Gary Hagland - The ‘mysterious seventh man’ in the McCann Team private investigations

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is Mr Hagland in agreement with having this information published, Tony?

No, he is not in agreement. I have however told him of my plans to reveal more details about him other than his known involvement as an agent of the McCanns in interviewing (together with Julian Peribanez) Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire.

He has given me a lot of information both verbally and in writing about his six months with the McCann Team.

As he will undoubtedly confirm, I have urged him at all times to speak to the proper authorities about what he does and does not know about the search for Madeleine McCann.

I urged him again to do so after the announcement by David Cameron that he had acceded to demands by the McCanns and Rebekah Brooks for the current £5 million-plus Scotland Yard Review, Operation Grange.

By way of response, he told me that he had been in touch with a senior officer at Operation Grange and had told them of his involvement with the McCann Team and that he was willing to be interviewed.

Once he told me that, and with his consent, I sent a file to DCI Andy Redwood containing all the information that Gary Hagland had ever disclosed to me. For a number of legal reasons, I cannot disclose the contents of that dossier.

I do not actually know whether Gary Hagland has been informally or formally interviewed by anyone from Operation Grange, but I am confident that any police officer following normal procedures on a thoroughgoing cold case review would have made sure not only to interview Gary Hagland but also all of the other McCann private investigators: Francisco Marco, Antonio Jimenez Raso, Julian Peribanez, Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton, Dave Edgar, Arthur Cowley and...yes...Noel Hogan as well.

I will just add one thing for the record.

A few weeks ago I contacted DCI Redwood and told him I was planning to release information about Gary Hagland and some at least of what he told me. I asked him if he had any objection at all to this information being made public.

A response was received and he has raised no objection.

Gary Hagland was very much involved in the early days in close liaison with Market Harborough-based Maxine Harris, founder of 'Helping to Find Madeleine'.

The original article by 'Blackwatch' which first brought the name of Gary Hagland to the public's notice:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This article was posted by ‘Blackwatch’ on 17 April 2011, at 14:09:49, in the Business Environments section of his blog. Before ‘Blackwatch’ removed his blog from the internet, that article had been viewed 1,057 times:

QUOTE

Concluding a fresh look at some of the key witnesses in the case, I thought I'd flag up the account provided by Maidstone sisters, Jayne Marie Jensen and Annie Wiltshire.

The two sisters hit the headlines in the last week of December 2007 when [on 31 December], the Daily Mail (1) [article by Fiona Barton, Dan Newling and Vanessa Allen] claimed that the pair had seen Robert Murat outside the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, contradicting Murat's claim that he was at home at this time with his mother.

Their claims can be broken down into these basic points:

• they allege they saw Robert Murat near the apartment complex at about 10.30pm, some 30 minutes after Kate McCann raised the alarm.
• that Robert acted as their translator in their initial interviews with Police.
• that although being interviewed by Police three times during those first few days, they were not asked to provide a formal statement until six months later when they spoke to Kent Police, Gary Hagland and Julian Peribañez of Metodo 3.
• that they were in the same daily tennis coaching group as [Dr Gerald] McCann, and
• that Robert [Murat] had joined them briefly at their table on the night of May 4th to enquire if they had remembered anything else.

The Daily Telegraph and Sky News both repeated the claims [of the Jensen sisters] in subsequent days, the Daily Telegraph attempting to play down the claims of the sisters by suggesting that the [Portuguese] Police's failure to interview the pair had arisen as a result of them staying in another apartment block. But it's not a persuasive argument by any means. Several witnesses asked to provide formal statements were staying in different apartment blocks including Neil Berry [his statement is available in the PJ files] (in Block 6 across the road), Rajinder Balu [statement also available in the PJ files] and Jeremy Wilkins [statement also available in the PJ files]. Berry and Balu even mention having drinks with the two sisters, Jayne and Annie, in each of their respective statements.

