by Frank
McLintock for the Madeleine McCann Research Group,
December 2018
Amongst all the witness statements in the released
Portuguese Police files, there are four sets of remarkable and very specific
‘coincidences’.
There were three people who said they were 60% to 80% sure
about the identity of someone.
There were three people who said they saw someone and who
all said the person they saw was ‘not a tourist’.
There were two people who wove a complex tale about a
photograph and who explained to police: ‘Look, the date and time stamp proves
when it was taken’.
There were two people who were prepared to say that they
recognised Gerry McCann as a person they had seen with Madeleine (in one case
of 3 May, in the other case on 5 May), based solely on seeing a film of him
carrying his son Sean down the steps of an aeroplane.
The details are below.
A short analysis follows at the end.
60-80% sure
Martin Smith
Statement to Leicestershire Police, 20 September
2007: “I would be 60%-80% sure that it was Gerard [Gerald] McCann that I met that
night carrying a child”.
Jane Tanner
Jane Tanner said that she was 80% sure that the new person
drawn by Melissa Little [e-fits] was the same person she had seen on 3rd May. But she clearly admitted originally that she had never
seen the face of the man she claimed she had seen.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The “Niggle” and Strange Tale of Robert Murat
Was it a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice?
PJ Reis and Associates
"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy
who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the
language."
Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June
2008
AN INCREDIBLE STORY
One thing that is obvious from the CD of evidence released
by the Portuguese authorities in July 2008, in what was an inexplicably
selective disclosure, is the identification by Miss Jane Tanner of Mr Robert
Murat as Madeleine McCann’s “abductor”. She picked him out in a surveillance
exercise on Sunday 13th May 2007 and persisted in her allegation against him
and did not withdraw it until her interviews with the Leicestershire Police in
April 2008. You have to dig deep into the CD and other sources to pull
everything together, but here is what happened and it is incredible.
THE SUPPOSED SIGHTING OF THE ABDUCTOR
In the early hours of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner
approached GNR Officer, Nelson da Costa (statements at folios 417, 1340 and
3285) and told him that she had seen an “individual” running and carrying a
“child” who was “clearly” wearing pyjamas. The Officer did not consider the
sighting credible because when he asked Miss Tanner to describe the
“individual” she was unable to do so: excusing herself because it had been very
dark. The Officer wondered, if it had been so dark, how she had been able to
“clearly” see the child’s pyjamas.
A later exchange between Jane Tanner and the GNR Officers
was translated by Sylvia Maria Correia Baptisa (an employee of the Ocean Club).
Jane Tanner told the GNR, via Miss Baptista, that she had seen a “man” crossing
the road, (North of Apartment 5A) possibly carrying a child. Miss Baptista
(statements at folios 355,1289 and 1975) found this story “strange, because she
was convinced Miss Tanner had not been in a position to see the area concerned.
In the late morning of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner
told the PJ in Portimao about seeing a “person” striding “purposefully out”
across the top of the road near to Apartment
5A
Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very
dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the
back). He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a
"Duffy" type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes,
of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping
child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the
impression that he wasn't a tourist.
Miss Tanner’s statement continues:
Concerning the child, who seemed to be asleep, she only
saw the legs. The child seemed to be bigger than a baby. It had no shoes on,
was dressed in cotton light-coloured pyjamas (perhaps pink or white). It is
uncertain, but the interviewee has the feeling that she saw a design on the
pyjamas like flowers, but is not certain about it.
Concerning these details, the interviewee states not
having known what Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared. She has not
spoken to anyone about this. Concerning the man, she has only mentioned it to
Gerald, but without going into details and with the police.
The interviewee has been invited to draw a sketch which we
attach to this document. Questioned, she stated probably being able to identify
the person that she saw if she saw him in profile and at the place where she
saw him.
Strangely, in three interviews, she only once refers to
seeing a “man”. This lack of specificity is disturbing. Why does she consistently
refer to the alleged abductor as a “person” and not a “man” and to the “girl”
as a “child”?
FORENSIC LINGUISTICS
If you walk out of your house and fall over a cat, your
autonomic memory recall will not lead you to say that you “fell over an
animal”; your recollection will be specifically of a “cat” and possibly a “fat
black cat with white legs” or a “bloody cat”. In forensic linguistics (see the
brilliant analysis of the ransom note in the case of JonBenet Ramsey on
www.statementanalysis.com) the truth is usually spontaneously recalled from
memory to a specific event, object, activity or time and not to a generality:
in the present context the noun “person” indicates that the specific image of a
man was not accessible in Miss Tanner’s memory. It suggests an invention of
something that did not happen being contrived from the imagination. The rule is
that “truth is from memory but lies are from the imagination”. Of course,
linguistic analysis proves nothing, but it does raise serious questions about
Miss Tanner’s credibility.
