FIONA PAYNE, TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS by Dr Martin Roberts

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
29 December 2011


FIONA PAYNE, TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS


During her rogatory interview at Leicestershire Police headquarters in April 2008, Fiona Payne spelled out to DC 1485 Messiah the reality of that notorious night in Praia da Luz, when parents assumed responsibility for their own children (as they should), not other peoples, 'routines' were inexplicably altered, and the McCanns totally oblivious to events inside 5A.

Reply "Yeah, yeah. Erm, but it worked really well and, you know, everybody was checking, had their own sort of, I mean, we didn't really formally discuss what everybody was doing, we just all felt it was fine to sort of operate our own baby listening service, I guess that's what we thought we were doing, what every MARK WARNER holiday we'd been on before did. Erm, tut, we didn't, Dave and I and my mum didn't because we, we brought our baby monitor, which worked, we'd tested it, it's a digital monitor so it's offering, erm, continuous monitoring of sound every second and it alarms if it loses contact or anything, so on the first day we'd sort of tried that by the, you know, by the Tapas Bar and it worked, so we didn't even go back and check our children, we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen, if they cried we'd hear. Erm, the others had, you know, decided they were sort of going back every twenty minutes, erm, and checking on their own children. I think, on the whole, I wasn't really aware of people cross checking each other's children, although on the night and previous nights there would have been the odd occasion where somebody was, was, was going and saying 'Oh I've listened in at your door and your kids are fine' or 'I've checked on yours and they're fine', so there was a bit of that going on, but, on the whole, people checked their own children. Erm, and, again, on the actual night Madeleine was taken, that was, was very much different, I think, to, to previous nights, in that, there was probably more cross checking that night."

('Probably more cross-checking...' There was absolutely none before, and 'one swallow doth not a Summer make.' Notice also the 'I've listened in at your door' variant of 'cross-checking,' which could just as well have been, indeed most probably was, 'at your window,' sound travelling more easily through glass than solid wood).

Reply "I mean, I think every night we saw all of each other, bar the Thursday, again, that was a different night."

1485 "It was different."

Reply "In that Kate wasn't there with, with the three kids, because we'd all done something different in the early evening, so we were a bit later coming back to the Tapas Bar."

Checking, once more...

Reply "Because I've got no idea who went first and, to be completely honest, I didn't at the time. Erm, but I'd say on, on the first few nights it all seemed, erm, fairly well spaced, you know, like people going together, that was just a feeling, a general feeling that I'm giving you. Erm, whereas, again, that differed on the Thursday night, in that, it seemed more, erm, out of, people were more out of synch."

1485 "Would all nine do the checking at some point?"

Reply "No, Dave and I and my mother never checked anybody."

Gerry McCann, in his own statement to Police of 10 May, 2007, volunteered the following:

'On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, apart from the deponent and his wife, he thinks that DAVID PAYNE also went to his apartment to check that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.'

(Well of course David Payne did not report any abnormal situation with the children. He had no way of knowing whether 'the situation' was abnormal or not. He didn't even look to find out, did he. His wife, Fiona, has told us so).

On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children.

(And which of these group colleagues might that have been? Not David Payne certainly).

Fiona Payne once more:

Reply "Erm, I guess some people were doing more checking and it tended to be the men doing, again, this is a feeling, it seemed to be they did a lot more sort of upping and downing, erm, tut, you know, than, than the women perhaps. Erm, I mean, Gerry and Russell."

1485 "Gerry and Russell?"

Reply "Yeah, I don't know, they, again, a feeling, is they probably did a bit more checking than the girls did."

(One can quite easily relate to DC 1485 Messiah's bewilderment here. Gerry and Russell? Gerry, who claims to have left the table once, around nine, on the Thursday night, and Russell! Not Matthew Oldfield, who 'checked' at least twice as often as Gerry on that occasion and actually entered the McCann apartment, or so he would have us believe. No. Gerry and Russell were doing a 'lot more upping and downing.' Really?)

1485 "And would you pass anybody on the way to the Tapas?"

Reply "Erm, tut, no, erm, not that I'd."

1485 "Any of the group perhaps going to do their checks or?"

Reply "No, because generally, as I say, we, the early part of the week, we were generally all within the same sort of time bracket, so, yeah, we didn't, on previous nights, see anybody coming back. Erm, Thursday night was different,..."

