The Cancelled Reconstruction

THE CANCELLED RECONSTRUCTION


Emails and letters from the PJ files revealing the reluctance of the 'Tapas Seven' and Jeremy Wilkins to take part in a reconstruction of the events of the evening of May 3rd - eventually leading to its cancellation.





The Tapas Seven raise questions

Email sent to Ricardo Paiva from Graham Michael

19 March 2008 16:39

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P84, 85 )
Vol. XVI p. 4214

Dear Ricardo,

I refer to our recent telephone call conversations and can confirm that we will starting the interview process w/c 7th April 2008. I hope the e-mail sent on Thursday 13th March helps with your arrangements for your accommodation.

I am in receipt of your e-mail regarding further questions for John Lowe at the FSS and I will forward them for him to answer.

As discussed on Friday, we have made contact with the holiday group (Paynes, Webster, O'Brien, Tanner, Oldfield, Mampilly) regarding their availability for the proposed dates for a re-enactment in Portugal. We are still awaiting response from Jeremy Wilkins.

Before they will fully commit to attending they have the following questions that they reguest are answered:-

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?
2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?
3 - Why so close to the anniversary?
4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?
5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?
6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/likely frenzy?

Would you please speak with the Director regarding these questions and consider how you would like us to respond. I would be grateful for a prompt response as this will hopefully ensure that the witnesses are available to attend.

Yours Sincerely

Mick Graham
Detective Inspector
Major Crime Unit



Email sent to Graham Michael / Stuart Prior from Ricardo Paiva

20 March 2008 11:56

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P86,87 )
Vol. XVI p. 4216 and 4219 (4217 is the same, in Portugese)

Hello good morning Mick.

In answer to the questions raised by the holiday group regarding the re-enactment in Praia da Luz, Mr Paulo Rebelo wishes to clarify them as follows:

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?

The PJ wants them to take part in the re-enactment because they were the ones who experienced the situation. Therefore they are in the best conditions to reproduce it.

2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?

The PJ is trying to find out, with accuracy, the circunstances of the events occurred, using for that purpose the exact place of events and the same persons who took part in it.

3 - Why so close to the anniversary?

Only now has the PJ contitions to carry out these procedings, and also because it is desirable that the weather conditions are as similar as possible to those at the time of the events.

4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?

The reason is because only the persons involved can clarify, with accuracy and at the same place, their position and movements.

5 - Will the footageof the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?

The PJ won't release any pictures/footage to the press.

6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/like frenzy?

The place will be isolated and press interference will be avoided to its maximum.

The re-enactment will be carried out in one single day, at the exact time the events occurred.

However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved.

Best regards.

Ricardo Paiva



Email sent to Ricardo Paiva from Graham Michael / cc. Stuart Prior, Gary Watts, Nigel Baraclough

28 March 2008 16:33

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P89 )
Vol XVI p. 4218

Dear Ricardo,

An update for you, as discussed this morning;

We have spoken on a number of ocasions with the holiday group and they are still undecided whether they will agree to attend Portugal to take part in this process.

As a group, they are waiting to see if Gerry and Kate McCann will be invited to attend and participate in the re-enactment. It is my understanding that if Gerry and Kate do not participate in this process, then the decision will be that they will not attend.

In addition, the group have stated that they would require written reassurances about how the process was going to be conducted before agreeing to attend.

Therefore, until these issues are resolved we are unable to get a firm commitment from the holiday group to attend on either of the proposed dates.

Mick



Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo concerning questions from the Tapas Seven, re: the proposed reconstruction

15 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol 16..(PDF page 57)..Page 4187

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 15th April 2008
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

As previously agreed, here I send the answers to the questions raised by the holidaying group and Jeremy Wilkins regarding the re-inactment.

I also inform you, about the matter of Gerald McCann's credit cards intelligence, that the Prosecutor is not available to make any more changes to the LOR.

Thank you very much, again, for your fantastic cooperation.

