Monday, 14 November 2016


With many thanks to JJ, who always manages to sort the wheat from the chaff!
Which Politicians are blocking the truth?
Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield both gave written Police statements and confronted Robert Murat directly in a Police interview that they saw Murat outside 5a that night.
The PJ investigated this extensively and found no evidence to support him being outside 5a that night.
RD Hall states in his films that they had both retracted this testimony by the end of December 2007.  Tony Bennett emphasises this retraction by the end of 2007 ad nauseam.
How do they then explain the rogatory statements of  FP and RO  in April 2008 (note the date).  Both stating:
“RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat.  I noticed he had a squint and he gave us his phone number.  I am 100% sure it was Robert Murat”.
No ambiguity.
No genuine mistake
No chance of mistaken identity
No error.
But a deliberate and malicious attempt of the crime in Portugal, of calumny and in the UK, of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Serious criminal offences punishable by jail terms in both countries.
Payne and Oldfield deliberately and maliciously implicated a man in a serious crime.  Why did they do it?  “He came up to me, shook me by the hand and introduced himself as Robert Murat. He had a squint,  he gave us his phone number.
Could they be any clearer?
There is always a concerted effort to divert attention from these actions.
If RD Hall/Bennett or anybody else can produce evidence, FP and RO have retracted their identity of Murat, will they produce it or apologise for misleading people.
Bringing the topic up with TB leads to a ban and RDH ignores all contact.
Ask yourself, why would “honest researchers” adopt this attitude.  Is there an agenda, or are they just plain stupid.
CMOMM ,Bennett and Hall have spent hundreds of hours delving into all aspects of the Smith family but key players like FP and RO are not only ignored but shielded by stating they retracted their statements by the end of December 2007 and banning any discussion of their involvement.
It is most unlikely Payne and Oldfield thought this strategy out for themselves which leads to the question who did, when and why.  Have the Police in the UK asked them, if not why not?
Their actions do not directly concern the Mccanns and surely they too must wonder at their friends actions, and if not why not?
Who assured Payne and Oldfield they would not be investigated for a serious crime?
 Is it a conspiracy, this is for the Police to investigate but they have had since 2008, surely an interview under caution would be worthwhile.
The Mccanns may or may not be able to shed light on Madeleine’s fate but Payne and Oldfield certainly can.  Why does nobody care/dare to ask them?
Four elements of this case are rarely if ever discussed.
Who authorised the Leics police to involve themselves in illegal
activity in PDL on Saturday 5th May 2007?
The role of James Landale and the BBC on the night of May3rd/4th
Lori Campbell deliberately lying about Murat and why Ian Woods of Sky, backed her up in the deception.
The blatant involvement of FP and RO in falsely accusing Murat.
There maybe in this case some honest diligent UK Policemen but can anybody find an honest UK Politician of any party?
The farce will go on. 
To be honest I am not sure what the situation is with the tapas members who lied when saying Robert Murat was outside 5A on the night.  I thought they were called into the police station and had to reiterate their allegations in front of RM - face to face that is, but I'm afraid I can't remember what the outcome was.
I do remember that Robert Murat brought, or was going to bring, a criminal prosecution against Jane Tanner for her allegations, in any event Jane Tanner has lied about exactly what went on in the police surveillance van, ever since.  In Goncalo's book, she told the British detective  (Small, I believe) that RM was the man she saw carrying a child.  This evidence doesn't appear in the police files and she has since denied it, but RM was picked up the next day and named the first Arguido.   Other members of the Tapas group then came forward claiming that after seeing RM on the TV, they too remembered he was outside 5A on the night.  To be honest, I always thought the allegations against RM were stupid - if RM had 'just' kidnapped a child why would he hanging around outside the apartment - surely he would have been otherwise occupied?
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the 'researchers'.  For whatever reason, these completely incompetent idiots (psychos) have completely ignored the lives and times of the most obvious suspects outside the McCanns, that is, the ones who had the means and opportunity (if not the motive) to assist in making a child disappear, the ones disappearing from the dinner table for long intervals with valid 'child was sick' etc excuses for their absence.   
CMoMM and indeed Richard Hall seem to be oblivious to the most clear and obvious 'suspects' - the party of 9 who are up to the necks in it.  The entire last supper is like a badly written Whitehall farce that gives all the players a speaking part, but not necessarily in the right order, or the right place.  It is botched together.  Lines were chucked in in the hope and prayer that the audience would buy them - there wasn't any time for re-writes. 
Whilst Bennett and Hall are salivating at the thought of nailing Robert Murat and every outsider who had feck all to do with Madeleine's disappearance, they are ignoring the sideshow that was created to give the abduction story it's wings.  Doh!  It still doesn't appear to have registered with them that the police, both in Portugual and the UK are stuck on the collective alibi of the entire Tapas group.  Those few scribbled lines on the back of Madeleine's colouring book have held out for almost 10 years, and notably, they still haven't done a reconstruction.  Whilst Jane Tanner was pointing the police and the public in the direction of a stranger abductor, it distracted from the fact that her own partner Russell, was missing from the table during the crucial period, and she too, was flitting back and forth.  She was saying don't look at us, look at someone else, and the police, public and members of CMoMM and Richard Hall have obliged ever since. 
In the whole scheme of things, the Tapas group have got off relatively unscathed, despite the fact that it is their collective story that has enabled this debacle to continue for so long.  That they obviously conspired to accuse an innocent man takes evil to a whole new level, are they completely without conscience?  How do you gauge the seriousness of perverting the course of justice for a decade?  How much police time has been wasted? How much public money has spent?  What of the knock on effects, the genuine charities deprived of much needed funds, all the real, live, children deprived of much needed resources?  What of the lives destroyed, those men blasted onto the front pages of the tabloid, accused (with no evidence) of being Maddie's abductor, rapist, killer?  What of the former Portuguese detective, forced out of his job and vilified by a sneering, baying, nationalist, British media? 
Many thanks for bringing this subject up JJ, like yourself, I agree the Tapas group deserve, at the very least, an honourable mention. 


