Documented Evidence

Verdi wrote:I often say something to the effect ... 'I tell lies' or 'I'm lying' when I've made a mistake, it's a figure os speech.  As I frequently use the word 'sorry' - too often I feel!

It doesn't signify.

I don't.
I will say my mistake.

It is always worth noting in a statement when someone says they are lying or include the words sorry, it is significant especially in relation to a crime.

One very interesting specimen doing the rounds of documented evidence is the McCanns friend Russell O'Brien. His rogatory interview that took place in April 2008, is a stand alone case study - short tempered to say the least.

By way of example..

Reply “So ‘I told him to go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’, erm, I’d obviously cleaned her up and changed her. Erm, I think maybe what I would do is I’d say ‘Matt came into my apartment and asked if I needed any help, I said ‘No, go back and tell Jane that Evie was unwell’’ and then, because I don’t think that I would have had time then, it was then I started, ‘I got her out, I gave her a quick wash in the bath, changed her, got the sheet off the cot’, erm, and at least, whether I started the washing machine then, but at least ‘I put them in the washing machine and then sat down with Evie’. But I want it in there that there was a bloody washing machine in the apartment”.

1578 “’Gave Evie a quick bath’'”
Reply “Yeah”.

1578 “’Changed her’'”
Reply “’Changed her’ and, erm, and MARK WARNER do stretch to cleaning facilities on their holidays, so”.

1578 “’And placed bed linen’'”
Reply “Excuse to sound so cynical, but. ‘And placed’, well I don’t think, I don’t think I necessarily put the, I got the dirty linen and her clothes off and at least I think, you know, there was a few bits of sick and I probably gave them a rinse off in the bath and then just shoved them in the washing machine, whether I started it then or did it later I’ve no idea. But, you know, since we’ve been”.

1578 “’And placed clothing’”.
Reply “Suspicion has been put on us because, erm, we didn’t request any further sheets. I think I’d rather have it in there that, erm”.

1578 “’Into the washing machine’”.
Reply “That even as a man I can use a washing machine, staggering though that may sound. Anyway, enough of that. I think, erm, say ‘Jane came back, we were in the flat together for a number of minutes’, it might be worth adding, so ‘Jane came back having eaten her meal at approximately twenty-one forty’ or something like that”.
....................

Further on Russell O'Brien has this observation to make on the performance by his friend Gerry McCann, on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007..

I could certainly hear him, I mean, even earlier than this, you could hear wails of despair, erm, you know, almost sort of inhuman wails of despair from Kate inside the flat on, erm, erm, on a number, a number of occasions when we went back and, erm, but this was the first time I’d actually really seen or heard Gerry, he was on the phone to, erm, a member of his family, erm, curled up really on the floor just outside the sliding patio door just sobbing uncontrollably and in between sobs just saying ‘They’ve’, you know, ‘Someone’s taken her’ or ‘Somebody’s bloody got her’, you know, ‘She’s gone’ and absolutely erm, you know, you know, for such a strong man to see him on the floor broken he was, he was incapable of even standing up, he was just lying on the floor and just repeating himself, there was so little he could, you know, there was just nothing else in there.

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

Well, I wasn't there so I can't comment with any conviction but considering Gerry McCann's imposing presence, all the conflicting witness statements and the documented sequence of events on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007, I find it difficult to believe that he was prostrated by anguish - unless he was play acting. Just like the reported incident of Gerry McCann falling to his knees like a praying Arab when he left the Ocean Club reception and the later incident of he and his missus 'praying like Arabs' back at apartment 5a.

Hobs wrote:

Verdi wrote:I often say something to the effect ... 'I tell lies' or 'I'm lying' when I've made a mistake, it's a figure os speech.  As I frequently use the word 'sorry' - too often I feel!

It doesn't signify.

I don't.
I will say my mistake.

It is always worth noting in a statement when someone says they are lying or include the words sorry, it is significant especially in relation to a crime.

I always say my bad when I'm wrong it helps to clear things up I have never heard the McCann's say they are sorry in relation to Maddie's disappearance if they did say sorry then I must of missed that.