And here's something else I don't understand; Neil Berry made THREE statements in all. He refers to two of the earlier statements in his final statement [available in the PJ files] dated April 23rd 2008. However, both his May 7th 2007 and 8th January 2008 statements are missing from the final [published] PJ files.

Secondly, the statements that Jensen and Wiltshire claim to have provided to DC Jo Godfrey and DC Bob Sidoli of Kent Police at the end of an eleven-hour interview in October 2007 are also missing from the files.

Neil Berry was later asked to supply a ‘buccal swab’ in response to a witness account that placed him in the stairwell of apartment 5A on the night of May 3rd. The account - provided in September 2007 by an Ocean Club employee - was subsequently transformed into a sensational exclusive the Daily Mirror on September 29th: ‘New Madeleine suspect seen in stairwell’. (2)

The police were to find nothing linking Berry to the disappearance of the child.

At the time of the incident, Jayne and Annie were staying in Block 4, the apartment block next door to the McCanns. It was the same block as Jez Wilkins and his partner, Bridget O Donnell [were staying in], and one of three blocks searched by the initial search and rescue dogs [see PJ files].  

The sister's report was later backed up by 41-year-old barrister, Rajinder Balu, owner of immigration consultants, Cooper Tuffs (3)..

According to the Ocean Club guest lists, the two sisters were staying in Apartment 4J in Block 4 of the complex (G4J). However, doubt persists about the exact duration of their stay. The list for May 1st 2007 has room G4J booked to Jayne Marie Jensen and guest and their stay recorded as 21st April 2007 until 05th May 2007.
On the guest list for May 3rd 2007, the day Madeleine disappears, the length of their stay has been extended by seven days (21st April 2007 until 12th May 2007).

It is only on the 07th May that the guest list even mentions Jensen's sister Annie Wiltshire.

The guest list for the day 2nd May 2007 is likewise missing from the file.

There's little doubting that Jensen and Wiltshire would have made credible and crucial witnesses, and here's why:

• the two sisters were members of the same tennis coaching group as Gerry McCann and Matthew Oldfield and even played tennis together on the afternoon of May 3rd, under the guidance of coach Daniel Stuk [see PJ files] (who also provided a formal statement during the first few days).
• their apartment had even better views of the swimming pool and tennis courts than either the McCanns or the Oldfields.
• they were drinking in the Tapas bar on the night Madeleine went missing, with witnesses Neil Berry and Rajinder Balu.
• according to the sisters at least - they even took part in the initial searches.

Why their respective interviews with the Policia Judiciária (translated by Robert Murat) never made it into the Police Files is something of a mystery in itself. Along with the initial statements provided by Neil Berry, they have been wiped from the files - at least those copies of the files provided by Brenda Ryan [on her blog]  (another native of Kent).

Like the Madeleine Foundation's 'McCann Stalker' Debbie Butler, Jensen has lived and worked in Maidstone for many years - and like witness Martin Smith is a restauranteur by trade, already having owned and managed several bars and eateries in the area including Number 10 Ltd (5), (originally registered in Gillingham near Rochester), Harper's Corporate Entertainment Ltd, Harpers (Marlborough) Ltd (originally based in Cardiff) and Lashings, the latter now owned by Sports PR Guru David Selb and Jensen's long-time friend, John Tobin from County Wicklow in Southern Ireland. Her sister Annie Wiltshire operates Blakes, a business specialising in vintage furniture. Neil Berry, by contrast, is a respected graphic artists, the owner of Juice by Design, with several other business ventures behind him, including PrintaPoster in Thornton Heath in Croydon (5), a 10 minute drive from the South Norwood, Croydon address [the home of Debbie Seepersad] (8) raided by police in connection with Madeleine's disappearance.