Regarding seating arrangements at the diner

Reply "Erm, Kate was to my left and that I'm positive of. Erm, and I think Gerry was certainly to my right, I think he was immediately on my right. Erm, I know Russell was opposite, he would have been about there. My mum was, my mum and Dave were sat, I think Dave was next to Gerry and mum next to Russell, they were certainly on that side of the table, erm, yeah, I think it was Dave, I'm not a hundred percent on that. And then I think it was Jane and then Rachael. That's how I remember it. And I think possibly we were slightly rotated that way actually, because I remember me and Kate pretty much with our backs, erm, you know, to, to the apartments, so probably turn that round a bit actually. Yeah, Russell was probably, you know, more directly."

(Both McCann parents had their backs to the apartment block therefore. Again, in his 10 May statement to Police, Gerry McCann mentioned that they were seated at the table, in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire back door of his apartment, through which they left and entered and which gave access to the living room. Almost the entire back door no less! Unless he had eyes in the back of his head the deponent would have had to turn around for an 'unimpeded view' through the plastic screen behind him).

A few 'ins and outs'

1485 "What about the rest of the party, Kate and Gerry, did they ever discuss with you whether they locked their doors or their windows when they were in and out?"

Reply "Erm, I mean, I was aware of them swapping their arrangement at some point, because I know they had been coming, using the front door, erm, which is the door with the key, to go in and check the children, and then, at some point, that changed to using the back door, just because, as you can see from the map, it was quicker for them to do that and easier to get in, then just sort of quickly nip in through the French doors and out again. I couldn't tell you what point that was, but I know, I know there was a conversation about, oh we've started nipping in that way rather than going the long way round. Erm, so, I suppose, at that point, that's when they, because you couldn't lock the French doors from outside, that's when they weren't locking it."

1485 "Yeah. How far down the week was that?"

Reply "Erm, I mean, my feeling is, you know, they did it the front way for a couple of night and the rest left it open, but I don't know, I mean, they'd know that, as I say, I just remember the conversation."

1485 "Yeah. Did Kate ever discus that with you, you know, when she discussed about Madeleine, did she ever discuss, you know, the?"

Reply "No, as I say, it came up at that, that conversation, which I think was on the, on the, on the Thursday night, about, erm, you know, whether I would feel happy leaving, leaving a door unlocked, but that was the only time I'd heard Kate sort of almost saying, question whether they should do it or not."

1485 "Did she say that she actually left it unlocked then?"

Reply "Yeah, she must have done, because I knew that it wasn't locked. And I was a bit."

1485 "And did she."

Reply "I mean, I was a bit surprised, I mean, Kate, you were asking about what they're like as parents, and they're certainly not, erm, paranoid parents, what I would call paranoid parents...So, you know, I think, as I said earlier, I think that was something she wasn't quite happy with."

1485 "Did she say that she had confronted Gerry over that matter?"

Reply "No. No, I mean, I think they'd discussed it and, you know...But, you know, I don't think there was an issue between them about it but, as I say, Kate was, it was just something that I’m sure was on her mind that night."

So Fiona, who claims not to know when, exactly, the McCanns desisted from using the main door of their apartment in favour of the rear entrance, learns of Kate's door dilemma, in conversation, only on the Thursday night, when the topic was clearly on Kate's mind. It cannot have been on her mind previously or she would have mentioned it, previously. And it was on the occasion of this very conversation ('at that point') that the McCanns apparently changed their routine, leaving the patio door open ('they weren't locking it'). When prompted as to whether Kate had explicitly described the door as 'unlocked' that night Fiona Payne can only assume so ('she must have done...').

'Far fetched' does not begin to describe an account of events in which predators study the behaviour of their victims for several days, during which time they have every access to their quarry - a young child at their mercy, due to a supposed open-door policy coupled with little or no parental vigilance. Seemingly unable to resist a challenge, these vultures defer seizure of their prey until the very day the guardians 'wise up' and institute a more rigorous system of supervision, i.e., more 'upping and downing.' Yet still they succeed in their crime, despite only a 'small window of opportunity' being open to them (about three minutes, as opposed to the hour(s) they could have enjoyed beforehand).

Change is a fundamental aspect of the universe and parents on holiday have every right to amend their routine, if indeed they have one, at any time. But here things are peculiarly different. Instead of a change from one generally accepted routine to another (generally accepted routine), the shift is, in fact, from no routine whatsoever to a post hoc confection, unconfirmed either by the participants' actions or others' descriptions of said actions.