A very well respected astute forum member this morning PM'd me with a thought that never before dawned on me.  I believe it to be very worthy of further scrutiny.

I'm in no doubt Russell O'Brien has been the subject of extensive discussion over the years but if we can just leave that behind and take a fresh look at all the evidence that suggests the man was very much involved in the aftermath of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  On this particular occasion I focus on the sick daughter and associated matters.

Trying to make reasonable sense of the rogatory interviews requires more patience and mental aptitude than I can muster but I will try again later today to determine the precise day O'Brien's daughter was sick - that is the focal point of this particular exercise.

At the moment, it would appear O'Brien himself can't be sure so this might prove to be a pointless exercise.  Looking at his witness statements taken by the PJ on 4th and 11th May 2007 and his rogatory interview he places the incident on both Tuesday 1st May 2007 and Thursday 3rd May 2007 - either way it raises questions as to why he thought it necessary to go into so much detail about a seemingly irrelevant incident, including the emphasis placed on the washing machine.

Jane Tanner thinks the incident happened on the Monday.

During the rogatory interview, as posted above, he is quite angry about media reports that centered around the rumour that he didn't request replacement bedding from the Ocean Club, nor did he send the soiled linen to the laundry service.  So .... why did Russell O'Brien take this issue to another level, drawing attention to his daughter's sickness and the washing of her clothes and the bed linen.

This has particularly piqued my attention because I've always considered Tuesday 1st May 2007 to be the pivotal mark of time when everything changed - forever

What exactly was Russell O'Brien doing back at his apartment on this specific occasion.  What was Jane Tanner doing, when she wasn't flip flopping the streets of Luz with plates of food, on this specific occasion.

I'm going out - this might take some time ....

I thank the forum member for bringing this to attention.

crusader wrote: The evidence would suggest the Tuesday.

I'm inclined to agree but I would really like to find something, however small, to confirm - or at least point positively in that direction.

I haven't given up on trying to fathom the witness statements, only put it on the back burner pending constitutional forbearance - certainly not just before or just after dinner.

NB: Pleased to see you've reconsidered posting

Verdi wrote:Russell O'Brien has been the subject of extensive discussion over the years [...] the man was very much involved in the aftermath of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  On this particular occasion I focus on the sick daughter and associated matters.

In the sticker book, in O'Brien's handwriting "Ella" is pencilled in at 9:20/5 then scribbled out, and again at 9:30. The second timeline has "poorly daughter" and this becomes settled in the PJ interviews as E**e. He would know as father and nurse what should properly be recorded, and this change suggests one version preferred over another. The difference may be that the original choice child could talk.

Thank you Jonal - you will be rewarded.

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

These copies are a bit clearer, with transcriptions underneath.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Timeline 1 (as per sticker book above)
 
8:45. pm
 
Matt returns 9.00-9.05 - listened at all 3
                               - all shutters down
 
Jerry 9.10-9.15 in the room + all well
                      ? did he check
 
9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child
 
9.30 - Russ. Ella Matt check all 3
 
9.35 - Matt check see twins
 
9.50 - Russ returns
 
9.55 - Kate realised Madeleine
 
10pm - Alarm raised

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Timeline 2 (as per sticker book above)
 
8.45pm. all assembled at poolside for food
 
9.00pm. Matt Oldfield listens at all 3 windows 5A, B, D ALL shutters down
 
9:15pm Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom
 
9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]
 
9.30 Russell O'Brien in 5D. Poorly daughter
  l
9.55pm
 
10:00pm. Alarm raised after Kate
 
Gerald




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

For the purpose of Jonal’s suggestion, which would make a lot of sense, Ella was 3 and Evie 1.
 
If one of the others had drawn up the two timelines you could perhaps understand them getting confused between the two girls, but the father not remembering which daughter had been ill and throwing up in their cot a few hours earlier!!!!!?????!!!

Also no mention of Jane relieving him after 15 minutes so he could finish his dinner.
 