Berry's clients include The Daily Telegraph, JP Morgan Chase, Disney and the NHS.
(1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(3) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(4) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(5) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
(6) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(7) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(8) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The original Daily Mail article (end of December 2007), titled “We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment” said this:

“Although the two sisters contacted Portuguese police within hours of  Madeleine's disappearance, their evidence was ignored for six months. The women met police three times within 24 hours, tried to find out who the strangers were themselves and made several follow-up phone calls to the authorities.

“But it was not until six weeks ago that a formal statement was finally taken.

"The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter. They intended to remain anonymous but when their names were leaked to a Portuguese newspaper and they found themselves wrongly accused of waiting eight months before coming forward, they decided to reveal the truth. The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony”.

REST SNIPPED - UNQUOTE

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
I wonder if Maxine Harris (founder of Helping to find Madeleine) has seen the light yet! This video was made in preparation for the 1st anniversary in 2008.

quote


''The very next day, Christmas Day, the following e-mail, from Brian Kennedy's Swettenham Hall, Cheshire, residence, arrived in Gary [b class="coloradmin" style="color:#737ec4"]Hagland[/b]'s inbox:

"Gary, Have a great break. It's been good getting to know you over the last few months. We work well together and I am confident we will find a way in the new year. Thanks for all the effort you expend along with a not insignificant amount of nouse. Talk soon, Brian".

unquote

 

On 24 December 2007 (Christmas Eve), Dr Kate McCann sent him this e-mail message:

[b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(5, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Courier; font-size: 16px; line-height: 21.828125px; background-color: rgb(234, 234, 234);"]"Gary, Just wanted to send you our love and good wishes at this time and a big thank you for all your help over the past 4 months. Wishing you a happy and peaceful New Year, Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie x".[/b]

Why was Kate McCann signing emails from Madeleine in December 2007, 8 months after her daughter disappeared and a cadaver dog had made positive indications in their apartment and car and on her clothes?


That is really, really spooky.

It's becoming clear to me why certain individuals want TB silenced.

If I were Mr Hagland, I wouldn't be too happy that this was being disclosed on a public forum.

Charles Kane wrote:If I were Mr Hagland, I wouldn't be too happy that this was being disclosed on a public forum.

Why?

bobbin wrote:

Charles Kane wrote:If I were Mr Hagland, I wouldn't be too happy that this was being disclosed on a public forum.

Why?

 
It seems that the information was given in confidence.

Charles Kane wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Charles Kane wrote:If I were Mr Hagland, I wouldn't be too happy that this was being disclosed on a public forum.

Why?

 
It seems that the information was given in confidence.

 I wonder why he gave the information out in the first place if he didn't expect it to come out eventually. What was his motive?

ShuBob wrote:

Charles Kane wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Charles Kane wrote:If I were Mr Hagland, I wouldn't be too happy that this was being disclosed on a public forum.

Why?

 
It seems that the information was given in confidence.

 I wonder why he gave the information out in the first place if he didn't expect it to come out eventually. What was his motive?

i did think about that.  Good question.

On the evening of 14 August 2009, Gary Hagland wrote a letter of complaint to BBC TV East Midlands, on behalf of the then Chairman of The Madeleine Foundation, Debbie Butler.

Two days earlier, a leaflet about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann had been circulated in different parts of Leicestershire, including some in Rothley. Earlier that evening, BBC TV East Midlands had transmitted their interview of Ms Butler, about what became known as 'The Rothley Leaflet Drop'.

Gary Hagland kindly copied the letter to me, and did not stipulate that it was sent in confidence.

Here, with absolutely no editing, is the letter he sent:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


To: The Editor,
BBC TV East Midlands

14 August 2009

Sir,

During your East Midlands Today broadcast of 6:30pm Friday 14th August 2009, the show’s anchor, Anne Davies , presented an item on the activities of The Madeleine Foundation (‘TMF’). The item covered the recent, lawful, activity of TMF in distributing a leaflet in, amongst other locales, the Rothley Village area of Leicestershire, the content of which, inter alia, relates to the urging for a re-opening of the formal enquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann.

