Wednesday, 21 October 2009

The Tapas Emails: The Cancelled Reconstruction

Well worth a read if you haven't already.

From Nigel Moore: themccannfiles

Email response from Rachael Oldfield

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225

From : Rachael Oldfield ()
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" ()
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.

Attached email from Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner (see previous email)

Dated: 23rd April 2008

[Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P106]
Vol XVI p. 4237

xx xxxxxx xxxx
xxx xxx

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. more