'Why I believe the McCanns' team were behind the leaking of police statements'
"At the moment there is nothing to say regarding the case. We are working well. The rest is a
soap opera." Alipio Ribeiro to Expresso on 17 November 2007
Nigel Moore
11 April 2008
When
considering where the 'leak' to Spanish programme Telecinco came from we must first look at the advantages and disadvantages
of such a leak to the McCanns.
Advantages
Opportunity to smear the PJ by blaming them for the leak
– with the bonus that the PJ are unable and unwilling to respond,
Opportunity to make a statement direct to the PJ, about
the events of May 3rd - through the media - which had been denied them when they were not called for interview,
Revenge for missed opportunity to milk such interviews for PR effect,
Opportunity to reaffirm their timeline for May 3rd,
Opportunity to reaffirm that Madeleine was still alive
on the morning of May 3rd,
An
opportunity to account for the cries of Madeleine that were heard by Mrs Pamela Fenn, as well as…
The
chance to show that they reacted as responsible parents, when it was said that "Gerry and I spoke for a couple of minutes
and agreed to keep a closer watch over the children."
The
opportunity to distract and divert attention away from the ongoing interviews of the Tapas Group,
The
chance to order an internal review of the PJ and contribute to further distractions and consuming of PJ time and resources,
Substance
to any possible claim they would not get a fair trial due to the adverse publicity.
The
chance to use the "smear" as a reason to refuse to return to Portugal to participate in a reconstruction.
Disadvantages
Adverse
newspaper headlines and public opinion,
Distraction from the McCanns trip to Brussels to champion the Amber Alert System
As
you see, the advantages of such a leak to the McCanns massively outweigh the two disadvantages, neither of which have any
bearing on the actual case against the McCanns.
There is no doubt that during the early days of the investigation leaks found their way into the public domain from
certain ‘sources’. This was stopped completely when Paulo Rebelo took charge of the investigation on 08 October 2007. Since then there have been no leaks.
So, the question must be asked, why, after 6 months of running a water tight ship, against waves of abuse and derision
from the McCanns, their supporters and certain elements of the UK press, should the PJ see
any possible advantage to leaking such information now? The answer is simple. None. The very idea is, to quote Clarence
Mitchell, ludicrous.
The
PJ have steadfastly gathered their case against the McCanns and the British government has aided the process, eventually,
by agreeing to the rogatory letter and further interviewing of the Tapas Group and other witnesses. The process is continuing
with the full blessing of all those who have access to whatever evidence is held and who know the case.
To
believe that they would throw that all in the air for the sake of one days newspaper headlines is completely ridiculous. This
is not a soap opera. This is the investigation into the disappearance and probable death of a 3-year old girl.
So,
what advantage is there in getting the McCanns timeline into the public domain and before the PJ’s watching eyes?
Well, it has to be said, there was very little in this leak that wasn’t already in the public domain courtesy
of David James Smith’s article in The Times of 17 December 2007. That article showed such fine detail
that it could have only come from the McCanns themselves – in effect, leaking their own timeline.
Consider
this section of the article:
Gerry
paused over Madeleine, who – a typical doctor’s observation, this – was lying almost in “the recovery
position” with Cuddle Cat, the toy her godfather, John Corner, had bought her, and her comfort blanket up near her head,
and Gerry thought how gorgeous, how lovely-looking she was and how lucky he was. Putting the door back to five degrees, he
went to the loo and left to return to the restaurant. That, of course, was the last time he would see his daughter.
This
is a virtual word for word copy of what we are now told is Gerry’s original police statement.
So,
if this is 'old news', what can we say is new in the leak to Telecinco?
Four things:
1) That Madeleine complained about being left to cry on the previous night
and that she addressed this issue over breakfast with Kate and Gerry,
2) Gerry opened the shutters further and that this was easy to do (explaining
the presence of any fingerprints that may have been found),
3) That work was done on the shutters in the main bedroom which were broken,
and
4) That Jane Tanner believed the man she saw walking away from the McCanns' apartment was
the child’s father
I
believe that this 'revelation' about Madeleine crying has been very carefully considered. We know that Mrs Pamela Fenn has
made a police statement saying that she heard crying from the apartment on a previous night and that this needs to be addressed
and explained by the McCanns.
(Note:
The common myth that Mrs Fenn subsequently retracted her statement and said she heard no crying is false. What she actually
said was that she heard no crying on the night Madeleine was reported missing – she did not deny hearing crying previously).
So,
it is clear, the McCanns need to let the PJ know their explanation for this reported crying. They can’t do it in a police
interview because they haven’t been called. Their only option? A leak to the media.
Maybe
this was one of the questions they were allegedly unable to answer previously and they have now, after nearly a year, remembered.
If the
McCanns have felt the need to leak this information now, would this not also imply that this information is crucial to
the investigation? Why do they feel compelled to provide cover for screaming on a previous night?
Madeleine, so far as we are led to believe by the McCanns, did not go
missing on a previous night, so this would appear to be purely circumstantial evidence. Unless there is a motive for
this information being provided.
Combined
with details of the 'grown up' breakfast chat with Madeleine, could this be interpreted as an attempt by the McCanns to convince
the PJ that Madeleine was still alive on the morning of May 3rd?
We
also hear, in this leak, further information about the state of the bedroom window:
"When
I went to see Maddie I realised that she was not there, I looked in all the apartment, I returned to the children's room and
at that time I saw the curtains move leaving visible to me that the blind was opened up. I went to the window and opened the
curtains to see if she had climbed out there but I did not see any trace of her. I do not know whether or not I closed the
window at the time," says Maddie's mother. "In shock I ran to Tapas Bar and shouted to Gerry: 'Maddie is not here, someone
has taken her'."
