Tapas 9: Statement Review

Matthew said:
"I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm"

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/portugal/portimao?month=5&year=2007


Erm.

At 122deg, if one stood on the balcony of 5A facing the Tapas, the moon would be appearing on the left over the end of Block 6.

Like a searchlight beaming into the room, lighting Matt's way...……...er, I doubt it !!

Was that during Oldfield's rogatory interview BlueBag?

This is what he had to say about the group's checking system following the alleged disappearance of Madeleine McCann..


Mathew Oldfield's witness statement - 4th May 2007

That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine."
That after this check, he returned to the restaurant, saying that all the children were asleep.



That during the meal, it was usual that every 15 minutes (as on all some of the adults went to the apartments to check if the children were sleeping. That normally this checking was done inside the apartments (Visual checking), but that, to be honest, sometimes this checking was only done from the outside, near the bedroom windows (Auditory checking)

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children.

Matthew Oldfield's witness statement - 10th May 2007

Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.

Asked if there was some agreement about checking all the children of the group he says that it was common practice for one member of each couple to stand up each 15 minutes with the objective to go to check their own child(ren).

Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls.

At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM.

Questioned about his motives for such a check, going against the prevailing/established procedure, or - why would two people have gone to check the three apartments (in this case the witness and ROB going to check their own apartments and that of GM), the deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.

Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, but, in the case of it having been he [MO] to make such a suggestion it would have been due to, having spent days on holiday together, [there already being] a very close friendship with the couple [allowing him] to enter their apartment.

That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own residences, to check on their own children. After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.

To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.

That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.

Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.

Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.

Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.

The question asked, he relates that he thinks he returned to Tapas between 21h25 and 21h30, telling the others in the group that he found everything within normality in the residential block.
....................

What a tangled web they did weave!  These checks never happened did they -at least not according to their version of the truth.

Neglect = Abduction.  No Neglect = No Abduction.

Excuse the digression but this is a bit intriguing..

Matthew Oldfield witness statement - 10th May 2007

That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked.
....................

During the same interview only minutes apart, he has this to say about the McCann apartment..

The question asked, he relates that he entered the McCann apartment for the first [and only] time on the night of the disappearance (i.e. 3 May), and [that was] on the second check reported above, namely at 21h25.
....................

That's a very detailed description of an apartment he'd never entered before - makes you think doesn't it ?

Verdi wrote:Was that during Oldfield's rogatory interview BlueBag?

Yes.

There was no moonlight at 9.30 pm.

Confused story isn't it.

BlueBag wrote:

Verdi wrote:Was that during Oldfield's rogatory interview BlueBag?

Yes.

There was no moonlight at 9.30 pm.

Confused story isn't it.

I've just tried to quickly find it, time is of the essence - geeez, it's like trying to wade through 'Gone With the Wind' and just about as as enlightening.

You've inspired me to start a new thread which should be of general interest - the subject shows no bounds.

A place for members to generally identify and discuss discrepencies in the witness statements contained in the PJ files, in particular the Tapas group - there is no end to it.  At the same time it will acquaint readers with the key witness statements and the many anomalies contained therein.

Here's a taster to kick off..

Jane Tanner witness statement - 4th May 2007

After having quickly eaten her main course, the witness went to her apartment in order to take over from Russell, so that he could have his dinner.

When she was in the apartment, at about 22.00- 22.15 she heard Kate and Fiona shouting and saying that Madeleine had disappeared.

Matthew Oldfield witness statement - 10th May 2007

The question asked, he relates being convinced that, at the time of that communication, all the group members were in the restaurant - the reason for which he supposes that ROB had rejoined them in the meantime.
..................

All the Tapas group appear to have played a major part in this web of deceit, including Dianne Webster who has never come forward to defend the reputation of her family.

Google "erm".

It'll probably come up with a Tapas Rogatory statement.*

*Probably.

**Or not.

It's wading through the Oldfield rogatory interview that's given me brain ache, not looking for the rogatory link.

I'll have another look when I've nothing better to do - like the year 1984 !!!

I've started a new thread just in case folk are interested in highlighting 'the curious case of Walter Mitty and others' - the sky is the limit where the Tapas group interviews are concerned.

I don't expect it to lead anywhere dynamic but at least members can air their views and perhaps have a little fun at the same time. Really, that's all the Tapas group statements are fit for - ridicule!

