The Cracked Mirror.

[ferryman]

You have answered a question i did not ask.

In reply to your post to me about me not having all the facts i ask you once more do you have all the facts relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

oh and can you tell me how the McCann's are not suspects when according to the archive report they failed to demonstrate their innocence?

I have clearly grasped certain fundamental facts that have passed you by, such as that the McCanns were not involved in anything nefarious regarding Madeleine, and neither were their friends

[DCI]

I have no idea, i am not him. The point is when one was asked to be done by the PJ they refused and that decision directly closed the case.

The McCann's NEVER refused to do a reconstruction. It was cancelled, by Rebelo because some witness's had taken legal advice.

Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)

Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation

(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulacao da reconstituticao.doc....))

Dear Stuart :

As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).

Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

[Albertini]

I have clearly grasped certain fundamental facts that have passed you by, such as that the McCanns were not involved in anything nefarious regarding Madeleine, and neither were their friends

So you haven't got all the facts then?

Righto, ok at least we are all clear on that. And let's spell it out for the avoidance of doubt.

Despite your pompous reply to my post you yourself Ferryman do not have all the facts of this case.

And how you have gleaned these facts that they weren't involved when the archiving report clearly states they failed to demonstrate their innocence is beyond me.

Thats before once again we go back to the book Judge's ruling on the prosecutors theory versus the theory of the investigation and understand the nature of the archiving report and the person who wrote it.

Seems to me you only know the "facts" you want to know and choose to disregard those that do not fit with your pre conceived ideas.

[Albertini]

The McCann's NEVER refused to do a reconstruction. It was cancelled, by Rebelo because some witness's had taken legal advice.

Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)

Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation

(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulacao da reconstituticao.doc....))

Dear Stuart :

As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).

Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

08 May 2008 10:05

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4310

From: Jane Tanner
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:05
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

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.

Jane

10 May 2008 10:14

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4312

From: Rachael Oldfield
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:14
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

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

Email to Stuart Prior from Russell O'Brien

10 May 2008 14:56

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4314

From: Russell O'Brien
Sent: 10 May 2008 14:56
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

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,

Russell & Jane

Email to Public Ministry from Rachael Oldfield (Letters of response to Summons)

23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4346

From : Rachael Oldfield
Date : 23rd May 2008 11.39 a.m.
To : Serviços do Ministerio Publico de Portimão
Subject : Letters of response to Summons. Ref 3951282
Annexes : Reply (Matt) to Summons 21st May 2008 doc ; Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons 21st May 2008.doc

((Two attachments of replies from : a) (Matt) to PJ Summons 21st...., and b) Reply (Rachael) to PJ Summons...., inserted here))

Please see attached letters in response to the summons we have received.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Many thanks.


Attachment from Matthew Oldfield

23rd May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4345

Date 23rd May 2008

Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão

Reference : 3951283

Dear Sir,

I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.

I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew David Oldfield


Attachment from Rachael Oldfield

23rd May 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4348

Date 23rd May 2008

Maria Luisa Nascimento Duarte
Ministério Público de Portimão
Av. Miguel Bombarda
Palácio da Justiça
no 2 Piso
8501-960 Portimão

Reference : 3951283

Dear Sir,

I write with reference to the Notification dated 9th May 2008, which I received on Saturday 17th May 2008.

I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstitution in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Rachael Marimma Jean Mampilly

There you go. The Mccann's agreed in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend.

As i said previously Mitchell let the real cat out of the bag in the earlier article i cited.

[DCI]

There you go. The Mccann's agreed in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend.

As i said previously Mitchell let the real cat out of the bag in the earlier article i cited.

Do you have a cite for the Mccann's agreeing in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend?.

Was it their fault Rebelo cancelled.

Seems page 138 and 139 are not on the original DVD! So any info on that is hearsay!

09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section

Dear Sir
Public prosecutor

Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.

Rogerio Alves
Lawyer

(Sent by email) So it should be dated!

[Albertini]

Do you have a cite for the Mccann's agreeing in writing to go after it was clear that there friends (who were in contact with each other) were not going to attend?.

Was it their fault Rebelo cancelled.

Seems page 138 and 139 are not on the original DVD! So any info on that is hearsay!

09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section

Dear Sir
Public prosecutor

Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.

