Re: Tapas 7

by Verdi 23.05.16 12:59

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Interesting paragraph Verdi....

a few things jump out to me... Especially this one... Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. Now if this had been told to me & it was my daughter missing... I surely would not liken it to "Life on Mars"... I WOULD be running all the way to the PJ and demanding what or why they thought that, AND questioning Matt etc after all when a child goes missing wouldn't everyone be under suspicion ?
Exactly - mouth like a parish oven springs to mind, or if you prefer a more politically correct path, like the black 'ole of Calcutta.

If there be any truth in this, one would expect rage to take over rather than blubbering hysterically because the nasty policeman said 'horrible things about you. This bunch of new-age men are a bit milksoppy aren't they? What with Oldfield apparently wailing like a banshee and O'Brien unable to speak for himself - perhaps it's girly stuff?

On the other hand - he could have been terrified for some reason? Remember how they collectively declined the offer to attend a re-construction hosted by the PJ - amongst other reasons, because they were worried about what might happen if they returned to Portugal?
I wonder what they thought "might" happen?
IF Matt did act this way, seems that's likely to be through fear. Don't you think?
So what could he be so "fearful" of?
Is that why JT fingered RM?
Not into new age,good strong shoulders :emo3: get you through most things!
Oh to be a fly on the wall...

Reading between the lines, I think they feared being arrested - why they might have thought that likely, your guess is as good as mine.

It kicked off very low key with minor issues like childcare/travel arrangements/timing blah blah blah. However, as time progressed and they realised they couldn't so easily crawl out of the situation, it all became more intense. This is a little summary of their collective innermost fears nicely put together by the Tanner/O'Brien alliance in correspondence with Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior of Leicestershire Constabulary..

23rd April 2008

Re: Re-enactment of Events of 3/5/2008

Dear Suart, Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.

It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.

After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.

However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, and the PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:

' publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

' publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.

We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.

Yours sincerely,

Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner
----------

Read on McDuff..

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

by plebgate 23.05.16 13:09

Maybe its me, but I cannot see how telling the truth of what happened that night during a reconstruction would damn anyone, unless of course the reconstruction would highlight any discrepancies given in the original interviews?

IIRC Lee Rainbow said that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy in his statement. A British policeman, not Pt. I am surprised Stu didn't write back and remind them of that.

by dottyaussie 23.05.16 13:14

Exactly Plebgate. If they didn't in fact do the checks etc that night as they said in their statements then that would blow the whole thing apart !!

by MayMuse 23.05.16 18:19

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Interesting paragraph Verdi....

a few things jump out to me... Especially this one... Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. Now if this had been told to me & it was my daughter missing... I surely would not liken it to "Life on Mars"... I WOULD be running all the way to the PJ and demanding what or why they thought that, AND questioning Matt etc after all when a child goes missing wouldn't everyone be under suspicion ?
Exactly - mouth like a parish oven springs to mind, or if you prefer a more politically correct path, like the black 'ole of Calcutta.

If there be any truth in this, one would expect rage to take over rather than blubbering hysterically because the nasty policeman said 'horrible things about you. This bunch of new-age men are a bit milksoppy aren't they? What with Oldfield apparently wailing like a banshee and O'Brien unable to speak for himself - perhaps it's girly stuff?

On the other hand - he could have been terrified for some reason? Remember how they collectively declined the offer to attend a re-construction hosted by the PJ - amongst other reasons, because they were worried about what might happen if they returned to Portugal?
I wonder what they thought "might" happen?
IF Matt did act this way, seems that's likely to be through fear. Don't you think?
So what could he be so "fearful" of?
Is that why JT fingered RM?
Not into new age,good strong shoulders :emo3: get you through most things!
Oh to be a fly on the wall...
Reading between the lines, I think they feared being arrested - why they might have thought that likely, your guess is as good as mine.

It kicked off very low key with minor issues like childcare/travel arrangements/timing blah blah blah. However, as time progressed and they realised they couldn't so easily crawl out of the situation, it all became more intense. This is a little summary of their collective innermost fears nicely put together by the Tanner/O'Brien alliance in correspondence with Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior of Leicestershire Constabulary..

23rd April 2008

Re: Re-enactment of Events of 3/5/2008

Dear Suart, Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.

It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.

After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.

However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, and the PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:

' publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

' publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.

We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.

Yours sincerely,

Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner
----------

Read on McDuff..

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

Thanks Verdi... I can't remember seeing that letter before (or maybe I forgot) so will read more.

by whodunit 23.05.16 18:45

plebgate wrote:Maybe its me, but I cannot see how telling the truth of what happened that night during a reconstruction would damn anyone, unless of course the reconstruction would highlight any discrepancies given in the original interviews?

IIRC Lee Rainbow said that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy in his statement. A British policeman, not Pt. I am surprised Stu didn't write back and remind them of that.

Well yes, absolutely the bold. It would prove that their timeline is ludicrous™. It would prove that their statements simply do not sync up and even contradict each other in certain aspects.

by Realist 23.05.16 19:26

23rd April 2008

Re: Re-enactment of Events of 3/5/2008

Dear Suart, Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.

It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.

After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.

However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, and the PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:

' publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

' publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.

We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.

Yours sincerely,

Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner
----------

Pretty much par for the course and on the lines I have stated their position to be. For instance, not wishing to do the McCanns any harm, helping them to a limited degree, being non committal, etc. etc. whilst drawing the line at implicating themselves in any definitive mode.

I'd also be very surprised if this missive was drafted by either Russell O'Brien or Jane Tanner. Its got the fingerprints of PR men all over it.

by plebgate 23.05.16 19:55

Imo there is no thought for Maddie in their letter Realist. Helping their friends to a degree, I would have tried to help MADDIE to a full degree, but there again we are all different.

by Liz Eagles 23.05.16 20:05

It didn't stop Jane Tanner doing a McCann video reconstruction though did it. Jane Tanner was perfectly at ease to help out in a McCann controlled environment.

by plebgate 23.05.16 20:05

snipped from the letter to Stu -

"We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation."

What would have happened had any other friends of persons of interest/arguidos sent a letter like that to the police involving a very serious crime?

Lee Rainbow thought that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy. So has his advice been ignored? If so, WHY?

by Verdi 23.05.16 23:29

aquila wrote:It didn't stop Jane Tanner doing a McCann video reconstruction though did it. Jane Tanner was perfectly at ease to help out in a McCann controlled environment.

Exactly - under their terms. They even went along with the farcical re-enactment staged by Crimewatch during the October 2013 special, more to the point the Crimewatch re-enactment was based on the groups own version of events - minus the Paynes.

The correspondence between the Tapas group and Stuart Prior is indicative of their calling the shots. This must be the crime of all time - not in terms of Madeleine's disappearance per se but the way the aftermath was handled, or should I say controlled.

by Verdi 23.05.16 23:34

MayMuse wrote:
Thanks Verdi... I can't remember seeing that letter before (or maybe I forgot) so will read more.

The whole sequence of events surrounding the proposed reconstruction is well worth the read. Enjoy! Good old Stu - what a pal and lifesaver.

by Verdi 23.05.16 23:45

plebgate wrote:Maybe its me, but I cannot see how telling the truth of what happened that night during a reconstruction would damn anyone, unless of course the reconstruction would highlight any discrepancies given in the original interviews?

IIRC Lee Rainbow said that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy in his statement. A British policeman, not Pt. I am surprised Stu didn't write back and remind them of that.

Are you plebgate - really? dance

The group all but admitted that they thought the request to stage a reconstruction was a ruse to get them back on Portuguese soil - and then arrest them! All I can say is they must have been standing on very shaky ground to even think that was likely. The final decision not to return was said to be advice from their lawyers - does every tom dick and harry out there in the real world have their very own lawyer on tap these days or was the McCanns lawyer/s (Smethurst?) available for group bookings?

Crux of the matter is I think, no way in a trillion years did the McCanns intend to return to Portugal for a reconstruction so, as it was a sort of I'll go if you go private arrangement, it wasn't difficult to organize.

by Realist 24.05.16 0:06

Verdi wrote:

The correspondence between the Tapas group and Stuart Prior is indicative of their calling the shots. This must be the crime of all time - not in terms of Madeleine's disappearance per se but the way the aftermath was handled, or should I say controlled.

Its not difficult to thwart a police force that have no power of arrest, no power of questioning etc, but perhaps most importantly, are not acting within their jurisdiction. Put colloquially, toothless. The only instance in which the British police could detain the McCanns would be if the Portuguese authorities issued a European Arrest Warrant.

That is the reason they caught the first available flight out of Portugal when permitted to do so.

by Verdi 24.05.16 0:14

Realist wrote:
Verdi wrote:

The correspondence between the Tapas group and Stuart Prior is indicative of their calling the shots. This must be the crime of all time - not in terms of Madeleine's disappearance per se but the way the aftermath was handled, or should I say controlled.
Its not difficult to thwart a police force that have no power of arrest, no power of questioning etc, but perhaps most importantly, are not acting within their jurisdiction. Put colloquially, toothless. The only instance in which the British police could detain the McCanns would be if the Portuguese authorities issued a European Arrest Warrant.

That is the reason they caught the first available flight out of Portugal when permitted to do so.

