The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by j.rob on 22.07.14 12:24

Angelique wrote:This strange phenomenon appears catching:

Russell O'Brien: "You're far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some', you know, 'random stranger'. Erm, which in light of the way that the Police investigation has gone, erm, it feels like, you know, erm, a real kick in the nuts"
1578 "'Far more like to get clobbered by'?"
Reply "You know, you're far more likely to have, you know, you know, to have a problem with somebody, from somebody you know, and we actually said, and that was actually sort of said, you know, we all worry about, you know, a small number of fairly kind of sick perverts".
1578 "Rather than a stranger?"
Reply "Rather than a stranger, yeah, but, huh, erm, which of course, you know, of course statistically is true, erm."

From:  

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id356.html

Russell's statement is a classic. The police must have thought they had struck gold.

For greater clarity I've snipped bits without altering the meaning. 

Russell: You are far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some random stranger

Police: Far more likely to get clobbered by?

Russell: Far more likely to have a problem with somebody you know. We actually said we all worry about a small number of fairly sick perverts.

Police: Rather than a stranger?

Russel: Rather than a stranger. Yeah.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by j.rob on 22.07.14 12:36

I dont for one moment think this group of people were monsters (cowards - yes). I think they cared for their children as most of us do. I just think they got themselves into a situation and decided to lie and cover up to save their careers and reputations.

-------------------------

I think you are cutting way too much slack for them. There was a distinct lack of care with regards to Madeleine, at least, in my opinion. The behaviour of both Gerry and Kate following their daughter's mysterious 'disappearance' has sent shivers down my spine. I find it devoid of sincere human emotion. 

What about all the children of the Tapas group? How are they going to process all this as they grow up? The twins have been left a hideous lifelong legacy. IF at some stage it is discovered that the parents and/or their friends/acquaintances are complicit in some way in what happened, what a horrible burden to bear. Emotionally, psychologically and so on. The other children of the group - some of whom were friends with Madeleine. What kind of message is this sending out to them?

Hope they've got some good therapists lined up, because, IMHO, they are most certainly going to need them.

All my own views. Hope I am wrong.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by nglfi on 22.07.14 13:39

HelenMeg wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
nglfi wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of listeninghe most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it! coffee

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements.  Almost everyone,  adults and children alike,  seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to,  like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes.  It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.
Yes - this is a good point.  I also do not believe for one minute in NEGLECT. Also, this need to mention the smell and sickness of her baby. Most reasonable people would have felt such guilt in that situation, at leaving a baby who was ill and soiling her nappy - they would not wish to advertise it. The fact that she mentions it and emphasizes the sickness / smell says that she was trying hard to cover up something else.

Yes, she may have been needing to explain why there was a lot of washing done / why there was a strong smell / maybe it was an over-embellishment (often done when people lie).
Lets assume for a minute that there was no neglect. Maybe her statement is simply trying to say ' Yes there WAS neglect / YES YES we did neglect our babies ' so that we all believe the ABDUCTION.


One thing for sure is that whatever, was going on, they are all complicit in covering it up.
Thank you nglfi and HelenMeg, you have both summed up exactly what I was getting at yes
Just relieved my sleepy pondering made sense big grin

I can (just about) understand implicating yourself in something if you had something to hide, but I still believe it would be in the context of 'minimising', not making yourself appear an even bigger monster!

Definite reason for the mention. I didn't think about all the washing of sheets, in retrospect that makes a lot more sense than maybe cadaver smell, *unless* it was in an apartment that wasn't actually searched. 
I still think there is much confusion about where the T9/children were, and where they actually had 'access' to on that holiday. 
All just my opinion... But, whatever, 'no neglect - no abduction'...
I think its really good o bring these things up and re-examine them.  I have often thought Rachel's attitude was strange - almost as if she had no real feelings for her child (which cant be true and is not likely to be true). It didn't make sense. She had to be covering up something. It was more important to hide XX than it was to admit that her baby was left despite having diarrhea and dirty nappies. 

Like you say, it has never really been established whether the children were left in one room and supervised each night by an adult (the adult who happened to be sick), or whether the children were never left at all (only on the 3rd May to enable abduction). We just dont seem to know... frustrating..

If I were in a group of adults and children on holiday... what would I do? Well, I would put my children to bed - probably later than usual - although at the age of 1, 2 or 3 etc probably wold stick to their usual routine. Myself or partner / husband  would stay with them. One of us or both would stay in to be with them. I wouldnt want my very young child to be in a room with all the others, supervised by another adult.
I think most other Mums / Dads would feel similarly. Therefore  I think that this group did exactly that.

I dont for one moment think this group of people were monsters (cowards - yes). I think they cared for their children as most of us do. I just think they got themselves into a situation and decided to lie and cover up to save their careers and reputations.
Something I've never understood, well two things actually - 
1 - why this emphasis on 'listening' at the door, rather than going in to check on the children. If you've made the effort to get up from your seat and walk up the stairs, why not make that final step and actually look inside at your baby, you know, just to make sure they're ok?
2 - something that really doesn't add up about the statements is the idea that they would take turns to get up from the table to check, but mostly (apart from one or two occasions) only check their own children. If they're getting up anyway,  why not make the effort to check each child so that only one parent has to get up at a time?? If they were only checking their own children, why the need to get up from the table separately? Doesn't make sense.

