Madeleine (46 page)

For his next trick, Amaral produced a ‘documentary’ based on his book, which was screened in Portugal on 13 April. A friend in Luz who phoned to tell us about it the next day was very upset, describing it as ‘awful’.

I’ve always been considered quite a gentle person but these attacks stirred up terrible emotions in me. It was as if my whole body was trying to scream but a tightly screwed-on lid was preventing the scream from escaping. Instead I was just howling internally. My punch bag certainly came in handy at times. Amaral’s documentary was the last straw. On 20 April we took the decision with Isabel Duarte to sue him.

While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show. We had been asked if we’d consider being interviewed by Oprah not long after Madeleine was abducted but we’d had a lot on our plates then and there was no particular objective it would have served. This time we had our age-progressed image to publicize, and the global reach of Oprah’s massively popular show would give us a fantastic opportunity to stamp this on the worldwide public consciousness.

It wasn’t until we arrived in Chicago that it really hit me what a huge deal this interview was for our search for Madeleine. Oprah has more than once been described as the most influential woman in the world. Certainly when she speaks, as they say across the Atlantic, America listens. I was overcome by nerves.

Getting ready for the interview on the day was an event in itself. A choice of clothes and shoes had been brought to our hotel for me. Later that morning we were taken over to the Harpo Studios and introduced to Oprah’s team. I had my make-up and hair done by two lovely ladies (if only I could look like that every day!). Just before we were due to go on, Oprah dropped in to see us. She came across as smart, strong and warm, and I was completely in awe of her. While she wanted to show what we as a family had had to endure, her main intention, she said, was to emphasize that Madeleine was nearly six, still missing – and
alive
. We were so grateful we wanted to hug her. In fact I’m sure we did hug her.

The show was recorded live in front of a studio audience. My nervousness intensified, partly because of the enormity of it all, and partly because I knew how important this was for Madeleine. I was emotional, too, especially when I looked at the screens on the set displaying rolling images of our Madeleine smiling back at us. Oprah was as good as her word. She did not dwell too long on ‘human-interest’ topics, concentrating instead on areas she knew would promote our search. And, of course, we launched the age-progressed picture of Madeleine which, thanks to the team at NCMEC and to Oprah, would now be seen by millions.

On Madeleine’s sixth birthday, 12 May 2009, I met Isabel Duarte for the first time. I’d been reluctant to spend this emotional day in a meeting but our options were limited and, as Gerry pointed out, maybe this was exactly what we ought to be doing on Madeleine’s birthday. I was very impressed by Isabel. She was a pocket dynamo: tiny and attractive but immensely feisty, strong, intelligent and compassionate. You could see the desire for justice burning brightly in her.

Isabel suggested that first of all we should apply for an injunction against Amaral’s book and the DVD of his documentary with the aim of preventing the distribution and further repetition of his damaging theories. The next phase would be to sue Amaral for libel. It was an inspiring meeting and I will never forget Isabel’s words to me as she leaned across the table, looking me straight in the eye: ‘Today is a very important day for your daughter.’

Later the same month, Amaral was given an eighteen-month suspended prison sentence in connection with a case in which three of his officers were accused of torture. The mother and uncle of another missing child – eight-year-old Joana Cipriano, who had disappeared in 2004 from a village seven miles from Praia da Luz – had been imprisoned for her murder, although no body has ever been found. They claimed they had been tortured into confessing (the police maintained that Sra Cipriano had fallen down the stairs). The officers concerned were cleared but the jury found that Amaral had falsified statements relating to the torture case. His conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court in March 2011. Joana’s mother is still in jail.

Falsifying statements?
It was difficult to understand why anyone would believe the theories of a police officer found guilty of such malpractice. While coordinating the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, Amaral had been an
arguido
. How on earth had he come to be put in charge of an inquiry into the disappearance of another missing child?

On 22 May I had a phone call from our lead investigator. He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007. The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story. All of a sudden, Hewlett was cast as the man who could have taken Madeleine.

We were exasperated. We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved, Hewlett seemed a less likely candidate than a lot of others. He was in his sixties, for a start, much older than the man seen by Jane and other witnesses. But to the press that was irrelevant. They had a name and a photograph and they were off.

We were desperate for somebody to investigate Hewlett, not because we thought he had anything to do with taking Madeleine but because we wanted to eliminate him from the inquiry and quickly put an end to the media speculation. But the UK authorities told us they couldn’t help. (‘It’s a Portuguese investigation . . .’)

My main worry was that Hewlett, who had terminal throat cancer, would die before anyone took an official statement from him. Then the media would take the line that it was probably him, Madeleine was dead, game over, and we would be left with an uphill struggle to prevent this theory from becoming established. All the hard work we’d done recently to motivate the public to believe in our search again, and to undo the harm being done by Gonçalo Amaral, would be ruined. Sometimes it seemed as if we spent as much time trying to clear the path for our investigation as we did actually investigating. I wasn’t sure I had the strength for another battle. It was so frustrating.

Sure enough, the tabloid interest in Hewlett raged on until July. In the meantime, he was questioned in connection with a case dating back to 1975, but not by Leicestershire or Portuguese officers. He also spoke to the tabloids, but refused to see our investigators unless we paid him to do so. He died a few months later.

