, who the McCanns claim is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine. However, the Final Report also states “at around 10 p.m., when KATE went to the apartment she verified that MADELEINE had disappeared, and that the window and shutters of the bedroom were open”.

“At page 884 and the following, it was added the lophoscopy [study of fingerprints] report where only finger traces of KATE HEALY were found, namely on the window’s frame who would have been opened at the time of the disappearance”.

According to Gonçalo Amaral

“The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window…They are the only fingerprints on the window. And in a position of opening the window”.

The Sun reports that “The McCanns plan to take action against Amaral, Portuguese newspapers which reprinted parts of the £10 book and bloggers who discussed it”.

There is something wrong when the evidence points towards the McCanns guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine, and yet they are able to sue to try and silence bloggers and the like from discussing the case.

Without doubt there is a truth behind the lie.

McCanns: Accept our version of events or else…

July 23, 2008

From the outset the McCanns have stated that an abductor was responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.

The FBI experience is that all too often parents responsible for killing their child try to blame the crime upon a fictitious bogeyman.

Nevertheless, the McCanns have sought to silence others from expressing any view other than the McCanns official explanation. They do this by threatening libel action. First there was the action against Tal&Qual the Portuguese newspaper. Then the action against 4 British newspaper groups. Now the McCanns are considering actions against the PJ, and Gonçalo Amaral for writing his book Maddie, The Truth About The Lie.

It is worth bearing in mind this The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin particularly the following quotes:


Investigators also encounter cases involving false allegations of abduction. Typically, a parent or primary caregiver perpetrates these cases. They report a child as missing or abducted to hide their involvement in the child’s death or conceal their knowledge of the child’s location. Such was the case of Susan Smith, who fastened her two sons into their car seats and watched the car coast into a lake. Subsequently, Smith told police that an armed carjacker had taken both her car and her children. A timely and thorough investigation conducted by experienced law enforcement personnel ultimately proved the fallacy of this allegation. In another case, a mother reported her teenage daughter missing and claimed to have received a telephone ransom demand. An intensive 3-day investigation located the daughter at a friend’s house where she had been staying with her mother’s knowledge and approval. An overwhelming need for attention appeared to motivate the mother’s false report.

Preschool Children (3 to 5 years)

When compared to cases involving toddler victims, emotion-based offenses are less common in preschool children. Sexual crimes, however, occur more frequently. Toddlers, whose increased mobility and desire for independence make them more difficult to control, may cause their caregivers increased stress and frustration. [16] Preschoolers, on the other hand, are often more physically and emotionally developed. This generally reduces dependence and pressure on parents and primary caregivers, decreasing the number of parental emotion-based incidents. Along with their physical and emotional development, however, preschoolers exhibit greater autonomy and experience more prolonged lapses in adult supervision. For example, parents often allow preschoolers to play in their front yards with minimal supervision, providing strangers and acquaintances greater access to these children. Increased ease of access, greater physical maturity, and inherent vulnerability may account for the increase in sexual and profit crimes in volving preschool victims as compared to toddlers. Not surprisingly, strangers and acquaintances are often the perpetrators of sexually motivated and profit-based offenses in preschool children.

For preschoolers, emotion-based crimes are predominately familial with biological parents (primarily fathers) and parental boyfriends/girlfriends commonly responsible for these offenses. Offenders are most often males and their victims primarily female, which differs from the slightly higher male victim population in the infant and toddler groups. In cases where offenders kill victims, approximately one-half dispose of the body within 100 yards of the abduction site (almost always the victim and offender’s shared residence). However, some offenders who kill their victim transport the remains greater distances, attempting to separate themselves in time and space from the abduction site.

Sexually motivated abductions, while more common than in toddlers, occur less frequently in preschoolers than emotion-based crimes. When they occur, however, females are usually victims. The race of both the victim and the offender closely matches the demographics of the area where the abduction takes place. Usually, offenders are male and an acquaintance of the victim (commonly neighbors). This represents a drastic departure from the large number of family offenders found in emotion-based preschool cases. Again, the accessibility of the victim appears to be a critical factor in dictating victim-offender relationship.

Preschoolers who are victimized by sexually motivated offenders are often abducted from their yards or neighborhoods by offenders who know them and who have ready access to these locations. These offenders often have a history of previous sexual misconduct. Some of these offenders desire children as their preferred sexual partners (preferential offenders) while others are simply sexually indiscriminate (situational offenders). Almost all sexual abductions of preschoolers occur at or within 1 mile from the victim’s home.

Breaking news: McCann case

June 30, 2008

Story here.