THE EGG MAN
Later on 4th May 2007 Miss Tanner was asked for more
detail about the “abductor”. This resulted in a graphic from the PJ’s computers
(which is not on the CD) and to the famous “Egg Man” sketch that was based upon
it. The “Egg Man” is a frontal view, without glasses or a moustache and short
hair at the back of his head but with strands hanging over the front of his
face, with a parting. It is nothing like Robert Murat.
Miss Tanner subsequently told the Leicestershire Police
that she could not have improved upon the “Egg Man” because the PJ did not have
computer software that could draw profiles. This is an implausible excuse and
she gave a detailed verbal description that is unlike Mr Murat. The “Egg Man” sketch
as well as her verbal description of the “abductor” were not consistent,
nothing like Mr Murat, yet this did not prevent her, later on, picking him out
as the person she saw on the night of 3rd May 2007.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORDS “THEREFORE” and “BECAUSE”
In her second statement to the PJ (on 10th May 2007) Miss
Tanner said (see the summary translation at folio 3994 of the CD) she “believed
it (ie the child being carried by the abductor) was a girl and therefore her
pyjamas were light coloured (White or pink)”. She did not say she had seen pink
pyjamas, nor that they had a pattern or frill on the legs. This very
significant detail – which precisely matched the clothes that Miss Tanner later
learned Madeleine had been wearing - only came much later. Miss Tanner assumed,
because the man was carrying a girl, the pyjamas would be pink! But why did she
assume it was a girl when she has consistently admitted she did not see the
child’s upper body, hair or face? This circularity puts us on notice that Miss
Tanner’s statement is not credible.
In her interviews with the Leicestershire Police, in April
2008, Miss Tanner again repeats the circularity of what came first: the actual
sighting of pink pyjamas or her imagining this colour because she believed (or
assumed) the “child” was a girl:
Detective Constable Sophie Ferguson asked:
“And then think about the child again, as much as you can
see of that child in that split second, and tell me what you saw?”
Miss Tanner responded:
“Well, again, I mean, and this is….. I think initially I
couldn’t really bring, I could only really remember the feet. But the day
after, when we had, they, at the interview, the person that was interviewing
was really pushing me to try and, you know, remember any more details, and the
one thing that I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description.
And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement,
(SHE MUST KNOW IT DID NOT) but there was, and this is the thing that convinces
me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort
of, I thought it was a turn-up, but some sort of design on the bottom of the
pyjamas.
And I did say it in my first statement and in my second
statement. I can remember saying it again and, erm, the translator in there,
because I said I don’t know whether this made it into my first statement or
not, but the translator sort of went ‘Oh yes, I can remember you going like
this’, because I was moving my hands up, but I was sort of talking about
something at the bottom of the pyjamas.
Because, from my own point of view, and I think, you know,
Oh was I trying to, I can think that I would think ‘Oh maybe a little girl
would be wearing pink pyjamas’, so, you know, if you were subconsciously
putting things in your head, I can think pink pyjamas, yes, but I wouldn’t
think of some detail around the bottom of the pyjamas as a specific thing to,
to mention.
The bottom line is that Miss Tanner admits that she:
•Only saw the feet or legs of the child and did not know
whether it was a boy or a girl
•Assumed the “child” was a girl
•May have imagined seeing pink pyjamas by “subconsciously
putting things in your (her) head”
But she maintained that she could not possibly have
imagined (and therefore must have seen) “some sort of …. turn-up or design” or
“detail around the bottom of the pyjamas” that was included in her first and
second statement. The problem is that this description was not mentioned in her
first statement (made on 4th May 2007) but was critically important because it
perfectly described the clothing that Madeleine had been wearing.
Miss Tanner claimed not to have known, at the time of
making her first statement, what Madeleine had been wearing, because she had
“not been in the room” when Kate McCann had given the description of them.
Again, in the forensic linguistic field, the use of words such as “therefore”,
“since”, “hence”, “as”, “so” or “because” put the analyst on notice that the
explanation may not be truthful. However, she cannot deny having been told about
this detail before 10th May 2007, so its inclusion in her second statement
really counts for nothing.
The words “because” etc are usually associated with
“pseudo denials” such as “I did not take the money, because I did not have the
keys to the safe”. Truthful denials and truthful assertions are usually totally
committed and do not need to be subconsciously supported by words such as
“because” or “therefore” etc. “I did not steal the bloody car” is more likely
to be truthful than “I did not take the car because I cannot drive”. Liars
often fret that their stories may be disbelieved and subconsciously add
unnecessary reinforcement, often introduced with the linking word “because”.