  1. Björn Sundberg/Sweden14 November 2016 at 16:09

    Interesting stuff regarding Fiona P. and Rachael O. that J J writes about.

    When these witnesses at an additional questioning were asked to confirm the previous day's claims, that they had seen RM, they were reluctant to do so. I’ve read this somewhere. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything about it in the P J files. So it may just be something fabricated by a newspaper?

    What I do know however, is that it is more likely that Kate raised the alarm at 22H15 or a few minutes later, than at 22H00, as stated in team the McCanns’ time line, documented on two of the torn out pages from Madeleine’s little sticker book. Perhaps as late as 22H20, which Mrs Fenn’s (their closest neighbour)statement indicates, who heard Kate screaming around 22H30.

    Many of the witness statements, the most in fact, contradict the timeline fabricated by the tapas 9 (I’ve so far just checked the Ocean Club staff’s statements and I’ve little knowledge about where they lived in relation to McCanns’ apartment etc.).

    Anyway, Gerry has a very weak alibi for not being in the place, that the Smiths believe they saw him between 21055 and 22H00 on May 3rd 2007. So I wonder why this has not been discussed so much. I find it crucial for the solution of the case. The fact, that the Tapas 9, are a bunch of liars, does not prove that the McCanns have caused the death of their daughter or disposed of her body, but facts correctly analysed will. Facts, for those who are interested in helping to solve this case, are to be found in the Portuguese P J files, and in intelligent journalistic analysis, but never in the S Y Operation Grange’s files, as the general public will never have access to them. Neither do they/we need that, as there cannot possibly be anything of interest in them, that has not earlier been found by the Portuguese P J.

  2. @ JJ

    very interesting - perhaps you could give some links to what you have discovered. With the source.

  3. @ Björn Sundberg/Sweden

    Perhaps you would like to stick to the subject of the post - or maybe submit a comment to Ros that will be a new subject?

    1. Björn Sundberg/Sweden15 November 2016 at 18:15

      It was a bit off topic, I admit that. Here are just a few words, perhaps more relevant. The subject is “who accused Robert Murat”

      It is very likely that Fiona Payne, Matthew Oldfield’s partner Rachael Mampilly
      as well as Jane Tanner have committed perjury, but the only one who explicitly accuses Robert Murat of being the person, who abducted Madeleine, is Kate, who in her diary, seized by the P J, writes that she knows, that Murat is guilty. She explicitly says that she knows, not assumes or thinks, which of course is slander and defamation.

      Even so, Kate cannot be sued by anyone or prosecuted for her “Account of the Truth”, not yet, anyway, as she in her diary talks to her two surviving children, so she says, at some indeterminate time in a remote future.

  4. An interesting read JJ and Rosalinda.

    “if RM had 'just' kidnapped a child why would he hanging around outside the apartment - surely he would have been otherwise occupied?”