Ella was signed in to Lobsters at 9.50 that morning.
 
Grace & Evie were in the same group (presumably ‘Toddler 1’) and although in the same room as Sean, Amelie and Lily, these last three were in ‘Toddler 2’ according to the crèche records. 
 
‘Toddler 1’ records are not in the files.

Russell O'Brian rogatory interview - 10th April 2008

Reply “Erm, it’s worth, it says, ‘I recall that there was a Trivia Quiz on either Tuesday or Wednesday evening, it was conducted by aerobics’, this is wrong. Erm, this was a way, if you had other information, of working out which day I wasn’t there. Erm, there was, the day that I didn’t, so either on the Monday or Tuesday, the day that I wasn’t there, erm, that, that I think it was that, you know, there was an aerobics instructor who, this is second-hand information, who was drumming up some support for, you know, some group called Pool Aerobics or something, from the people who were there. Erm, and the only reason I mentioned that was, if you had that information in other people’s statements about what night the quiz took place on, that was the night I wasn’t there”.

1578 “Right. ‘I recall there was a Trivia Quiz on either the Tuesday or Wednesday evening’”.

Reply “So that might be better, jumping back up to where I have said ‘I know on one of the evenings, either the Monday or Tuesday, I stayed in the flat with Evie, she wasn’t well and Jane brought her over’, so if at the end of that statement, that paragraph, it then says ‘this occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz, possibly conducted by the aerobics instructor’, I mean, that would, that would, erm. And then when, when the statements are, you know, are cross-referenced, then I think it would be probably fairly apparent to know which night that was”.

1578 “Then we can delete those two lines'”

Reply “And then the rest of it can go, yeah, that doesn’t, I mean, I might as well hop, hop back up to the, the other bit. But I wasn’t there, I don’t recall the Trivia Quiz, that was the night I wasn’t there, it is only speaking to other people, erm, that I know that that was, that that was the night I missed. On Wednesday, it might be worth saying that ‘Rachael was ill and stayed in the flat’”.

1578 “Right. So ‘On Wednesday Rachael was ill and stayed in the flat’'”

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

Russell O'Brien is the 'witness' whose rogatory interview was repeated on 10th April 2008 because the equipment failed to record the interview held on 8th April 2008. From thereon it starts to get wildly confusing, the documented interview proceeds thus..

Russell O'Brien

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.

I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me.

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

So effectively, it would appear the second rogatory interview was arranged to enable Russell O'Brien an opportunity to 'correct', from monitoring notes from the interview held only two days earlier. The rogatory process interviews, requested by the McCanns themselves, were used by the PJ to pose their own questions in order to clarify the many discrepancies and contradictions highlighted during their investigation.

In short, his second rogatory interview was designed to further clarify the first interview which was the purpose of the rogatory interviews in the first place, from the perspective of the PJ. Why was Russell O'Brien afforded such a privilege - it seems to me to be a very strange way of conducting an investigation into a very serious crime.

Whatever, if you compare Russell O'Brien's initial witness statements taken early May 2007, the recorded rogatory interview further confounds his version of events a millionfold. The same applies to the rest of the group.

My favourite snippet from Russell's rogatory is when he's describing what happened after the alarm was raised and they all ran to 5A;

Reply    “Yeah, ‘Some remained at the porch entry’, ‘at the’, erm, I keep saying porch, ‘at the foot of the stairs’, is probably the best one. 


The porch, of course is where the front door is situated. I wonder why he kept saying it?

That's not a porch, it's a balcony.

That's what they said, but there's no difinitive evidence that the patio doors were unlocked in my opinion.

I keep going back to Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview in order to make some sense out of the nonsensical. It lasts only a few minutes before I have to give up until the next time.

Here's an example..

“Yeah, and it’s slightly out of order here now. The next paragraph, erm, yeah, the wording, it’s a bit, it’s a bit sort of, I mean, there’s, there’s such a kind of, you know, uncomfortable coincidences next, in this next, but this is out of order, this is before we have gone and collected Evie. So after I’ve gone out to play tennis, erm, the next couple of paragraphs occur and then ‘We probably saw Madeleine at lunchtime and one of us probably collected Ella’, so it’s slightly out of, it’s slightly out of synch this”.



