The Beast of Portimao just cannot keep his big mouth shut.

He just cannot keep his mouth shut. No wonder him and Bennett get on so well
Thanks to JATYK, I don't know if the translation is correct.

Anna Esse has just posted her translation of a french member's report on the W9 programme on MM and even from that, factoring in where their sympathies lie, it sounds as if it was a disaster for Gonc.

AnnaEsse Today

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

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

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

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She leads into the two documentaries, stating that they are unpublished in France: Amaral’s and the McCanns’ (with no further clarification as to their provenance) If I heard the phrase “4 years after,” correctly, it may be that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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Your interpretation is correct.

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

A They were looking for a body.

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

A It’s possible.

B What more could you have done?

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

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


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


W9 Part 2
AnnaEsse Today at 19:45

McCanns’s documentary. Return to the set.


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

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

L. Did you find that man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Maddie’s parents did not wish to come and have their say.”


Read more: http://justathoughtyouknow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=guests&action=display&thread=989&page=5#ixzz1IkEO1Z38

We all know what kind of experience he have and it´s not abduction investigations.

Amaral's answers are just rubbish. A load of tripe.

If a police officer in Australia were to come out with such rubbish, they would become the subject of ridicule. It is just not acceptable to make up unsubstantiated rumours and dress them up as an alternative theory.

But I oversimplified saying he would be a subject of ridicule in Australia. He would most likely be the subject of a criminal investigation for perverting the course of justice, or an internal police force investigation for incompetence in running the investigation. One thing for certain, he would not be taken seriously on the talk show circuit.

The Beast of Portimao just cannot keep his big mouth shut.

Why do you think he is the size he is?? if he knew how to shut his face he probably wouldn't be the ten ton ball of festering p/ss that he is... and possibly (and i use the word possibly very lightly)wouldn't be in the amount of trouble he is in all the time!!

The Antis have been very quiet about it.....dont think Ammy losing his rag again was good for them...

Catkins wrote:The Antis have been very quiet about it.....dont think Ammy losing his rag again was good for them...

And he did it on tv, in front of everybody, that's something most normal people would try to avoid especially someone who is a (n ex) police officer.
He is a bit obsessed with freezers isn't it?

I know the reason why "He is a bit obsessed with freezers isn't it?", it´s because of beers and shrimps".