Ms Davies opted to interrogate, as opposed to interview, the on-camera TMF representative, and Ms Davies presented such a biased and subjective ‘report’ on this event as to relegate journalism to the sewers.

I strongly object to the gross lack of professional performance of Ms Davies in this matter, and I earnestly recommend that, in light of her plastic reporting, she revert to her founding secretarial crammer course as a more viable, certainly more honest, career path.

The issue of the loss of Madeleine Beth McCann as a phenomenon itself is so vast and amorphous that no crisp and perspicuous analysis of its concept, let alone the event proper, can avoid being procrustean. Nonetheless, it should be possible to say something helpful, even though it is not likely to be decisive. Even the most basic and preliminary questions about this matter remain, after all, not only unanswered but also unasked. I should know.

As a journalist, Ms Davies failed, miserably so, to professionally exploit the opportunity presented by the activity of TMF and to present a balanced account of events to-date and, indeed, the legitimate realm of alternative approaches as represented by TMF, however unpalatable to some such may be (though unlikely Madeleine herself).

What I do know is that organisations such as TMF, and their related acts, have a proper and rightful place in society’s search for the truth as to Madeleine ’s situation. This child was: (1) betrayed by her parents; (2) let down by a retarded EU host state; and now (3) dealt further injustice by the likes of the stance of Ms Davies and your public broadcast organisation. As a viewer, licence fee payer, and founder-investigator for Gerry and Kate McCann from September 2007 to April 2008, I find such reporting abhorrent, puerile, and reprehensible.

The contemporary proliferation of this sort of reporting also has deeper sources, in various forms of scepticism that deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “antirealists”, like Ms Davies, pander to doctrines which undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry.

One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by journalistic dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by a pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide an honest representation of herself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which she might hope to identify as the truth about things, she devotes herself to being true to her own nature. It is as though Ms Davies decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, she must therefore try instead to be true to herself and her employer: In colloquial parlance, I believe the descriptive word is humbug - as in humbug reporting.

I expect higher standards of and from the BBC, entrenched dumbed down cheap and simplistic regional reporting or not. It seems all Ms Davies has perfected in her career to-date is, and I quote her “...the art of carrying a tray of teas and coffees, all the newspapers and a great pile of tapes - at the same time”.

God help us.

Faithfully,

Gary Hagland, MBA, Dip.Comp.Stud. (Exon), FSI

E-mail (withheld by TB)

The more I read here about the mysterious Hagland, the more I think he may hold some very interesting information.
And therefore that TB has been told some information . . .
The fact that Hagland has said that he has been in contact with Grange may make the near future verrry interrrresting.

Is this the real reason TM and C-R tried to silence TB ?

Wow, I only just understood all those big words, he seems "well brainy" as they say around here  

Reminds me of how the poster Tripz used to write from the old 3A forum.

So he was on the side of the truth being told about Madeleines' disappearance.

TB wrote "A few weeks ago I contacted DCI Redwood and told him I was planning to release information about Gary Hagland and some at least of what he told me. I asked him if he had any objection at all to this information being made public.

A response was received and he has raised no objection. "

If he raised no objection surely that means the info isn`t relevant to the investigation - they wouldn`t want info released if they are about to make charges.

No feedback from OP yet then?  The seed was ready for planting.

Thank you, Tony. I do hope you stay safe.

Very interesting indeed.

My dictionary was in overdrive too, little pixie!

I hope we will hear more, preferably through a justice channel of course.

Keep your cards close to your chest Mr. Bennett, please. You've been hard done by, as most people with a brain know. I have faith that you will get your day! In court or otherwise.

Could Mr. Hagland publish his book online as an e-book? I bet a lot of people would be interested in it. He must have been a bit of a fly-on-the-wall at times.

Tony Bennett wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Is Mr Hagland in agreement with having this information published, Tony?

