29 Oct 2008


Funny how this lot, with one notable exception, can stand on the steps of the High Court to receive a great big wad of dosh for Kate and Gerry McCann and their Defence Fighting Fund, but when it comes to doing something for little Madeleine, like going back for the reconstruction, no they could not manage to all turn out booted and suited for that. What a bunch of ************I hope every night before they sleep they think of that gorgeous little girl and every morning when they wake up the same thing happens again, live with it! Especially you Jane!
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email sent to the PJ from Graham Michael

19 March 2008 16:39

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P84, 85 )

Dear Ricardo,

I refer to our recent telephone call conversations and can confirm that we will starting the interview process w/c 7th April 2008. I hope the e-mail sent on Thursday 13th March helps with your arrangements for your accommodation.

I am in receipt of your e-mail regarding further questions for John Lowe at the FSS and I will forward them for him to answer.

As discussed on Friday, we have made contact with the holiday group ( Paynes, Webster, O'Brien, Tanner, Oldfield, Manpilly ) regarding their availability for the proposed dates for a re-enactment in Portugal. We are still awaiting response from Jeremy Wilkins.

Before they will fully commit to attending they have the following questions that they reguest are answered:-

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?
2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?
3 - Why so close to the anniversary?
4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?
5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?
6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/likely frenzy?

Would you please speak with the Director regarding these questions and consider how you would like us to respond. I would be grateful for a prompt response as this will hopefully ensure that the witnesses are available to attend.

Yours Sincerely

Mick Graham
Detective Inspector
Major Crime Unit

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:33 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email sent from the PJ to Graham Michael / Stuart Prior

20 March 2008 11:56

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P86,87 )

Hello good morning Mick.

In answer to the questions raised by the holiday group regarding the re-enactment in Praia da Luz, Mr Paulo Rebelo wishes to clarify them as follows:

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?

The PJ wants them to take partin the re-enactment because they were the ones who experienced the situation. Therefore they are in the best conditions to reproduce it.

2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?

The PJ is trying to find out, with accuracy, the circunstances of the events occurred, using for that purpose the exact place of events and the same persons who took part in it.

3 - Why so close to the anniversary?

Only now has the PJ contitions to carry out these procedings, and also because it is desirable that the weather conditions are as similar as possible to those at the time of the events.

4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?

The reason is because only the persons involved can clarify, with accuracy and at the same place, their position and movements.

5 - Will the footageof the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?

The PJ won't release any pictures/footage to the press.

6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/like frenzy?

The place will be isolated and press interference will be avoided to its maximum.

The re-enactment will be carried out in one single day, at the exact time the events occurred.

However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved.

Best regards.

Ricardo Paiva

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:36 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email sent to PJ to Graham Michael / Stuart Prior

28 March 2008 16:33

(processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P89 )

Dear Ricardo,

An update for you, as discussed this morning;

We have spoken on a number of ocasions with the holiday group and they are still undecided whether they will agree to attend Portugal to take part in this process.

As a group, they are waiting to see if Gerry and Kate McCann will be invited to attend and participate in the re-enactment. It is my understanding that if Gerry and Kate do not participate in this process, then the decision will be that they will not attend.

In addition, the group have stated that they would require written reassurances about how the process was going to be conducted before agreeing to attend.

Therefore, until these issues are resolved we are unable to get a firm commitment from the holiday group to attend on either of the proposed dates.


Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:37 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Thanks to MCXLIII for typing up the following posts:

[Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P106 ]

xx xxxxxx xxxx
xxx xxx

23rd April 2008

Re: Re-enactment of Events of 3/5/2008

Dear Stuart, Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.

It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.

After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.

However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, and the PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:

• publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.

• publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.

We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to damn our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.

Yours sincerely,

Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner

PS: We certainly do not request any specific reimbursement for travel or accommodation.

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:39 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
[Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]

Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
De: Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo Enviado: terça-feira, 29 de Abril de 2008 1502

Para: 'Prior Stuart'
Assunto: FW: Witnesses' Questions
De: Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo Enviada: terça-feira, 29 de Abril de 2008 12:39 Para: 'Prior Stuart' Assunto: Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, the witnesses shall inform, till tomorrow noon, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.

Best regards Paulo Rebelo

Discussion here: http://the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=24822

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:17 am, edited 3 times in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:44 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email from J. Tanner to Stuart Prior

08 May 2008 10:05

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P179,180)

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your call last night.

I spoke with Rachel last night who is chasing Brian Spiro for a response to our legal queries. We are hoping to have that today.

Until then we cannot give a definitive answer. Hoever I believe Matt and Rachael cannot do that date, so it may be immaterial anyway!

I would just like like to reiterate what I said last night, in that it is so sad we have to consider so many peripheral issues rather than just doing everything we can do to help find Madeleine.

Thanks and regards.


Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:47 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email from Rachael Oldfield to Stuart Prior

10 May 2008 10:14

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P181,182)

Dear Stuart,

Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.

We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.

If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Kind regards.

Rachael Oldfield

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:57 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email from Russel O'Brien to Stuart Prior 10 May 2008 14:56

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P183,184,185)

Dear Stuart.

Apologies for the late reply.

We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic ...

I hope you are well.

Best wishes,

Russel & Jane

Last edited by kizzy on Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:03 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Email from Fiona Webster to Stuart Prior

12 May 2008 12:32

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P186,188)

Dear Stuart

We have now had time to consider the advice received from our legal team. Taking into account the advice given along with our many concerns previously mentioned to you; we are unable to participate in the propoed (sic) re-enactment in Portugal.