It was the PJ, the Portuguese police that proposed a reconstruction of events - not the home of Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior, Leicestershire Constabulary. The PJ had no intention of arresting any of the McCanns friends, they wanted them to attend a reconstruction. I made no mention of the McCanns being detained by either the PJ or the UK police.

You've lost me.

by MayMuse 24.05.16 4:18

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]... Caught the first available flight out of Portugal when permitted to do so???

We only have GM's word that they were given permission from the PJ that they could leave, do we not?
I recall the expresso interview, how "relieved" they looked, almost jolly yet still deflecting and twisting answers in response to any questions i.e. DNA, phone calls, texts etc etc...
Their manner appeared very strange, unnerving...they did not look like parents who had not long "lost" their daughter!

They were on home ground, they felt safe, untouchable even?
They would never go back to do a "reconstruction" not in a month of Sunday's, it would "reveal" too many discrepancies and they knew it! Anyway, they were far too busy "courting" the media.

Whose to say they "ran" with a little help from their "friends"...a political intervention? To get ~~them~~ out fast, I think they were still "arguidos" at that time or had it been "lifted" then? Or is it on "pause" due to the archival? I do find that "status process" confusing and stand to be corrected. Either way they "got out" as fast as you can say "Polly put the kettle on" winkwink

and didn't they skip all of the "palaver" that normal citizens have to pass through in an airport?

Madeleine was not at the forefront of their mind then was she? What happened to the can't leave Portugal without Madeleine?

All IMO

by plebgate 24.05.16 9:18

Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:Maybe its me, but I cannot see how telling the truth of what happened that night during a reconstruction would damn anyone, unless of course the reconstruction would highlight any discrepancies given in the original interviews?

IIRC Lee Rainbow said that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy in his statement. A British policeman, not Pt. I am surprised Stu didn't write back and remind them of that.
Are you plebgate - really?

The group all but admitted that they thought the request to stage a reconstruction was a ruse to get them back on Portuguese soil - and then arrest them! All I can say is they must have been standing on very shaky ground to even think that was likely. The final decision not to return was said to be advice from their lawyers - does every tom dick and harry out there in the real world have their very own lawyer on tap these days or was the McCanns lawyer/s (Smethurst?) available for group bookings?

Crux of the matter is I think, no way in a trillion years did the McCanns intend to return to Portugal for a reconstruction so, as it was a sort of I'll go if you go private arrangement, it wasn't difficult to organize.

Yes I am surprised verdi. Surely advice from such an accomplished officer as Mr. Rainbow should have been listened to or does a friend's opinion over-ride that?

by pennylane 24.05.16 9:56

plebgate wrote:
Verdi wrote:
plebgate wrote:Maybe its me, but I cannot see how telling the truth of what happened that night during a reconstruction would damn anyone, unless of course the reconstruction would highlight any discrepancies given in the original interviews?

IIRC Lee Rainbow said that Mr. should be re-interviewed because of discrepancy in his statement. A British policeman, not Pt. I am surprised Stu didn't write back and remind them of that.
Are you plebgate - really?

The group all but admitted that they thought the request to stage a reconstruction was a ruse to get them back on Portuguese soil - and then arrest them! All I can say is they must have been standing on very shaky ground to even think that was likely. The final decision not to return was said to be advice from their lawyers - does every tom dick and harry out there in the real world have their very own lawyer on tap these days or was the McCanns lawyer/s (Smethurst?) available for group bookings?

Crux of the matter is I think, no way in a trillion years did the McCanns intend to return to Portugal for a reconstruction so, as it was a sort of I'll go if you go private arrangement, it wasn't difficult to organize.
Yes I am surprised verdi. Surely advice from such an accomplished officer as Mr. Rainbow should have been listened to or does a friend's opinion over-ride that?

The McCanns knew a reconstruction would be deadly incriminating, as their ridiculous hustle and bustle timelines are too absurd for words. Not to mention Kate's 'whooshing' curtains, and Tanner's sighting at the top of the road in the dark. How the heck would she be able to walk past Wilkins and McCann without either of them seeing her, and then only she sees the phantom abductor in detail.

They are absolutely right, a reconstruction would have nailed the lot of them, and given full on credence to the blood and cadavor dog alerts. It didn't take a lawyer to advise them to run a thousand miles from that one! nah

by Verdi 24.05.16 15:32

MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]... Caught the first available flight out of Portugal when permitted to do so???

We only have GM's word that they were given permission from the PJ that they could leave, do we not?
I recall the expresso interview, how "relieved" they looked, almost jolly yet still deflecting and twisting answers in response to any questions i.e. DNA, phone calls, texts etc etc...
Their manner appeared very strange, unnerving...they did not look like parents who had not long "lost" their daughter!