Best regards,
Paulo Rebelo.
CSIC



Attachment to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo, answering the questions raised by witnesses over the proposed reconstruction (see previous email)

15 April 2008

Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4190 to 4192

Dear Stuart,

As agreed during our visit to Leicester last week, and in order to provide an answer to the questions raised by various witnesses in the investigation into the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann, regarding the possibility of carrying out a re-enactment on the site of the events, I shall inform you of the following:

1 – Regarding the arguido or formal suspect status of Gerald McCann and Kate McCann, it is not the PJ’s competence to take the decision on the respective clearance. Thus, it is not possible to ensure the arguido status will be changed;

2 – There is no need for the witnesses to be accompanied by their children. For efficiency and celerity purposes, we indeed request that the children don’t accompany their parents;

3 – The re-enactment, within the LOR, shall take place probably on May 15, 2008, between 5.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., thus covering the time period before dinner, dinner time and about an hour after having checked that the child had gone missing;

4 – A postponing of the re-enactment will only happen if the weather conditions are extremely bad, once the sites where most part of the events took place weren’t exposed to such conditions. We also add the draft agenda to the proceedings, which we plan to be as follows:

- May 15 – In the morning – Arrival to Portugal of the participants in the proceedings;
- - In the afternoon – The re-enactment
- May 16 – During the day – Preparation, by the PJ, of the records and documents of the proceedings which will be displayed, reviewed and signed by the participants;
- May 17 – In the morning or in the afternoon – Departure of the participants.

5 – The re-enactment will be carried out with the attendance of the nine holidaying friends, as well as, incidentally, any figurant considered to be necessary for a visualization of the events, i.e. a man carrying a child;

6 – The re-enactment site will be isolated, as much as possible, in order to preserve the security and the integrity of the proceedings. However, we can neither assure the evacuation of the population, nor guarantee the press won't interfere out of the security perimeter which will be established. Thus, we will do our best efforts to try and avoid picture taking by the press. However, we can not completely ensure that won't happen;

7 – The re-enactment will only turn out to be efficient if performed by the participants in the events, once the information provided by the same participants needs to be tested and efficiently compared on-site, and that can only be achieved by means of their own performances. Thus, the possibility of using actors has to be put aside;

8 – The request for the presence of witnesses was submitted through the LOR; the notification for the attendance of the arguidos falls under the competence of the Public Prosecutor's Office;

9 – If it is their wish, the witnesses can be assisted by the Foreign Office and, in the proceedings, also by a legal representative, subject to the consent of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Within the scope of the cooperation that has been taking place, the Leicestershire Police has already been invited to be present in the proceedings;

10 – If the conditions to make the re-enactments are achieved, the payments of participants’ airfares and the stay costs will be subject of later evaluation;

11 – The PJ will be responsible for ensuring personal security for all the participants in the proceedings and will facilitate transfers from and to the airport, and from and to the proceedings. The PJ does not foresee any hostile environment or the occurrence of events able to put the participants' physical and psychological integrity at risk;

12 – The witnesses will be invited to participate in the re-enactment, but there are no suspicions over them regarding the commission of any criminal acts;

13 – The translation services of these inquiry proceedings will be provided by private officers of the PJ;

14 – The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.

We hope we have provided the answers to all the questions raised by the participants and, for logistics and case preparation purposes, we kindly request to be informed about the participants' respective answers until April 25, 2008.

Best regards,

Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
A decision is requested and the witnesses respond negatively

Rachael and Matthew Oldfield

Email to Rachael Oldfield from Stuart Prior

17 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol XVI page 4226

From : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re-enactment questions
To : "Rachael Oldfield"
Date : Thursday, April 17th, 2008

Dear Rachael and Matthew,

As you are aware I had the opportunity to discuss the proposed re-enactment in Portugal, of Madeleine's disappearance with the PJ Director and Senior Investigating Officer Paulo Rebelo. I explained the concerns that you and the other holidaying friends had raised over your involvement in this re-enactment.

He informed me that he would consider the comments that each of you made and would discuss these issues with Senior colleagues of the PJ and the Prosecutor.

He has now had the opportunity to do this and has forwarded the attached document to me which explains the Portuguese position in relation to the concerns that you have raised.

He has asked that I forward a copy of this response to each of you.

I trust that these answers will assist you and the others in reaching a decision as to whether you intend to participate in the proposed re-enactment.

If you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate in getting in touch with myself.

Stu

Leicestershire Constabulary.




Email response from Rachael Oldfield

23 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225

From : Rachael Oldfield ()
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" ()
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.




Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

24 April 2008

Table of contents: Vol XVI page 4224

From : Stuart Prior
Date : 24th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Re-enactment questions.

Ricardo,

This is the first reply received from the friends of the McCann's.

It seems to be the same as when you were in the UK that Rachael and Matthew would be willing to attend if they are satisfied as to the purpose of the re-enactment but clearly do not feel the previous answers from Paulo cover their questions.

Could you please discuss the attached e-mail with Paulo, see if any further answers can be clarified and get back to me.

Thanks,
Stu.