We may reasonably ask why, therefore, Thursday May 3, 2007 should have been such a landmark day for the McCanns. In fact it has been so asked already (see articles: 'Clairvoyance' and 'What's in a Name?' McCannfiles, 2011). Whilst it could conceivably have been events that night which prompted them to report, in retrospect, a system of inter-family 'checking' - a system to which other so-called participants apparently subscribed in a strangely non-committal way - the decision to leave the rear entrance door open was clearly made to benefit somebody, and made before Madeline McCann was 'aducted.'

If they are to be believed, the McCanns had put up with the long walk from the Tapas bar for five nights already, before deciding, with only two nights remaining, that they'd rather put their children in jeopardy instead and save themselves a few steps. And with absolutely no history of extreme neighbourliness in the checking department that week, why should the McCanns assume, come the Thursday, that their carousing companions would be queuing up to add the McCann children to their own inspection rostas?

Neither personal convenience nor shared responsibility makes for a convincing argument; the latter especially, since the McCanns appear to have been wholly unconcerned about the nocturnal welfare of anyone else's children. They did not reciprocally 'check' any apartment other than 5A, at any time.

For whom did they leave their patio door open therefore? Madeleine, in case of fire (which only became a serious risk after five days)? The Paynes (who did not look in on any one else's children either - ditto Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner)? Matthew Oldfield (who unexpectedly volunteered a 'fly past' and was then told he could go in through the open door)? Themselves (fit enough to run for miles that day but not to walk an extra twenty or thirty yards that night)? These options being equally unlikely, there remains a somewhat more sinister possibility, consistent with Kate McCanns perplexing observation, 'They've taken her.' (pronoun 'they': subject understood).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

I wonder how long it will be before someone in court on a charge of child neglect attempts to deploy the 'McCann Defence'? We have been told, by McCann himself, that he was assured by a 'senior figure in Social Services' that leaving three children under the age of four on their own, at night, in a strange apartment next to a road with the door unlocked was 'well within the bounds of responsible parenting'. One thing we can be sure of is if someone did try that out in court we would not hear about it in the McMedia.

I wonder if someone tried to claim for a stolen camera on their holiday insurance having stated that they left the camera in an unlocked apartment, but did go back every half hour to check it was still there, the insurance company would cough up?

So Fiona says Gerry made Kate leave her babies in an unlocked apartment?

"
1485 "Did she say that she actually left it unlocked then?"

Reply "Yeah, she must have done, because I knew that it wasn't locked. And I was a bit."

1485 "And did she."

Reply
"I mean, I was a bit surprised, I mean, Kate, you were asking about
what they're like as parents, and they're certainly not, erm, paranoid
parents, what I would call paranoid parents...So, you know, I think, as I
said earlier, I think that was something she wasn't quite happy with."

1485 "Did she say that she had confronted Gerry over that matter?"

Reply
"No. No, I mean, I think they'd discussed it and, you know...But, you
know, I don't think there was an issue between them about it but, as I
say, Kate was, it was just something that I’m sure was on her mind that
night."

And Fiona "Was a Bit" when she knew the children were left behind an unlocked door but she didnt report it?

I read all the rogatory statements over the last many hours (Leicestershire Police). Please read the Payne/Webber statements and as soon as you've done that read Matt Oldfield's.

I was so depressed after reading those particular statements that I determined to leave the forum. Thank you Marian for pointing out that it's worth reconsidering..and yes Marian you're right...anyone who reads them deserves a medal. Mine was a re-read. It's good to go back to basics.

I have read so much on this case. It often leads me to emotional outburst for the injustice of it all. It's not good to finger point and I am guilty of that on occasions as were previous posts yesterday that spooked me re Kate and Gerry. So from now on I want to stick to facts.

IMHO the rogatory statements that reveal the most information are those of DP, FP and DW, followed by MO.

aquila wrote:I read all the rogatory statements over the last many hours (Leicestershire Police). Please read the Payne/Webber statements and as soon as you've done that read Matt Oldfield's.

I was so depressed after reading those particular statements that I determined to leave the forum. Thank you Marian for pointing out that it's worth reconsidering..and yes Marian you're right...anyone who reads them deserves a medal. Mine was a re-read. It's good to go back to basics.

