Matt Oldfield's Alleged Last Check

sandancer wrote:"What if anything do we know​ with certainty​ to be true about that evenings events " 

Madeleine​ was not​ there ! 

That to me is the​ only truth .

The rest​ as Verdi says is complete fabrication .

Why​ was​ Dianne Webster even​ on that​ holiday ? What did she do​ ? What grandparent do you​ know who would condone leaving​ babies and toddlers alone​ ? 

The biggest fiction story of the century and still​ being believed​ and trotted​ out​ by the McCanns and the media​ !

I was thinking about this Dianne Webster only yesterday.

I imagined the scene as if it were me ... a grandmother with two grandchildren asleep in an upstairs apartment, some way off, with the only link being a baby monitor. This upstairs apartment is close by an apartment from which a child is suddenly declared missing.

The mother of the child arrives in great distress shouting that her daughter has been taken. A hue and cry, utter disbelief, shock, jumping to feet, questions fired at the distraught mother ensue. In a matter of moments, the entire group, except granny, run off into the night in the direction of the missing child's apartment on a frantic search mission.

What do I do? Guard a couple of cameras/phones/ bags. If I've been told to stay put, do I just sit there obediently staring at these items? Or do my thoughts turn immediately to the grandkids. Will anyone think to look in on them ... make sure my own flesh and blood are safe? Or shall I just stay put and look after these items? I think I'd better do as asked and wait here.

Like hell I would.

sandancer wrote:"What if anything do we know​ with certainty​ to be true about that evenings events " 

Madeleine​ was not​ there ! 

That to me is the​ only truth .

The rest​ as Verdi says is complete fabrication .

Why​ was​ Dianne Webster even​ on that​ holiday ? What did she do​ ? What grandparent do you​ know who would condone leaving​ babies and toddlers alone​ ? 

The biggest fiction story of the century and still​ being believed​ and trotted​ out​ by the McCanns and the media​ !

Dianne Webster is certainly an enigma.  She was invited to accompany the Paynes on the holiday and, if I remember correctly, she made her own travel arrangements.  Grandmothers usually fuss around the grandchildren like an old hen looking after the brood, I can't imagine she would be party to a group neglect scenario.  Dianne Webster must have felt like a spare part at a wedding, socialising with a group of self-opinionated 30 somethings.

There were a number of options available for the group to use for the night care of their respective children - leaving them all alone in an unfamiliar place sits at the bottom of the list to my reckoning.  I wonder if Dianne Webster was invited to tag along for babysitting duties apart from being chief cook and bottle washer - the group were aware of the Ocean Club night childcare facilities available, the Paynes even packed a hi-tech baby monitor, so their night arrangements must have been pre-planned.  If so, their group arrangement was completely scuppered if one of the children disappeared early in the week.

Whatever, none of this has ever been confirmed by way of independent witnesses, only the groups version of the truth, which has proved to be less than reliable over and over and over again throughout this interminable saga of deceit.

Mmmm yes she does seem the odd one out. My feeling is she was invited along to do 'grandma' duties but why wasn't she 'used' ?
       Thinking out loud, what would be the scenario if instead of the timed checks nobody had done any checks at all? That would be serious neglect wouldn't it? Especially if the sleep had been 'aided' and something happened. Wouldn't people lose their other children and careers?
Thoughts please.
JohnyT

I wouldn't​ even​ be sitting at​ that table​ ! 
I'd be happy​ in the apartment​ " bring my dinner over please I'll look after​ the​ kids " 

Peace and quiet​ , a good book eye​ and​ ear out for any crying​ etc .

Let​ them play " into each other " 

I've got my mobile if I need to contact any of them​ ( oh sorry​ Clarence said they​ didn't have phones​ with them )  Silly me​ !