Fiona Payne, David Payne and Dianne Webster

Email to Fiona Webster (Payne) from Stuart Prior

16 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol XVI Page 4232

From : Prior Stuart
To : fiona webster
Sent : Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
Subject : Re-enactment questions

Dear Fiona, Dianne and David,

As you are aware I had the opportunity to discuss the proposed re-enactment in Portugal, of Madeleine's disappearance with the PJ Director and Senior Investigating Officer Paulo Rebelo. I explained the concerns that you and the other holidaying friends had raised over your involvement in this re-enactment.

He informed me that he would consider the comments that each of you made and would discuss these issues with Senior colleagues of the PJ and the Prosecutor.

He has now had the opportunity to do this and has forwarded the attached document to me which explains the Portuguese position in relation to the concerns that you have raised.

He has asked that I forward a copy of this response to each of you.

I trust that these answers will assist you and the others in reaching a decision as to whether you intend to participate in the proposed re-enactment.

If you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate in getting in touch with myself.

Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Crime Support Department
Leicestershire Constabular





Email response from the Payne's/Dianne Webster

25 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4231

From : fiona webster (e-mail address quoted)
Sent : 25th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

We have deliberated an awful lot about whether we should participate in the re-enactment or not. It is not an easy decision as nothing about this case is straightforward.

We appreciated that Paulo Rebelo attempted to answer many of our concerns however we are still left feeling very uncertain of the motives in organising a re-enactment. What information are they hoping to gain and how exactly is it going to help in moving the investigation on in a positive direction? As you know, we feel we would be making ourselves and our families extremely vulnerable by returning to Portugal and would like to be persuaded that doing this would be wholly beneficial to the investigation....and FINDING MADELEINE. As yet we remain unconvinced.

We remain open to further discussion regarding this key issue.

Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss this in person.

Many kind regards,

Fiona and David Payne.




Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

28 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4231

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 28th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : Re-enactment questions

Ricardo

As with the others, seems that they would be prepared to attend if the questions they ask are satisfied.

Stu

Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner

Email response from Russell O'Brien

25 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol XVI Page 4235

From : Russell O'Brien ()
Sent : 25th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Reply to PJ- 23rd April

Dear Stuart,

Please find attached our reply to Mr Rebelo's letter. Thanks for forwarding this on our continued concerns regarding the re-enactment.

I hope the rest of the interviews went well and thanks for arranging them in such a sensitive manner for us.

Hope you are well,

Yours,

Russell and Jane





Attached email from Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner (see previous email)

Dated: 23rd April 2008

[Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P106]
Vol XVI p. 4237

xx xxxxxx xxxx
Exeter
Devon
xxx xxx

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

Dear Stuart, 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

PS: We certainly do not request any specific reimbursement for travel or accommodation.



Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

28th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4235

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 28th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : Reply to PJ- 23rd April
Annexes : Reply to PJ- 23rd April.doc

Ricardo, the final reply.

Sorry for the slight delay but something came up.

Again they seem to be saying that if certain questions are answered and issues resolved they would be willing to attend.

Give me a call when you have read the 3 replies.

Stu

Jeremy Wilkins


Email to Jeremy Wilkins from Stuart Prior

16 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol XVI Page 4230

From : Prior Stuart
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Jes Wilkins
Subject : Re-enactment questions

Dear Jeremy,

as you are aware I had the opportunity to discuss the proposed re-enactment in Portugal, of Madeleine's disappearance with the PJ Director and Senior Investigating Officer Paulo Rebelo. I explained the concerns that you and the other holidaying friends had raised over your involvement in this re-enactment.

He informed me that he would consider the comments that each of you made and would discuss these issues with Senior colleagues of the PJ and the Prosecutor.

He has now had the opportunity to do this and has forwarded the attached document to me which explains the Portuguese position in relation to the concerns that you have raised.

He has asked that I forward a copy of this response to each of you.

I trust that these answers will assist you and the others in reaching a decision as to whether you intend to participate in the proposed re-enactment.

If you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate in getting in touch with myself.

Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Crime Support Department
Leicestershire Constabulary



Email to Stuart Prior from Jeremy Wilkins

16th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4229

From : Jes Wilkins ()
Sent : 16th April 2008
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Thanks Stuart,

As discussed with your colleagues last week I still feel reluctant to agree to this for a number of reasons including family and work commitments, the likelyhood of media intrusion and a lack of information about anything tangible or constructive that is likely to be achieved by doing this.

I am happy to discuss furthe if necessary.

