Lazzeri-lies-in-the-sun: The Met Owe it to Madeleine

The Met Owe it to Madeleine

‘Just Checking Blogs 1-9’ (above) highlight the very reason the Portuguese police reached the conclusions they did regarding the truthfulness of the statements given by Gerry and Kate McCann and the group of people who holidayed with them in Portugal 2007.

It highlights the VERY reasons the Metropolitan Police reviewing this case should be MORE than eager to interview, if they have not already done so – EVERY last member of this group!

Their statements too highlight the fact that the Oldfield’s, Matthew and Rachael, and Jane Tanner and her partner Russell O’Brien were not, good friends, or even friends of the McCanns. 

The Oldfield’s basically, not knowing the McCanns at all, other than a casual meeting, at a wedding, years before (Oldfield and Gerry McCanns paths crossing occasionally professionally) and Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien, knowing them ever so slightly better. That is, Russell O’Brien periodically, came in contact with Gerry McCann professionally. Other than this they met with McCann couple, once or twice at special occasions, through mutual friends at birthday celebrations for instance. Jane Tanner not knowing the McCann couple in any way, which could be described as anything close to being friends.

Both couples therefore could not be considered as anything more than casual acquaintances of McCann couple, if even that.

Interestingly, these two couples, the Oldfield’s/Tanner and O’Brien, are close friends with each other.

Tanner in her interviews with police voiced her thoughts on Gerry McCann. She did not feel comfortable in his company.

Tanner: “I think he’s probably the person out of the whole group that I would feel least comfortable with.”

He was forthright, she felt they had nothing in common, that they would never be best buddies, in her estimation not someone she would choose to be friends with. She confirms when put to her by the officer, that the type of character Gerry McCann has, is not what she would normally be drawn to in a friend?

Would this explain why, if Jane Tanner did see Gerry McCann speaking with Jez Wilkins on the street the night Madeleine vanished that she did not stop to speak with him, she was reluctant to do so as she did not feel comfortable with McCann, felt him to be intimidating?

It would certainly perhaps explain in part why she allowed him in his documentary to change the position on the street where she claims to have seen him, and in so doing contradicting her police witness statement, to something which suited McCanns story, the story HE wanted the public to hear the story HE wanted portrayed in his documentary. For sure, McCann did not want Jane Tanner’s FULL account of what she claims to have seen, to be part of his so-called re-enactment. The part where she claims to have seen the alleged abductor was to be included, the part where she claims to have to have seen Gerry McCann standing on the street on the same side as apartment 5A, speaking with Jez Wilkins was to be ‘doctored’ to suit McCann, and not re-enacted as per Jane Tanner’s statement as given to police!

Kate and Gerry McCann were the two people in the group who Jane Tanner did not know well before the holiday, the two whom she was unsure if she and her partner Russell O’Brien would get along with for this reason.

Kate McCann, Jane Tanner felt she got to know a little during the holiday.

She states they the McCanns 'seemed' to be nice people.

It would however have been quite difficult for Jane Tanner or Russell O’Brien to have formed any real relationship with the McCann couple during the five days (up until Madeleine vanished) as they did not spend much time together.

The McCanns preferred not to meet with the group for breakfast or lunch with their children, the McCanns also preferring to leave their three children in the crèche all day every day, whereas the others in the group did not. The others met up on a regular basis for lunches, breakfasts with their children and spent time together in daytime.

On the day, Madeleine vanished, the group, breakfasted, lunched, McCann family apart and spent the afternoon on the beach with their children, all having tea together at the beach café.

Matthew Oldfield too was not entirely comfortable in the company of Gerry McCann. He spoke of how he had done an impromptu check at the McCann shuttered window, of how after telling McCann of this, McCann still went to check on his children. Of how this made him feel that McCann did not trust him.

Oldfield also volunteers information when being interviewed by Leicestershire police, stating that he did not sit next to Gerry McCann at the dinner table on the Thursday evening, the night Madeleine vanished, as Gerry McCann had said to him that he felt he had bored the pants off Oldfield the previous evening?

So, McCann we are told said this, and Oldfield feels this is reason for him not to sit beside McCann?

Did Oldfield feel McCann was telling him to keep clear? Why else would Oldfield feel he had to distance himself from McCann at the dinner table?

He tells the officer he does not know why he raised this issue while being interviewed. (The officer had not asked any question of Oldfield along these lines.)

Tanner when describing McCann, only just stops short of saying that she felt McCann to be intimidating. And clearly Oldfield too must have felt much the same way as Tanner did in relation to Gerry McCann else he would not have blurted out what he did to the police officer interviewing him. And he would not have felt he had to sit out of McCanns way at the dinner table.

The police did ask members of the group if there was any sort of pecking order within the group, anyone more dominant. They responded in the negative, when quite clearly this was not the case at all. 