Miss Tanner uses “because” a lot!
INCONSISTENCY OF TENSE, NOUNS AND PRONOUNS
Miss Tanner (again the summary at Folio 3994) stated “…..
I did think it strange that “the child” (not a specific recall to a “girl”) has
a blanket/sheet to cover it”. She has since denied that she ever said the girl
was covered by a blanket and it is possible that the translated summary
statement is erroneous. But that is what it says.
Miss Tanner’s apparent use of the present tense “has”,
when relating a past event, is a classic symptom of deception, as is the
unspecific noun “child”. Also, the use of the pronoun “it” is not consistent
with an accurate focused retrieval from memory: the pronoun “her” would have
been more indicative of the truth whereas “it”, when supposedly recalling the
sighting of a young girl, is not.
UNDERPLAYING THE SIGHTING
Both Miss Tanner and her husband – Russell O’Brien – admit
that in her early conversations with the PJ about the “abductor” she had “not
wanted to believe” or “did not give much importance” to what she had seen and
may have, to use Russell O’Brien’s words, “underplayed” the sighting. She says
she “avoided mentioning” precisely what she had seen to Mr and Mrs McCann
“therefore she didn’t want to increase their suffering” (Folio 3995). Again,
the word “therefore” appears.
We know her explanation is not true because the chronology
agreed by the Tapas 9 (including Mr and Mrs McCann)—by tearing pages out of
Madeleine’s picture book before the PJ arrived—specifically describes Ms
Tanner’s alleged sighting. She did tell them about seeing a “person” with a “child”
but she did not tell them about the child’s pink pyjamas, with a design on the
trousers. And the possible reason for this omission may have nothing to do with
preventing the McCann’s “suffering” but results from the story being
embellished after the event to match Madeleine’s clothing.
QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCEDURES
Extreme care has to be taken with applying linguistic
analytics to any statements and especially to those that have been translated.
What is unacceptable, in both the PJ and Leicestershire Police interviews, is
that the English versions (before translation) are not in the CD. Good practice
would dictate that the statements should have been first written (or tape
recorded) in English or in the witnesses’ native language (so they can properly
agree them) and then translated into Portuguese for proceedings in that
country. Both versions should have been retained. This does not seem to have
happened with any of the statements now in the CD.
It appears that the PJ made the translations of their interviews
with the Tapas 9 in real time, while the conversations were taking place, and
did not keep a record in English of what, precisely, was being said. Similarly,
there is no record in the CD of the English versions of the Leicestershire
Police interviews with independent witnesses. The bottom line is that the
content of virtually all of the statements in the case could be denied and this
may be one of the reasons why the Portuguese prosecutors decided to shelve the
case. It is alternatively possible that full transcripts in English of the
Tapas 9’s interviews by the PJ are available but they are not to be found in
the CD.
CONFIDENCE IN THE SIGHTING
We can measure how confident and concerned Miss Tanner
was, at the time, by the reaction of her husband and other searchers. None of
them went tracking off in the direction she claims she had seen the “abductor”
striding “purposefully out”. In fact, no one (including the Portuguese sniffer
dogs) seems to have taken her sighting seriously. This is unsurprising as she
did not take it seriously herself!
THE FINGERING OF MR MURAT
On 6th May 2007, a female CID Officer in the
Leicestershire Constabulary (Folio 307 of the CD) faxed the “Portugal Incident
Room” stating that Lori Campbell, a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, had been
in contact. The Officer reported:
“Lori has been speaking to an Interpreter who has been
helping the Portuguese authorities with the investigation into Madeleine’s
disappearance. He has only given his name as “ROB” (sic) and has not given any
background information about himself.
Lori has become suspicious of Rob as he has given
conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he
noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror’s photographer. ROB stated to Lori
that he was going through a messy divorce in the UK
Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal
The Leicestershire Police were impressively quick in
forwarding Miss Campbell’s information to the PJ, in stark contrast to the way
they handled some other matters. For example, in mid May 2007, Katherine and
Arul G***** contacted the UK
These potentially critical statements were not reported to
the PJ until many months later and then only after the Portuguese Officers had
heard rumours and had specifically asked to see them. Although the statements
are indexed in the PJ files, they are not included in the CD. This omission has
to be deliberate.
Miss Campbell’s report must have hit the hot buttons,
because Mr Murat came under suspicion and the PJ intercepted his telephone (see
folios 1017 and 1267), picking up some interesting chats with Martin Brunt of
Sky TV (see folios 1675 and 1692) but little else except for a conversation
with “Phil” a British Police Officer whom Mr Murat asked about the ways mobile
telephone signals could be traced to specific locations. Mr Murat’s interest
seemed to be whether such tracking would prove he was at home during the
critical hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007 and thus tends to support his
innocence. There was nothing from the PJ’s surveillance to implicate Mr Murat.
