Blacksmith - another cracking piece

The Blacksmith Bureau

SATURDAY, 2 JUNE 2012
You'll get there boys, you'll get there

To repeat: it doesn’t matter whether it’s three months, six months or six years, Scotland Yard will not uncover anything about the child’s whereabouts, dead or alive, as long as they concentrate on looking outwards and away from Praia da Luz, a prediction of which we will remind our readers on September 1 and December 1 this year.

Only when, however reluctantly, they focus where the presumptuous Bureau has told them they will eventually have to – the people around the child on the evening of May 3 – will they have any prospect of success.

But the cheeky little Bureau is not actually alone since our view, believe it or not, is based largely on that bible of the McCanns and their supporters, the all-exonerating Portuguese prosecutors’ archiving summary.

As we know, the parents, their supporters and their libel lawyers love this document, particularly its conclusion. And it is, as they say, the definitive statement of the progress and content of the investigation, one that anyone professionally concerned with the case, Scotland Yard included, have to take on board. There, waiting for the Yard and any future Anglo-Portuguese investigative team, is this 57 page summary stating exactly where the investigation had got to by the summer of 2008 and all the lines of future inquiry which are incomplete and remain open until the shelved inquiry is resumed. Most of them are in the section on the reconstruction.

The list is below.

The relevant parts of the summary for each area are cited briefly at the end of the list. Since the best English translation does not have page numbers, and since the Bureau research staff are not going to count line numbers – life is short, after all, even for McCann obsessives –the beginnings of the relevant passages are cited so that readers can find for themselves the references. The slightly cumbersome English translation and the way Menezes has structured the document conceal the full impact of what he is actually saying but when we list out what is being suggested it is quite an eye-opener.

These footnotes, with the same numbers as the points they refer to, can, as usual, be ignored by those with a low boredom threshold. There are, however, a number of important points made alongside the citations.

The most significant of these are fully explored there but here is a summary:

All of the areas highlighted by the police and the prosecutors as incomplete and requiring further investigation are listed here.
Some of them are relatively quick or easy to answer, given the availability and willingness of witnesses, but some require very considerable resources to explore in depth (points 1, 2 , 8 and 10, for example). Given the rate at which Andy’s Army works they need to start allocating resources soon, otherwise we’ll all be dead by the time their successors report.
Every single one of the areas in the Madeleine McCann case requiring further investigation and amplification, without exception, involve the McCanns and their friends. There is not a single suggested lead that involves anyone else.
This stark fact has been muffled for the past four years since the prosecutors, mainly Menezes, appear to have taken steps – quite fairly, given the circumstances – to mitigate its impact. Those steps, which unlike the list itself, involve a measure of (persuasive) speculation by us, are described in the footnotes.


This is what is being suggested

The establishment of the exact sequence of events involving the nine witnesses and the child between 6.45/7PM and 10 PM on May 3.
Further investigation to concentrate in particular on the “checking timeline” on May 3, given that the existing statements of the group appear to leave very little time for any abduction to take place.
Investigation of the reasons for the “checking routine” being altered, according to the statements of the nine, on May 3 compared with previous days.
Establishing the precise extent of visibility of apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, taking into account the then obstructions to vision from the Nine’s table, to assess the extent of supervision of the apartment by the group. (And, conversely, the question of Kate McCann’s view of the group from the apartment and how feasible it was for her to call for help without leaving that apartment at 10PM).
The need for practical examination (by reconstruction) of the Tanner, Gerry McCann and Wilkins encounter near the apartment, their relative positions and the distances between them.
Close examination/reconstruction to establish exactly what Jane Tanner saw or could have seen.
The reconciliation of the position in which the child was seen by Tanner a few yards from the apartment (horizontal) with the position the child would have had to be in for both she and the abductor to get out of the bedroom window (vertical).
Close investigation of the possible causation of the sudden draught which slammed the door of the children’s bedroom at 10PM in apartment 5A.
Questioning of Kate McCann to establish the exact reasons why she left the other two children alone after discovering that her daughter was missing.
Investigation of the reasons for the twins’ failure to wake up despite the extreme disruption and noise levels in the apartment after the disappearance.
Examination of the exact motives for the Tapas 7 declining to take part in the original mooted reconstruction.
Footnotes and boring detail

1.“What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m.…” En passant, note the difference between the wording of this paragraph in the summary and that in the PJ report and the implications for the credibility of David Payne – unless, of course, you regard it as a simple correction by the prosecutors of a PJ error. Is that likely? It’s not a mere correction but an entirely different statement, removing all questions about the period from 5.30 to 6.45. No doubt there were good reasons for the change but Mr Menezes and his colleague remain silent about them.