JohnyT wrote:Mmmm yes she does seem the odd one out. My feeling is she was invited along to do 'grandma' duties but why wasn't she 'used' ?
       Thinking out loud, what would be the scenario if instead of the timed checks nobody had done any checks at all? That would be serious neglect wouldn't it? Especially if the sleep had been 'aided' and something happened. Wouldn't people lose their other children and careers?
Thoughts please.
JohnyT

Neglect = abduction.
 
No neglect = no abduction.

Neglect is not the issue here anymore than abduction is the issue here.

J Wilkins 'statement' 07/05/2007

"The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry's friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, and tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I learnt him to be a diabetics specialist. We met him o the way to the destination. Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said that he had met me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained at the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed."

WHY did MO 'tell' JW that, after JW had 'offered to help', 'there was nothing that could be done at that stage."?

'nothing' that COULD to be done?............except 'searching' obviously but, it appears, JW's 'eyes' were NOT 'needed'

Hmmmm.

= abduction though?

Verdi wrote:

JohnyT wrote:Mmmm yes she does seem the odd one out. My feeling is she was invited along to do 'grandma' duties but why wasn't she 'used' ?
       Thinking out loud, what would be the scenario if instead of the timed checks nobody had done any checks at all? That would be serious neglect wouldn't it? Especially if the sleep had been 'aided' and something happened. Wouldn't people lose their other children and careers?
Thoughts please.
JohnyT

Neglect = abduction.
 
No neglect = no abduction.

Neglect is not the issue here anymore than abduction is the issue here.

Why does it have to be neglect = abduction though?
My point is neglect and accidental death by overdose...just my opinion/thoughts obviously.
I don't undertand your last sentence either "Neglect is not the issue here anymore than abduction is the issue here."
 Please tell me what the issue is.
Yet again with you Verdi you seem to 'dislike' other people having different thought/opinions to you. As I said in my post, it was just a thought.
JohnyT

....sorry for de-railing....let's get back on topic
JohnyT

From Diannne Webster's Rogatory in April 2008:

4078    ”And then the, you arrived a little late. What can you remember of the evening then?”

Reply    ”Well we arrived about, I don’t know, ten to nine, five to nine, which was very late. Err and the thing that I didn’t mention at the original err interview in Portugal was that I do vaguely remember seeing Matt, he was coming up because I think he made some joke about coming up to see where we were because we were so late, but he was actually on his way to check err check the children.”

4078    ”Right.”

Reply    ”Err so I do, I do remember that although I didn’t remember it clearly at the time err so we got down to the table err I think we ordered our starters.”

4078    ”Do you remember who was there when you got there?”

Reply    ”Well Matt obviously wasn’t because we we’d just passed him but of course I don’t remember this at the time, and I think in my original statement I thought maybe Gerry wasn’t there, but maybe he was, you know, I don’t know.”

4078    ”You can’t be sure?”
Reply    ”I can’t be sure because it’s not something that I think I need to remember, you know at the time, its not something you need to remember.”

------------------
I am not a police officer but I do know this much, contemporaneous statements are of the utmost importance evidentially because it is well known that people's memories do not improve with the passage of time, in this instance eleven months.

Dianne Webster: Statement to PJ in May 2007:

Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
---------
I notice she uses the the phrase "didn't  mention" when what really happened was she was asked a direct question about whether she crossed paths with anyone and she answered, no.

Your words Johny T, I quote..

"....what would be the scenario if instead of the timed checks nobody had done any checks at all? That would be serious neglect wouldn't it? Especially if the sleep had been 'aided' and something happened...."

The 'especially if' added after your initial hypothetical question, appears to me as another factor to enhance the already mentioned act of neglect by abandonment.  Why does it have to be neglect = abduction?  Because the groups claimed night childcare arrangement, their makeshift listening service, gives an abductor an opportunity to abduct, therefore - if they didn't leave their children unattended every night, in a unlocked apartment in the McCanns case, there would be no opportunity for an abductor to abduct.

Personally, I don't believe they all left their children alone every night but they needed a scenario to make abduction convincing.  You are of course at liberty to think otherwise, that's your perogative.  If you post on this forum you must expect other members to respond, that's how it works.  If any other member disagrees with your opinion, or profers an alternative opinion, it doesn't equate to a personal affront nor to use your words.. "to 'dislike' other people having different thought/opinions".

You are not off topic as the thread relates to Matthew Oldfield's alleged visit to check on the McCann children.  Naturally this area encompasses the general issue of the groups night childcare arrangements.

Mirage wrote:

sandancer wrote:"What if anything do we know​ with certainty​ to be true about that evenings events " 

Madeleine​ was not​ there ! 

That to me is the​ only truth .

The rest​ as Verdi says is complete fabrication .

Why​ was​ Dianne Webster even​ on that​ holiday ? What did she do​ ? What grandparent do you​ know who would condone leaving​ babies and toddlers alone​ ? 

The biggest fiction story of the century and still​ being believed​ and trotted​ out​ by the McCanns and the media​ !

I was thinking about this Dianne Webster only yesterday.

I imagined the scene as if it were me ... a grandmother with two grandchildren asleep in an upstairs apartment, some way off, with the only  link being a baby monitor. This upstairs apartment is close by an apartment from which a child is suddenly declared missing.

The mother of the child arrives in great distress shouting that her daughter has been taken. A hue and cry, utter disbelief, shock, jumping to feet, questions fired at the distraught mother ensue. In a matter of moments, the entire group, except granny, run off into the night in the direction of the missing child's apartment on a frantic search mission.

What do I do? Guard a couple of cameras/phones/ bags. If I've been told to stay put, do I just sit there obediently staring at these items? Or do my thoughts turn immediately to the grandkids. Will anyone think to look in on them ... make sure my own flesh and blood are safe? Or shall I just stay put and look after these items? I think I'd better do as asked and wait here.

Like hell I would.

Why would Diane Webster be asked to guard a couple of cameras etc?

After all it was an incredibly safe place to stay apparently, safe enough to leave all those children unattended and safe enough for a door to be left unlocked with three defenceless babies in their beds/cots when any number of things could go wrong - even if the thought of "abduction" would never have entered their heads.

JohnyT wrote:= abduction though?

Verdi wrote:

JohnyT wrote:Mmmm yes she does seem the odd one out. My feeling is she was invited along to do 'grandma' duties but why wasn't she 'used' ?
       Thinking out loud, what would be the scenario if instead of the timed checks nobody had done any checks at all? That would be serious neglect wouldn't it? Especially if the sleep had been 'aided' and something happened. Wouldn't people lose their other children and careers?
Thoughts please.
JohnyT

Neglect = abduction.
 
No neglect = no abduction.

Neglect is not the issue here anymore than abduction is the issue here.

Why does it have to be neglect = abduction though?
My point is neglect and accidental death by overdose...just my opinion/thoughts obviously.
I don't undertand your last sentence either "Neglect is not the issue here anymore than abduction is the issue here."
 Please tell me what the issue is.
Yet again with you Verdi you seem to 'dislike' other people having different thought/opinions to you. As I said in my post, it was just a thought.
JohnyT

The mccanns are the ones who claimed neglect.
For there to have been the alleged abduction there had to be self proclaimed neglect.

No abductor is going to break into an apartment  with multiple children in one apartment all being babysat by an adult.
They would not be willing to risk going through an adult to get to their preferred child.
The babysitting adult is not going to let any old stranger into the apartment to haul away one of their  charges.

The only way there could have been the alleged abduction was if they self proclaimed neglect.
This gave the alleged abductor time and opportunity to break in and abduct Maddie.

If there was no neglect as in the children were all being babysat by the missing adult from the table then there could not have been an abduction.
Since Maddie is missing this then brings about the question of what did they do with Maddie?