    Contrariwise, not having kidnapped a child (i.e. not being ‘Tannerman’), he could hanging around outside the apartment.

  5. @JJ

    The rog statement by Fiona and Rachael both have the times shown. Can you please provide the time form both statements that say (and you quoted)"“RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat. I noticed he had a squint and he gave us his phone number. I am 100% sure it was Robert Murat”."

    I can see in both statements that they do say he introduced himself - but the only mention of giving the phone number is that Rachael says he gave it to Russell.

  6. (After the McCanns found out that Murat had been made an arguido) Kate writes:

    “We met up with Alan Pike to talk through how we were feeling. Strange, was the short answer: for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited, that we might be nearer to finding Madeleine. That evaporated when we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona told us she’d seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky. It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn’t be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved. As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious, I didn’t want to hear it."

    What an honour it must be for Fiona and David to play a major role in Kate’s book.

    How about Gerry? No comment?

  7. A bit off topic as well: Angus Symington, who bears a resemblance to Robert Murat, was in PdaL that night. Easy to make a mistake, although I have never believed that Tanner et al saw either man.

    Although the image of Tannerbundleeggcrecheman is still on the OFM website, it was claimed that he was "traced and cleared". I know that not everyone is venal, but I find it almost impossible to believe that he would not have recognised the description of himself, made the connection, come forward and made a few quid out of it all.

    1. Björn Sundberg/Sweden16 November 2016 at 16:45

      Just a comment to “off topic”
      As long as “crêcheman” is nameless and “eggman” is faceless, I refuse to believe that any of them has ever existed. The smithman, however, has both a face and a name, which makes him quite real, in my opinion

    2. Hi ya Bjorn :)

      Anyone with any doubts as to who Smithman might be, should read Gerry's blogs, especially Day 37, 9/6/07. He is appealing directly to any Irish people who may have seen the 'same' abductor as Jane Tanner at the time Madeleine disappeared.

      Smithman as we know, came into very close proximity to the Smith family as they were returning from their evening out. Close enough no doubt to hear the Irish accents.

    3. @highmyope1955 at 15:15

      “it was claimed that he was "traced and cleared"."


      Mr Redwood said: "We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.”

      A rather bizarre statement if you ask me.

      Is that why the image of Tannerman is still on the OFM website?


  8. The best thing that could happen now for the families of Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield and the rest of the Tapas crowd is that Operation Grange concludes with charges against each one of them for perverting the course of justice. In such a scenario at least they would have an opportunity to gave the reasons for the actions they took that night and blatant lies they told since. Only then will these people and their families get peace. In the absence of that them, their children and their children's children will forever be scorned and vilified. All I can say is that it must be some big big secret that has kept them quiet all these years. And yes JJ you are quite right focusing on that and the actions of LP should be a priority for researchers. I think most people who have any interest in the case are waiting for the interview with Fiona Payne, (which will happen) where the interviewer asks seriously WTF were you playing at, for what reason would you allow your husband be portrayed as a peado, for what reason would you blatantly lie and stand shoulder to shoulder with somebody like Kate McCann who you so obviously dislike, for what reason would you subject your children to years of ridicule and scorn. .

    1. Not seen anything that suggests Fiona hates Kate, Anon at 16:06 can you elaborate? She did sponsor Kate's bike ride with the words "in MEMORY of Madeleine McCann" which raised a few eyebrows, last year and I also disagree their children will be vilified. They've done nothing wrong so why would they be?

    2. @ Anonymous16 November 2016 at 16:06

      Who says the Payne and Oldfield children have been subjected to years of ridicule and scorn? I have never seen any comments about them.

    3. @16:06
      "for what reason would you allow your husband be portrayed as a peado"

      Good question. The same question for Payne himself.

    4. Tonyfan do you think for 1 moment that "in memory off Madeleine McCann" was an accident or was a clear message being sent. Also look at the body language of Fiona Payne outside the court I believe whatever the big secret is Fiona Payne was forced to support the McCanns and I don't think it boded well with her. Anon 16.06 I did not say their children have been subject to years of ridicule and scorn. They are young children and I have no doubt that they are protected from all this by their parents but there will come a time when that is not the case. Prehaps scorned and ridicule are too strong a words but do you honestly believe that they will live a normal life while this suspicion hangs over their family. They will forever live in that shadow of it.

  9. bennett has replied to JJ

    1. Yes, I see once again he has lifted my blog content and replies and used them to attract interest in his cesspit. He has no morals, scruples or manners.