They were on home ground, they felt safe, untouchable even?
They would never go back to do a "reconstruction" not in a month of Sunday's, it would "reveal" too many discrepancies and they knew it! Anyway, they were far too busy "courting" the media.

Whose to say they "ran" with a little help from their "friends"...a political intervention? To get ~~them~~ out fast, I think they were still "arguidos" at that time or had it been "lifted" then? Or is it on "pause" due to the archival? I do find that "status process" confusing and stand to be corrected. Either way they "got out" as fast as you can say "Polly put the kettle on" and didn't they skip all of the "palaver" that normal citizens have to pass through in an airport?

Madeleine was not at the forefront of their mind then was she? What happened to the can't leave Portugal without Madeleine?

All IMO

More transparent than the Fund accounts and the awning that seperated their view from the Tapas restaurant and apartment 5a. In days of yore there was frequent murmurings of their having already planned to leave Portugal before the arguido alert -strange coincidence that, considering they vowed and declared that couldn't leave PdL until they found the little lost girl. Yet there can be no doubt that they did a runner ...

shark

Talking of being on home ground - something that never ceases to amaze me is Gerald having just landed back at Blighty, reading a script to the waiting press !?!

by Verdi 24.05.16 15:41

Continued..

THIS is the full text of a statement read by Gerry McCann on arriving at East Midlands Airport today [9th September 2007]

He said: "Today Kate, Sean, Amelie and I have returned home, as we planned a while ago.

"We are returning to Britain after careful thought.

"We want the twins, as much as is reasonably possible, to live an ordinary life in their home country, and want to consider the events of the last few days, which have been so deeply disturbing.

"While we are returning to the UK, it does not mean we are giving up our search for Madeleine.

"As parents, we cannot give up on our daughter until we know what has happened. We have to keep doing everything we can to find her.

"Kate and I wish to thank once again all those who have supported us over the past days, weeks and months.

"But we would like to ask for our privacy to be respected now that we have returned home.

"Our return is with the full agreement of the Portuguese authorities and police.

"Portuguese law prohibits us from commenting further on the police investigation.

"Despite there being so much we wish to say we are unable to do so, except to say this: we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter, Madeleine."

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

by pennylane 24.05.16 15:46

Very presidential, him stepping off the plane and immediately addressing the nation [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by sandancer 24.05.16 17:47

"But we would like to ask for our privacy to be respected now that we have returned home" In that case don't pay to be on the front page of the papers,park your backsides on every sofa and appear on every t.v show you can both here and abroad ! You came home with 2 of your 3 children spend time with them !

by Verdi 24.05.16 23:50

pennylane wrote:Very presidential, him stepping off the plane and immediately addressing the nation [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I blame the photo-shoot outside the White House - he's never been the same since.

Still, I would of thought that such a subject would come straight from the heart and mind - not stylo scribblings on a piece of scrap paper. :frown:

by Verdi 24.05.16 23:59

sandancer wrote:"But we would like to ask for our privacy to be respected now that we have returned home" In that case don't pay to be on the front page of the papers,park your backsides on every sofa and appear on every t.v show you can both here and abroad ! You came home with 2 of your 3 children spend time with them !

Same criteria as it's always been, even when they muscled their way into the Leveson affair - our way is the only way. The interview with Jeremy Paxman exposed the man McCann for what he really is in my opinion..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [@ 45 seconds]

What's so funny you supercilious swine - I bet Jeremy Paxman felt like punching him on the snout.

by MayMuse 25.05.16 2:01

JP had him sussed IMO

Jenemy Jemeny ... Devils ad er response...a bit flustered there Prof McCann!? yes

There was one where he addressed the journo's about returning to work and CM could be seen on the sidelines as if he was watching his 'student'? That one was very odd, When it aired I was left thinking who on earth does he think he is and why is returning to work so newsworthy? Yep still think it's odd!!!

by Columbo 25.05.16 11:05

Verdi wrote:
sandancer wrote:"But we would like to ask for our privacy to be respected now that we have returned home" In that case don't pay to be on the front page of the papers,park your backsides on every sofa and appear on every t.v show you can both here and abroad ! You came home with 2 of your 3 children spend time with them !
Same criteria as it's always been, even when they muscled their way into the Leveson affair - our way is the only way. The interview with Jeremy Paxman exposed the man McCann for what he really is in my opinion..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [@ 45 seconds]

What's so funny you supercilious swine - I bet Jeremy Paxman felt like punching him on the snout.

At about 02:35 mins GM says when he saw the large media presence on 4 May that he was filled with dread about doorstepping, invasion of privacy, digging up things from university* and so on. Just hours after his daughter's alleged abduction this is what's on his mind? Really? nah

* Anything you want to mention, Gerry? winkwink

Log in for more topics