On 27 August we learned that an American girl called Jaycee Lee Dugard, abducted in the USA at the age of eleven, had been found
eighteen years
after her disappearance. She had been taken by a sex offender and his wife and kept in an outbuilding in their garden. During this time she had borne her kidnapper two daughters. We listened to this news with very mixed emotions. Of course it was fantastic that Jaycee had been found and reunited with her family, but the appalling circumstances of her captivity and the suffering they had all endured for so long, the precious years cruelly stolen, were heartbreaking.

As the hours went by, however, our feelings changed as we realized how much the joy of this reunion, even after those eighteen horrific years, would outweigh the tragedy for Jaycee and her family. Their experience underlines how children can be hidden for many years and still found alive. This was a positive day not only for Jaycee, but for Madeleine and all missing children, wherever they are. We have always said that no matter how long it takes us to find Madeleine, and whatever she has had to endure, we will get her through it. We just desperately need to be given that chance. None of us must give up on these children.

In the meantime, we had been caught up in the byzantine workings of the Portuguese legal system. To date there have already been six separate decisions made on our request for an injunction, entailing four separate court hearings. The injunction against Amaral’s book and DVD was initially rejected on the basis that any damage had already been done (decision 1). Isabel appealed on our behalf, as we strongly believed that damage was
still
being done, both to the search for Madeleine and to our family’s human rights. The Appeal Court agreed that our case should be reconsidered (decision 2) and on 3 September 2009 four of our witnesses went to court to testify. Five days later the judge granted the injunction and ordered that Sr Amaral’s theories must no longer be repeated (decision 3). He and his publishers would be required to ensure that all unsold copies of his book were removed from shops and warehouses across Europe and deposited with Isabel Duarte or face daily fines. As expected, Amaral in turn appealed against this decision.

Amaral’s appeal was heard in December in Lisbon, over five days that ended up being spread over three consecutive months. Gerry and I felt it was important, essential even, for us to attend to represent Madeleine. She needed somebody there for her. She was the victim in this, not Gonçalo Amaral. I also needed to see the whites of Sr Amaral’s eyes. We flew out to Portugal on 10 December.

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

We were warned of the threat of a demonstration against us outside the courtroom, and our Portuguese advisers, worried about our welfare and negative publicity, felt it might be a good idea if we stayed away after all. But if we backed out, the bullies would have won. We’d come here for Madeleine, and we had no intention of letting her down. Besides, we couldn’t think of anything anyone could do to us or say about us that would be worse than what we’d already suffered. In the event, this ‘demonstration’ consisted of two middle-aged women, friends of Gonçalo Amaral.

And so it was that on 11 December 2009 I first laid eyes on Sr Gonçalo Amaral. It was also the first time he had laid eyes on me. It is extraordinary that he could have said and written so many awful things about a person he had never met. He had obviously spruced himself up in recent months. The moustache, gold chain and bulging tummy familiar to me from unflattering newspaper photographs were nowhere to be seen. Now he was sporting a smart haircut, nice suit and hat, and – an intriguing touch – a diamond earring. I wasn’t afraid, but I admit that my heart beat a little harder and I clutched my wooden holding cross tightly as he walked past, flanked by his entourage. Here was the person who had been entrusted with finding our little girl and who had failed her – not simply by being unable to find her when he was in charge, but by then speaking out in a way that in effect hindered other people, ourselves included, from finding her.

I couldn’t stop staring at him. It was as if I were trying to look inside his head. If the intensity of a stare could penetrate bone, I’m sure I would have managed it. What made this man tick? How did he rationalize his behaviour? How did he manage to sleep at night?

The other person we got to see that morning was Luís Neves, looking slightly dishevelled and a bit older (we all did, I’m sure). I’d badly wanted to look this man in the eye, too, since the day I was made
arguida
. The last time we’d spoken he’d accused me of refusing to do so. Today the tables were turned. However hard I fixed my gaze on him, he would not look at me. We had liked and trusted him, but it felt as if he’d turned his back on us. I’d believed he was stronger than that. I’d thought he was one of the good guys. I was disappointed in him and disappointed in myself, too, for putting my faith in him.

The trial was adjourned until the following month. Amaral’s lawyer’s secretary had suspected swine flu, and that meant Amaral’s lawyer had to be ‘quarantined’ too, we were told. Still, we had come for Madeleine’s sake, we had been there, and that felt important. We had already decided that we’d take this opportunity to visit Praia da Luz, so all was not lost.

I had promised my daughter and myself that I would return to Luz, and it had taken a long while for me to be able to do so both safely and in peace. In the middle of winter the village was tranquil. Gerry and I were able to seek solace at Nossa Senhora da Luz, I spent time at my rocks on the beach and we caught up with friends. To this day I still return quietly to Luz from time to time to feel Madeleine close to me.

We were back in Lisbon on 11 January 2010. For some reason I couldn’t put my finger on, I was more anxious about the proceedings this time. But Isabel is a match for anyone, and I was reassured to have her on our side. In the corridor outside the courtroom, there was something about the way Amaral’s cronies greeted him, with much sycophantic back-slapping, that made me distinctly uncomfortable.

The prosecutor in our case, José de Magalhães e Menezes, gave an objective account, reiterating that there was no evidence either that Madeleine was dead or that Gerry and I were involved. A little while later, up popped Ricardo Paiva, who surprised me by remaining quite calm, even if he did contradict himself during his testimony. Paiva said he believed Gonçalo Amaral’s assertion that Madeleine was dead and that Gerry and I had staged a kidnap.

The most disturbing thing about this is that it is Paiva who, to this day, receives any information about Madeleine coming in to the Portuguese police. If this is what he believes, we have a real concern that he may not be considering such information objectively.