No, he is not in agreement. I have however told him of my plans to reveal more details about him other than his known involvement as an agent of the McCanns in interviewing (together with Julian Peribanez) Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire.

He has given me a lot of information both verbally and in writing about his six months with the McCann Team.

As he will undoubtedly confirm, I have urged him at all times to speak to the proper authorities about what he does and does not know about the search for Madeleine McCann.

I urged him again to do so after the announcement by David Cameron that he had acceded to demands by the McCanns and Rebekah Brooks for the current £5 million-plus Scotland Yard Review, Operation Grange.

By way of response, he told me that he had been in touch with a senior officer at Operation Grange and had told them of his involvement with the McCann Team and that he was willing to be interviewed.

Once he told me that, and with his consent, I sent a file to DCI Andy Redwood containing all the information that Gary Hagland had ever disclosed to me. For a number of legal reasons, I cannot disclose the contents of that dossier.

I do not actually know whether Gary Hagland has been informally or formally interviewed by anyone from Operation Grange, but I am confident that any police officer following normal procedures on a thoroughgoing cold case review would have made sure not only to interview Gary Hagland but also all of the other McCann private investigators: Francisco Marco, Antonio Jimenez Raso, Julian Peribanez, Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton, Dave Edgar, Arthur Cowley and...yes...Noel Hogan as well.

I will just add one thing for the record.

A few weeks ago I contacted DCI Redwood and told him I was planning to release information about Gary Hagland and some at least of what he told me. I asked him if he had any objection at all to this information being made public.

A response was received and he has raised no objection.    

Gary Hagland was very much involved in the early days in close liaison with Market Harborough-based Maxine Harris, founder of 'Helping to Find Madeleine'.

I am sure you realise "raised no objection' is not the same as giving permission.  It just mean: do what you want at your own risk.
Redwood is not within any legal right whatsoever to stop  what any individual wants to do with info they have.

Remember TM and their lawyers did not object either and look what happened!  Not saying.....just saying....

Especially when Hagland is not in agreement. He may not want to come under the radar unnecessarily in this manner. There is always a right time for everything.
We fully understand you want to leave no stone unturned, but it's always better to err on the safe side.
Besdes, it's nor worth it to fall out or get into the bad books of Hagland. As usual my opinion anyway.

PeterMac wrote:The more I read here about the mysterious Hagland, the more I think he may hold some very interesting information.
And therefore that TB has been told some information . . .
The fact that Hagland has said that he has been in contact with Grange may make the near future verrry interrrresting.

Is this the real reason TM and C-R tried to silence TB ?

But, .....but....

prior to this revelation by TB, surely TM and C-R knew nothing about TB's source back then?

I bet Kevin is a happy fly on the wall!

aiyoyo wrote:
But, .....but....
prior to this revelation by TB, surely TM and C-R knew nothing about TB's source back then?
I bet Kevin is a happy fly on the wall!

They may not have known that TB knew about Hagland, or that he knew what Hagland knew, but they knew the facts, themselves, TM certainly and by implication C-R, unless they were negligent and had not bothered to examine their clients versions of events in any great depth - which is actually quite likely, thinking about it. They may not have wanted to know the full details.
TB is revealing that he knew all along much more about the internal workings of the TM set up than they can ever have imagined.
They thought their circle was tight knit, but now it is proving to have unravelled, and a long time ago at that.
What else did Hagland reveal to TB ?
What has he revealed to Grange ?
TM have lost control.  Hence perhaps the deafening silence from CM and the press.

The letter to BBC re. complaint by Mr. Hagland - IMO mentioningr that he was a founder investigator for Mr. & Mrs. would have told the Powers that Be that all is not as has been disclosed otherwise he would not have written such a strongly worded letter to them imo.

Excellent letter from Mr. Hagland on what was, I believe, a very shoddy piece of reporting. Also IIRC the papers produced a very "scary" looking pic of Ms. Butler the next day or so.