Jes



Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

24 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4229

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 24th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED : FW : Re-enactment questions

Ricardo
here is Jes's reply
spk soon
Stu

The PJ Respond to the Reluctant Witnesses with a Deadline


The PJ respond with a deadline for a decision

Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

29th April 2008

Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]
Vol XVI p. 4241

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo
CSIC



The Witnesses Respond


Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner


Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien (from Jane Tanner's email address)

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4243

From : Jane Tanner
Sent : 30th April 2008 11.27 am
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your detailed phone call yesterday evening.

We write regarding Mr Rebelo's request for a decision by noon today. Jane and I agree in principle to participate in the re-enactment. However, given the change in nature of the request, we feel it is necessary to seek additional Legal Advice to advise us on this course of action.

Yours,

Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner



Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4243

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Re-enactment

Ricardo

This is the first of the replies. It implies that after Legal Advice is sought then Jane and Russell would be prepared to take part.

Give me a call

Stu




Rachael and Matthew Oldfield


Email to Rachael Oldfield from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4245

From Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions
To : Rachael Oldfield
Date : Wednesday, 30th April, 2008 4.07 am

Dear Rachael and Matthew,

This is the response that I have received from Paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu



Email to Stuart Prior from Rachael Oldfield

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4245

From : Rachael Oldfield
Sent : 30th April 2008 11.03 am
To : Prior Stuart
Cc : Matthew Oldfield
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for the e-mail and your voice message yesterday evening. The tone of the reply from Portugal has changed and Matthew and I feel we need to take Legal Advice before making a commitment to return to Portugal.

In any event, it will now be impossible for us to make the 15th to 17th May.
We would be grateful if you could get other dates from the Portuguese when the reconstruction could take place.

We will speak to our Lawyer and come back to you in due course.

Please give me a call if you wish to discuss.

Kind regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Rachael and Matthew Oldfield





Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4245

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo

This is the reply from Rachael and Matthew. It implies that after Legal Advice is sought then Rachel and Matthew may be prepared to take part but are unable to do the dates the 15th to the 17th May 2008.

Give me a call

Stu




Fiona Payne, David Payne and Dianne Webster

Email to Fiona Webster (Payne) from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4248/9

From Prior Stuart
To : fiona webster
Sent : Tuesday, 29th April, 2008 7.04 pm
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Fiona, David and Dianne,

This is the response that I have received from paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu





Email to Stuart Prior from Fiona Payne

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4248

From : Fiona Webster
Sent : 30th April 2008, 10.37 am
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail. We did get your message on my phone also.

Having read the attached letter, there appears to be a shift in the nature and the tone of the request for the re-enactment from something informal and friendly to a formal summons. We do not understand the laws that are being quoted and thus feel it is essential to seek legal advice.

We want to make it absolutely clear that we are NOT refusing to take part in this re-enactment.

Kind regards

Fiona and David Payne



Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4248

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo

This is the reply from Fiona, David and Dianne.

It implies that after legal advice is sought then Rachael and Matthew may be prepared to take part.

They make it clear that they are not refusing to take part.

Give me a call

Stu

[Note: The original text of this email refers to 'Rachael and Matthew', who 'may be prepared to take part'. This is clearly an error on Mr Prior's part, and should have read 'Fiona, David and Dianne']





Jeremy Wilkins


Email to Jeremy Wilkins from Stuart Prior

29th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4252

From : Prior Stuart
Sent : 29th April, 2008 19.10
To : Jes Wilkins
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Jes,

This is the response that I have received from Paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu




Email to Stuart Prior from Jeremy Wilkins

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4252

From : Jes Wilkins
Sent : 30th April 2008 12.09 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Thanks for this and for your message.

I'm not sure what they mean by witnesses' being compelled to attend as my understanding is that I am under no obligation?

My position remains the same really. As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.

Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.

Best

Jes




Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

30th April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4252

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo

This is the reply from Jes.

It implies that if each of the other witnesses' are going to take part then Jes will consider his position as to whether he will attend or not.

Give me a call

Stu

The Prosecutor's Decision Regarding the Reconsrtuction




The Prosecutor's decision

Letter to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

06 May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4301

Dear Stuart,

Here we send you the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment.

We kindly request you to notify the witnesses, officially, and we also request confirmation of its receipt by the witnesses.

Thank you again for your cooperation.

Best regards
(signed)
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

P.S. At this moment, we have our e-mail system unavailable. As soon as possible, we'll send the notifications in that way, in Portuguese and English.



Email confirmation of above letter to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

6th May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4307

From : João Carlos Silva Pereira
Date : 6th May 2008
To : Stuart Prior
Subject : Re-enactment
Annexes : FW : Forwarding final reconstitution version; Sending of translation.