      His fear is obvious - both he and Richard Hall are desperate to implicate Robert Murat in Madeleine's disappearance, and if they fail, all their films and so called research will be exposed as the nonsense it is.

  10. Has anyone ever come across a bigger tosser than Tony Bennett?

    Is the old codge sleeping with Jill Havern? The gruesome twosome are certainly thick as thieves. Playing a game which is paid and authorised by Gerry himself. That much is obvious.

    The only conspiracy with Richard Hall is that he's too thick to form his own opinion on things.

  11. Somebody on the cesspit mention that Gerry might be Smithman and sit back and watch Tony melt away. Petrified he is. Hilarious.

  12. The cesspit is some weird and devious place. How many actual members these days? Take the socks away and can't be any more than about 3 surely?

  13. If you ever want to watch an old man panic and squirm then just hop into the cesspit and mention that Smithman might be Gerry.

  14. How many socks does Tony Bennett own on CMOMM these days?

  15. The Podesta brothers are Smithman. So it can't be Gerry. That'll make TB sleep well at night. Spooning Jill.

  16. Jill Havern is a bit of a strange one. She set up some weird facebook group so people could escape Tony and his socks. But nobody bothers with that either. She certainly has an agenda with Tone anyway.

  17. Whats the latest on the flying saucers and Richard Hall?

  18. The last 8 posts have a very familiar handy (or should that be andy) "tone" to them, if you'll pardon the pun.

    1. To add to my previous comment, if you are the same person who posted regularly on an Internet forum called the Maddie McCann mystery, why have you disappeared from there?

    2. @ Paula17 November 2016 at 09:56

      Agreed - someone was busy for an hour in the early hours on here and the comments do have a familiar ring to them.

  19. Back to basics?

    "Which Politicians are blocking the truth?

    Please come back JJ.

  20. Looking at bennett's comments on CMOMM I wonder what the running total number of people he has accused of lying is?

    1. Do you know what, I honestly don't blame the McCanns for taking him to Court. He is like once of those vicious dogs that sinks its teeth in and won't let go. I actually think he should face some sort of criminal prosecution, hopefully when the police are sorting out all those to be charged with perverting the course of justice, the name of Tony Bennett will be among them.

  21. The Smith family I believe when asked said that it definitely wasn't RM he saw that night. He quoted that he knew RM by sight. Slightly off topic one member of the group who hardly gets mentioned is Diane Webster!!. The whole case itself throws up a lot of questions, I certainly don't believe there is a conspiracy involving Freemasons, Leicestershire Police or Scotland Yard as all personnel would have to be in on it, trust me someone would have broken ranks by now. At a rough guess perhaps Scotland Yard are investigating the Tapas 9 but behind the scenes. There are documented cases where the police have said one thing but doing the other. Finally I would to see more emphasis on Yvonne Martin's & The Gasper's statement's. One last thing I believe that everybody is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in front of a jury of their peers.

    1. I think an awful lot is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about John. I don't for one moment think there is a harmonious relationship between Scotland Yard and the McCanns. The idea that the police are working for them is all part of the fabricated McCann image. For one thing, it has got to stick in the craw of every detective involved, that these former suspects are doing their utmost to destroy the life of a fellow detective in Portugal. A man who was simply doing his job, just as they are.

      I agree everybody is innocent until proved guilty, but when the evidence is so overwhelming and the crime is ongoing, it is inevitable that the 'rules' will change. People can lie as much as like, but we are not obliged to believe them.

  22. Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

    Saturday 5 May

    “All the same, we were reassured to see some UK police that day in the shape of three family liaison officers (FLOs) from the Leicestershire force, which had also officially logged Madeleine as missing. They came to introduce themselves and to outline their dual role: supporting us and our family and acting as a conduit for the flow of information between us and the PJ. After the trouble we’d had getting anyone in the PJ to talk to us, that was a relief, although the FLOs would soon find themselves almost as frustrated as we were in this regard.”

    1. Not having read her book, does she mention why she wanted them to leave?

    2. @ Kate

      There is nothing irregular or illegal in liaison officers going to Portugal.