Kind regards

Fiona and David Payne, and Diane Webster

Post subject: Re: The cancelled re-enactment
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:16 am
On Parole

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: UK
Posted by jjp



27 Oct 2008



Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler

Yes, Kate,

It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked: “Did Madeleine die while you were present?” “Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?” “Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?” “Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?"

These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

23 Oct 2008


Updated thread with a great story I have copied from Joana Morais blog, which always has the best stories, immediately! THANKS JOANA X


Leonor Cipriano "Torture" Trial - Correio da Manhã

Process – PJ’s entry register places arguidos outside the building

Outside of the PJ at time of beatings

Leonor Cipriano states that she was beaten before 8 p.m., the time at which the three men who stand accused of torture entered the PJ

by José Carlos Marques

The register of entries and exits at the Faro Directory of the Polícia Judicária, which CM has had access to, reveals that the three inspectors who stand accused of torture over Leonor Cipriano, between 6 and 8 p.m. on the 14th of October 2004, were not inside the building during the period when Joana’s mother says she was beaten up.

The three of them arrived at precisely 8 p.m. – just like António Cardoso, who stands accused of falsifying a document. Concerning Gonçalo Amaral, who according to the Public Ministry failed to denounce the torture and gave a false testimony, he arrived at the PJ after 9.40 pm.

There was a clock on the wall of the room where Leonor Cipriano says she was beaten. When she was heard at Faro court on the 17th of October 2007, Leonor explained that the aggressions started between 5 and 6 pm and extended “over two hours, two hours and a bit”.

Leonor’s statements collide with the registry of entries and exits of the Faro Judiciária’s employees. According to that document, on the 14th, the seven inspectors from the major crime combat unit, including the three who stand accused, only arrived at 8 pm. All together.

The Public Ministry accuses Leonel Marques, Marques Bom and Pereira Cristóvão of torture, although the accusation dispatch refers that the aggressions were not inflicted by themselves, but rather by “unidentified individuals”. The accusation states that they acted “from a decision, following instructions and upon agreement” with the three arguidos, and that those “created conditions for the effect”.

The defense maintains that Leonor tried to throw herself down the stairwell at around 1 am. She was led to the Odemira Health Centre by the PJ on the following day, where she was assisted and then returned to prison. Before the supposed aggressions, on the 14th of October, Leonor had already confessed to killing her daughter.

Jurors’ vote equals judges’

The jurors that were chosen by Faro Court have a vote that is equal to those of each of the three judges, in order to decide if the accused inspectors should be condemned or acquitted. They are a taxi driver, a municipal fireman, a golf course receptionist and a finance technician, aged between 28 and 50. They started out as a group of one hundred, from where 18 persons were chosen. Ten were excluded by the inspectors’ lawyers, by Leonor’s lawyer and by the Public Ministry until only eight, four effective and four supplemental jurors, remained.

Direct speech – Carlos Anjos, President of the PJ’s Union

“I have never seen the Lawyers’ Bar defending policemen”

Correio da Manhã – What’s your opinion about the trial?

Carlos Anjos – The process started out upside down. It did not originate from a complaint by Joana’s mother. It originated from photographs that were published in a newspaper. There was almost an attempt to walk into this situation.

- Political intentions?

- It’s a recurrent theme, which is no longer justified. Above everything, I believe in my colleagues. They didn’t beat her. But there are people out there who promoted themselves to saviours of the homeland; someone who attained notoriety by making denunciations without proof.

- How do you see the participation of the Lawyers’ Bar as an assistant?

- There are approximately 200 processes where policemen complained of being aggressed. What I would like to know is if the Bar is going to become an assistant in said processes. I have never seen the Head of the Bar worried about the aggressions that victimize policemen. I have never seen the Bar defending policemen, or concerned about what happened to Joana or Maddie.

Directors on the witness stand

The joint national directors of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), Guilhermino Encarnação (head of the Faro PJ) and Luís Neves (head of the Major Crime unit), are two out of more than 40 witnesses that were called to the stand by the defense of the five inspectors that are on trial.

These two high-ranking officials have already coordinated many cases in which the accused men were involved. And Santos Cabral, the PJ’s national director at the time, is going to witness in writing.

Among the witnesses, names like Marques Vidal, a jubilated judge and former general director of the PJ, Albano Pinto, a former joint national director of the PJ, and Orlando Romano, a public prosecutor and former national director of the PSP, stand out. The surprise factor was the call for João Grade, former lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, who decided to change her defense lawyer at the last minute.

source: Correio da Manhã, 24.10.2008, paper edition

Cláudia said...

I would just like to remind the child killer lovers that João Cipriano had been in jail several times before. One of them for attempted homicide, in 1993, which got him four years in jail.

After all, according to the Pro-McCanns those parents who violently bash their kids up the wall and then mercilessly dispose of the body in an attempt to get away with it do not deserve to go to prison! No they believe the dedicated Police Officer who put them there, Goncalo Amaral should go to prison instead. I recommend they seek psychiatric help!!

What happened to Madeleine for both dogs to mark her death behind the sofa, up against the wall and for blood spray to be all up the walls? Is this why they seek to say Leonor and her brother who she liked to have sex with should go free, just like Kate and Gerry McCann are free? Well I know people who support this blog believe child killers deserve custody, nothing complicated about that to normal people.

Correio de Manha 23.10.08

Process - Inspectors from the PJ accused of torture
Leonor Cipriano confessed death of their daughter Jeanne
Jeanne took the mother and uncle naked on the couch at the time was preparing to have sex. As soon as the child of eight years threatened to tell all the companion of Leonor, and this brother, John, attacked her with slap so violent that hit his head on a wall and died there in the house of the village of Figueira, in Plymouth, where lived with the stepfather and two half-brothers.