Dear Stuart

Here we send you the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment.

We kindly request you notify the witnesses, officially, and we also request the confirmation of the receptions by the witnesses.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards
Paulo Rebelo CSIC




Legal details regarding the reconstruction and Portuguese law

02 May 2008

Table of contents: Vol XVI Page 4303 to 4305

Completed on 2nd May 2008.

=CLS=

The re-enactment of the fact is a procedure set forth in the Portuguese Law (Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, which is below given as part of this order) and consists of re-enacting, as accurately as possible, the
situation where an event is said or is supposed to have occurred, and it also consists of repeating the way it has happened.

The re-enactment has, in this inquiry, a rather particular nature, taking into account that it aims at re-enacting facts occurred about a year ago, by means of a proximity to the situation in which they occurred, and also being aware of the
inconvenience that a trip to Portugal might represent to a group of British Citizens, although knowing that it represents a milestone of solidarity among friends and towards friends who find themselves in a particularly painful and difficult situation.

It shall also be noted that, although this procedure is considered to be very important to the investigation, it will only take place if all the below mentioned witnesses are present, considering that the arguidos (formal suspects) have already shown they are available to participate in the re-enactment.

The purpose is to gather all the participants - the arguidos Gerald McCann and Kate Healy, the witnesses who were having dinner at the Tapas Restaurant on 3rd May 2007, and who took turns to check on their children who were sleeping in the
respective apartments, as well as another witness who spoke with the arguido Gerald, who will perform what they did on the abovementioned date, as accurately as they recall, so that what is in their written statements can be confirmed. This will allow conclusions to be drawn on how things happened on site, thus making adjustments that will allow the investigation to determine the need for any supplemental procedure.

Page 4304 (Page 2 of 3)

The re-enactment that shall have the participation of the abovementioned group of people, as well as of any character whose figurative presence might be necessary to the visualization of the events, shall take place on 15th May, between 5.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. On 16th May all the procedure shall be formalized, according to what had already been settled for this date and considering that all the participants meant to be present have already been informed accordingly. This cannot be subject to any change due to the time and place where the procedure shall take place.

The re-enactment will be performed at the space of the abovementioned Restaurant, Block of Apartments where the facts occurred on that date, and in the surrounding area, and it will be carried out by the Policia Judiciária, with the respective video recording and with the cooperation of the Police Authorities required by the PJ.

The arguidos Gerald and Kate shall be notified through their Legal Representatives. The notification of the witnesses David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne, Dianne Webster, Russell James O'Brien, Jane Michelle Tanner, Matthew David Oldfield, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly and Jeremy Wilkins shall be made with the cooperation of the British Police, at Policia Judiciária's request.

Each notified person shall receive a copy of this Order - concerning the re-enactment.

Proceed accordingly.

APPENDIX - Copy of Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure

Of the re-enactment of events

Section 150

Assumptions and Procedure

1- A re-enactment of events is admissible whenever deemed necessary to ascertain whether a fact could have occurred in a determined way. This consists of reproducing,

Page 4305 (Page 3 of 3)

as accurately as possible, the situation in which the fact is said to have occurred or is supposed to have occurred, as well as of repeating the way it has happened.

2- The Order requring the re-enactment of the fact shall bear a short indication as to it's object, date, time and place where the procedure shall take place as well as to the way it will be carried out, eventually using audiovisual means. The same Order shall appoint experts to carry out specific operations.

3- Publicity of the proceedings shall be avoided as much as possible.

The witnesses are notified of the Prosecutor's decision

The Witnesses are Notified of The Prosecutor's Decision


Example of letter sent to witnesses

Email to Fiona Webster (Payne) from Stuart Prior

7th May 2008 5:52 p.m.

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4318

From: Stuart Prior
To: Fiona Webster
Sent: Wednesday, 7th May, 2008, 5:52 p.m.
Subject: Portugal Re-enactment

Dear Fiona, David and Dianne,

I have received the attached document from Portugal concerning the request for you to attend the proposed re-enactment on the 15th and the 16th May, 2008. I would like to confirm that this e-mail should not be considered the service of the formal notification, but due to the short time scales involved is a notification to enable you to consider it's contents. The document will be formally sent to you by the Portuguese.

The request outlines the reasons for the process and the Legal justification as is appropriate for persons residing in Portugal.

After you have considered this e-mail, they have requested that if possible you confirm via e-mail to myself, whether you will be attending or not to assist with their planning of the event. I guess this will be after you have consulted your Legal team. I have already relayed your previous responses to the Portuguese and explained that you would get back to me after taking Legal Advice.