I have read so much on this case. It often leads me to emotional outburst for the injustice of it all. It's not good to finger point and I am guilty of that on occasions as were previous posts yesterday that spooked me re Kate and Gerry. So from now on I want to stick to facts.

IMHO the rogatory statements that reveal the most information are those of DP, FP and DW, followed by MO.

am glad you are staying. Don't give up, yours and everyones input is invaluable. I will read the statements in this order even though their use of the english language is going to do me in

jd wrote:

aquila wrote:I read all the rogatory statements over the last many hours (Leicestershire Police). Please read the Payne/Webber statements and as soon as you've done that read Matt Oldfield's.

I was so depressed after reading those particular statements that I determined to leave the forum. Thank you Marian for pointing out that it's worth reconsidering..and yes Marian you're right...anyone who reads them deserves a medal. Mine was a re-read. It's good to go back to basics.

I have read so much on this case. It often leads me to emotional outburst for the injustice of it all. It's not good to finger point and I am guilty of that on occasions as were previous posts yesterday that spooked me re Kate and Gerry. So from now on I want to stick to facts.

IMHO the rogatory statements that reveal the most information are those of DP, FP and DW, followed by MO.

am glad you are staying. Don't give up, yours and everyones input is invaluable. I will read the statements in this order even though their use of the english language is going to do me in

As in this one for example:

Reply "I mean, I think every night we saw all of each other, bar the Thursday, again, that was a different night."

"all of each other"?? Err...as in naked?

aquila wrote:

IMHO the rogatory statements that reveal the most information are those of DP, FP and DW, followed by MO.

Which begs this question: why were these four more candid than those others?

JT and partner Russell seem to be dropped into it (mccanns' plan) heavily, yet the Paynes were the ones who are matey with mccanns.
Were they unwittingly dropped into it because they were more gullible and nicest out of the group and unsuspecting. Or were they used?

It does make you wonder whether all their friends were in the know or they were dropped into it on the night after the mccanns had done the disposal?

FP's statements can be interpreted in two ways.
Report it as it was - meaning stick to relating it as is, according to the agreed plan to avoid arousing suspicions.
Or Report it as she knew it - meaning she wasn't aware the mccanns were up to something.

Either way it's hard to tell, her statements show either candidness or deviousness depending whether you believe she was in the know.

candyfloss wrote:
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
29 December 2011


FIONA PAYNE, TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS

For whom did they leave their patio door open therefore? Madeleine, in case of fire (which only became a serious risk after five days)? The Paynes (who did not look in on any one else's children either - ditto Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner)? Matthew Oldfield (who unexpectedly volunteered a 'fly past' and was then told he could go in through the open door)? Themselves (fit enough to run for miles that day but not to walk an extra twenty or thirty yards that night)? These options being equally unlikely, there remains a somewhat more sinister possibility, consistent with Kate McCanns perplexing observation, 'They've taken her.' (pronoun 'they': subject understood).

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

So are people wondering who the "they" could have been that the back door was left opened for?

And is this "they" known to everyone in the group? Or just a "they" who had come to do a cadaver-collection job?

It really is worth going right back to the beginning, once in a while. It is how a case review works in the Police.
The Senior officer appointed theoretically does not even speak to the SIO from the original investigation. S/he starts again, asking for the documents s/he would have expected to find had s/he been running the investigation.
And gently, ever so gently, they hope to tease something more from what was done, or to see a new line of enquiry.

Yes, a cold case review is about giving new eyes to go over old documents, starting from ground zero.

Will the new eyes see through their lies? Definitely so imo, because they were just too aplenty inconsistencies, irregularities, and odd behaviour ,all not in keeping with normal behavior of innocents.

But will they find the crucial bits of evidence that is fool-proof enough for prosecutors to present a convictable case in Court? Have the Yard spoken to the now defunct FSS, or is it within the scope of the Yard's duty to seek independent Forensics experts advice about the FSS works?

aiyoyo wrote:Yes, a cold case review is about giving new eyes to go over old documents, starting from ground zero.

Will the new eyes see through their lies? Definitely so imo, because they were just too aplenty inconsistencies, irregularities, and odd behaviour ,all not in keeping with normal behavior of innocents.