However, things were to change and change very quickly.
THE ARRIVAL IN LUZ OF CONTROL RISKS GROUP (“CRG”)
In the early afternoon of Sunday 13th May 2007, Miss
Tanner spoke to “some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in” (believed
to be Control Risks Group (CRG) whose two senior investigators—Kenneth Farrow
and Michael Keenan— arrived in Faro on the British Airways flight from Gatwick
that morning) and told them about her sighting of “the person”. It is probable
(but this is not clear from the CD or from the Leicestershire Police
interviews) that she told CRG (as she had earlier told the Portuguese Police)
that she could identify the “abductor” if she were to see him in profile and in
context.
The involvement of CRG is important. The company was
apparently retained as part of a “crisis management” team by Bell Pottinger on
behalf of Mark Warner. Some CRG specialist were probably in Luz before 13th May
2007 but Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police
BOB SMALL AND THE SPANISH POLICE
After speaking to “the people that Kate and Gerry brought
in”, Miss Tanner received a telephone call from Bob Small (a senior
Leicestershire Police Officer, who was assisting the PJ in the Algarve
Mr Small told Miss Tanner to not to discuss anything with
anyone, including her husband. She claims she followed this instruction to the
letter: but is it realistic to believe she did not tell him anything: or is she
lying on this point? If she is being untruthful, why?
Mr Murat was under suspicion but had not been made an
“Arguido”. He been around the Ocean Club a lot from 4th May 2007 onwards and
had interpreted the PJ’s interviews with Catriona Baker, Stacey Portz , Leanne
Wagstaff and Amy Teirney (Folio 457). It is possible that between 6th May 2007
(when his name was mentioned by Lori Campbell) and 13th May 2007 the news that
a local suspect had been identified had reached the ears of the “Tapas 9”. It
is even conceivable that they knew the suspect was Mr Murat. Unlike her husband
and others of the “Tapas 9”, Miss Tanner had never been introduced to Mr Murat.
THE ILL
Arrangements were made for Miss Tanner to be collected by
Mr Small and his PJ colleagues in a car park near to Mr Murat’s home: this was
probably around 7.30pm on Sunday 13th May 2007 while Dr Amaral waited for news
in a meeting room at the Public Ministry, preparing to pounce if Miss Tanner’s identification
was “successful”.
Miss Tanner dramatizes that she was “worried sick” that
the “Spanish Police” were about to cart her off to destinations unknown and got
her husband to walk with her to the rendezvous with Mr Small. If, as she
claims, she did not discuss the identification operation with her husband, what
precisely did she say to him? What did he think was going on? Who looked after
their kids and what did they tell them? It is beyond belief that Russell
O’Brien and some of the other “Tapasniks” did not know what was afoot.
Why the police arranged Miss Tanner’s pick up so near to
their main suspect’s home was at best foolish and was asking for trouble. On
their way to the car park - and just outside his home - Robert Murat (who had
met Russell O' Brien on the morning of Friday 4th May 2007) stopped, got out of
his green VW van and chatted, showing the couple posters he had made to “Find
Madeleine” and generally rattling on about nothing in particular. This was the
first time Miss Tanner had been introduced to Mr Murat, but given the events
that were about to follow it is amazing she did not cry out “That’s him… that’s
the ‘person’ I saw: the abductor”. But she didn’t say a single word.
In April 2008 she told the Leicestershire Police that she
was concerned that there “was some strange conspiracy going on” (to abduct her)
and that Mr Small had “scared the daylights out of her”. She continued: “But
that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that
point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart (Stewart Prior the lead UK Police
Investigator in Luz)”. She knows she had spoken to Mr Prior and thus had no
reason to believe that she was about to be abducted. Her histrionics in this
regard are absurd.
The discussion Miss Tanner had with her husband about the
identification charade are very important. He had already met Mr Murat and
would be able to identify him and point him out to her. Was it pure coincidence
that he accompanied Miss Tanner to the pick up by Mr Small? Was it bad planning
that the pick up was just outside Mr Murat’s house? Was it misfortune that they
happened to bump into Mr Murat? Or is the whole sequence far more sinister?
Miss Tanner was taken away by Mr Small and the PJ and she
says Russell O’Brien wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he
could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her. Miss Tanner was driven to
another location and hidden in the back of an undercover surveillance vehicle
(a refrigerated van) which was driven to a position near the side entrance to Apartment 5A
THE IDENTIFICATION OF MR MURAT AS THE ABDUCTOR
Miss Tanner then, apparently, saw three people walk across
the top of the road: but Mr Murat was the first to do so. It is not clear
exactly what she told the PJ at the time but, however she would like to spin
the story now, it was enough to make them believe Mr Murat was the “abductor”,
notwithstanding the fact that he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” or her
verbal description. The sighting was reported to Dr Amaral and the Public
Ministry and plans made to arrest Mr Murat.