Who knows, perhaps an addendum to the letter sent to the Portuguese Attorney Generale ?

According to Matthew Oldfield on May 3rd -
"About 12h10 he went with his wife to pick up his daughter from kids club. 

Subsequently the three of them went to the Payne apartment for lunch. He clarifies that he lunched there with the Paynes, their children and mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT. He does not recall if KM and GM were there."


Yet according to Jane Tanner at lunch time on May 3rd  she and Russell -
  "both went to their apartment (1) taking their daughters with them. Mathew and Rachel and their daughter also appeared and had lunch with them." 


So Matt claims they lunched in Payne's apartment and the Paynes and Diane Webster were there while Jane claims the O'Briens and Oldfields minus the Paynes lunched in the O'Brien apartment!


In addition, Jane Tanner claims that her younger daughter Evie was so unwell at breakfast on May 3rd that she could not attend creche. They then took this child to the beach for several hours the morning. After lunch, they took the same sick child back to the beach for another couple of hours and, later, to the beach restaurant for tea. That night they happily abandoned her with her 3 year old sibling while they dined, until Russell was forced to remain after a "check" and change her bedding on which she had vomited! Pull the other one! No wonder they balked at returning for a reconstruction.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Other nice bits.

4078 'Do you remember what the weather was like then''
Reply 'Erm, it wasn't, erm, not specifically, it was a better day on the Thursday than it was on the Wednesday, because we had rain, and I think it was sort of warmer and bit more clear, I don't remember the, it may have been a bit cloudy, but I don't remember specifically'.
 
4078 'Okay'.
Reply 'I think the moon was out later on so, I had the impression that the moon was out later on, so it may not have been, it may have been more clear'.

Not that he would have been asked to remember everything about May 3rd that he could on numerous occasions.

Not that he wouldn't have racked his brain about that day trying to think if he saw anything.

Not that May 3rd was one of the most memorable days in his life.

"It may have been a bit cloudy".

Later on it was "more clear".... so earlier it wasn't clear... in fact it was indeed cloudy.

But.... it was gloriously sunny Matthew... have you not seen the last photo?

Matthew Oldfield rogatory interview - April 2008

So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open.

Erm, I've spent a lot of time debating how far the door was open, from previous questioning, and, you know, it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open, so it seemed slightly unusual that it should be so wide open, because you could see straight into the middle of the room from the angle that you approach it, because the, you've got sofas here and you've got a bookcase here and you have to come out, you've got sort of the wall of the bedroom and then it goes back where the bathroom is and then comes out again, so you've got to come out round this wall to sort of, not out round this wall, but you come in and the doorway is sort of recessed, so you can see pretty much straight into the room from the doorway back or certainly as soon as you get past that final wall. So it seemed odd to have that door open,

 00.32.25 4078 'How long were you actually in the apartment for then''