19 Oct 2008


The Sun

Agony ... Gerry and Kate McCann

* Kate's Maddie hol premonition

Kate's Maddie holiday premonition


Published: 20/10/08
KATE McCann had a haunting premonition about the holiday on which daughter Madeleine went missing.

She told a close pal before the trip had been booked: “I don’t know why, I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it.”

Fiona Payne, 36, revealed Kate’s worries to Portuguese police.

Tapas friends ... Fiona and David Payne

Kate and husband Gerry, both 40, were at first undecided about whether to make the trip, she said.

Fiona was one of the Tapas Seven who dined with the McCanns on the night of three-year-old Madeleine’s disappearance at the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort in Praia Da Luz.

She told an officer: “This always haunts me. Kate ... what she said ... she was unsure.

“Gerry was quite keen but Kate said, ‘I don’t know why, I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it.’

“And I don’t know why she said that. I don’t think even she knows.”

Fiona’s husband David, 42, said: “Kate didn’t feel quite easy about it.”

The details emerged during interviews given by the Tapas Seven — David, Fiona, her mum Dianne Webster, 64, Dr Russell O’Brien and his partner Jane Tanner, both 37, Dr Matthew Oldfield, 39, and his wife Rachael, 37.

They spoke to cops in April at Enderby, Leics.

The documents, which have been seen by The Sun, total more than 1,000 pages.

Asked how Kate appeared after Madeleine’s disappearance Fiona, an anaesthetist, said: “Awful. I’ve never seen such horrible raw emotion in my life and I’ve seen a lot of it in my job.

“She was bereft. She didn’t know what to do, she was panicking, extremely frightened for Madeleine and was wondering where she was or what was happening to her.

"And the helplessness of not being able to do anything, what should she be doing, what could they do.

“She was angry, really angry, punching walls, kicking walls.

“The next day she was covered in bruises. She was angry at herself.

“She kept saying, ‘I’ve let her down. We’ve let her down, Gerry. We should have been here’. And she prayed a lot.”

Husband David said: “Gerry broke down ... just a broken man.

"He would fling a cupboard open and have a look in a vain, desperate hope she might have been there.

“Then he flung himself on the floor and was just kicking the floor and was just, ‘She’s gone, she’s gone’.”

David’s mother-in-law Dianne said: “Gerry was distraught. I’ve never heard a man make the noises Gerry made.”

The Express do not use this picture in their articles, they use a picture of little Madeleine, I suspect the only one they are actually concerned about, time will tell.
Hiya all, You will see from the third report below that Express published an apology to all seven of the Tapas crew on 16/10 but then on Sunday 19/10 in a further apology apparently to the TAPAS 7 again, just two specific reports are referred to and only Rusell and Jane are apologised to. So why were they all standing on the steps of the High Court? And where was Russell, the one was really ahem, libelled! Taking his solicitor's advice I suspect and staying well out of it. Carter Ruck are not renowned for giving their clients good advice...Mr Justice Eady commented that Derek Jamieson's case was doomed to failure, did Carter Ruck tell Mr Jamieson, well no, they forgot to mention that culminating in Mr Jamieson picking up a £75,000 legal bill, nice one Carter Ruck the firm who "acts" for clients and costs them a packet!

Not only are the Express a little unclear as to who they are apologising to and for what... as we know, Clarence has been telling us for months that Kennedy is looking for a British Detective to head up the hunt for Maddie, somewhat cynically the Express also publish a report about this finishing with the rather odd words of Gerry McCann ...knowing what has been done and what has not been done is important in planning our future strategy. Well we never had any doubts about that, Gerry, even in the early days in PDL your frustration at not knowing what the Police had on you was all too apparent. I have never met a criminal yet who is not extremely anxious to know what the police are up to and just how much they have found out. You are no exception!


Sunday October 19,2008
In articles published on 16 September and 2 December 2007 we suggested that Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, the holiday companions of Kate and Gerry McCann, might be named as official suspects by the Portuguese police investigating Madeleine’s disappearance and that Dr O’Brien might have helped to cover up the true facts.
We now accept that these suggestions should never have been made and were completely untrue. We apologise to Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner to whom we have agreed to pay substantial damages which they will be donating to the Find Madeleine Fund.


Hunt for detective to head Maddy probe - Sunday Express

By Brendan AbbottSunday October 19, 2008Kate and Gerry McCann are reviewing their strategy as no major breakthrough has emerged in the hunt for Madeleine.Millionaire businessman Brian Kennedy, their financial backer, is seeking a former high-ranking police detective to mastermind the private investigation.He has interviewed several candidates and will see more in the coming weeks. Whoever takes on the job faces the mammoth task of assessing information gathered by many private detectives since Madeleine vanished 18 months ago.The investigator will also have to read thousands of pages of Portuguese police files released in August and painstakingly translated.The family's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the investigation was continuing in many countries as the McCanns study the files line by line.Heart specialist Mr McCann said in his blog report last week: "Kate and I have been incredibly busy over the last couple of months since the files were made public."We and our family have always vowed to leave no stone unturned in the search for our daughter and knowing exactly what has been done and, more importantly, what has not been done is vital in planning our future strategy."



Thursday October 16,2008
In articles published between July and December last year we suggested that the holiday companions of Kate and Gerry McCann might have covered up the true facts concerning Madeleine McCann’s disappearance and/or misled the authorities investigating her disappearance.
We also reported speculation that one member of the group, Dr Russell O’Brien, was suspected of involvement with Madeleine’s abduction. We now accept that these suggestions should never have been made and were completely untrue.We apologise to Jane Tanner, Russell O’Brien, Fiona Payne, David Payne, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield and Diane Webster to whom we have agreed to pay substantial damages which they will be donating to the Find Madeleine Fund.