2. “The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that…”

3. “…which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.”

4. “…although Matthew Oldfield refers [27] that from the restaurant table there was very tenuous visibility, taking into account…”

5. “The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when…”

6. “The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words… “ Note the end of the paragraph below that makes clear that doubts remain about the “innocence” of the parents which further investigation might, at last, allay. Note also the refutation of McCann supporters’ absurd attempt to discount the same doubts expressed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire and quoted, rather foolishly, on page 316 of “Madeleine”: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

The attempted refutation claims that the ACC’s formal statement for the High Court in which this point was made predates the release of the archiving summary and is thus rendered “inoperative” by the latter’s removal of all doubts. But that is patently untrue since “doubts” have not been allayed in the archiving summary but are explicitly mentioned in it here. “…fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents.” And of course there is the more widely known extract from the summary: “ We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event.”

Clearly such “dismissal of doubts” lies in the future once these matters in question have been fully investigated, so the ACC’s statement stands: UK police and Portuguese police and prosecutors are in agreement as to the Nine’s status at the shelving and that status remains exactly the same today.

7. “…It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal).”

8. “…to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution.”

9. “…Kate, after noticing that the bedroom's window and shutters were open and Madeleine was missing, headed for the Tapas Restaurant asking for help…”and “ …it is incomprehensible, or only comprehensible in a state of panic, that she once again abandoned, this time only the twins, while the Tapas was close enough to shout for help…”

10. “Finally, the fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque…”

11. “Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times…”

Two points may be added. In Mr Menezes’well-known and resounding peroration towards the end of the summary we have a sentence which can be taken as rhetorical or as a possible invitation, though one of much less strength than those above, which is why it was not included in the list:

“Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so.” No problem – if the Yard want to know exactly what he was suggesting, if anything, they just have to pick up the phone and ask him.

The second point is one of emphasis. Supporters of the McCanns have been able to point out that Menezes’ peroration is virtually the end and climax of the report – if, that is, one ignores his barely comprehensible, and no doubt greatly regretted, hot-air references to Durrenmat et al. The inference to be drawn from the supporters’ statements is that the need-for-a-reconstruction section is buried in the detail of the report and only pulled out of context and high-lighted by nit-picking spoilsports like the Bureau.

Now it is quite clear that the eleven areas listed above are all taken from the factual bones of the cases as summarised by the separate PJ final report. It is also clear that if the two reports are closely compared Menezes and his colleague have actually added to and strengthened the areas which remain unexplored.

Now as a matter of fact these eleven areas requiring further elucidation share one crucial property: they all involve the Tapas 9. Search the 57 pages of the summary and you will not find a single example of an open question requiring further investigation that doesn’t involve them. Why is this? Why is it that the entire, enormous, investigation has failed to provide a single lead or piece of suggestive evidence for further investigation that doesn’t involve the McCanns and their friends?

To take one example to illustrate the point there is not a word about Robert Murat in this context, not a single detail involving him that the PJ or the prosecutors can suggest should be clarified or studied further. And there is not a single unsettled “doubt” about his innocence. Read it for yourselves – nothing about the need for further research into boats in nearby harbours, nothing regarding the possibilities of further study of holidaymakers who left shortly after May 3, nothing about further investigation of Mark Warner staff now overseas and, like the Nine, beyond the immediate reach of the Portuguese authorities. Only the Nine –in a summary that is claimed to exonerate the parents!

This is presumably why Menezes made himself something of a laughing stock in judicial circles by bolting on statements of opinion regarding the parents that seemed not only verbose and windy but out of kilter with the rest of the report. The explanation is almost certainly that Menezes wasn’t being dishonestly protective of the parents but realised that their involvement in every single open question that he listed was potentially extremely prejudicial. He appears, therefore, to have softened the blow by stressing the innocence of the parents – and quite right too.

