Thursday, April 21, 2016

Ex British Diplomat Craig Murray Speaks On The McCanns

The nitty gritty.

The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns

. . . Which leads me on to the question of why they received such exceptional treatment from British authorities, directed straight from No. 10, to the extent that Blair and Brown eventually gave them a PR representative? I used at one stage to be Resident Clerk in the FCO, a now abolished post effectively of night duty officer. I can tell you from horrible personal experience that the FCO deals with gut-wrenching cases of lost or dead children abroad frequently. I spent one of the most terrible three hours of my life, through to a cold dawn, on the phone with a hysterical bereaved mother desperate to explore any avenue that might give a possibility that the boy who had just drowned in Brazil was misidentified as her son. On average, I am afraid such tragedies get substantially less than 1% of the public resources that were devoted to the McCanns.

I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO. It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody. Plus, against jingoistic presumption, a great many Brits who have contact with foreign police are actually criminals.

The British Ambassador in Portugal, John Buck, had been my direct boss in the FCO. he was Deputy Head of Southern European Department when I was Head of Cyprus Section. He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.

I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly. But material was also leaked (Joana Morais) to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal. Full article


Martin Roberts said...

Hence we may ask ourselves: Having taken such an unprecedented and impetuous interest in the plight of the McCanns, would UK Ltd. simply stand nonchalantly by while the parents did their utmost to ruin Goncalo Amaral, the PJ co-ordinator whose professional destiny was of such significance, apparently, that Prime Minister Gordon Brown needed to be told of his removal from the McCann case in advance of its happening?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous (above)

Brilliant! I smell cordite - you open the magazine (as in Arsenal, not published ephemera)

Martin Roberts said...


More cordite!

"craig Post author
April 22, 2016 at 08:44


"Thanks for the headmasters conference story, which is useful. I have my own friends in the Met who tell me the investigating team were convinced about what happened. Unfortunately I could not include that in my blog as my brother is in the Met and it would be presumed he told me (which he didn’t).

"But members of the Met investigating team put their own money into Amaral’s appeal against his libel verdict. I think that tells you all you need to know."

And there you have it.

If the inner workings of the Met. understand the story what prevents them telling it? (Any thoughts, Theresa?)

su said...

I can only assume that everyone was assuming there was going to be a catacylismic earth event that would be so great that this could just disappear.
I think it is the only reason so many in positions of power thought they could get away with it all for so long.

And the Queen's 90th birthday, Prince dies, they light up the arch of Blaal in London and one just thinks what a fucking show.

Yeah that this happened the way it did.

The dominos are knocking over now.

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

What concerns me currently is the emergence of reportage that continues to focus discussion on 3 May and its immediate aftermath.

Redders took the trouble to emphasize 'point zero', and now we have Craig Murray, prepared to apportion blame to the government of the day but only with respect to events from May 3 onwards.

As if that weren't questionable enough, the recent Portuguese TV interview featuring GA et al, appears to concentrate on aspects of the inquiry concerning events that same day, and that evening.

Fair enough perhaps, given that the inquiry did not commence until the police were eventually called, but the preceding context is of paramount importance - so much so that the McCanns (both of them) saw fit to expunge it from their own 'phones.

DCS Mick Duthie's observations quoted in the Evening Standard of 18.4 included the following:

“There is a missing girl and if she has been murdered and if we think we have got justifiable and reasonable lines of inquiry to pursue then they should be dealt with.”

Note the phrase 'SHOULD be dealt with'. Is it the case that for £2m or more the HO might get 'WILL BE dealt with', but for a mere £95k SY will stop at confirming Madeleine McCann as being 'missing' and leave it at that?

Anonymous said...

Martin R. @13:03

While two dogs are fighting for a bone, a third runs away with it?

I’m guessing.


Martin Roberts said...

Maren 24.4 @19:45

I don't now about dogs with bones, but it is undeniably the case that prior to the investigation getting underway action was taken on the part of a number of people in connection with events that preceded Madeleine's 'disappearance'. Those 'historical' events are of the utmost significance and will be lost to view should a consensus be allowed to develop that papers over the visible cracks in that week.

Martin Roberts said...

I've argued the point previously (see: Santas Little Helpers, 26.8.13 at, but there is one small manoeuvre, the real significance of which passed virtually unnoticed at the time it was made - the tale of Gerry's early 'phone call to his diplomat friend.

There was no such friend, and he made no such call. So why were the media (Portuguese initially) fed the story? Why answer a question that had not previously arisen? And why should the McCanns have cared how quickly or slowly the wheels of diplomacy turned (unless maybe John Buck knew where to look for Maddie)?

The point is that the story was put about to explain something that appeared awkward, not from the McCanns' perspective but that of the FCO. Now why was that?

Himself said...


Indeedy. For if we have learned anything about this case, it is nothing happens or nothing is said without reason, albeit those reasons not normally apparent at the time.

Except for some.

I'm glad of his exposure, and I'm sure he could say more, but Craig Murray's revelations, too little too late.

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @14:49

Now that we've heard BHH from the rostrum, CM's insights look all the more like a 'Limited Hangout', as described by the indefatigable (Mrs.) 'Whodunnit'