12 Oct 2008


AND SO AM I:-))) On sunny days like we have been enjoying of late, this is where the Writ can be served xxxxxxx
I wonder why Kate was particularly annoyed with Sandra?? I think she has provided some excellant reporting on this case, asking the McCanns the searching questions that needed to be ask, bravo Sandra!

A year later the McCanns clearly decide as they cannot beat Sandra they might as well join her. Sandra sits aghast as Kate makes the most shocking excuses for leaving the children again in this video, if you have not seen it and still think the McCanns may be innocent do please watch, I am sure it will change your mind!

McCanns may sue over claims they killed Madeleine

Last updated at 23:40 23 August 2007

Kate and Gerry McCann are considering legal action to stem the endless tide of smears against themselves and their friends in the Portuguese media.

They have suffered a hurtful whispering campaign implying they or members of the group they dined with on the night their four-year-old daughter Madeleine disappeared had been involved in her murder or abduction.

The couple have endured the slurs with dignity, but now they appear to be ready to fight back.

Scroll down for more...

 Sandra Felgueiras

Top Portuguese TV presenter Sandra Felgueiras is said to have 'accused' Madeleine's mother

And one particular target appears to have fallen into their sights - glamorous Portuguese TV reporter Sandra Felgueiras.

For the Portuguese people, the blonde broadcaster has become the face of the Madeleine story, bringing live updates to their living rooms on national television station RTP.

But the McCanns are incensed over at least one live broadcast by Miss Felgueiras, 30, in which she is said to have implied Mrs McCann could have murdered her own daughter.

Now the McCanns are considering taking libel action under Portuguese human rights laws protecting the right to a 'good name', said a friend.

Police now believe Madeleine McCann may have died in the apartment

In the week leading up to the 100-day anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, there was a flurry of media reports based on the police theory that the little girl died the night she vanished.

Some implied that the McCanns or their friends, with whom they were dining at the Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz, were somehow involved in her disappearance.

A source close to the McCanns said: "This is about trying to stop lurid accusations being aired. She [Felgueiras] was outrageous that week in the run-up to the 100 days. She really was outrageous."

The source claimed Miss Felgueiras's report 'encouraged a media frenzy', adding: 'Both the McCanns are hard-working, law abiding professionals. It is very important to protect their reputation.'

The exact wording of Miss Felgueiras's live report is unknown, because nobody has specified which one of many is at issue.

Miss Felgueiras said last night she had no idea which report it might be and denied ever branding either of the McCanns a 'murderer'.

She said: "I never said that and I never insinuated anything like that. I never in my life put anyone under suspicion but just told viewers that police are investigating the possibility that Madeleine has died and that it is murder or an accident.

"I'm absolutely sure that everything I said was only what the police were telling us concerning this new lead of the investigation.

"If the McCanns presume that this is an accusation against them, then that is their assumption, not mine. My conscience is completely clear."

Miss Felgueiras, who has personally interviewed the McCanns on several occasions, added: "I am the most moderate reporter. Sometimes other channels talk about things that I refuse to talk about. I even made a live report saying everybody is innocent until they go to court.

"Also I never talk about Kate and Gerry in an isolated way, I always talk about the couple. So it's very strange to be accused of saying Kate did something."

The McCanns and their friends have been battling adverse publicity for the past three weeks following a series of leaks from Portuguese police to the local media.

The McCanns have been accused of doping their children to get them to sleep, leaving them alone for hours on end while getting drunk, and of mounting a cover-up.

Their holiday friends have been accused of giving conflicting accounts of the evening, and one, Dr Russell O'Brien, was forced to defend himself against the hurtful and untrue suggestion that he was 'missing' at the time Madeleine vanished.

Mr McCann is set to talk for the first time about how becoming "household names' has taken its toll on his family.

He will travel to the Edinburgh International Television Festival this weekend where he has been invited to speak about the "double-edged sword" of launching such a wide public appeal to try to get his daughter back.

8 Oct 2008


Sorry Rosie I am not in the seat here:-)))) I am having fun thinking of you scouring the country looking for this garden xxxxxxx Now dont get poisoning my fish, will you, Nanday likes them and so do me and my family!

Holidaymakers join Algarve hunt for missing three-year-old
Published by webmaster for 24dash.com in Communities Friday 4th May 2007 - 12:18pm