This is what makes it all the more curious that Oldfield should have offered to check the McCann children when he had not done so before this night, and when NO ONE else in the group had done so throughout that week as there was no organised routine or arrangement within the group that they should do so, check on each other’s children.

The only people to have checked the McCann children – were the McCanns!

A quick read of the police witness statements, and this is quickly established.

Makes it curious as to why Jane Tanner would say she listened at shuttered windows when this was NOT part of any planned or organised routine, and when it is more than obvious she did not.

The others in the group confirming that NO ONE checked at shuttered windows!

Curious too as to why O’Brien would say he checked both the Oldfield child and the McCann children on the Sunday evening by entering the respective apartments, when quite clearly he did not. Both the McCann parents and the Oldfield parents stating that NO ONE entered their apartments on the Sunday evening as O’Brien claims to have done.

No one else backs what O’Brien and Tanner have said regarding checking.

And of course Gerry McCann saying David Payne checked on his children – this statement by McCann blown out of the water by Payne himself, and the others in the group, who all confirmed the Payne’s did not on any night, leave the dinner table to check on anyone’s children.

So why did O’Brien lie? 

Why did Jane Tanner lie? 

Why did Matthew Oldfield lie?

Why did Gerry McCann deliberately lie mislead by saying Payne looked in on his children and reported back to him that all was well, when this did not happen?

Some or all the group have lied that much is certain. The others complicit by going along with what they must know not to be truthful statements given by others.

For them to have done so they had to have had a reason.

There HAD to be SOMETHING they as a group did NOT want the police to know.

Why else would they concoct such stories as they clearly have done?

The Portuguese Police knew this, know this!

And why in particular do we have Jane Tanner and her partner Russell O’Brien, together with Matthew Oldfield, three people who claimed not to know the McCann couple, bending over backwards to provide what they obviously thought would sound to police, a more regular system of checking, but at the same time showing themselves to be dishonest in this respect.

Why would these three persons, in particular stick their necks out, fabricate a tale as they have? To protect the McCann couple, who they didn’t know that well? To protect themselves, something they did, or both?

Clarence Mitchell the McCanns highly paid mouthpiece, stated that whatever the police find or have found (this comment was in response to a particular item/information uncovered by police) that they, the McCanns will be able to provide an innocent explanation.

I wonder what innocent explanation they are able to provide for the statements they and their acquaintances gave to both Portuguese police and Leicestershire police regarding the checking of their children, as, as it stands, not a single shred of it makes any sense.

It makes no sense either that this group of people would not fully assist co-operate with the police investigation into the disappearance of young Madeleine Beth McCann they downright refused requests by the police in Portugal, to return there to take part in a criminal reconstruction of the events of the night the child vanished. 


That speaks volumes!

A reconstruction of events would have demonstrated that their account of events could not possibly have taken place - The reason for not co-operating?

Will the Metropolitan police in their investigative review be able to get the justice for Madeleine Beth McCann which this child deserves?

Will they be able to at least, surely, when this group is on UK soil, interview them, get to the bottom as to why their statements given to both Portuguese police authority and the Leicestershire police authority fall far short of being truthful?

It is the UK taxpayer who is footing the bill for this review. As such the taxpayer expects nothing less than that this group of people are held to account for the statements they have made.

By not being entirely honest, which as the statements stand they cannot be viewed any other way, they have absolutely hindered the investigation into the disappearance of this child, and their reason for doing so must be discovered!

The fact that the group from the beginning were eager to finger others, eager to paint the Portuguese police as bumbling foreigner’s tells us more about this case than perhaps any other single item.

The public are not fools. Nor are the Portuguese police, nor the Leicestershire police and not the Metropolitan police. If laypersons can read these witness statements and see through them, the police did too.

We do not for a moment believe that the Portuguese police collectively, or any individual officer are the idiots the McCanns, and their highly paid spokesperson Clarence Mitchell would have us believe.

They have spent vast sums of monies from the Madeleine Fund in attempts to convince us of this.

Monies donated for this child, wasted!

The Metropolitan Police owe it to the UK Taxpayer to investigate fully, with honesty and integrity every aspect of this tragic case.

A very good place to begin is with the police witness statements given by this group regarding checking of these children.

There is no possible way that the Met can disagree with the findings of the Portuguese police in this.

Most of all, the Metropolitan Police owe it to young Madeleine Beth McCann to ensure that those who have let her down in the most appalling ways, leaving her to fend for herself on all of those nights, who have refused to fully co-operate with the police investigation, and who have lied which is evident in their statements made to police authorities in two countries, should be made accountable.

It is up to the Metropolitan Police to speak up in support of the Portuguese police as they know like the rest of the world, the Portuguese did not get it wrong!

They know who are the blatant liars!

The Met owe Madeleine Beth McCann truth and justice.

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun