Monday 4 August 2008

Enfants Kidnappés: Madeleine McCann - the investigation goes on.


L'enquête se poursuit.

La PJ l'avait annoncé lors de l'archivage du dossier: L'enquête n'est ni clôturée ni abandonnée. Et heureusement que l'enquête n'est pas terminée car Madeleine en vie ou non, n'a pas été retrouvée. La PJ avait déclaré qu'il poursuivait l'enquête loin de l'agitation des médias, dans le calme et la sérénité. Aujourd'hui, alors que le dossier dit "affaire Maddie" est rendu public et que tous les journalistes ont réservé l'accès, il est clairement établi qu'une partie du dossier restera frappé du secret de justice. Il y aurait plusieurs parties concernées. Ce serait les autorités britanniques qui auraient demandé que certaines pièces ne soient pas divulguées au public. Une autre partie l'aurait été à la demande de la PJ pour des documents jugés d'une importance extrême. On peu e déduire que la PJ continue son enquête et ceci expliquerait, comme je l'ai déjà souligné, une certaine agitation au sein de la PJ. Une troisième partie restée sous le secret de justice, le serait suite à une demande privée. Nous y reviendrons plus tard.

The investigation goes on.

The PJ had announced during the archiving of the case file: The investigation is neither closed nor abandoned and fortunately the investigation is not over with because alive or dead, Madeleine has not been found. The PJ had stated that they were continuing the investigation away from the media buzz, in calm and serenity. Today, while the file called the, "Maddie case," is being made public and all the journalists have reserved access, it is clearly established that part of the file will remain stamped secrecy of justice. There would be several parts involved. It would be the British authorities who would have requested that specific documents were not disclosed to the public. Another part would have been at the request of the PJ for documents judged to be extremely important. We can deduce here that the PJ are continuing their investigation and this would explain, as I have already stressed, a certain excitement on the part of the PJ. A third part remains under the secrecy of justice, this being the result of a private request. We will come back to that later.

Stratégie calculée ?

Le fait d'avoir rendu le dossier public sans tirer de conclusions à l'encontre des suspects tout en continuant les investigations est-ce une stratégie voulue ? On peut, évidemment, penser que oui. La PJ, rendant public tous les éléments ou presque mais sans accuser qui que ce soit, occupe tout le monde, les avocats des parents, les parents eux-mêmes, la presse, l'ensemble des médias etc. Pendant que tout le monde se focalise sur le rapport puis sur le dossier, le temps que tout le monde visionne le contenu des DVD (le dossier étant sur DVD), la PJ, quant à elle, peut continuer son enquête dans la sérénité.

A calculated strategy?

Is the fact of having made the case file public without drawing conclusions concerning the suspects while carrying on with the investigation, an intentional strategy? It can obviously be thought, yes. The PJ making all the elements or nearly all, public, but without accusing anyone, occupies everyone, the parents' lawyers, the parents themselves, the press, the whole of the media etc. While everyone is focussed on the report then on the case file, while everyone is watching the contents of the DVDs (the case file is on DVD) as for the PJ, they can get on with their investigation in peace.

Interférence dans l'enquête ?

SOS Maddie révèle que lors de l'audition d'O'Brian comme témoin, il aurait pu d'abord lire les déclarations de sa compagne, Jane Tanner avant de répondre aux questions de l'officier de police en charge. C'est, évidemment, scandaleux! Il est tout à fait inadmissible qu'un policier, qui de surcroît n'est pas un débutant puisqu'il a 25 ans de métier, laisse un témoin lire les déclarations d'un ou plusieurs autres témoins. Il s'agit là, d'une maladresse pour ne pas dire une volonté d'orienter l'audition. C'est une faute professionnelle! L'audition de tout témoin est placée sous le secret professionnel même s'il s'agit de la déclaration de l'épouse du témoin en question. O'Brian, dans une déclaration, reconnaît avoir pris connaissance de l'audition de son épouse pour: "rafraîchir sa mémoire". Quant à Jane Tanner, elle a été interrogée mais son audition à été interrompue par le déclenchement inopiné de l'alarme incendie. Durant les 23 minutes qui suivirent, alors que le commissariat été évacué selon une procédure précise, Jane a pu s'entretenir avec l'avocat d'un des suspects et un des suspect en personne de l'affaire en question. Le tout au sein du commissariat. Même s'il ne s'agit pas d'un témoin à charge, on peu se poser des questions quant à l'aspect déontologique de la procédure. Notons que, malgré tout, Jane avait et a toujours des contacts avec certains suspects du moment et qu'ils pouvaient discuter librement de l'affaire bien avant d'être auditionné.

Interference with the investigation?

SOS Maddie reveals that during O'Brien's interview as a witness, he would first have been able to read the statements of his partner, Jane Tanner, before responding to the questions of the police officer in charge. This is obviously scandelous! It is totally unacceptable that a police officer, who moreover is not a beginner, since he has 25 years in the job, lets a witness read the statements of one or several other witnesses. It is a blunder if not a desire to direct the hearing. It is a professonal mistake! The hearing of every witness is placed under professioanl confidentiality even if the statement is that of the spouse of the witness in question. O'Brien, in a statement, admits gaining knowledge of his wife's hearing to, "refresh his memory." As for Jane Tanner, she was interviewed but her hearing was interrupted by the unexpected setting off of the fire alarm. During the 23 minutes which followed, while the police station was evacuated according to clear procedure, Jane was able to have a discussion with the lawyer for one of the suspects and with one of the suspects in the case in question, in person. All this at the police station. Even if it is not a witness for the prosecution, we may ask questions about the ethical aspects of the procedure. We note that, in spite of everything, Jane had always had contact with certain suspects at the time and that they were able to freely discuss the case well before being interviewed.

Brian Kennedy, le milliardaire qui finance l'équipe d'avocat des parents et les appointements de Clarence Mitchell, entre autre, a visité plusieurs témoins impliqué dans l'enquête sur la disparition de Madeleine. On est en droit de e demander pourquoi un particulier, fut-il milliardaire, peut se permettre d'interférer dans une enquête de police ? Les témoins les moins favorables aux McCann auraient été particulièrement visités. La question qui vient immédiatement à l'esprit est: pourquoi ? Dans quel but ? Certes Brian Kennedy n'est pas impliqué dans l'enquête en cours au Portugal. Il n'est même pas témoin. Les autorités britanniques auraient du, au minimum dans un souci déontologique, mais surtout dans un souci d'objectivité, interroger Brian Kennedy sur ses motivations à interférer dans une enquête concernant une fillette de 4 ans ? Jusqu'ici, les autorités britanniques restent silencieuses à ce sujet. Or les autorités portugaise ont demandé à leurs homologues britanniques des précisions mais là aussi sans réponse du R-U.

Brian Kennedy, the millionaire who finances the parents' team of lawyers and the employment of Clarence Mitchell, and others, visited several witnesses involved in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. We are entitled to ask why an individual, millionaire he may be, is allowed to interfere in a police investigation? Especially the witnesses least favourable to the McCanns would have been visited. The question that comes immediately to mind is: why? To what end? Certainly Brian Kenedy is not implicated in the ongoing investigation in Portugal. He is not even a witness. The British authorities, at least as an ethical issue, but above all as an issue of of objectivity, should have questioned Brian Kennedy about his motives for interfering in an investigation concerning a little four year-old girl? Until now, the British authorities have been silent on this subject. Well, the Portuguese authorities asked their British counterparts for details but there again with no response from the UK.

Les McCann auraient trafiqué les preuves ?

Dans son édition d'aujourd'hui, le Correio da Manha affirme que la PJ n'a pas de doutes quant au fait que les parents de Madeleine ont modifié la disposition des meubles et de divers objet de l'appartement d'où Maddie a disparu. Si c'est vrai, et il faut voir sur quoi ce base le CdM, il s'agit là d'un maquillage des lieux d'une scène d'un crime afin de détourner les soupçons et d'effacer les preuves. Notons que la PJ a toujours considéré comme étrange le fait que le lit de Madeleine n'ait pas été défait comme si la petite n'y avait pas dormi. Il est difficile de croire qu'un ravisseur ait pris soin de refaire parfaitement le lit de Madeleine après l'avoir enlevée ? Maintenant gageons que le dossier en DVD (que notre association va pouvoir consulter) expliquera ces détails troublants.

The McCanns tampered with evidence?