But will they find the crucial bits of evidence that is fool-proof enough for prosecutors to present a convictable case in Court? Have the Yard spoken to the now defunct FSS, or is it within the scope of the Yard's duty to seek independent Forensics experts advice about the FSS works?

I think this has hit the nail on the head. Unless anything dug up is so concrete and incontrovertible it won't really get an airing. It's an all or nothing situation IMO. We all know there is plenty of stuff to re-open it in a real world, but these days we seem to exist in a state controlled parallel universe where the goal posts a continuously being shifted.

The PJ have witheld a lot of documents from the public domain and I am sure that these documents contain vital information which would probably lead us straight to the truth

I read somewhere a few months ago, that in the Irwin statement which has never been released, the PJ were asking her part comment deleted

Something that I ponder on when considering if there is anything "dynamite" in the withheld files is twofold. Firstly, if it were substantial, why were charges not brought? If it was due to pressure or interference from others in high places, then it leads to the second issue of, why would that concealment be withdrawn upon another evaluation of the material? Presumably the machine that drives the review, or at least the paymasters of that review, have had no real cause to change their alliance.

Over 5 years ago I was the victim of an armed robbery yet I can still remember the events leading up to, during and after the crime. I could re-tell anybody the same exact details from start to finish without using err, umm, you know, sort of etc.

I could also more than likely give the same statement more or less to the Police. I can because I know the crime happened.

Never in a million years do you forget what happened, when, where and who was there and what they were doing. You never waver or falter.

It is very hard to read Their statements without laughing... i belive There are more errr, tut (wth is tut anyway ? Who says that ?) emmm, You know,You know (no they dont know,thats why Them asking You ) ..than there are real words in their statements... And the fact that every single one of Them are doing this show very clear to me they all know the truth and try to say as little as possible ..as true friends in a real situasion telling the truth would do the opposit..telling as Much as they can as fast as possible....

For me its unbelieveble they still are walking free..Wonder how Much the t7 are paid each year to keep the secret..k+g need they fund for many reasons, its expensive living a Lie that big....

jd wrote:The PJ have witheld a lot of documents from the public domain and I am sure that these documents contain vital information which would probably lead us straight to the truth

I read somewhere a few months ago, that in the Irwin statement which has never been released, the PJ were asking her part comment deleted

jd, if the Irwin statement has never been released, you are merely speculating to it's contents, which is not helpful to the integrity of this forum.

aiyoyo wrote: It does make you wonder whether all their friends were in the know or they were dropped into it on the night after the mccanns had done the disposal?

I thought the Paynes would have come out of it best of all if it hadn't been for the Gasper statement. They seemed to all have had selective amnesia especially when it came to checking times and accounting for their day to day activities. Plus they were the responsible ones with their 2 way monitor leaving the Oldfields and Tanner\O'Brien's exposed to possible neglect charges. The only thing DP needed to remember was dropping into the apartment and witnessing the great family moment. By contrast the other 4 had to work hard to account for everything particularly Matt who strangely never had to justify why he didn't visually check M after in fact going in to do a visual check and Jane who had a lot of pressure with the Bundleman story.

If things were as stated and the McCanns were friendliest with the Paynes then why did the other 4 shoulder most of the burden and why have there been no overt signs of anger or hostility since? And why do the McCanns have such faith in these acquaintances 4+ years along? It's puzzling.

Molly wrote:

aiyoyo wrote: It does make you wonder whether all their friends were in the know or they were dropped into it on the night after the mccanns had done the disposal?

I thought the Paynes would have come out of it best of all if it hadn't been for the Gasper statement. They seemed to all have had selective amnesia especially when it came to checking times and accounting for their day to day activities. Plus they were the responsible ones with their 2 way monitor leaving the Oldfields and Tanner\O'Brien's exposed to possible neglect charges. The only thing DP needed to remember was dropping into the apartment and witnessing the great family moment. By contrast the other 4 had to work hard to account for everything particularly Matt who strangely never had to justify why he didn't visually check M after in fact going in to do a visual check and Jane who had a lot of pressure with the Bundleman story.

If things were as stated and the McCanns were friendliest with the Paynes then why did the other 4 shoulder most of the burden and why have there been no overt signs of anger or hostility since? And why do the McCanns have such faith in these acquaintances 4+ years along? It's puzzling.