In
that instant all started rushing to look for the little girl. "When Kate came running and said, 'Maddie is not here, somebody
has taken her', I thought that it could not be. I rushed to the apartment by the same path as always. I looked everywhere,
I went back to the kids' room and started to think what could have happened. To my surprise I realised that one could lift
the blinds without effort and almost no noise. When I went in I saw that Maddie's bed was almost untouched. The corner of
the sheets was a little turned [back], the pillow, the pink cuddly toy and the piece of her blanket were almost in the same
place that I last saw it."
So,
one can assume from this that the curtains were drawn when Kate entered the bedroom.
Are
we to believe an abductor clambered out of the bedroom window with Madeleine in his arms and then leant back through the window
to pull the curtains together?
Surely
unbelievable but consistent with the McCanns original story that the abductor gained entry by forcing the shutters on the
windows and left by the front door, which they originally reported to friends and relatives as being left open. The 'abductor'
may well have closed the curtains behind him in that scenario to hide what he was doing.
However,
this explanation is found wanting when considered with the lack of evidence of a break-in and Clarence Mitchell’s confirmation
on RTE’S Prime Time that "There was no evidence of a break-in".
But
what of Gerry’s statement that he "realised that one could lift the blinds without effort and almost no noise." Could
this be another later 'add-on' after realising that the blinds/shutters are impossible to open from the outside and that
there could be fingerprints on it?
Also Gerry mentions
he rushed to the apartment by 'the same path as always'. Yet it has been previously stated that this was the first night they
had left the patio doors unlocked. On previous nights it has been claimed they entered by the front door, but fearing that
the sound of the key in the lock would wake the sleeping children they decided that night to enter through the patio
doors.
But
such fine detail and knowledge of the events will be lost on casual newspaper readers who may simply have no desire or time
to read further into the case than the information presented before them. So the PR damage on such fine detail is nil.
And
what of the statement attributed in this leak to Jane Tanner? Does this reveal that these are not actually the original statements
but later enhanced versions?
The
Sun reports, in its coverage of the leak, that Jane Tanner told Portuguese police in her original statement she thought a
man she spotted carrying a child moments after Madeleine disappeared, was the youngster's father.
Yet,
how can this be when the original description issued by the police, and reiterated by Gerry McCann in a press statement, over
two weeks later, was that the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child". How could there
be ambiguity when Tanner had, we are led to believe through this leak, not only identified the 'object' as a child but also
the carrier as the childs father?
Indeed,
Martin Brunt has reported that when Jane Tanner first spoke to police she said "I'm not sure if he was carrying anything."
So, is this evidence that these 'original' leaked statements, which have conveniently just appeared, are not quite as original
as they seem? And who would benefit most from this?
So,
what can we say about the disadvantages of such a leak as this to the McCanns?
Well,
very little actually. True, for one day, a few newspaper headlines will superficially look bad for the McCanns but Clarence
Mitchell has already been hard at work dismissing the reports as a 'blatant smear" by the PJ. Tomorrow will be a different
set of headlines and today's papers will be lining the beds of rabbits and hamsters tomorrow.
Did
the headlines the Express Group ran over a sustained period affect people’s perceptions of the case? Personally, I doubt
it. Because the very next day a contrary headline would be run and people are now so anaesthetised by 'shocking' newspaper
headlines in this case that they are going to shrug them off as folly until a charge is made or the case is dropped.
Headlines in papers simply reinforce already held beliefs or they wash off people's backs.
That the headlines took away attention from the McCanns championing of the Amber Alert System in Brussels was really neither here nor there. The cause may well be a noble one and if it recovers one child it will have been
worth it. But for the McCanns it is an expendable side issue. Something that could be comfortably sacrificed for the opportunity
to sacrifice the PJ in the media.
It is also interesting to note that beyond the 'paper selling' headlines, the UK press are still using the leak to belittle and undermine public perception of the work of the PJ. The PJ have worked
diligently, conscientiously and patiently in the face of continued abuse.
Clarence
Mitchell has grasped this opportunity to slam the PJ for leaking these statements. And a 'friend' has grasped the opportunity
to brand anyone who dares to question the McCanns as 'vultures'.
And
the PJ?
Alipio
Ribeiro, when interviewed by El Pais in October 2007, said this about the continued criticism of the PJ by the McCanns
through their spokespersons:
"Yes,
but they talked with the family and the press, not with the police. And it must be understood that the British press also
works in this way. They made unfair remarks but we cannot react to this on a daily basis and play ping pong, the PJ against
the British press. We are not interested in this game: We have a different tradition to theirs, one of less communication
and the judicial secrecy that restricts us."
To
suggest that the PJ are behind this leak is an insult to all the hard work and diligence they have displayed over the long
months of the inquiry.
Only
one group of people benefits from this leak and its fallout: The McCanns. Albeit on a superficial and short term level.
Those
of us passionately concerned about securing truth and justice for Madeleine - as opposed to those whose only concern appears
to be clearing the McCanns of their arguido status - should actually be heartened by the events of yesterday and today.
For it shows that the
McCanns and their team have only the battlegrounds of PR and spin on which to fight.
Justice for Madeleine
will not be served by a newspaper headline or a man in a pink shirt.
It will be served in
law.
And that process continues...