Mr Murat’s home was searched on 14th May 2007. He was made
an “Arguido” 15th May 2007 and his face was on every TV screen in Europe , including those at the Ocean Club.
WELCOME CORROBORATION BY THE “TAPAS 3”
Miss Tanner claims that she had not told her friends
anything about her outing in the refrigerated van and that their reactions to
Mr Murat’s exposure on Sky News were spontaneous. However, in her April 2008
interviews with the Leicestershire Police, Miss Tanner stated that her friends
suggested that she should speak to Mr Small about Mr Murat. How did they know
she had Mr Small’s contact details if she had not discussed the identification
charade with them? Miss Tanner stated:
“Cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before
(for/from?) them and you know, they sort of, you know, to say, oh is this, is
this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him (Mr Murat) on the
way to doing the surveillance as well as, yeh, just for that so it’s just to
make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert
Murat had said he wasn’t there on that night”.
Later in the interview, Miss Tanner said:
“…. Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is, you
know they, when they asked me to ring Bob Small to make these statements, we
didn’t even know that he’d, erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night
and they didn’t know that I had done the surveillance………… I mean when I got
back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took everything seriously
what the police said in terms of, you know, not telling anyone”
A PROCEDURAL ERROR OR A PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE?
Miss Tanner telephoned Bob Small and relayed her friend’s
concerns, but it is not clear whether or not she told him about the
compromising, supposedly accidental, encounter with Mr Murat- outside his house
– “five minutes” before identifying him as the “abductor”. In most
jurisdictions this encounter would have invalidated Miss Tanner’s
identification evidence. It would also have raised suspicions that there had
been a deliberate plot for her to bump into the prime suspect (accompanied by
someone who knew him) so that she would see what he was wearing and, based on
such knowledge, identify him as the “abductor” some “five minutes” later.
Whether this suspicion is true or incorrect, it does not
alter the fact that the identification exercise was gross incompetence by all
involved. Mr Murat denied being at the Ocean Club on 3rd May 2007, which made
his position even more serious because it conflicted with evidence from the
“Tapas 3”.
There is nothing in the CD to indicate whether the
supposedly accidental encounter was reported to Mr Small, although the
subsequent reaction of the Leicestershire Police (in the interview with Miss
Tanner in April 2008; see below) suggests that it was. The critical unanswered
question is whether or not Mr Small reported the evidentially corrupting
incident to the PJ and to the Portuguese judiciary and if he did why they
accepted Miss Tanner’s evidence without demur.
OTHER STATEMENTS BY THE TAPAS 3
On 15th May 2007, Mr O’Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael
Mampilly made statements to the PJ putting Murat in the Ocean Club late on 3rd
May 2007 (folios 1957). Their evidence appears to conflict with that from both
Portuguese Police Officers and Mark Warner’s staff (Folio 1330 et seq) who say
Mr Murat was not there that night. Activity on his own and his mum’s computers
tend to confirm that he was at home, among other things, looking at mild porn sites
(Folio 1166)
STATEMENTS BY GAIL COOPER AND WORK BY BRIAN KENNEDY
Towards the end of May 2007, Mrs Gail Cooper (Folio 3997
and 3982) gave a statement to the Newark Police claiming that when she had been
on holiday “in a villa near Apartment
5A
On 11th July 2007, a formal confrontation between the
Tapas 3 and Mr Murat took place in Portimao. He stuck to his guns: they stuck
to theirs' and it became a standoff. In this meeting Miss Tanner was able to
get a very good look of Mr Murat and apparently continued to maintain he was
the “person” she had seen carrying the “child on 3rd May 2007”, despite the
fact he looked nothing like the “Egg Man” The PJ seemed to believe Mr Murat.
At some point, Brian Kennedy, the McCann’s financial
backer and double glazing magnate, arranged for Gail Cooper to meet Melissa
Little BSc (Hons), PS, FBI Diploma, which resulted in the sketch of “Monster
Man” who had a long pointy face, moustache, long hair at the back of his head,
but no glasses (Folio 3979).
MELISSA LITTLE’S SKETCHES
On 22nd October 2007 (folio 3905) Gerald McCann emailed
Robert Small with two sketches both prepared by Melissa Little, one of which
(“the second sketch”) became known as “Bundle Man”. The first sketch is similar
to “Bundle Man” but it is in black and white and has a nose (“Nose Man”).