    3. @John100 at 14:39

      Not sure if this is what you mean, but I remember (after they “happened to catch the ‘breaking news’ on television”, “watching live pictures of the police going in and out of Murat´s home, removing computer equipment and boxloads of other stuff”), Kate writes:

      “Was it really too much to ask to be spared this harrowing experience? Whether the police were simply being completely thoughtless or whether this was something to do with the judicial secrecy law I cannot say. Sandy and Michael walked up to the Murat family home, Casa Liliana - which was only 100 yards from our Ocean Club apartment - to try to find out what was happening. A Sunday Times journalist filled them in on a few more details. A little later, one of the British FLOs popped up to our apartment to apologize for the lack of warning. It wasn´t his fault, of course, but the damage had already been done.”

      “the lack of warning” which “wasn’t his fault, of course”?

  23. @Anonymous 1649 Maybe there is nothing irregular or illegal in three Leics police officers coming over to 'help'. But if you throw in all the other people who flew out to 'help', it look pretty irregular to me. Brit Ambassador telling Port police to stop trying to seize clothes for analysis. Alex Woolfall, Head of Risk at PR firm Bell Pottinger. And his boss. PR group Resonate there as well. Alan Pike, the fake psychologist and his sidekick from CCP, Skipton. Control Risks Group. MI5. Then the top secret government group set up by Leics Police chief Matt Baggott. Head of Blair's spin unit being despatched to PdL. Jim Gamble, CEOP, demanding people's holiday photos. Doesn't look quite so 'regular' now, does it?

    1. Which begs the question, if the McCanns aren't important to get all this attention then who within the group is. With ref to Yvonne Martin's statement she quoted that she recognised David Payne from somewhere, also he confirmed her credentials as legitimate, how would he know what Home Office documents look like? His does keep coming up all the time.

    2. @ anonymous 23.58

      My main point was directed at JJ - the author of this guest blog who wrote on 05/11/16 (previous blog)

      "The Leicestershire police were operating illegally in Portugal and meeting with the Mccanns before informing the Portuguese authorities.

      For what reason they were doing this and which UK Government ministers authorised this illegality, and the expenditure for the Leicestershire police flights, hotels etc., would open the box to a solution. But too many members of the establishment would be shown to be complete inept buffoons"

      As I said - There is nothing irregular or illegal in liaison officers going to Portugal.

      I am not into long winded conspiracy theories about how many organisations were supposedly involved.

    3. Anon 19 Nov 17:25

      It is both irregular and illegal for a foreign police force to operate in another country and meet with suspects\witnesses without informing the host country and the host country(Portugal)providing a liaison officer at that meeting.

      You seem to have the impression the British police are supreme and can do what they like in Johnny Foreigner land.
      You obviously believe the PJ and Portuguese people do not deserve simple professional courtesy and good manners.

      The Leics police did not have the authority from the PJ to be there interviewing the Mccanns on Sat 5 May, what do you not understand?

    4. @ JJ 20 November 2016 at 08:52

      How do you know that Leicestershire police did not notify the Portuguese authorities and get the necessary permission before they went to Portugal?

  24. Does anyone know why bennett has decided to change the name of Amaral's book when he says: " as Goncalo Amaral writes in his book ‘The Truth about A Lie’:"?

  25. "The mother was sitting on the bed of her room, the father was with her (the witness) and the elements of the GNR, and other elements of the group got in and out and spoke on the phone, anxious, in her opinion, to tell the press what happened. She thought that the child's mother was devastated, the father was worried and also asked to notify the press and to get dogs to search. About the others she only remembers that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical with the situation."

  26. I bet they rue the day they ever heard the name McCann. How unlucky can a group of people who set out to pervert the course of justice become. After perjuring themselves on the circumstances of child's disappearance they realise that the story is so f**ked up that the policemen and others who attended that night don't even pretend to believe it, then the main characters in the whole farse decide to make themselves celebraties travelling the world tripping themselves and exposing not only the McCanns lies but their own also and to top it all and to remove any doubt the PJ go and release the files that shows the blatant lies. I'm sure everybody has some cringe moments in their lives but for these people one shouldn't worry too much if they are never arrested, everyday must be an almighty cringe minute for them all.

    1. An almighty cringe minute everyday for them for sure! It is not something they can ever walk away from, and that is not to mention that crushing feeling of imminent doom. If, as is statistically likely, any of the marriages break down, or friends become enemies then their situation becomes more precarious. It must be a horrible way to live and with the internet etc, there is literally no hiding place.

  27. @JJ

    “RD Hall states in his films that they had both retracted this testimony by the end of December 2007. Tony Bennett emphasises this retraction by the end of 2007 ad nauseam.”

