T7 gave evidence at a 'mock trial' behind closed doors?

by **HiDeHo** 22.02.12 16:30

Oldfields, Tanner and O'Brien Left PdL on May 16/17 and the Paynes left on May 22nd.

I do not recall seeing this before

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Daily Mail May 14th 2007

Around 10 British people, including the McCanns and their friends, have been re-interviewed to clarify their statements in recent days.

This week the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK.

The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.

Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign.

"It is recorded by video and kept sealed then released during the hearing," he said.

"If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case.

"It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."

But the McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.

by **tigger** 22.02.12 17:08

I did come across it, but not as early as 2007. That should be interesting, considering the wildly different accounts we've already seen. E.g.Payne's version, versus Kate's. JT is easily one of the most interesting in that she has either total recall or acute memory loss.

DP did type out a three page timeline for all the T7 but I rather think they weren't allowed to take this into the interview rooms and I hope, certainly not into the court room.
I also think that David Payne didn't come up with him visiting Kate and seeing 'all three' of the children until a later date than the middle of May.

Somehow I also think that the T9 are no longer the firm friends they were five years ago - not so 'into' each other as it were.

by Daisy 22.02.12 22:40

HiDeHo wrote:Oldfields, Tanner and O'Brien Left PdL on May 16/17 and the Paynes left on May 22nd.

I do not recall seeing this before

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Daily Mail May 14th 2007

Around 10 British people, including the McCanns and their friends, have been re-interviewed to clarify their statements in recent days.

This week the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK.

The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.

Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign.

"It is recorded by video and kept sealed then released during the hearing," he said.

"If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case.

"It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."

But the McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.

Thanks HiDeHo, the picture of Madeleine in the link you've provided has been so grotesequely altered that the wee girl depicted looks more like a blow up doll than a real life child. That photo is so unnatural. Why on earth was this image of Madeleine spread worldwide by all the mainstream media outlets? It doesn't look anything like the other images we've been presented with of MBM. The child in the iconic poster shot does not exist (imo) so how sick to give such a false misleading image of a missing child?

by **tigger** 23.02.12 7:10

Daisy wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Oldfields, Tanner and O'Brien Left PdL on May 16/17 and the Paynes left on May 22nd.

I do not recall seeing this before

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Daily Mail May 14th 2007

Around 10 British people, including the McCanns and their friends, have been re-interviewed to clarify their statements in recent days.

This week the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK.

The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.

Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign.

"It is recorded by video and kept sealed then released during the hearing," he said.

"If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case.

"It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."

But the McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.

Thanks HiDeHo, the picture of Madeleine in the link you've provided has been so grotesequely altered that the wee girl depicted looks more like a blow up doll than a real life child. That photo is so unnatural. Why on earth was this image of Madeleine spread worldwide by all the mainstream media outlets? It doesn't look anything like the other images we've been presented with of MBM. The child in the iconic poster shot does not exist (imo) so how sick to give such a false misleading image of a missing child?

In the first place they wouldn't need to go and react to sightings, since the coloboma is very rare and therefore this was added -also as a marketing ploy.
In the second place both early pictures of Maddie would have been more like the substitute who was most likely used.
In the third place: Maddie wasn't all that beautiful - just an average toddler - and beauty was particularly stressed by Jon Corner, David Payne and TM, mind if' she'd been mine, I'd have found her gorgeous anyway (there's a topic on 'was Kate obsessed with beautiful children?).
And ask yourself - which type of person would find that photograph most appealing? Parted lips, hint of make up on the eyelashes, a porcelain skin...she looks like a doll. Imo it would appeal most to the same people who'd like the blue eyeshadow photograph.

by Liz Eagles 23.02.12 8:54

snippet from Tigger's post

"And ask yourself - which type of person would find that photograph most appealing? Parted lips, hint of make up on the eyelashes, a porcelain skin...she looks like a doll. Imo it would appeal most to the same people who'd like the blue eyeshadow photograph"

The iconic photo must either have been photoshopped to extreme or it took one hell of a photographer with professional lighting to remove the bags (I'm sorry for using the word bags as someone who commented got the right word for it but I can't remember it) from underneath Madeleine's eyes as is evidenced on most other photos. And then there is the camera angle...yuk..that is definite candy for undesirables IMO. I know nothing about paedophile sites but I'm interested to know how many of Madeleine's photographs could potentially or indeed have appeared on them after the release of IMO these tasteless photographs. With TM's resources and many contacts (CEOP in particular) there must be a way of trawling the net.

I'm sorry if I've strayed from the topic. I'm spending the morning reading Gerry's blogs so it is relevant to the media topic in a way. If ever there is something to put one in a bad mood it is reading Gerry's blogs. What a narcissistic load of twaddle (IMO). Definitely the masters of spin, my head is spinning. Name-dropping, brushing shoulders with important people, strategy, campaign,...grrrr...but it's good to go back to the beginning.

by russiandoll 23.02.12 16:10

from tigger's post:
DP did type out a three page timeline for all the T7

I think he would have been told firmly to bin it as he can surely only mention his own actions or actions by others he witnessed?
otherwise people could be verifying things on the basis of hearsay.

by **tigger** 23.02.12 17:33

russiandoll wrote: from tigger's post:
DP did type out a three page timeline for all the T7

I think he would have been told firmly to bin it as he can surely only mention his own actions or actions by others he witnessed?
otherwise people could be verifying things on the basis of hearsay.