Mr McCann wrote to “Bob” Small as follows: “Sketch 1 was
the rough outline…… “She (Miss Tanner) was not really happy with the face and
therefore Melissa decided to leave it blank”.
The differences between the two sketches may appear
marginal, but they are critical, because the black and white “Nose Man” (see
folio 3906) does not wear glasses, nor does he have facial hair! Since Mr Murat
cannot see a barn door without his glasses and is never without them, this
sketch would appear to rule him out as the “abductor”. Yet no one acted on this
gross inconsistency and he remained an Arguido.
No wonder Miss Tanner was “not really happy with the
face”, when it totally destroyed her identification of Mr Murat.
BRIAN KENNEDY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR?
On 13th January 2008, Brian Kennedy interviewed Albert
Schuurmans who is the head of the Roscoe Foundation, based in the Algarve
At around this time, Gail Cooper discussed her sighting
with the British media but added further detail and described seeing “Monster
Man” acting suspiciously on three separate occasions: firstly when he was
walking in heavy rain on the beach at Luz, later that day when he called at her
apartment claiming to be a charity collector and two days later when she saw
him hanging around a children’s outing arranged by Mark Warner. She told the
reporters she had found the man “disturbing”. It should be noted that in none
of her alleged sightings did she see him “striding purposefully”.
Miss Little prepared a second sketch showing Mrs Cooper’s
“Monster Man” striding out and in a very similar pose to that based on Miss
Tanner’s most recent recollection. The pose is strange because none of Mrs Cooper’s
three sightings saw “Monster Man” “striding purposefully”. It is also
significant that Nose Man has no moustache. Miss Little seems to have exercised
a high degree of artistic licence.
But whichever way you look at these pictures it is obvious
they are not of Robert Murat and nothing like the “Egg Man”.
THE POWER POINT PRESENTATION
On 16th January 2008, Gerald McCann emailed Stuart Prior,
Superintendent with the Leicestershire Police, with a PowerPoint presentation
(folio 3966) stating “as discussed”. An hour later, Mr Prior forwarded the
package to Ricardo Paiva of the PJ asking for instructions and stating, among
other things:
The PowerPoint attached (Folio 3968) was completed by the
McCanns but the statements were all taken by the UK
•Miss Tanner’s description was taken from the press and
from the summary of her statement
•There is some urgency around this as we need to decide
prior to the Gail Cooper artist’s impression appearing in the UK
•How are you going to deal with the possible press issues?
•What are you planning around Mr Kennedy and the private
investigation firm?
He concludes: “I will need to get back to the McCanns as
he has asked to be updated. How would Paulo (Mr Rebelo) want this conducted and
what information I am to provide to them. They are very excited about this
potential lead”
The Power Point slides highlight the similarity between
“Bundle Man” and the “Monster Man”. Mr McCann states:
•Miss Tanner spent a full day with Melissa Little, a
qualified Police Sketch Artist since 1986 to compile this likeness of the
suspect
•Melissa met Gail Cooper in a separate session
•After spending hours with both witnesses, Melissa Little
states “there are many similarities between Miss Tanner’s man and Gail’s”
•Miss Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that
this is the same man she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine
Significantly, nowhere in the PowerPoint pack is there any mention of the very precise sighting by the Irish Smith family (who identified Gerald McCann as the likely abductor), nor has there been (as far as can be found in the files) any attempt to follow the Smith’s evidence, except by Mark Harrison the UK Police search expert, (Folios 2224 and 2262) who on all of his search plans marks only two sightings… that of Miss Tanner and that of the Smith family. Mr Harrison obviously takes the Smith sighting seriously.
MORE ON GAIL COOPER
On 17th January 2008 Detective Constable 4168 of the
Leicestershire Police interviewed Gail Cooper and emailed the Operational Task
Force. Mrs Cooper tried to explain the News of the World’s additions and
embellishments to her police statements with the phrase; “It never crossed my
mind”….. and the Officer reported that she “mentioned a man called Brian
Kennedy who was working for the McCanns and …. had sent an artist down to do a
sketch of the man she saw at the villa “(Folio 4005).
On 18th January 2008, Stuart Prior emailed Ricardo Paiva
about the Gail Cooper statement:
“as discussed. I have given Gerry a brief update just
saying that the other descriptions are different to the artist’s impressions
completed by Gail and identified by Jane. That the witnesses appeared genuine
which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine
being taken. (This makes Mr Kennedy’s evidence very suspect)
We have not spoken to Jane at all and will not share our
files with anybody, except yourselves, unless you request this from us. It
appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in
the weeks before Madeleine being taken.