Maybe the Paynes were left off the hook from cross checking because they had babies monitor. Since they were the only ones who did not need to check at all there was no reason to ask them to check on mccanns' children or it would look rather odd, that this couple who didnt have to check on their own were obliged to be inconvenienced to go and check on the mccanns children.

The thing is none of them in their rog interview mentioned they went and check on their own children on the Thursday. The cross checking seems to be a one way thing in mccanns direction. If that does not It's like putting out a piece of cheese and immediately you smell rat.

It would be rather odd if the Paynes were not the first people in the group mccanns went to for help considering their close relationship. So like I said Fiona Payne was going along with kate's games rather well. If it wasn't that then could it be she was kept in the dark? Surely its not credible that kate will involve Jane and not Fiona in her dark secret.

....we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen,

Put them to sleep vs put them to bed? Subconscious talking or bad choice of word?

I

The thing is none of them in their rog interview mentioned they went and check on their own children on the Thursday. The cross checking seems to be a one way thing in mccanns direction. If that does not It's like putting out a piece of cheese and immediately you smell rat.

The other thing is the mccanns never seemed to check in on their friends kids either, just their own, yet their friends checked in on theirs

Bearing in mind the distance between the Tapas Bar and the apartment, would having a baby monitor have kept the Paynes free from questions about their responsibility had there been a fire in their apartment that night?

aquila wrote:I read all the rogatory statements over the last many hours (Leicestershire Police). Please read the Payne/Webber statements and as soon as you've done that read Matt Oldfield's.

I was so depressed after reading those particular statements that I determined to leave the forum. Thank you Marian for pointing out that it's worth reconsidering..and yes Marian you're right...anyone who reads them deserves a medal. Mine was a re-read. It's good to go back to basics.

I have read so much on this case. It often leads me to emotional outburst for the injustice of it all. It's not good to finger point and I am guilty of that on occasions as were previous posts yesterday that spooked me re Kate and Gerry. So from now on I want to stick to facts.

IMHO the rogatory statements that reveal the most information are those of DP, FP and DW, followed by MO.

aquila, I'm so glad that you've decided to stay:) Thank you. We need you. Madeleine needs you. There is absolutely no doubt that lies have been told about her disappearance and she needs you to speak for her.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Something that I ponder on when considering if there is anything "dynamite" in the withheld files is twofold. Firstly, if it were substantial, why were charges not brought? If it was due to pressure or interference from others in high places, then it leads to the second issue of, why would that concealment be withdrawn upon another evaluation of the material? Presumably the machine that drives the review, or at least the paymasters of that review, have had no real cause to change their alliance.

I ponder that too, and
my view is there is strong evidence sufficient to take it to trial in most countries including the UK, but Portugal systems are quite peculiar from what I read; and while they need to be more safe proof of a successful conviction I believe in this instance the PP who shelved it did it on multiple reasons. Part of the reasons may be a clouding of personal judgement due to internal politics. Not external influence or external political interference but internal politicking is my take if we were to take the 2nd instance injunction court judges' statement into consideration.

I believe those 3 wise men said something to the effect that same files viewed by another PP might end up in a different position, and also something about Amaral's theory was valid being expert in that field and in a better position and so forth.


IMHV, the mccanns high profile media intrusion causes politicking behind the scenes within the Portugal judiciaries; a change in certain personnel would make a hugh difference to the going forward of this case.
When that happens the mccanns spinning in the UK media good to shield them in UK wont do them a fat lot of good in the PT.
Of course when that happens their lawyers are going to make big bucks in the process. Besides the mccanns spinning has passed its sell by date.

I feel the Yard's review is taken strictly for the purpose of the UK government - for them to be in a discerned position to take informed view on how to handle the mccanns relentless pressure on them; and possibly with a view to stop their sickening relentless spins once and for all. It's a review in a political admin sense rather than crime investigation sense.

Should the Yard uncover evidence about the Fund Fraud, as in having irrefutable proof that the mccanns detectives were bogus rendering the mccanns dodgy and their theory bogus then that is the moment for the UK government to decide how they want to handle the prosecutable evidence.

I don't see how the UK can prosecute them for fund fraud in the UK independent of their other crimes in Portugal since both are interlinked whereby one leads to the other. A trial in UK for one crime is impossible without dragging their other crimes into the open jeopardising the case for the Portugal counterparts - its a delicately complicated and complex process to do that and there is no way round it imo.