No, from the first the timelines - three in total - were a concerted effort. Two on the evening itself on Maddie's colouring book and the last neatly typed effort probably after consulting with all the T9. Then they all had the same song sheet so to speak. Even so, the RI's prove that reality and imagination were in conflict.

by russiandoll 23.02.12 18:05

DP did type out a three page timeline for all the T7 but I rather think they weren't allowed to take this into the interview rooms and I hope, certainly not into the court room.

I was agreeing with you here so am scratching my head ! What is your no to me referring to? That they were allowed to take statements which they had all agreed on into police interviews? I know they made a concerted effort to get their stories synchronised, they surely were not allowed to take paperwork to refer to into an interview?! This must go against every rule in the book if it happened. As for the RIs they were allowed to refresh their memories I believe, this would not have been needed had a year not been allowed to go by before the LP interviewed them. I cant believe that something typed by one of the group was given any credence when there was collusion going on. Even if DP stated truthfully [ doubtful] he had composed this himself, he cannot vouch for what others said and did unlesss he was present to witness it, and he logically could not have seen or heard what all members of the group did that evening.

by **tigger** 23.02.12 18:14

russiandoll wrote:DP did type out a three page timeline for all the T7 but I rather think they weren't allowed to take this into the interview rooms and I hope, certainly not into the court room.

I was agreeing with you here so am scratching my head ! What is your no to me referring to? That they were allowed to take statements which they had all agreed on into police interviews? I know they made a concerted effort to get their stories synchronised, they surely were not allowed to take paperwork to refer to into an interview?! This must go against every rule in the book if it happened. As for the RIs they were allowed to refresh their memories I believe, this would not have been needed had a year not been allowed to go by before the LP interviewed them. I cant believe that something typed by one of the group was given any credence when there was collusion going on. Even if DP stated truthfully [ doubtful] he had composed this himself, he cannot vouch for what others said and did unlesss he was present to witness it, and he logically could not have seen or heard what all members of the group did that evening.

Sorry, I meant that he most likely conferred with the others on the last timeline as well as the fact that the first two were drawn up with at least two or three of the T7 present.
You're right, the PJ were amazed that the T7 thought they could just take the timeline with them for the original statements. They were told no...It's anyone's guess what's in the mock trial statements, since I take it that must be a second set of statements, before they left Portugal.

by TheHare 24.02.12 20:45

I vaguely remember reading something about this, and if memory serves me correctly, I also read somewhere that there had been a failure in the recording equipment !

by Gillyspot 24.02.12 21:52

TheHare wrote:I vaguely remember reading something about this, and if memory serves me correctly, I also read somewhere that there had been a failure in the recording equipment !

Could you have a search and share this information as it is new to me.

by Guest 24.02.12 22:04

Gillyspot wrote:
TheHare wrote:I vaguely remember reading something about this, and if memory serves me correctly, I also read somewhere that there had been a failure in the recording equipment !

Could you have a search and share this information as it is new to me.

Think it is the rogatory interview of Russell O'Brien by the leicestershire police where the interviews were recorded, but it turned out for his the equipment wasn't working properly... great police work I must say....

This is part of the statement:

On the 8th April 2008 officers from Leicestershire Constabulary interviewed me in order to clarify certain points and in order for me to provide further information where possible. The interviews were visually recorded, however I understand that due to technical difficulties the equipment failed to record. I have been informed that these questions arise from an official request from the Portuguese authorities. I am aware that my statement will be subject to the Portuguese Criminal Code in addition to English Law.
I have been informed that this statement has been made from the monitoring notes which were taken at the time of the interviews being conducted.
I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 25.02.12 6:41

It's unlikely that an exception was made for ROB so it looks as if at all the rogatory interviews they were allowed to have a look at their previous statements. That is ridiculous, is this normal practice?

In any case the faulty video of the witness statements (although I'm not sure that this is implied in the 'mock trial') refers to the RI, not the 15th may 07.

by Gillyspot 25.02.12 9:02

I have been thinking and the "mock trial" could have been where the 3 tapas friends had to share their statements in front of Murat in the police station.

by **tigger** 25.02.12 9:10

Gillyspot wrote:I have been thinking and the "mock trial" could have been where the 3 tapas friends had to share their statements in front of Murat in the police station.

Is that why the topic 'Robert Murat against JT?' is back? Would be very interesting.
Imo Murat wouldn't sue anyone, he had enough compensation and it would be very unwise of him to take anyone to court.
But no doubt he harbours resentment against the people who testified they saw him. Probably not part of the original deal - TM was lucky that the press paid him such a large sum - it didn't need to come from anywhere else, such as BK or the Fund.