I am told that the artists impression by Gail Cooper is
likely to hit the press over the weekend and I will update you on the effects
of this next week although we are not involved in this in any way at all”
Later Mr Prior refers to an email from Michael Graham of
the Leicestershire Police who reported “I (Mick Graham) have spoken to
Charlotte Pennington this morning and she has no additional information to
give……….. She has been spoken to by a Private Investigator (Noel Hogan) working
on behalf of Metado 3. Charlotte
On 20th January 2008, the News of the World published a
long article on Mrs Cooper’s alleged sighting and printed the full facial and
striding out sketch of “Monster Man”. On 21st January 2008, Clarence Mitchell,
the McCann’s spokesman held a press conference releasing details of “Monster
Man”.
The News of the World concluded “The sketch by qualified
police artist Melissa Little, bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier
picture, based on Miss Tanner's story”. This is unsurprising given both
selections had – using considerable artistic licence - been made by the same
artist—Melissa Little and paid for by Mr Kennedy to assist the McCanns. Why did
Mr Kennedy not get the fragrant Melissa to compile a “purposefully striding
out” image of the Smith sighting? And why did Miss Tanner not immediately
correct her misidentification of Mr Murat?
JANE TANNER INTERVIEW WITH LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE
In her April 2008 interviews - with Detective Constable
Sophie Ferguson of the Leicestershire Police -Miss Tanner admitted that Robert
Murat was not the “person” she had seen carrying a “child” on Thursday 3rd May
2007. It is not known what had caused her to change her opinion, especially
when at the confrontation in Portimao on 11th July 2007 she had been so
confident in her identification of Mr Murat. Possibly, it was that the PJ had
shelved the case against Mr and Mrs McCann, making the identification a moot
point.
Miss Tanner excused her misidentification of Mr
Murat:
“I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I
was about to be abducted by the people…..”.
Miss Tanner’s drama is highly implausible, because before
she set out on the Identification Charade she had spoken to Stuart Prior, whom
she knew to be a Leicestershire Police Officer, to confirm Mr Small’s bonafides.
But she continued to excuse her positive, but mistaken, identification of Mr
Murat:
“But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we
were parked, there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and
then two other people walked by so I didn’t really…… but I didn’t even
recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before. Well you
know half an hour before so, erm, then we went, I think because it had gone a
bit wrong, because this car had been there and then we tried to set it up
elsewhere but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and
you know it didn’t look, it didn’t jog any memories”
Detective Constable Ferguson’s lack of a reaction suggests
she was fully aware, but not at all concerned, of Miss Tanner’s supposed
accidental encounter with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him out as the
abductor. It seems that Miss Tanner realised this encounter was “dodgy” and
thus changed her reactive description of “five minutes before” to “well, you know,
half and hour before”.
However, the Officer tried to get Miss Tanner to benchmark
her mental image of the abductor with pictures she had subsequently seen of Mr
Murat in the newspapers:
“Now you are left with that mental image in your head
about the man carrying the child. And you said, you described his hair quite
well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link
the two of those?”
Miss Tanner prevaricated and struggled to respond:
“I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t
think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper
doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet
Bob SMALL. Its really annoying because normally I would have probably taken
more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t
know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was
too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again,
I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite
little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite big, so I
can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t.”
Detective Constable Ferguson:
“So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”
Miss Tanner:
“No”
Detective Constable Ferguson:
“You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Miss Tanner responded:
“No, I don’t, no” and later said: ”I don’t think it was
him that I saw. But I just thought that it was”
Miss Tanner’s responses are disturbing for many reasons
but perhaps the most worrying is her evasion of Detective Constable Ferguson’s
question which called for a comparison of the “abductor” with Mr Murat’s
photograph in the newspapers. The request to make the comparison with the
papers was irrelevant and insipid. It would have been much more relevant, and
potentially revealing , for the Officer to have invited Miss Tanner to compare
the “abductor” sighting with her confrontation of Mr Murat in Portimao on 11th
July 2007 and then to ask her why she had not corrected her misidentification
at that time. Proper questioning would have put Miss Tanner’s false
identification to the test.
But even probing glaring discrepancies played no part in
the Leicestershire Police interviews of the “Tapas 9”. The interviews were
superficial and as one Officer explained it they were “just ticking the boxes”.
But why?
In any event, Miss Tanner avoided giving an answer to the
insipid question that was asked and instead deflected to a comparison of her
supposedly accidental meeting with Mr Murat “five minutes” before picking him
out with his television appearances. This was not the question she was asked to
address.
If she had really seen Mr Murat on the evening of 3rd May
2007, in the course of abducting Madeleine, this would have been, as Detective
Constable Ferguson correctly implied, the indelible benchmark in her memory.
The fact that, either consciously or more likely subconsciously, Miss Tanner
did not, or could not, make such a comparison throws further doubt on her
evidence.