They again confirm that if any of the witnesses do not wish to attend then the re-enactment will not go ahead, but I also appreciate that Rachael and Matthew have indicated a difficulty with the 15th and the 16th May, 2008.

Likewise I have been advised by the Portuguese that they have no Legal Powers to order you to attend and there will be no penalty if you do not do so.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this further.

Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Crime Support Department
Leicestershire Constabulary

[b]The Witnesses Respond to The Prosecutor's Decision


Jane Tanner

Email to Stuart Prior from Jane Tanner

08 May 2008 10:05

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4310

From: Jane Tanner
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:05
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your call last night.

I spoke with Rachel last night who is chasing Brian Spiro for a response to our legal queries. We are hoping to have that today.

Until then we cannot give a definitive answer. Hoever I believe Matt and Rachael cannot do that date, so it may be immaterial anyway!

I would just like like to reiterate what I said last night, in that it is so sad we have to consider so many peripheral issues rather than just doing everything we can do to help find Madeleine.

Thanks and regards.

Jane



Rachael Oldfield

Email to Stuart Prior from Rachael Oldfield

10 May 2008 10:14

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4312

From: Rachael Oldfield
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:14
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.

We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.

If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Kind regards.

Rachael Oldfield




Russell O'Brien

Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien

10 May 2008 14:56

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4314

From: Russell O'Brien
Sent: 10 May 2008 14:56
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Apologies for the late reply.

We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic...

I hope you are well.

Best wishes,

Russell & Jane




Fiona Payne

Email to Stuart Prior from Fiona Payne

12 May 2008 12:32

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4317

From: Fiona Webster
Sent: 12th May 2008 12:32
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE: Portugal Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

We have now had time to consider the advice received from our legal team. Taking into account the advice given along with our many concerns previously mentioned to you; we feel we are unable to participate in the propoed (sic) re-enactment in Portugal.

Kind regards

Fiona and David Payne, and Diane Webster




Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

12th May 2008 12:58

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4317

From: Prior Stuart
Date : 12th May 2008 12:58
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Cc : Graham Michael : Walters Jane
Subject : FW : Portugal Re-enactment

Ricardo
and another one
Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Leicestershire Constabulary




_________________________________________

The Oldfields Respond to the Proposed Date Change and Summons




Rachael and Matthew Oldfield's letters of response to Summons

Email to Public Ministry from Rachael Oldfield (Letters of response to Summons)

23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4346

From : Rachael Oldfield
Date : 23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.
To : Serviços do Ministerio Publico de Portimão
Subject : Letters of response to Summons. Ref 3951282
Annexes : Reply (Matt) to Summons 21st May 2008 doc ; Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons 21st May 2008.doc

((Two attachments of replies from : a) (Matt) to PJ Summons 21st...., and b) Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons...., inserted here))

Please see attached letters in response to the summons we have received.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Many thanks.




Attachment from Matthew Oldfield

23rd May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4345

Date 23rd May 2008

Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão

Reference : 3951283

Dear Sir,

I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.

I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew David Oldfield




Attachment from Rachael Oldfield

23rd May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4348

Date 23rd May 2008

Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão

Reference : 3951283

Dear Sir,

I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.

I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Rachael Marimma Jean Mampilly





____________________________________________

The Reconstruction is Cancelled


The reconstruction is cancelled

Letter to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo

27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4354

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation

(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulação da reconstitutição.doc....))

Dear Stuart:

As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.

I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).

Thank you, again, for your cooperation.

Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC



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

What twisted logic the Tapas lot are showing in these emails.

If MBM had really disappeared, and you were there and you were concerned about how the investigation was going (and the aspersions being cast as to your possible involvement), I cannot conceive why you would not agree to, indeed why you would not be demanding, a reconstruction.  To not wish to assist in a reconstruction, when such a heinous crime has been alleged or committed is simply inhuman.... that is unless you fear there was a good chance it would all go horribly wrong and a collective story rapidly disintegrate. OK, one person may be that selfish to put their self-protection over helping the investigation, maybe even two people... but all of them?  That's odd... VERY odd!

All my opinion of course.

From their rogatory statements I didn't think this lot were capable of stringing two words together, yet here they are writing fluently with not one erm, um, or tut to be seen.

When reading their emails the words 'morally bankrupt' came to mind along with couple of others as chanted by their very good pal, Kate McCann.

I find it odd that they all felt they had to take legal advice about returning to Portugal for a reconstruction........I'd have been there in a heartbeat........