Holidaymakers and police were desperately searching today for a young British girl who went missing while on holiday in Portugal.
Three-year-old Madeleine McCann vanished from her parents' rented apartment in the Algarve last night as they dined nearby.
Tourists joined resort staff in a "frantic" all-night search for the little girl, who was described by a neighbour as "happy-go-lucky" and idolised by her "protective" parents, Gerry and Kate.
Today the manager at the Ocean Club - a holiday resort run by British travel firm Mark Warner in the south west seaside village of Praia Da Luz - said the couple, both doctors from Leicester, were "distraught".
John Hill said: "It was a very emotional and very frantic night and everyone did a fantastic job of getting involved and trying to search the area.
"As you can imagine, Madeleine's parents are distraught and not doing very well at all."
Around 60 staff and guests at the purpose-built complex searched until 4.30am while police notified border police, Spanish police and airports.
Sniffer dogs were brought in by Portuguese detectives to comb the area but as the hours went by, hopes that Madeleine merely wandered off were fading.
A spokesman for the Policia Judiciaria - the Portuguese CID - said they would not comment on the investigation.
British consul in Portugal Bill Henderson was with the couple and their twins, a boy and a girl, and Mark Warner said it was flying out counsellors to help them through the ordeal.
Mr Hill said that despite the report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple's apartment were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away.
He said: "We are hoping that Madeleine is found as soon as possible and safe and well. Everybody here is just wishing that she is found as soon as possible."
But family friend Jill Renwick told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted.
"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine," she said.
"They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone."
She described the missing girl as a "very pretty, very blonde three-year-old".
Ms Renwick said of the holiday: "This is the first time they have done this. They are very, very anxious parents and very careful and they chose Mark Warner because it is a family-friendly resort." A place where parents like Kate and Gerry can dump the kids night and day!
A Mark Warner spokesman said looking after the McCanns was their "first priority", along with finding their daughter, and added that if necessary it would fly other family members out to the Ocean Club, which it has run for two years.
He said: "Our staff are looking after them at the moment in whatever way they can but we can only imagine how awful it is for them.
"We are all hoping that she is asleep under a bush somewhere and we will find her soon."
He said the apartment the family were staying in was surrounded by other apartments, all of which have "quite sophisticated" locks on the doors.
Guests are being asked if they saw anyone acting suspiciously in the area, he said, adding that Mark Warner has never had cases of missing or abducted children before.
"We are hoping it's not that, though," he said. "It's the last thing we want but we have to investigate all avenues."
He said Mark Warner offers families a baby-sitting service where they can drop off their children for the night.
"Those facilities were available but, for whatever reason, they were not being used
," he said.
Today neighbours near the family home in Rothley, Leicestershire, to which they are thought to have moved from Queniborough last summer, said they were "devastated" by the news.
Neighbour Penny Noble said she believed Madeleine was due to start at school in September.
She said: "They are a really nice family and good neighbours.
"They are delightful. We see them take their bikes up and down and going for walks.
"Madeleine is a very happy-go-lucky little girl."
Neighbour Tracey Horsfield, a nurse, said: "They seem a really lovely family, protective of their children.
"I see them going up and down the crescent. They are a protective family who idolise their kids.
"I am hoping and praying that she has not been abducted and that she has wandered off. They would not let her out of their sight."
And colleagues of Dr McCann, who is a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester, said they were still hoping for the best.
Doug Skehan, also a consultant cardiologist at the hospital, said: "Gerry is a popular, hardworking colleague for whom we have great affection.
"The mood in the hospital is one of great concern and we hope that Kate and Gerry will have their daughter back very soon."
The girl's grandfather, Brian Healy, said the family were "worried sick".
Speaking at the door of the family home in Mossley Hill, Liverpool, he said: "We're worried sick, as you can imagine. It's a very distressing time."
A family friend added that they would be travelling to Portugal on the next available flight.
Speaking to the BBC later, Ms Renwick said the McCanns, holidaying with three other British families, had felt let down by police in Portugal.
"I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own.
"They just don't know where to turn."
But resort manager Mr Hill said this was not true, and that police had been searching with dogs overnight and continued to search today.
He said: "The police have their dogs in and have been conducting sweeps of the beach and rocky areas very close to the village.
"There is a criminal investigator here in charge of the situation and around 20 officers but unfortunately there is still no information.
"If I was in the McCanns' situation, I would be frustrated as hell if there were 100 police here - I would still be frustrated and want more.
"I can't put myself in their position but the police were here with their dogs through the night."
He said detectives had not found a forced entry into the apartment but said the shutters had been slid up and the bedroom window opened since the McCanns left.
As to whether the police were now looking at an abduction, he said: "We just can't speculate at this stage. I hope not."

He said the couple and their twins, who are two years old, were being comforted by friends.
"The mood is not as frantic as it was last night but there is a big police presence and we just have to keep searching," he said.
Mr Healy and his wife, Susan, were driven away from the house in Liverpool shortly after 12.30pm.
Bags were packed in the car and a relative said they were heading to Portugal.
Mr Healy's sister, who gave her name as Nora, said earlier: "They don't feel they are getting much help from the Portuguese authorities. It's a terrible time."
A Foreign Office spokesman said the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) in the UK was liaising with Leicestershire Police and other constabularies while a Foreign Office Soca liaison was also in contact with the Portuguese chief of police. BIG GUNS FROM BRITISH POLICE SENT IMMEDIATELY, SURE THEY BELIEVED KATE AND GERRY MCCANN!! SURE THE PORTUGUESE POLICE ALONE COCKED THIS INVESTIGATION UP, HOW SO!
He added that two officials from the British Consulate in Portimao were with the family, assisting them as they deal with the Portuguese police.
Copyright Press Association 2007
Don't miss the 24dash.com audio bulletins for the latest news and information - http://www.24dash.com/podcasts

4 Oct 2008


Hi all, I thought you may find this case interesting where the murderer carried out the most horrific attack but the police stated they had a good idea who it was but could not prove it. They had evidence but it was insufficient. A few years after a retrial he was convicted, as you will see when this man attempted to appeal his convictions but sadly not before he had killed again and also attempted to kill his mother.

Are there some parallels to be drawn here, in a way, I think there are!