Russell O’Brien, who had originally stated he had spoken
to Mr Murat at the Ocean Club on the night of 3rd and 4th May 2007 (and had
entered his phone number into his mobile handset at that time), changed his
story when technical evidence proved that this was incorrect. Mr O’Brien
said:
“Well, I do not wish to change, you know, my original
statement. The original kind of statement. But we have, you know, the niggle
that unintentionally we have, that have got a time wrong and that it was on the
following morning”
So, Mr Murat’s life was destroyed and the Tapasniks have a
“niggle” they may have got it wrong! Is Mr Murat unlucky or what? But why, oh
why, when his lawyers must know every fact in this article and more, does he
not take action (possibly involving the Independent Police Complaints
Commission) against the Tapas 9, the LP, PJ and CRG? That is among the biggest
questions of all.
A number of people have asked me what is happening to the
detailed reports, especially relating to a forensic examination of the crèche
records, prepared by of one of the investigative firms with which I have been
working. The Leicestershire Police has never formally acknowledged receiving
the reports and have not responded to emails and telephone calls. They are thus
in a position where they could deny ever receiving the reports.
I understand that the reports have not been forwarded to Portugal
But the subject will be pursued and all the relevant
reports and papers will be handed over – soon... - to the head of the Public
Prosecutors Office with a formal request to re-open the investigation based on
new evidence which will be presented. So please be patient.
Paulo Reis
Not a tourist
Jane Tanner
Statement, 4 January:
“She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant to go to
the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left…she
saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez…She passed by them…Meanwhile a
man appeared carrying a child…She only
managed to see him from the side…”
Statement, 10 May:
“…there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a
barefoot child. At the time she had not paid him much attention…Only it was
strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked,
rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire
length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to
"corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese]
style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what,
seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of ‘anorak’.
Martin Smith
Statement, 26 May:
“He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not
notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was
not very good. He was wearing cream or
beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not notice the body
clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same… - Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain
this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing”.
Aoife Smith
Statement, 26 May 2007:
“The individual was male…she saw his face but now cannot remember it… His trousers were smooth ‘rights’ along the
legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with
buttons, and without any other decoration. She did not see what he was wearing
above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top”.
Peter Smith: The
description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian...He does
not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not
notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad”.
Nuno Lourenco
Statement, 5 May 2007: “He describes him as masculine…He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of
the same material which was cream coloured. Almost the same colour to the
hat he had worn previously. His shoes were
dark brown: the type that need to be shined or polished.
Date & time
stamp
Gerry McCann
Guardian, 11 April 2008 “What happened on the day
Madeleine disappeared?” 2.29pm: The last photograph of Madeleine is
taken at the pool. The camera clock reads 1.29pm but the family says it was out
by one hour.
Joana Morias
‘Madeleine’s Official ‘Last Photo’’ (early 2008) “On Thursday May 3, 2007 at 2:29pm, Kate
McCann took a photo of husband Gerry and daughters Amelie and Madeleine. We are
told this on the official Find Madeleine website:
Gerry and Kate McCann have released the last photograph of
their daughter before her abduction in the Algarve
The picture is of
Madeleine sitting by the swimming pool on the day she was snatched from her
bed. Kate took the photo of Madeleine at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann's camera
clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm. Less than eight hours later,
before 10pm that night, Madeleine disappeared.
There are several observations one may deduce from this
information:
· The parents say Madeleine was snatched from her bed
before 10pm.
· Was Kate was standing in the pool when she took the
photo, or using zoom and standing on the other side of the pool?
· The McCanns emphasise the fact that this photo was taken
at 2:29pm and also tell us that Mrs. McCann's camera clock was one hour out
with (presumably) the date stamp on the digital photo being 1:29pm.
Another mystery concerns the release of this photograph.
Why release it three weeks after Madeleine disappeared? Many older photographs
were released into the public domain before this one - perhaps the most
important photo of all. Why the delay? Could it be because this "last
photo" is a forgery? Do the McCanns want us to believe Madeleine was alive
at 2:29pm for a specific reason?
Nuno Lourenco
Statement: “The
witness managed to take a picture of the vehicle which he handed over to the
police, and which is now exhibited. The picture is recorded as having been
taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile
phone, a few minutes later the couple in question left in the direction of
Sagres Fortaleza…
‘By the way he
was carrying Sean’
Martin Smith
Statement, 20 September
“…made a statement to Portugal
police in Portimao on 26th May and returned to UK UK Portugal
Richard McCluskey
Statement, 12 September “Another thing which has played on
my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of
his young children. The way he was
holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying
the child from the white van in Portugal Portugal
No comments:
Post a Comment