Very strange IMO.

Our neighbors had their father stay with them, the old man was 85, he had Alzheimer disease.  He wanted to go back to his old home, at the other side of Manchester, he left and started to walk there, and was lost.

All the neighbors in the street went out to search for him, my husband and myself took time away from our work.  We searched in sheds and abandoned buildings, and near to the railway line.  It did not occur to say, "I cannot search, I have to go to work".  An old man was missing, our friends were worried for him.

He went back to his old Church, and was found.  Hungry and filthy, but alive and otherwise well.  No harm done.

I cannot understand why anyone who claims that they are a friend, will say, "I cannot take time from work to help you search for your lost child".

Merely to question WHY they should do a reconstruction reeks of arrogance and guilt IMO.

Note on first name terms `Stuart` with a police officer.

The absolute arrogance of this reply is unbelievable :-

"From : Rachael Oldfield ()
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" ()
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. OH DO YOU - WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

Our most significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?  - IT DOESN`T HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED TO YOU - THESE ARE POLICE INVESTIGATING A POSSIBLE MURDER - YOU EITHER WANT TO HELP OR YOU DON`T - DUH !!

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? - OH DUH DUH DUH - OF COURSE IT`S IMPORTANT AND IT DOESN`T HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED TO YOU

What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction? - IF YOU REALLY DON`T KNOW THEN YOU`RE TOTALLY THICK -DUH

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. -  OH WOULD YOU NOW

 If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.- OH YOU`D CONSIDER IT WOULD YOU

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.

The  replies are very arrogant in their tone and it is obvious I think to everyone that they were scared to death of going back to Portugal and being arrested . They knew as soon as anyone tried to make a reconstruction based on their ever changing statements that it would be obvious to all that their stories simply did not tally . 

They should have been forced to return to Portugal , they should never have been given the option in the first place to say yes or no . 

They were never going to say yes , their replies are all of a similar vein, it is obvious that a meeting infact probably several took place and it was decided no way could they return to Portugal but that they had to make their replies sound as if they were all trying to comply hence the going round the houses to say no . 

They couldn't directly say no as that would have looked bad and they would have been slated for doing so , so instead they make several queries and demands and then state they are not happy with the responses so sorry but ...........


they were never going to return the only way they would have returned was if they were arrested and  extradited .

Yes, it's painful to re-read those sorry excuses. But then, NSY will have read them too. And they're not stupid either. In fact, I believe they have far more experience than we have   

The McCann friends say that they consulted lawyers, the advice was that they should not go back to Portugal.  What lawyers were these, that told the McCann friends not to co-operate with the PJ?  Were those the McCann lawyers that represented for General Pinochet of Chile?

Reading the emails of the Tapas friends is fascinating. The Oldfields refer to taking legal advice. The others may have done so too.

On the surface the emails appear to be reasonable but when the Portuguese answer their questions they then raise essentially the same questions again so it seems to me that, there was no intention of going, and if that is the case, the reason why is obvious. 

After all the worst case scenario is that the reconstruction does not move the case forward at all, they have been inconvenienced by taking a couple of days off work, have had to make childcare arrangements for their small children and just possibly some of their expenses might not be refunded. Also they argue that the media might be intrusive,  but at this time several papers had paid out big libel damages in the out of court settlement so lurid anti McCann headlines were hardly likely.

It’s interesting that they ask why not use actors?  Surely the answer is obvious?

In crime reconstructions as in Crimewatch or Crime Call (Irish version) actors are used because it is not known who the criminals are. Reconstructions normally relate to robberies or violent attacks and the police hope that a reconstruction may jog the memories of the public. Usually such reconstructions result in many calls and often arrests. The criminals are played by actors wearing  similar clothes and of similar height and build to the description given by the victims and/or on CCTV. The victim of the crime is played by an actor as he/she is dead, injured or too traumatised to take part. The victim in this case – Madeleine – is missing.


In the proposed reconstruction, the relevant parties are available and in good health. Inconvenience is not a valid reason not to attend. Nor is a distrust of the Portuguese police. The tapas group could have brought a lawyer with them and also a senior British policeman  as an observer.

Eltee wrote:I find it odd that they all felt they had to take legal advice about returning to Portugal for a reconstruction........I'd have been there in a heartbeat........

Very strange IMO.

It is interesting that there was no legal obligation to attend and no penalties could be imposed if they didn't. Is is because they had to return to a foreign country for the reconstruction that they couldn't be forced to do so? If the crime had occurred in Britain would the reconstruction be obligatory if the investigating police so requested? In the same way that witnesses can be forced to attend court here.