Whatever happened to Maddie was so bad that they could not allow an autopsy since questions would be raised that could not be explained away as accidental.

They were forced to conceal Maddie for several weeks and then remove her body to wherever they dumped her as shown by the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs to the hire car and foresnsic evidence revealed in said car and also statements from neighbors who saw the trunk open and one of their associates revealing the car had a disagreeable smell in it.

The presumption is that they were forced to take such action despite the risks because given the time she was missing and the environment, there would be evidence revealed that could not be pinned on the alleged abductor.

Injuries could be old and healing injuries (prior to death) that pointed to before the vacation.
Sexual injuries that were odl and indicated to before the vacation.
Long term sedation as could be found in the hair (remember Shannon Matthews)
Injuries that would have required medical attention yet no record was found in Maddie's medical records (fractures as an example)

Any of the previous would warrant investigation and charges, loss of their medical licenses since self medicating is verbotten as is treating family members off the record.
They would lose their children, their jobs, their house, their friends and some family members, their reputations would be even more ruined than currently.

The mccanns in particular and certain of their chums had everything to lose and at best maintaining the status quo regarding jobs and children.

In order to  avoid the consequences of their actions, they had to claim neglect and hope Maddie wasn't found any time soon and risk facing possible neglect charges.

Had they faced neglect charges, they could not then have later been charged with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

It was a risk they were willing to take.
Their numerous lawyers would have said ok accept neglect plea deal, face possible sanctions from the GMC but you will probably keep your job or, at least gerry will.
Social services may be involved for a while but if you keep your nose clean your children will be off the register.

They would also likely be advised , if they confessed the truth to their lawyers, that, if they were charged with neglect and it looked like other charges could follow later, go for the neglect and when pushed admit you made the whole thing up, the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the group.
No neglect and you walk free.
Yep you will likely lose your jobs, but you are out of jail.

Questions will be asked about what happened to Maddie but if you say nothing it is all conjecture and you can't be tried twice, double jeopardy and all that.

You would possibly face charges in relation to the fund it being fraudulent but again, you say nothing about Maddie and it is for the courts to prove Maddie is dead and you knew about it.

Hard to prove without a body.

Diane Webster may have sat at the table guardig bags because a) she had been told her grandchildren were being checked
b)she had witnessed something similar earlier in the week when a child had run about outside at bedtime?
c) she may have thought the parents were over-reacting.These weren't her own friends.

Snipped from M.Oldfield's rog. statement  

Reply 'No, because as you went on you'd meet other groups, there was Nathan, one of the waterfront people, who managed the waterfront, who we'd met previous on a MARK WARNER holiday, so, you know, you'd sort of cross paths with people who were sort of searching ..."
Does anyone know who this "Nathan" is? I thought that the T9 supposedly knew nobody else in Luz other than the Gorrods. How did Matt learn Nathan managed the Waterfront (whatever that is)? Did they run into each other while searching for Madeleine around midnight on the 3rd and, recognizing each other, stop for a catch-up and natter or were they in contact later so that "Nathan" could explain what he was doing nowadays in Luz?

Is this  Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;


source:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5681-maddie-was-here-a-disgusting-episode-of-distorted-evidence

worriedmum wrote:Is this  Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;


source:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5681-maddie-was-here-a-disgusting-episode-of-distorted-evidence

Thanks worriedmum   Can't get that link to wok I'm afraid. also no luck on typing it in.

G

Phoebe wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Is this  Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;


source:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5681-maddie-was-here-a-disgusting-episode-of-distorted-evidence

Thanks worriedmum   Can't get that link to wok I'm afraid. also no luck on typing it in.

Works for me... try this one. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Phoebe wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Is this  Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;


source:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5681-maddie-was-here-a-disgusting-episode-of-distorted-evidence

Thanks worriedmum   Can't get that link to wok I'm afraid. also no luck on typing it in.

Actually I found him the long way around. It seems his interview is one of those is not included in the files DVD.