Rogerio Alves
Lawyer

(Sent by email) So it should be dated!

I asked the question earlier and was told by one of your fellow McCann supporters on this very forum that is was probably at the same time as the rejections from the others, which let's face it makes sense as the requests will have gone out at the same time.

However if we look at the dated rejections (around 8th-10th May) and then look at Clarence Mitchell's interview on the Late Late Show in Irleand on the 9th May where does it say that Gerry & Kate agreed to go:

Pat Kenny Now, the.. the last err, thing is quite amazing. It's an astonishing developement in the sense that it's about a cancellation of a reconstruction of what happened on that night. Wh... the reconstruction wasn't going to be televised, so what was the point of it?

Clarence Mitchell: Well, that's exactly the question that Gerry, Kate and their friends were asking. Err, there were a whole host of reasons that they had very strong concerns about what this would actually achieve, what they've all said consistantly and continue to do so, will do anything to help find Madeleine.

This particular proposal, the way it was phrased and the way it was being put forward, then felt not in any shape or form help to find her. As you say, it wouldn't have been televised, there would be no new leads coming in... Err, why, what good would it have done well over a year after the event. Erm, nobody seemed to have given any consideration to Kate's mental well being. You know, was she expected to see a child playing Madeleine in front of her? All sorts of other questions.

Pat Kenny: Now, they, they were going to use erm, the McCann's and the people who were there actually that night rather than actors.

Clarence Mitchell: Well exactly, and how many reconstructions have you heard of, erm, in Ireland, Britain, or anywhere else, where the original people involved in a case, actually take part. It is virtually unheard of.

And so again, that made us, made our Lawyers wonder what, you know, what is going on here? And on top of that the Portuguese as a norm, do not do reconstructions.

Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC crimewatch proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the Police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as Arguido's, as... as suspects, err, I... would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go. There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.

Note the confusion between an official police reconstruction and Mitchell's attmept to turn it into a crimewatch style tv recreation.

This was an official investigative tool, not an appeal for info through Crimewatch!! Without all of the T9 involved there was no point in going ahead.

Also note Mitchell states the group spoke together about it, which reinforces the view that the Mccann's knew the others were going to cancel so their formal acceptance was irrelevant.

It beggars belief that the McCann's did not know or support their friend's decision to not take part.

Also note Mitchell's admission that as arguidos they would have to go back but their friends were free to choose.

Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC crimewatch proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the Police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as Arguido's, as... as suspects, err, I... would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go. There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.

[Rachel Granada]

John, may i also recommend you read this free e-book:

http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf

There are some sections which are overlong but the timelines analysed to give a window of opportunity for abduction are interesting. From page 20 onwards.

Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini?  Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?

[Albertini]

Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini?  Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?

I have no idea who he is. I came across it and read it. I found the dissection of the timelines interesting which is why i put it up here.

[Rachel Granada]

Can you answer my question and confirm as you have intimated that you have all the facts and know whodunnit.

Can you then explain why you have not contacted the Yard and told them.

What, like the Madeleine Foundation did with their "dossiers"? 

I bet the bins were full at Grange HQ that day...

[DCI]

Who is this Michael McLean, Albertini?  Is it the real name of the author, or a pseudonym?

 

Its the Shutter opener, himself!

"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".

In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.

[Rachel Granada]

Its the Shutter opener, himself!

"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".

In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.

Interesting.  The use of a nom-de-plume is rather telling.

[Carana]

I have no idea, i am not him. The point is when one was asked to be done by the PJ they refused and that decision directly closed the case.

Could you clarify? The idea that a reconstruction that didn't take place led directly to closing the case isn't at all clear to me.

[Albertini]

Its the Shutter opener, himself!

"In the doc properties the author is Peter McLeod. Why is he not using his real name".

In other words its, Petermac, from Haverns site. Its just name changes, and having a dig at the McCann's and friends.

Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.

Debunk the writing not the writer.

[Albertini]

Could you clarify? The idea that a reconstruction that didn't take place led directly to closing the case isn't at all clear to me.

Yes sure from the final report:

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
 
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
 
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

[stephen25000]

Interesting.  The use of a nom-de-plume is rather telling.

We already know who played with the shutters and window.

None other than km herself.