In fact, it does raise the question if the disappearance could have been designed to happen in foreign climes so any perpetrators and witnesses are protected by the sort of scenario we see above? As I say, just a speculative question not based on any factual knowledge.

frost wrote:The  replies are very arrogant in their tone and it is obvious I think to everyone that they were scared to death of going back to Portugal and being arrested . They knew as soon as anyone tried to make a reconstruction based on their ever changing statements that it would be obvious to all that their stories simply did not tally . 

They should have been forced to return to Portugal , they should never have been given the option in the first place to say yes or no . 

They were never going to say yes , their replies are all of a similar vein, it is obvious that a meeting infact probably several took place and it was decided no way could they return to Portugal but that they had to make their replies sound as if they were all trying to comply hence the going round the houses to say no . 

They couldn't directly say no as that would have looked bad and they would have been slated for doing so , so instead they make several queries and demands and then state they are not happy with the responses so sorry but ...........


they were never going to return the only way they would have returned was if they were arrested and  extradited .

It does show they were scared about being made arguidos and that was their prime reason for refusing.
I cant help feel that when the truth is finally revealed about this case that we are going to be very very surprised.

Half of me is now wondering whether the majority of them were not aware of what happened to Madeleine. That say, 60% of them believe M disappeared. In those 60 percent I'd include
Racheal , Matt, Russ and Jane  and possibly Fp.
In that case, they were drawn into  a pact and genuinely angry at K and G being made arguidos. The pact was instigated by GM to ensure noone said anything that he hadn't controlled.
I think only those that were party to what happened were in the know, and the rest were not informed of the full story. That way it is ensure they can never tell and break rank.

I have always had a major problem with JT knowing the full story. I think she was used heavily.  I still have major problem when it comes to JT. I think she is basically honest and naiive. 

I know I'm on my own with this but still its what I believe.

Think how improbable it is that none of them have talked or cracked.  Well, if it seems improbable then maybe it is.   Only those who had a need to know or were involved up their eyeballs
know.  The ones that have the knowledge can be trusted not to crack cos they would go straight to jail.  I even think it possible K does not know all.

I am not sure whether UK Police can oblige witnesses to participate in CW if crime happened in UK.
I would have thought not.  
However, refusing to participate would make them look seriously dodgy.  Plus, if they were to say they need to consult lawyers first that would set alarm bell ringing, more reason to monitor their movements and phones closely.

If this happened in UK, they would be invited into Police stations and probably held in custody until Police are satisfied with their answers or until there is no reason to hold them.

aiyoyo wrote:I am not sure whether UK Police can oblige witnesses to participate in CW if crime happened in UK.
I would have thought not.  
However, refusing to participate would make them look seriously dodgy.  Plus, if they were to say they need to consult lawyers first that would set alarm bell ringing, more reason to monitor their movements and phones closely.

If this happened in UK, they would be invited into Police stations and probably held in custody until Police are satisfied with their answers or until there is no reason to hold them.

Exactly, aiyoyo, if the crime had been committed here, any witnesses are obliged to give evidence to the police's satisfaction. At the very least they can be questioned at will. How convenient it would be if one was reluctant to be questioned to find oneself not having to present oneself to the police because the police force in question was in a foreign country, and therefore could only appeal to your goodwill. You'd feel very secure in the knowledge that you couldn't legally be forced to attend, and be relieved that any crime you'd witnessed just happened to occur abroad and not in the UK. In my opinion.

If you had anything to hide, of course.

I can't imagine why OG aren't questioning them all......so much suspicious behaviour.......Madeleine deserves  much better..

Eltee wrote:I can't imagine why OG aren't questioning them all......so much suspicious behaviour.......Madeleine deserves  much better..

Sadly, I can.   

You could just imagine the panic when they received the request for them to go to Portugal to do a reconstruction.....how would they do that?? they could not get it right the first time, second time, third time etc etc.., how on earth could they be expected to put a reconstruction into motion that would make ANY sense whatsoever.  They would most likely have been rumbled and arrested, and they knew it.   Unfortunately they had to be given the option I suppose, as it was to be carried out in another Country.    But more importantly, WHY weren't G and K encouraging them to do it, and offering to recompense them for travel and expenses?

Maggs, IIRC their expenses were covered anyway ...

Châtelaine wrote:Maggs, IIRC their expenses were covered anyway ...

Maybe it was the thought of all that work involved in arranging for their children to be looked after.... 

@ Dee Coy,


I see your point.......yes it is sad....