Future investigators and lawyers, the only people who mattered as far as the eleven areas were concerned, would see for themselves what was there, while the general public, who would never read the report, would see nothing prejudicial in its findings.

And that, of course, is exactly what happened. The public in the UK, for example, broadly accepted the loudly broadcast claims that the report exonerated the pair but the Lisbon appeal court judges studied the report and came to rather different conclusions. Now it's the Yard's turn.

In the same spirit of attempted fairness Menezes did something else. Comparison of the archiving summary with the PJ report of the same length shows that the summary very closely follows the order and content of the latter –with one rather significant exception. The PJ report submitted to the prosecutors has a different conclusion to the archiving summary: as befits the importance that the PJ attached to it, it finishes with the required reconstruction involving the Nine, an ordering that clearly carries its own message; to leave it in that form would, once again, have severe and, in the context of arguido-release, possibly unfair implications for the parents. Menezes takes the entire section from the end of the PJ report – pages 54 to 56 of its 57 pages – and puts it back to page 45 of 58!

Have fun, Andy.

Posted by john blacksmith at 18:10

PeterMac wrote:Another insightful piece by Blacksmith. No apologies for quoting it in full, to give the full effect.

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/you-get-there-boys-you-get-there.html

PeterMac wrote:Get the judge to read it !

Tony Bennett wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Get the judge to read it !

I think the McCanns reply on Menezes' conclusion on the final page (page 58) that: "...having considered all the foregoing, I order...filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Practice Criminal Procedure". They have not referred the court to the content of pages 1 to 57.

For the record, Attorney-General Menezes' report is contained in Isabel Hudson's Third Affidavit in these proceedings, Exhibit 'IJH10', contained on pages 397 to 437 of Bundle F.

The Bundles now run from Bundle A to Bundle J, with an extra index bundle, making 11 bundles in all, with a total of around 5,000 pages of documents, not to mention two CDs of the BBC's 'Inside Out' programme, which perhaps will get played to the court.

I have asked the court to make sure they have recording equipment so that the judge can see the videos of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela in Praia da Luz.

aiyoyo wrote:It's true that every piece of supporting evidence that you want to use as exhibit in Court should be pre-informed to the Judge or it will be rendered inadmissible due to lack of notice.

It's rather expected that the Mccanns will only highlight the page that is to their advantage, hence their attention to page 58 of menezes' final report. Equally by their introduction of said 58-page document, TB's legal Defence team is entitled to highlight a different page or pages amongst the 58-page document to draw the judge's attention to.

I

Newintown wrote:[Tony, you are probably well aware of the fact, but I thought I would just mention it, that the showing of the videos of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela in Praia da Luz should be mentioned by your solicitor/Barrister in your witness statement/court proceedings prior to the trial, as they may not be able to be used in evidence if they are not mentioned in the paperwork put before the Judge for him to read up on on your behalf beforehand. I hope that makes sense.

If any facts/items are brought into a trial which the Judge was not aware of previously, they may be classed as inadmissable by the other side.

Having been through a very long, protracted court case myself I know how the other side's solicitor/Barrister will try all they can to dismiss any evidence that goes against their client, especially if it hasn't been put through the proper legal procedure.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Newintown wrote:[Tony, you are probably well aware of the fact, but I thought I would just mention it, that the showing of the videos of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela in Praia da Luz should be mentioned by your solicitor/Barrister in your witness statement/court proceedings prior to the trial, as they may not be able to be used in evidence if they are not mentioned in the paperwork put before the Judge for him to read up on on your behalf beforehand. I hope that makes sense.

If any facts/items are brought into a trial which the Judge was not aware of previously, they may be classed as inadmissable by the other side.

Having been through a very long, protracted court case myself I know how the other side's solicitor/Barrister will try all they can to dismiss any evidence that goes against their client, especially if it hasn't been put through the proper legal procedure.

Newintown, I am most grateful that you took the time to make these comments, I think I did cover that point in Paragraph 119 of my Affidavit of Application (there is an Affidavit of Defence as well), there's more details on this thread I've opened tonight:

[url=https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5144-mccanns-v-bennett-latest-4-june-2012