Viv x

Inquest into decapitation fails to satisfy grieving family
By Steve BogganTuesday, 20 March 2001
For many bereaved families, an inquest, just like a funeral, is part of dealing with the loss of a loved one in tragic circumstances. But for the family of Julian Sanders it has meant that the person who cut off his head while he was still alive may never be punished.
Yesterday, an inquest into Julian's death last May recorded a verdict that he was unlawfully killed. However, the fact that it took place at all was an indication that police efforts to find his killer are at best becalmed, at worst stymied.
Normally, inquests are held in abeyance pending police investigations, but The Independent has learned that Julian's murder file has been put on "cold case review". That means officers will investigate new evidence if it comes in, but they have stopped searching for the perpetrator. They believe they know who killed Julian, but they can't prove it.
Julian, 20, from Shrewsbury, was found dead in a field in Longbridge, Birmingham, 70 miles from his home, on 29 May last year. His head was found a few feet from his body. A post-mortem examination revealed that he had been hit on the back of the head but he was still alive when it was crudely hacked off. Decapitation is not unusual in murder. It is often used as a means of concealing the victim's identity after death. In Julian's case, decapitation was the cause of death.
By all accounts, Julian was a gentle man without any enemies. He was on medication for a mild form of schizophrenia and he had been taking it up to his death. If anything, his family said, the medication made him slightly docile. Early reports in the Birmingham press that he was murdered as part of a drugs turf war were nonsense; he had never been in trouble. Why, therefore, he should come to such a terrible end was something that baffled police.
They soon found out, however, that he had befriended a man - platonically - and they believe that one of that man's friends had taken against Julian. Jealousy, detectives believe, may have been the motive for his murder.
The Independent has been given details of the evidence against the suspect, but it is purely circumstantial. There is no forensic evidence linking the man to Julian's death. The police investigation revolved around a telephone call made by Julian, evidence that the suspect may have a predisposition to violence, and the discovery of Julian's watch in the suspect's home.
The suspect said the watch had broken and Julian had asked him to throw it away. Without forensic evidence, the decision not to prosecute anyone at this stage appears to be correct. But it is a painful decision for Julian's family.
"It is a bad feeling in the gut," said his father, Russell Sanders Royle, 45. "Not only because the police have worked so hard, but also because this person is still out there. He has not paid for my son's death and he could well kill again.
"The past 10 months have been terrible for the family. Julian was a lovely lad and we all miss him so much. Unfortunately, we won't even begin to put this behind us until his killer is caught."
When Julian was murdered, the national media took no interest in the case. Now the family want to concentrate on appealing to the public for the tiniest shred of evidence that might bolster West Midlands Police's chances of a conviction.
It is understood the post-mortem examination revealed that Julian's skin had been hit with water from a high-pressure hose. Detectives believe he was killed and decapitated in an isolated farm or industrial outbuilding, but there are thousands across the county.
"We want anyone who rented or lent an outbuilding out last May bank holiday to tell the police," said Avi Sanders Royle, 49, Julian's stepmother. "There may have been unexplained blood in there or some suspicious characters. Any information, no matter how irrelevant it may seem, could help."
A Home Office pathologist, Dr Edmund Tapp, told the inquest that, mercifully, Julian had not been conscious when his head was removed. But he added: "There was a good deal of blood in the lungs, indicating that the deceased was alive when his head was severed."
Recording a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner, Dr Richard Whittington, said: "This was a savage assault ... brutal, callous. It must have been in some sense premeditated as somebody was armed with horrible weapons put to terrible use."
Detective Inspector Steve Billingham, second in command of the investigation, said the murder was on "cold case review" but was not formally closed. "We still have officers on hand to receive calls and we will investigate any new information people give us," he said.
For Julian's family, the trauma goes on. Mrs Sanders Royle said the police involved in Julian's case had done a fine job, but she has now lost faith in the justice system.
"I take consolation from the fact that whoever murdered Julian is probably in his own private hell," she said. "If he doesn't get justice in this world, he'll get it in the next."
Last week, The Independent tried to speak to the suspect. He refused to be interviewed about the case, repeatedly replying "No comment" to all questions posed.

and after his conviction, this manipulative liar attempts to appeal and say well I was mad! Yes we know but you are still very dangerous, I hope they never let him out!