Mr. Hagland certainly seems to have some info. which could upset the apple cart so to speak.

I cannot see how the police would not interview him and want to see any evidence (whatever that may be) that he has.

I am rather optimistic that things are moving behind the scenes and with this info. from Tony, I am of the belief that a whitewash will not occur.

Who knows what documents are held by others and what does Mr. Amaral have in his arsenal re. the upcoming trial? If it goes ahead of course.

plebgate wrote:. . .
Mr. Hagland certainly seems to have some info. which could upset the apple cart so to speak.
I cannot see how the police would not interview him and want to see any evidence (whatever that may be) that he has.    

Agreed. It think it beyond a peradventure that Grange will have spoken to Hagland, or at least tried to speak to him.
I wonder how close were his dealings with the McCanns themselves, or whether he was just dancing to the paymaster's tune ?
Perhaps the answer to that should not appear on the forum !

PeterMac wrote:

plebgate wrote:. . .
Mr. Hagland certainly seems to have some info. which could upset the apple cart so to speak.
I cannot see how the police would not interview him and want to see any evidence (whatever that may be) that he has.    

Agreed.  It think it beyond a peradventure that Grange will have spoken to Hagland, or at least tried to speak to him.
I wonder how close were his dealings with the McCanns themselves, or whether he was just dancing to the paymaster's tune ?
Perhaps the answer to that should not appear on the forum !

I agree, this type of classified info should be restricted while review is alive.

Question: can police doing an investigative review interview witnesses? Or do they have to wait until it becomes a full investigation and CPS involved?

If the witness asks to speak to the police, I can see no reason why the police would not take the witness up on their offer.

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
But, .....but....
prior to this revelation by TB, surely TM and C-R knew nothing about TB's source back then?
I bet Kevin is a happy fly on the wall!

They may not have known that TB knew about Hagland, or that he knew what Hagland knew, but they knew the facts, themselves, TM certainly and by implication C-R, unless they were negligent and had not bothered to examine their clients versions of events in any great depth - which is actually quite likely, thinking about it. They may not have wanted to know the full details.
TB is revealing that he knew all along much more about the internal workings of the TM set up than they can ever have imagined.
They thought their circle was tight knit, but now it is proving to have unravelled, and a long time ago at that.
What else did Hagland reveal to TB ?
What has he revealed to Grange ?
TM have lost control.  Hence perhaps the deafening silence from CM and the press.

When TB posted up their knutsford PI headquarter a while back they must have suspected it came from their inner circle, yet that didnt stop them gagging him despite future ramifications.  

If Hagland had revealed all to Grange one would have thought Redwood would counsel TB to keep this watertight for prosecution purpose for obvious reason.
That is if they'e working on a prosecution.  It does leave one wondering what the MET are up despite the CPS clandestine visit.

One wonders who else Hagland has contacted. Amaral?

Aiyoyo wrote "
If Hagland had revealed all to Grange one would have thought Redwood would counsel TB to keep this watertight for prosecution purpose for obvious reason.
That is if they'e working on a prosecution.  It does leave one wondering what the MET are up despite the CPS clandestine visit."

Exactly.

It seems to me they`re not interested in Hagland and that would raise the question WHY NOT.

Woofer wrote:Aiyoyo wrote "
If Hagland had revealed all to Grange one would have thought Redwood would counsel TB to keep this watertight for prosecution purpose for obvious reason.
That is if they'e working on a prosecution.  It does leave one wondering what the MET are up despite the CPS clandestine visit."

Exactly.

It seems to me they`re not interested in Hagland and that would raise the question WHY NOT.

 On the contrary. SY are not obliged to tell members of the public what they can and can't reveal prior to charges being brought. Otherwise, I suspect there'll be more claims of cover-up. Why would anyone really expect them to respond to TB's message any other way without giving away information which they've so far kept secret? How would they know TB is not on a fishing expenditure?