The way I see it, the Yard will either have to pass over the info to Portugal side to reopen the case or have the power to try the collective crimes moved to the UK for trial - the former is feasible while the latter bureaucratically messy if not impossible.

The success of having the case moved to UK for trial may be historical first, but then it will only be in keeping with all the rest of unprecedented historical first where the mccanns are concerned of which most are of their own creation.

aiyoyo wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Something that I ponder on when considering if there is anything "dynamite" in the withheld files is twofold. Firstly, if it were substantial, why were charges not brought? If it was due to pressure or interference from others in high places, then it leads to the second issue of, why would that concealment be withdrawn upon another evaluation of the material? Presumably the machine that drives the review, or at least the paymasters of that review, have had no real cause to change their alliance.

I ponder that too, and
my view is there is strong evidence sufficient to take it to trial in most countries including the UK, but Portugal systems are quite peculiar from what I read; and while they need to be more safe proof of a successful conviction I believe in this instance the PP who shelved it did it on multiple reasons. Part of the reasons may be a clouding of personal judgement due to internal politics. Not external influence or external political interference but internal politicking is my take if we were to take the 2nd instance injunction court judges' statement into consideration.

I believe those 3 wise men said something to the effect that same files viewed by another PP might end up in a different position, and also something about Amaral's theory was valid being expert in that field and in a better position and so forth.


IMHV, the mccanns high profile media intrusion causes politicking behind the scenes within the Portugal judiciaries; a change in certain personnel would make a hugh difference to the going forward of this case.
When that happens the mccanns spinning in the UK media good to shield them in UK wont do them a fat lot of good in the PT.
Of course when that happens their lawyers are going to make big bucks in the process. Besides the mccanns spinning has passed its sell by date.

I feel the Yard's review is taken strictly for the purpose of the UK government - for them to be in a discerned position to take informed view on how to handle the mccanns relentless pressure on them; and possibly with a view to stop their sickening relentless spins once and for all. It's a review in a political admin sense rather than crime investigation sense.

Should the Yard uncover evidence about the Fund Fraud, as in having irrefutable proof that the mccanns detectives were bogus rendering the mccanns dodgy and their theory bogus then that is the moment for the UK government to decide how they want to handle the prosecutable evidence.

I don't see how the UK can prosecute them for fund fraud in the UK independent of their other crimes in Portugal since both are interlinked whereby one leads to the other. A trial in UK for one crime is impossible without dragging their other crimes into the open jeopardising the case for the Portugal counterparts - its a delicately complicated and complex process to do that and there is no way round it imo.

The way I see it, the Yard will either have to pass over the info to Portugal side to reopen the case or have the power to try the collective crimes moved to the UK for trial - the former is feasible while the latter bureaucratically messy if not impossible.

The success of having the case moved to UK for trial may be historical first, but then it will only be in keeping with all the rest of unprecedented historical first where the mccanns are concerned of which most are of their own creation.

The part I've highlighted has a very logical ring to it. This case has dominated far more than it's fair share of time, media exposure, legal actions, visits to Popes and Oprahs and so forth. The globe-trotting, accusations of no-one jumping fast enough to the beat of the McCanns drum, well we all know what's happened in the last four years. Because of all the media coverage we all deep down know that whatever evidence may or may not be out there, the public became so engaged with this case that it would be damn near impossible to find a judge or jury who was "untainted" by the huge publicity machine that has been bulldozing it's way across the front pages for years (which is probably a big motivation!).

There must be those high up who are fed up of being hectored and bored by this couple, and so I think you could be right - this review might be part of a campaign to finally back heel this pair into the obscurity from whence they came.

aiyoyo

You wrote:
"
....we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen,


Put them to sleep vs put them to bed? Subconscious talking or bad choice of word?"

This stood out for me as well and I mentioned it on another site. I am a little surprised that Dr. Roberts never made mention of this.

IMO this is what "binds" the T7 to the McCanns and why they had "a pact of silence". They had no choice.

I

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

You wrote:
"
....we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen,


Put them to sleep vs put them to bed? Subconscious talking or bad choice of word?"

This stood out for me as well and I mentioned it on another site. I am a little surprised that Dr. Roberts never made mention of this.

IMO this is what "binds" the T7 to the McCanns and why they had "a pact of silence". They had no choice.

Nice one! I'd missed that - must say, that when I had doctor-friends they were jolly free with the sleeping tablets for themselves as well.