    They were willing to be requestioned so they could 'correct' details of their original statements, according to:

    "Lawyers of two of the friends of the McCanns that dined with them on the night of May 3 in the tapas restaurant have contacted police recently and said their clients are willing to be requestioned so they can 'correct' details of their original statements," said the El Mundo report.”

    No retraction; verification IMO.

    1. The two people willing to be requestioned to correct their statements were NOT Rachael Oldfield or Fiona Payne.
      According to the press and CMOMM guesswork it was Rob O Brian and Jane Tanner.
      All hearsay and the usual speculation with no evidence whatsoever

      However in April 2008 FP& RO confirmed their ID of Murat to the Police.
      Newspaper tittle tattle should not be relied on, its usually wrong

  28. It should not be forgotten that Murat received a very large sum of money off the back of all this. And I do not see evidence that his life or indeed reputation was destroyed by the false accusation. He stayed living in the area. I am sure he has a large network of friends and acquaintances who support him.

    Totally agree that Gerry's appeal to Irish holiday-makers is most likely due to the Smiths giving their statement and GM panicking. What a shame one of them didn't take a sneaky photo...after all, the sighting was well after the alarm was first raised according to some eye-witnesses. Just imagine if someone had arrived at the bar where they were having a nightcap to raise the alarm and tell them an abductor was on the loose. When they passed GM they surely would have then taken a photo and immediately gone to police?

  29. "I'm sure everybody has some cringe moments in their lives but for these people one shouldn't worry too much if they are never arrested, everyday must be an almighty cringe minute for them all. "

    Couldn't agree more. They must bitterly regret that reconstruction with Tanner laughing her head off next to GM and then her fake tears. The media interviews with the McCanns are priceless - they should be studied by students of psychology/criminology and the like. They are so incriminating. There cannot be a single 'expert' in any of those fields who would believe them having looked at the interviews. Presumably none of the journalists - apart from Lorraine Kelly who has maybe had a lobotomy - believe them either.

    1. Absolutely agree with you that the McCann interviews are priceless, especially students as they cover just about every 'ology' going! It is also covers politics and media manipulation.

      For myself, I have always been fascinated by human behaviour and the study of what makes people evil. I remember in the early days reading an article by Pat Brown, in which she said that emotional trauma, no matter how extreme, changes a person's character or personality. What ever the McCanns were after Madeleine's loss, the were the same before. In a nutshell, no-one becomes a well practiced and highly accomplished liar overnight.

      For most of us, telling a lie would be traumatic, we would be nervous and uncomfortable. The statements of the Tapas friends and punctuated with errs, ahhs, and the recital of a rehearsed script. Had the PJ been allowed to 'lean' on them, as they would do with suspects in any other missing child case, they could have cracked their collective alibi.

      However, with the world's media watching and diplomatic pressure from those called in favour, the parents and their friends were treated with kid gloves. The Portuguese police shelved the case because the McCanns and the Tapas group would not return for a reconstruction. Without the cooperation of the parents and their friends, they couldn't go any further. And that should be remembered when those perverting the course of justice charges start flying around.


    “Verdi” assumes RO to be Russell O’Brien, but I assume RO to be Rachael Oldfield.

    “I think that was about, it was about midnight, half past twelve, it was you know very shortly after the Police arrived, I think they'd been to Gerry and Kate and then they headed our way, think it was about half twelve, erm and yeah MURAT introduced, well you know he said, hi I'm Robert and I speak Portuguese and you know, can I help translate, erm and introduced himself and I shook his hand...

    ... but Russell was there as well, erm and then the Police just sort of moved on, erm, erm you see and I think at that time, Russell got Robert MURATS mobile phone number, I mean I know Russell thinks it was the next day but I don't know, I thought it was then that night, cos he thought it might be quite useful as he could speak, you know cos he could speak English and Portuguese'.

    'Yeah, but cos its almost a year ago now, I mean you know, Robert MURAT was definitely there, I'm absolutely a hundred per cent certain about that, erm and I think, and I think at the time also and I think it would be in my Portuguese statement, that Robert MURAT gave Russell his mobile phone number then at that time as well, erm although since times passed and Russell kind of says oh he thinks that might have been the next morning, I kind of half think well it might have been the next morning but I think at the time I certainly thought and I'm sure its in my Portuguese statement that MURAT gave Russell the phone number that night, erm, but yeah I mean, you know he was definitely there, irrespective of whether he gave the mobile phone number or not, you know I've absolutely no doubt that he was there.”