an opinion article in Observatorio do Algarve, dated October 3, 2007:
http://observatoriodoalgarve.com/cna/opinioes_ver.asp?opiniao=400
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=latest&action=display&thread=1182386581&page=36 post #533
article by Mario Lino
The whole truth about Madeleine
You're probably reading these lines, expecting to know what happened to Madeleine McCann, five months after she disappeared. Well, you're not.
Imitating what some respected newspapers have been doing, I thought I'd better find a title that would sell well, but which tomorrow could be transformed into "Almost the whole truth about...". The day after that, it would become "That truth wasn't true after all"; and so on, as many national and foreign newspapers have done. Well, at least here, it's for free.
But now that I have captured your attention (or maybe not), I'll take advantage of it and leave you some comments about a case I have followed closely, since the first day.
This chronicle was even supposed to have been out earlier, but it didn't. This way, it's not out alone. It's out after a reputable senior officer of the PJ was removed from the case, after the official spokesman shut the door behind him, after the British media went home, and after the McCann couple themselves went... out.
It's curious to watch how everyone looks, after this time, on the picture of a case that "shook the world".
Gonçalo Amaral leaves as a "victim of circumstances", and a hero to his colleagues, after having commented what many among them think but cannot say out loud.
Olegario de Sousa left as a tired man. He was tired of talking a lot and saying very little, obstructed by a judicial secrecy that existed only for him, while all around him, the "anonymous sources" filled up newspaper pages.
The British media leave as justice killers and it's a pity they didn't lead the investigation themselves, because that way the child would have been discovered already.
The McCanns leave as suspects, more than victims. But we're all innocent until proved otherwise.
This brings us to the core of the issue. The evidence. The case looks anything but easy, and the strong governmental pressure (or is it a coincidence that Clarence Mitchell left the government?) from the British hasn't made the Policia Judiciaria's task any easier.
It's very easy to criticise, that the police didn't seal the crime scene off, that they requested the presence of the English dogs too late, etc. But it wasn't all "blunders", like the "famous" specialist from Sky News, Martin Brunt, stated. By calling for the British dogs and getting the British labs involved, the PJ played a "master move" in order to defend themselves.
It was the "infallible" and millionaire British dogs (which the lawyers will soon denigrate) that detected the cadaver odour inside the apartment and in the McCanns' car. It was a British lab - one of the best worldwide - that allegedly identified a DNA sample that matches the child's, inside the boot of the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns. Hard to believe? Absolutely. But whose fault is this? It's the British.
The English media "cling" to the fact that the investigation wasn't conducted properly, juicing up the story with the inspectors' two-hour-long lunches, and God only knows what else would have been revealed, besides the Joana case, if Amaral hadn't left now. If the idea was to bring the PJ to its knees, who would do that better than the English tabloids? But I have yet to see them denigrate the dogs or the labs, which have been worthy of their utmost trust until now.
It's a fact that Amaral went too far. He said the McCanns were mining the investigation, creating new clues on a daily basis. The exposure bought him a ticket back to Faro. And what happened to Kate's mother, who said the Portuguese police "planted evidence to incriminate the couple"? Nothing.
The speed at which the Minister of Justice and the national director reacted to the demotion of Amaral was hallucinating, when compared to the wall of silence they built, at a moment when it was needed to protect the country's and our police's reputation. But no.
As it seems, the evidence is not enough. Neither statistics, nor the fact that the parents said they'd cooperate with justice, but refused to answer more than 40 questions that were considered to be fundamental in order to clarify the case.
Believing that the policemen are not infallible, there are facts in this story that are difficult to explain.
Why did the couple call a tv station before they called the police? Why did they hire a Portuguese lawyer, anticipating that the PJ would hold the lab test results, before it was said that the parents were suspects? Why did they hire an elite cabinet, with an assessor to the Prime-Minister working exclusively for them?
On the other hand, how could they get rid of a body without being detected? How would they have the courage to proceed with the "media farce"? With so many questions, it could look like we're at the age of innocence. But when one looks at the complete picture of this "soap opera", we realize we're very far from that.
What is for sure, is that the issue is "taken care of". The British save their fellow countrymen, with an escort and a committee until they arrived home. They write the police off as incompetent, forgetting that they are themselves involved in the investigation since the beginning.
The PJ plays the villain because they theorized on that which is less convenient for everyone: that the parents could be guilty.
The Portuguese government "escapes" in the eyes of the English and of the world (the eyes of the Portuguese are of little relevance). They let the couple return to England, possibly being suspects in their daughter's death, because "without a body there is no case".
Ahh... All is well when it ends up well.