In today's edition, Correio da Manha states that the PJ have no doubts about the fact that Madeleine's parents changed the position of furniture and various objects in the apartment from which Madeleine went missing. If this is true, and we must see what CdM is basing this on, there is here tampering with areas of a crime scene in order to divert suspicion and to wipe out the evidence. We note that the PJ have always considered strange the fact that Madeleine's bed had not been disturbed as if the little girl had not slept there. It is difficult to believe that a kidnapper had taken care to remake Madeleine's bed perfectly after having abducted her? We are now betting that the case file on DVD (that our association will be able to look at) will explain these worrying details.

SOS Madeleine McCann: Russell O'Brien was allowed to refer to Jane Tanner's statements before he was questioned.

SOS Madeleine McCann 4/08/08


6f168c35051d31493ffda487087aed5f.jpg

The Maddie investigation: O'Brien was questioned after having referred to Tanner's statements.

At the time of his interview, in April 2008, Russell James O'Brien was able to refer to the report of his partner Jane Tanner's statements in order to respond to questions from Andrew Gierc, a Leicestershire police officer, about the events that surrounded Madeleine McCann's disappearance.


The access of one witness to the statements of another, even when it is the same couple, is worrying and outside the norm, above all in the course of an investigation of the importance of the Madeleine McCann case. It is also judged by experts from several European police forces, consulted by SMM, as more than a simple professional error: "this can direct the witness or even worse, allow him to answer questions in a way that protects his position in the investigation," states an officer of the French gendarmerie, stressing, "that it is an error capable of compromising an entire investigation and that no professional worthy of that name would make it....The only explanation that remains is the possibility that the investigator wanted to confuse the witness for a specific reason."

"I was given the opportunity to refresh my memory about the report made by Jane Tanner (my wife) and I was allowed to see these documents. That was done in the presence of DC 1578 Gierc," O'Brien admits.

O'Brien was interviewed twice, on April 8th and 10th 2008, but strangely, his his first interview would not have been recorded on video, because, according to the British police, there was a, "technical fault." However, it now looks like the video, which was never sent to Portugal, exists but would not be attached to the report of the April 8th interview.

Russell O'Brien's second interview by police officer Andrew Gierc, was indeed recorded on video, to which we have had access.

All the other, "Tapas 7," were also interviewed: Payne was questioned for 259 minutes by police officer I. Messiah, Diane Webster for 151 minutes by police officer Fergusson, Fiona Payne for 277 minutes by police officer Messiah, Matthew Oldfield for 157 minutes and Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly, by police officer Andrew Gierc for 236 minutes.

Jane Tanner was interviewed for 279 minutes by police officer Fergusson, an interview with seven interruptions, the first also very hectic after only 18 minutes when the fire alarm went off.

196 witnesses and 3 arguidos.

At the time when the Portuguese Public Minister decided to place the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance on hold pending further evidence, there was a total of 196 witnesses, including the McCanns' seven friends, and three arguidos, registered in the process.

Several witnesses, who made themselves known to the British authorities, have remained unknown to the Portuguese investigators, for a reason yet to be determined. Brian Kennedy, the millionaire who would be financing Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns' team of lawyers, has even visited several of the investigation's witnesses, in particular those who were less favourable to the couple.

Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, Kate Marie Healy, (also addressed as Kate McCann) and Gerald Patrick McCann were the three arguidos.

Amongst the witnesses, there are a few names already known to the general public. The, "nannies," Amy Ellen Tierney, Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker, Charlotte Elizabeth alice Pennington, Emma Louise Wilding, Jacqueline Mary Williams, Kirsty Louise Maryen, Lyndsay Jayne Johnson, Lynne Rhiannon Fretter, Sarah Elizabeth Williamson, Sinead Maria Vine, Stacey Portz, Susan Bernadette Owen and Pauline Frances McCann.

The tennis coaches, Daniel James Stuk and Georgina Louise Jackson.

George Robin Crosland (Ocean Club manager) George William James, Jennifer Anne Murat, Jeremy Wilkins, John Elliot Hill, Michaela Walazuch, Pamela Isobel Fenn, Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, Sergey Malinka (Murat's friend) José Manuel Conceição Pacheco, Susan Hubard and Svetlana Malinka.

The “Tapas 9”: David Anthony Payne, Dianne Webster, Fiona Elaine Payne, Gerald Patrick McCann, Jane Michelle Tanner, Kate Marie Healy, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly, Russel James O´Brien and Matthew Oldfield.

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/


4/08/08