MR JUSTICE GIBBS : 1. On 16th October 2003 at the Chester Crown Court Maurice John Latus (“the offender”) was convicted, after a retrial, of the offence of murder. I passed a sentence of life imprisonment upon him for that offence.2. On 19th June 2002 at the same court before Mr Justice Stephen Richards (as he then was) the offender had pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Two days later, upon being re-arraigned on a separate charge of murder, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was also tried by a jury on the charge of murder referred to at paragraph 1, but the jury failed to agree. He was convicted of attempted murder in relation to a separate incident.3. Two unsuccessful appeals against conviction for murder were made on the offender's behalf, the later appeal being dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 19th December 2006.4. There were three victims of these offences. The victim of the offences of wounding with intent and of murder was Julian Sanders, a work colleague and friend of the offender. The victim of the manslaughter was Colin Faulkes, the offender's landlord. The victim of the attempted murder was the offender's mother. I now set our a brief chronology of events.5. From about 1985, the offender lived in a rural property in Shropshire known as “The Gatehouse” and owned by Faulkes. The offender alleged that Faulkes had physically and sexually abused him over many years, but that he could not leave the house because he had nowhere to go. The offender's relationship with his mother had been difficult. She had married a much younger man, a pupil of hers, in the early 1980s.6. The offender and Sanders worked together from 1997 onwards and became friends. They saw each other frequently. Sanders suffered abused drugs and was admitted to a mental hospital on two occasions with drug-induced psychosis.7. The first of the offences mentioned above, wounding with intent, took place in February 2000. On 29th February 2000, Sanders attended a Shrewsbury hospital with wounds to the back of his head. There was extensive bruising and swelling to the back of his skull. He said he had fallen down a flight of stairs. The inference is that he colluded with and/or was persuaded by the offender to conceal the truth, namely that the offender had assaulted him. In early April 2000 Sanders was again admitted to a mental hospital, where he remained as an in-patient until late May 2000.8. Sanders then went missing. On 27th or 28th May, the offender killed him. He severed his head from his body with an axe or some other heavy implement with a sharp edge. He then took him in a vehicle to a park just south of Birmingham and left the head and body there. A member of the public discovered them as he was walking his dog early one morning. This killing eventually led to the offender's conviction for murder.9. Shortly afterwards, the offender was arrested for the murder, but released. Soon after his release, he killed Faulkes. This led to his plea of guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. On 12th May, he attempted to kill his mother. His plea of guilty to an offence under S18 of the Offences Against The Person Act in relation to this offence was not accepted, and he was convicted of attempted murder. Both attacks were carried out in a similar way, namely with an axe or some similar weapon.10. It now falls to me to determine the minimum term to be served by the offender, pursuant to Schedule 22 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In setting the appropriate term I must take into account the seriousness of the offence, and in doing so must consider the general principles in Schedule 21 of the 2003 Act. I must have regard to the recommendation which, as trial judge, I made to the Lord Chief Justice, namely sixteen years. Because of the change in procedure at the time, the Lord Chief Justice did not consider the recommendation, and the Home Secretary did not fix a tariff. I must have regard to the guidelines applicable at the time of the offence and must ensure that the term set complies with Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Schedule 22/8(a)) and the guidance provided by the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction (29th July 2004) (“the CCPD”) paragraph IV.49, so as to ensure that the sentence does not breach the principle of retroactivity. The CCPD explains the correct approach to looking at the practice of the Home Secretary before December 2002 for the purpose of Schedule 22 of the 2003 Act, in the light of the judgment in R v Sullivan, Gibbs, Elener and Elener (2005) 1 Cr App R 3. I have also had regard to the provisions of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 relating to the time spent in custody on remand.11. I have read and considered Victim Impact Statements from the offender's mother; from Russell Sanders Royle, the father of Julian Sanders; and Charles Foulkes, the father of Colin Foulkes. The statement of Mr. Royle is of particular relevance, as his son was the victim of the case I am now considering. I have also considered written representations made on the offender's behalf.12. Under the principles set out in Schedule 21, the starting point for determination of the minimum term is 15 years. Whilst the offence had horrifying aspects, none of the features set out in paragraphs 4(2) or 5(2) of the Schedule were present. Accordingly the 15 year starting point provided by paragraph 6 applies, subject to increase or reduction for aggravating or mitigating features, examples of which were set out.13. Since the murder was committed before 1st June 2002, the appropriate starting point indicated as appropriate by the CCPD in determining the practice of the Secretary of State at the material time is to be assessed by reference to the letter of guidance dated 10th February 1997 sent by Lord Bingham, then Chief Justice, to the judges. This letter provided a starting point for an “average” or “unexceptional” murder of 14 years, but subject to increase or reduction for aggravating or mitigating features, examples of which were set out.14. I considered, when making my recommendation about the minimum term following sentence, the aggravating and mitigating features as they appeared to me at that time. This recommendation was based on the Practice Statement of Lord Woolf, handed down on 31st May 2002. That Practice Statement was formulated in different terms from the guidance in Lord Bingham's letter. The CCPD (which post-dated the sentence) made it clear that the latter rather than the former which applied to the present case. Further, the CCPD provides that I should have regard to the principles in Schedule 21, which was not in force when sentence was passed in this case. Accordingly, whilst keeping in mind my original recommendation, I think it appropriate to consider afresh the length of the minimum term appropriate to the seriousness of the offence.15. As it seems to me, this offence is significantly more serious that the “average” or “unexceptional” murder for which Lord Bingham considered a starting point of 14 years appropriate. Whilst the offender did not have a criminal record for violence, he had quite soon before the murder carried out a very serious and potentially lethal attack on the same victim. As regards the facts of the murder, the precise events leading up to it cannot be fully known. After his conviction and sentence, the offender admitted that he had killed the victim, and gave an account of what happened. The offender's account led to his second unsuccessful appeal against conviction, in which the Court of Appeal was invited to hear fresh evidence from the offender's psychiatrist to show that, had the full facts been known at trial, the offender might have been found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.16. The Court of Appeal declined to hear fresh evidence. The Court was presented with the offender's explanations about why the issue of mental illness had not been raised before. The court observed (paragraph 29 of the judgment): “….these explanations demonstrate what the prosecution have fairly described as a deliberate tactical decision not allow the offence of diminished responsibility to be investigated because the appellant believed he had a good chance of acquittal based on his denial of any responsibility. We cannot accept the submission that it was the mental illness which gave rise to these attempts to evade responsibility. Moreover the appellant's conduct after the killing, by way of attempting to dispose of the body and by his persistent denials of involvement tend to confirm the statement he made to Dr Collins that 'he hoped to get away with it'. He persisted in his denial following his arrest for the killing of Faulkes and his “hope” succeeded to the extent of a jury disagreement on the Sanders count at the first trial. The appellant persisted in denying involvement at the time of the retrial at which he was convicted and until his application for leave had been refused.”17. When making my original recommendation, I gave weight to the likelihood that the offender was under the influence of mental illness or of some personality disorder at the time. I am still of that view; but in the light of the subsequent course of events and the conclusions drawn from them by the Court of Appeal, the weight to be given in mitigation to the mental state of the offender is limited. He has shown that he is devious and manipulative. These qualities are reflected in his actions after the killing. I note that, having admitted responsibility for the death of Sanders, the offender denied an intention to kill. On the evidence, I do not regard that denial as credible.18. As regards aggravating features, in my original recommendation I identified the brutal, deliberate and calculated manner of the killing, the previous attack, the planning involved in the disposal of the body and the efforts to conceal the evidence. I would add that, whilst this was not a case of “macabre…dismemberment of the body after death” (an aggravating feature mentioned by Lord Bingham: see CCPD IV.49.19 (11)), the very fact of causing death by decapitation is an especially horrifying feature of the case. This feature is referred to in Mr Royle's victim impact statement.19. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating features against one another, I have concluded that the minimum period to be fixed before the early release provisions are to apply should be 18 years. In my judgment the aggravating features very substantially outweigh the mitigating features. The time spent in custody on remand was 2 years 5 months and 2 days. Pursuant to the 1967 Act, this time must be deducted form the minimum period. Accordingly the minimum period will be fixed at 15 years 6 months and 28 days.20. I would add this. The question of whether, if at all, the offender is ever released, depends not primarily on the seriousness of the offence, but on an assessment long in the future of whether the offender remains dangerous. That will be for others to decide, not me. But when I made my original recommendation, I said: “As a consequence of his personality disorder and/or psychiatric illness the defendant is likely to represent a serious danger for the indefinite future”. I remain of that view. The fact that after this murder, the offender killed another person, and attempted to kill his mother, indicates the extent of that danger. The appellant's mother, one of his victims, remains sympathetic to him; but considers that she would be at risk were he ever released. I consider that she and others would be at serious risk for the foreseeable future.