But... what about Madeleine, does anyone know where she is?
http://observatoriodoalgarve.com/cna/opinioes_ver.asp?opiniao=400
Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=latest&action=display&thread=1182386581&page=36 post #533
article by Mario Lino
The whole truth about Madeleine
You're probably reading these lines, expecting to know what happened to Madeleine McCann, five months after she disappeared. Well, you're not.
Imitating what some respected newspapers have been doing, I thought I'd better find a title that would sell well, but which tomorrow could be transformed into "Almost the whole truth about...". The day after that, it would become "That truth wasn't true after all"; and so on, as many national and foreign newspapers have done. Well, at least here, it's for free.
But now that I have captured your attention (or maybe not), I'll take advantage of it and leave you some comments about a case I have followed closely, since the first day.
This chronicle was even supposed to have been out earlier, but it didn't. This way, it's not out alone. It's out after a reputable senior officer of the PJ was removed from the case, after the official spokesman shut the door behind him, after the British media went home, and after the McCann couple themselves went... out.
It's curious to watch how everyone looks, after this time, on the picture of a case that "shook the world".
Gonçalo Amaral leaves as a "victim of circumstances", and a hero to his colleagues, after having commented what many among them think but cannot say out loud.
Olegario de Sousa left as a tired man. He was tired of talking a lot and saying very little, obstructed by a judicial secrecy that existed only for him, while all around him, the "anonymous sources" filled up newspaper pages.
The British media leave as justice killers and it's a pity they didn't lead the investigation themselves, because that way the child would have been discovered already.
The McCanns leave as suspects, more than victims. But we're all innocent until proved otherwise.
This brings us to the core of the issue. The evidence. The case looks anything but easy, and the strong governmental pressure (or is it a coincidence that Clarence Mitchell left the government?) from the British hasn't made the Policia Judiciaria's task any easier.
It's very easy to criticise, that the police didn't seal the crime scene off, that they requested the presence of the English dogs too late, etc. But it wasn't all "blunders", like the "famous" specialist from Sky News, Martin Brunt, stated. By calling for the British dogs and getting the British labs involved, the PJ played a "master move" in order to defend themselves.
It was the "infallible" and millionaire British dogs (which the lawyers will soon denigrate) that detected the cadaver odour inside the apartment and in the McCanns' car. It was a British lab - one of the best worldwide - that allegedly identified a DNA sample that matches the child's, inside the boot of the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns. Hard to believe? Absolutely. But whose fault is this? It's the British.
The English media "cling" to the fact that the investigation wasn't conducted properly, juicing up the story with the inspectors' two-hour-long lunches, and God only knows what else would have been revealed, besides the Joana case, if Amaral hadn't left now. If the idea was to bring the PJ to its knees, who would do that better than the English tabloids? But I have yet to see them denigrate the dogs or the labs, which have been worthy of their utmost trust until now.
It's a fact that Amaral went too far. He said the McCanns were mining the investigation, creating new clues on a daily basis. The exposure bought him a ticket back to Faro. And what happened to Kate's mother, who said the Portuguese police "planted evidence to incriminate the couple"? Nothing.
The speed at which the Minister of Justice and the national director reacted to the demotion of Amaral was hallucinating, when compared to the wall of silence they built, at a moment when it was needed to protect the country's and our police's reputation. But no.
As it seems, the evidence is not enough. Neither statistics, nor the fact that the parents said they'd cooperate with justice, but refused to answer more than 40 questions that were considered to be fundamental in order to clarify the case.
Believing that the policemen are not infallible, there are facts in this story that are difficult to explain.
Why did the couple call a tv station before they called the police? Why did they hire a Portuguese lawyer, anticipating that the PJ would hold the lab test results, before it was said that the parents were suspects? Why did they hire an elite cabinet, with an assessor to the Prime-Minister working exclusively for them?
On the other hand, how could they get rid of a body without being detected? How would they have the courage to proceed with the "media farce"? With so many questions, it could look like we're at the age of innocence. But when one looks at the complete picture of this "soap opera", we realize we're very far from that.
What is for sure, is that the issue is "taken care of". The British save their fellow countrymen, with an escort and a committee until they arrived home. They write the police off as incompetent, forgetting that they are themselves involved in the investigation since the beginning.
The PJ plays the villain because they theorized on that which is less convenient for everyone: that the parents could be guilty.
The Portuguese government "escapes" in the eyes of the English and of the world (the eyes of the Portuguese are of little relevance). They let the couple return to England, possibly being suspects in their daughter's death, because "without a body there is no case".
Ahh... All is well when it ends up well.
But... what about Madeleine, does anyone know where she is?