If this was aimed to confuse, he certainly achieved his objective with splendiferous éclat.

Reverting to the curious case of Russell O'Brien and the missing rogatory interview recordng, this is snipped from Jane Tanner's (his significant other) rogatory interview..

Jane Tanner's rogatory

4078 “And you’ve been given a letter from us outlining the objectives of this interview but if at any time you want to stop and ask a question that’s fine.”
Reply “Okay.”

4078 “It’s just a chat really.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “Obviously I’m going to try and licit as much information out of you as we can.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “And likewise I know you’re going to try and remember as much as you can.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “We’ve already discussed the fact that you wanted to refresh your memory, well you might want to refresh your memory.”
Reply “Mm.”

4078 “By looking at the statement that you gave previously.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “That’s fine but we’ve agreed before the interview that you’re going to do as much as you can prior to doing that.”
Reply “Yeah, yeah.”

4078 “And then when you get to the stage that you feel you want to do that just say so.”
Reply “Yeah, that’s fine yeah.”

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

What was/is it that makes this couple of apparent miscreants stand out over and above the rest of the group? Could it be Jane Tanner's sighting that makes them so special?

I seriously consider David Payne to be a key player, in addition to the McCanns, in this eternal charade. From the outside looking in, it would appear that the O'Brien/Tanner alliance also played a significant part.

Russell O'Brien rogatory

We were taken out of the airport and out onto the buses waiting nearby, we sat in the middle of the coach on the right hand side.  I recall that Charlotte PENNINGTON who was a nanny at Mark Warner was also sat on the bus- I believe that she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids.

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

Charlotte Pennington, the fantasist, wasn't included on Mark Warner's initial list of seasonal workers for the summer of 2007, as her late arrival in Portugal I think would confirm.  Her name appeared later.

Charlotte Pennington, in at least one of her contradictory statements/interviews, claimed to have been a qualified childminder and had been working in the UK.

Was she employed at any stage by one of the Tapas group as a nanny?
Did she travel to Portugal with a faction of the group as a babysitter?  
Did she and/or another nanny babysit the group's children throughout that holiday week?  
Does she know at least some of the circumstances surrounding the alleged disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Was she paid to mislead the investigation?

Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner again.  Or should that be the other way around as Jane Tanner would appear to be the leading light.

Russell O'Brien's witness statement - 11th May 2007

- Questioned whether problems exist between the couples, between each couple or with third parties, be these questions of professionalism or sentimental ones, or vices, states that he does not know of any.

Each couple has been together for many years and one of the points they have in common, is that there is an understanding between each couple and the couple between themselves. When he has the opportunity of meeting up with them, they pass time together, conversing and playing activities together, for fun.

Clarifies that the couple with who has done this less is the McCanns, but he also has no knowledge of any strange or complicated situation. He has no knowledge of vices, drugs and/or games, on behalf of anyone in the group.
....................

Hobs !!!

Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview - 10th April 2008

On the 3rd May 2007 I saw Madeleine in the morning a couple of times this was when I dropped Ella off. I took the kids up to breakfast at the Millennium club and walked to the Ocean Club I was late getting Ella there, the kids were having a great time at the kids club and all appeared to well. I went to the flat with Evie, whilst she was resting I read a book. When she woke up we went outside to watch Jane play tennis I saw Madeleine at lunchtime I can’t recall if Jane or I collected Ella it’s all a bit hazy now. I recall that Jane had been having a tennis lesson also there was Kate and Rachael.

We were watching some children have their lesson this was before lunch.

I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him. I recall that the child was of a similar age to Madeleine and Ella.

I recall that Madeleine and Ella had had a similar lesson the day before. We agreed that in this day and age taking a photograph of your own child you shouldn’t be made to feel uncomfortable, it was a horrible coincident. I would like to stress that I do not think that this man had any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. I feel that it was a haunting coincidence.