Reply 'One or two minutes maybe. I remember looking, they've got, all the rooms had sort of a book supply and so, because we were spending all this down time at lunchtime looking, you know, doing a bit of reading or maybe sunbathing, but some reading, so I sort of remember sort of looking along their bookshelf as I walked through to see if there was anything that I could sort of take to read for the next couple of days, erm, so it might have been, you know, a minute or two'.
~~~
 
4078 'And you said when you went in you went in through the patio door''

Reply 'Yeah'

 4078 'Or the poolside door''

Reply 'Yeah'.

4078 'How did you know to go through there''

Reply 'Well Kate said that that one was open'.

4078 'And when did she say that''

Reply 'When I offered to go and, erm, go and look'.



....................

Bookcase - books sort of everywhere, how many books do you need when taking a sporty weeks holiday?  Sounds like he was casing the joint .

BlueBag wrote:

Matthew wrote:Erm, I've spent a lot of time debating how far the door was open, from previous questioning, and, you know, it wasn't flat back against the wall, because that would have looked odd, it was just sort of halfway open, so it seemed slightly unusual that it should be so wide open,

It didn't look odd.

It did look slightly unusual.

All in the same sentence.

Erm.

Hi Bluebag,but his X-Ray vision helped as he could see through the slightly "ajar" door,witnessing the "Twins" breathing,when the door opened from the Left hand side,to the right hand side,eh Mathew?

But you have to understand here at CMoMM,that Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley stated they accepted all the findings of Portugal PJ Reports from 2007-08,"There was No Need to Re-investigate,these findings",So what is the point of Operation Grange then and the very dubious Remit-Abduction"?

It is quite clear now it is a"Time buying Exercise" to defer or deflect any findings to be completely explainable by a manipulating group of people to deceive any justice for Madeleine McCann?
Why don't you grow some *ollax" and resign in disgust,then claim"Unfair dismissal" at an employment tribunal,oh you cannot do that because you swore on "Oath" to protect Queen or King of the UK,without,"Fear Nor Favour",as D-notices are thought to apply to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,National Security,that'll cover your job description then,won't it?

" because we were spending all this downtime at lunchtime looking ( what for ?) you know doing a bit of reading , or maybe sunbathing ( in what sun ?) but some reading " 

So not not spending time with your children Matt , , or were they having a nap perhaps ? 

Something to read for the next couple of days , you only had one day left ! 

Reading these statements is seriously bad for your health .

sandancer wrote:" because we were spending all this downtime at lunchtime looking ( what for ?) you know doing a bit of reading , or maybe sunbathing ( in what sun ?) but some reading " 

So not not spending time with your children Matt , , or were they having a nap perhaps ? 

Something to read for the next couple of days , you only had one day left ! 

Reading these statements is seriously bad for your health .

He was having a"torrid Time" giving his statement to Portugal PJ,perhaps they had found the weakest link?
Squeal, Mathew,squeal?

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Bluebag,but his X-Ray vision helped as he could see through the slightly "ajar" door,witnessing the "Twins" breathing,when the door opened from the Left hand side,to the right hand side,eh Mathew?

As serious as this is, Mathew Oldfield's rogatory interview account of the twins breathing is hilarious.

You know what they say - when you're in a hole, stop digging!

This is just a beginner's guide..

I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet......

4078 'So you saw the sides. Do you remember which way the children were facing in the cots''

Reply 'No, it was just, you could just see the shape and bits of breathing'.

4078 'Okay'.

Reply 'I mean, I, for some reason I imagine that the children's heads were towards the, towards the window, but I don't know whether that's just because I assume that's the way I would put them down'.

4078 'Yeah'.

Reply 'Because I've seen it. I don't think I could see that much, the view'.

4078 'You can't remember''

Reply 'You could see the shapes and you could see they were breathing, you'd stop and look and you could see they were sort of breathing, but in terms of sort of features and standing over and seeing where their heads were, and I couldn't say whether it was Sean or Amelie that was closest, it was just sort of, erm, sort of children in cots'......
~~~

4078 'Okay. And you saw the side of the cots and you saw the shapes and knew that they were both breathing''

Reply 'Yeah, I mean, you've got two cots, you know, along this side, you've got the short, the long axis along the long room and the short end, which I think is (inaudible), I think we had a similar in, erm, with Grace, and there'd be a slight spacing and then netting and so, from the side, you'd see, erm, part of this one, slightly obstructed by this one, but enough to see through the grill, erm, and this one you'd see through the, through the mesh side, you'd see the kids'.

4078 'And the lighting was sufficient within the room that you could make out what it was''