2 Oct 2008


Especially for the benefit of those who still seek to suggest the Omagh case was helpful to the McCanns they should think again, given it was investigated during the currency of the PJ investigation and found to be perfectly fit for purpose in cases where the crime scene has been cleaned and very little forensic evidence is left to analyse. As this article also makes plain the weight the court will attach to the evidence depends upon all the facts of the case, but I think it would certainly be true to say that without more a prosecution would not be mounted. This is why the McCanns have not, as yet, been charged. Very often it is not one piece of evidence alone that entitles a jury to find the defendants guilty, it is the TOTALITY of ALL the evidence.

Viv x

Review of the use of Low Copy Number DNA analysis in current cases: CPS statement
14 January 2008
The judgment in the Omagh bombing case, R v Hoey, was handed down on the 20th December 2007.
The Judge expressed concerns about Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA analysis, conducted by the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS), which was adduced in evidence. In particular he expressed concerns about the extent to which the scientific validity of the technique had been demonstrated.
LCN is a form of generic Low Template DNA analysis, used when the available crime scene DNA sample is very small, (for example, such as might be obtained from a person's contact with a surface rather than a bloodstain). LCN is the service offered by the FSS, and other low template DNA profiling services are offered by other forensic science providers in the UK.
Following the judgment in the Omagh case on 21 December, as a precautionary measure, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) wrote to Chief Constables on 21 December 2007 recommending that the police should operate an interim suspension on the use of LCN DNA analysis in criminal investigations in England and Wales. This decision by ACPO was taken following discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The purpose of the suspension was to provide an opportunity to review the situation in the light of ongoing trials in which LCN evidence was at issue, and to ensure that the implications of the Omagh judgment in relation to LCN profiling were addressed before the technique was used in any future proceedings.
The CPS carried out a precautionary internal review of current cases involving the FSS use of LCN DNA analysis. This took place between 21 December 2007 and 14 January 2008.
From this, the CPS has not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN. Accordingly we conclude that LCN DNA analysis provided by the FSS should remain available as potentially admissible evidence. Of course, the strength and weight such evidence is given in any individual case remains a matter to be considered, presented, and tested in the light of all the other evidence.
Forensic science has a vital role to play in detecting criminals and bringing them to justice, and equally ensuring that innocent people are eliminated from suspicion. In recent years, the science in this area has developed at a very fast pace, particularly with the growth in forensic science providers who compete with one another to offer an increasingly wide range of new techniques in DNA profiling.
Such developments should ensure such techniques become an ever more compelling tool in the criminal justice system, as long as they are supported by transparent quality assurance processes, set against clear standards, and verified by independent peer review.
This process will be supported by the recent moves to appoint a Forensic Science Regulator; an Interim Regulator was appointed in June 2007, and the permanent Regulator, Andrew Rennison, will take up his post on 11 February 2008. The post of Regulator is also supported by the recent formation of the Forensic Science Advisory Council, whose membership includes representatives from the judiciary and a range of senior criminal justice partners.. In the course of the CPS review, the Regulator provided valuable assistance.
The CPS will continue to work closely with the Forensic Science Regulator in preparing guidance to its prosecutors about the issues that should be considered when Low Template DNA analysis from any provider is potential prosecution evidence.
Notes to Editors
The regulator has set out his position. This is available as an Annex to this Press Release.
Media enquiries to CPS Press Office on 020 7796 8106.
The Forensic Science Regulator has commissioned an expert review of "low template DNA analysis", including the LCN service offered by the FSS Ltd. The review, led by Professor Brian Caddy of Strathclyde University, began on 8 November 2007[1] and is due to report at the end of February 2008. It is examining the processes used by the various providers; their scientific validity and the way the results are interpreted and presented. Professor Caddy has also been asked to advise upon the creation of a national minimum technical standard for the process.
At present, there is no reason to believe that there is any inherent unreliability in the LCN DNA analysis process provided that it is carried out according to the prescribed processes, and that the results are properly interpreted. In its work so far, the review has found nothing that would indicate any serious flaw in the scientific principles.
The process has been validated by FSS Ltd. in accordance with their internal validation procedures. There is currently no internationally or nationally recognised technical standard governing the validation of low template DNA analysis. Professor Caddy's work will enable the Regulator to prescribe standards against which all suppliers will be required to validate their services.
The Regulator will ensure that the standards exist and that suppliers comply with them in carrying out validation procedures on their forensic science products and services. The Regulator will not, himself, be responsible for conducting external validation of such services."
14 January 2008