Reply 'You could make out that it wasn't blankets and just something piled there, you could see the chest moving'.
~~~

4078 'Is there anything else, that you smelt, could you smell anything''

Reply 'No, no, we've talked about that before, I didn't smell anything, I mean, I could see the children breathing, but I didn't clock it as abnormal, erm, it'd be completely to speculate to say whether their breathing was fast or, I couldn't say, I mean, they were breathing and that's what, you know, and that was what I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'.



I can smell something

Matthew wrote:"I mean, they were breathing and that's what, you know, and that was what I was there to check"

Just the twins?

And Kate asked him to check if the twins were breathing?

This man is squirming in this interview.

So we've established there was no moonlight, but Matthew said the light was coming from behind him.

How did he have enough light to see "bits of breathing"?

I wonder if his family or friends ever read this web site.

"....would you mind going to check the children are breathing???" [gets up from table]  "No problem at all" [returns 5-10mins later] "Yup, they were breathing"  [sits down, all relax]

It does make you wonder doesn't it. If events were as reported by the T9 and the parents had been making regular checks back to the apartments, you'd have expected MO to say something clear like, 'Yes, I stood outside the bedroom door and there was no crying or murmurings, which is what I was there to check on; I could make out the twins in their cots but I didn't go far enough to see Madeleine's bed fully so I didn't see if she was there'. But instead, MO obsesses about the twins' breathing, which is a very strange direction to go in unless breathing is significant. Is he recalling a memory? Was he asked to check the twins' breathing at some earlier point in the holiday?

And, from the files, I still don't understand the positioning of the cots and the sight lines he had to both of the twins through the cots' sides or ends - bearing in mind one of the cots had solid fabric ends (although MO says both are like this). His brain is working overtime in his rogatory and he is not an accomplished fibber.

BlueBag wrote:
So we've established there was no moonlight, but Matthew said the light was coming from behind him.

Oldfield never totally abandons the moonlight, he throws it in here and there to keep it floating rather than openly admitting he's talking a load of rollox.

Then there is the little lamp sort of thing on the round table - that was behind him!  Then there was the light sort of thing shinning through the children's bedroom window which you couldn't see because the yellowy greeny checked curtains were drawn and there wasn't anything sort of blowing them about - not like Kate saw later but there was a sort of light coming from outside - that's maybe were the moon comes into play?  Or could it just be a boring old run of the mill street light?

The apartment he'd never been in before, he was only there for about a minute, the windows in the main bedroom (one or two he can't remember) were open or closed, he can't quite remember but he found time to browse all the reading matter scattered around the apartment, should he or the missus be bored around lunchtime.  The two cots in the children's room he could see were in the middle, there was a bed under the window with a sort of duvet (he thinks but can't quite remember), he didn't bother to look past the door to check Madeleine's bed (maybe he knew she wouldn't be there) but he thinks he sort of saw the bottom corner of the bed which was sort of metal (he thinks) with a sort of cover, not a thick cover like a duvet but something else.  Still, the twins were sort of breathing and all was quiet so why bother to look at Madeleine.

So Mr Oldfield, what's the real reason why?  In my crusty old way, I venture to suggest this is all fabrication.  You never checked on the McCann's children, from the inside or the outside, did you Mr Oldfield.  This is just a story concocted to facilitate the phantom abductor isn't it Mr Oldfield.

Least said soonest mended!

Another little gem..

4078 'So you were just going to cover the arrangements that had been put in place for checking on the children''

Reply 'Right. And so the Tapas seemed to fit because, because you didn't feel far away from the room, it felt so quiet and very safe and it was sort of a minutes walk, if that, you know, the actual distance seemed quite, you know, you were sort of falsely reassured, but obviously at this point you could see the back of your apartment, not hugely clearly, but you can sort of see the apartment block, erm, you know, you could see if the light came on, for instance, or you felt that you'd be able to see if the light came on and, you know, because we were sort of going what we thought was every sort of ten or fifteen minutes, basically between courses, then you could go. And rather than go and find another restaurant where not everybody would be able to go because somebody would need to be babysitting, it seemed most sensible just to, to stay put in the same place, erm, because the food was pretty reasonable and just trekking everywhere else was going to make it such a headache for the child care. And then this issue of, well you do just put the kids in with babysitters, because they were in a sort of a Nanny sort of a night drop-off service, but that kind of felt less safe, in that, one, they wouldn't sleep or Grace wouldn't, we'd be worried that she wouldn't particularly sleep and she'd be worried and it'd be difficult to drop her off because she really didn't like being dropped off at the Nursery, erm, which I always tried to avoid that chore, I did it on the Thursday, but she didn't like it and she wouldn't go to sleep particular well with sort of strangers in a room when people would be coming in and out to collect their children'.
4078 'It would be unsettling for her'.
Reply 'So it actually seemed a worse choice than just being close but not actually in the room (inaudible)'.
....................


So, it only takes about a minute to walk from the Tapas restaurant to the rear of the building block occupied by the gang?  Well, let me tell you Mr Oldfield - it only takes about once second for a fire to break-out, for an accident to occur, for illness to strike or, if it suits you better, for an abductor to steal a child !!!



Rollox!

Burglars and child abductors always switch the lights on in Portugal so what they did was sensible.

Erm.

If you don't mind BlueBag, I'll merge your 'moonlight' thread here to keep it topical and to maintain the theme of witness statements under one roof, so to speak.