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by j.rob on 22.07.14 13:50

While Rachael's statement is very peculiar, her partner, Matt was the one who returned to Luz to do the creepy 'Madeleine was Here' re-enactment of his 'final check' at 9.30pm that Thursday evening. 

An early police statement of Russells is also of interest as it includes the mysterious video-recording episode which happened, apparently, on the morning of Thursday 4th May. Kate writes about this in her book - page 64 - and, imo, spins and tries to sanitize the version of events. But her account fails to be convincing and I think it is another classic example of how TM manage to tie themselves up in knots.

What is of interest is that in an early police statement, Russell gives an account of how a holiday-maker, Nigel, approaches the group on Thursday morning as they (members of the Mc group) are video-recording Nigel's child during a mini-tennis session. Russell's account of this suggests that Nigel approached the Mc group and told them that their video-recording of his daughter was making him feel uncomfortable. 

Yet in the statement, Russell says he does not remember seeing a video-recorder!

In Kate's book, she claims that it is Nigel who is video-recording his own daughter playing mini-tennis and it is Nigel who volunteers the information to the Mc group that "filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man."

I have written at length elsewhere about this very strange episode. But I do not believe for one minute that Nigel told Kate or Russell that he felt like a dirty old man. The idea is preposterous. Far more likely to be true is the account given by Russell in an earlier police statement in which Nigel was concerned about the group filming his daughter without his permission.

In later police statements, Russell's account of this incident is either different or ommitted. Matt also gives an account of this incident in which I think he claims that Nigel is video-recording his own daughter and Matt found nothing strange about that.

No - why would there be anything strange about Nigel video-recording his own daughter playing mini-tennis. However, there would be something strange about a member of the MT video-recording Nigel's daughter, wouldn't there?

Apart from anything, why would the McTeam want to film someone else's child playing mini-tennis when they appear to have not filmed their own children or even taken any photos of them during the week. No photos of any of their children playing with Madeleine or the twins, for instance? 

Oh, I forgot, there is that peculiar one with Gerry supposedly playing with Madeleine and a couple of other children near the Wendy House at Ocean Club. But that looks photo-shopped/staged/fake, imo. That is another very strange photo. At first glance, I thought the tall man walking away wearing cut-offs was Gerry. But then I saw Gerry goofing around supposedly playing with his children. And the man near the Wendy House is looking perplexedly at whoever is taking the photo - the only person of the group engaging with the photographer.

Why is it that in so many of the MT photos there is no engagement with the photographer of those supposed to be the important ones in the photo but, instead, engagement from what at first glance appear to be random people in the background? You see this time and time again and it is just so weird. 

Almost as weird as the video-recorder that Nigel saw TM using. But Russell can't remember seeing. And Kate saw Nigel using. And then, later, Russell and Matt saw Nigel using.

Would be good to hear Nigel's account of this episode.

More smoke and mirrors I suppose. 

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8649-statement-of-russell-o-brien-11th-may-2007

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by Judex on 22.07.14 15:44

You all point out these glaring anomalies so coherently and convincingly that it seems to me utterly incomprehensible that SY (who must be reading this!) have still not been shamed ("disgraced"???) into doing what we all know needs to be done, instead of playing circuses "for the English to see" (which, coincidentally, is the Portuguese idiom for doing something just for show!)

Keep up the good work!

Judex

Posts : 55
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2014-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by JohnyT on 22.07.14 16:29

Judex wrote:You all point out these glaring anomalies so coherently and convincingly that it seems to me utterly incomprehensible that SY (who must be reading this!) have still not been shamed ("disgraced"???) into doing what we all know needs to be done, instead of playing circuses "for the English to see" (which, coincidentally, is the Portuguese idiom for doing something just for show!)

Keep up the good work!
I agree......if other 'normal' people are questioning these statements and noticing things.........why aren't SY?
JohnyT

JohnyT

Posts : 135
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-06-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by MissesWillYa on 22.07.14 18:24

Some people have said that it is unbelievable that another child could have been passed off as Madeleine, but I do not think that is the case. The signing-in and out register is often quite chaotic. Staff are used to high volumes of children coming and going.

Even in settings such as schools, staff can get muddled over children and names. I can remember having parent-teacher meetings where teachers clearly had no idea which child was mine even after a year or more of teaching them! This especially happened when there were quite a few children who looked vaguely similar and shared the same name.

Your whole post is great, j.rob, but this part really stands out to me. When my daughter was in preschool, she was in a classroom where the teachers never got her name right. They called her by another child's name for the entire year. They truly didn't know her. The school year began in August and when we attended the parent-teacher conference in April, after they'd seen her twice a week for eight months, they shared a photo with my husband and me of a completely different child - not ours and not the one whose name they'd constantly called our daughter either - a THIRD child! - to show us how much our daughter supposedly loved a game they often played during music time. We were appalled. I actually got a little teary during this conference as I realized what it must be like for my daughter to go to school there, to be left in a classroom where the adults never called her by her own name or, apparently, could even recognize her face. I refused to allow her to be placed in that class the following year.

Granted, my daughter only attended two days a week and there were a lot of girls who looked fairly similar in the class, but after eight months they still didn't really know our child. I can well imagine that creche workers in a vacation resort would have a very hard time keeping children straight when they were being pulled out or dropped off at all hours through the day and evening for short stretches of time. I don't find the passing-off of another child all that hard to imagine after my own experience.

MissesWillYa

Posts : 180
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2013-04-25
Location : On a mountaintop

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder

Post by Harriet94 on 23.07.14 0:36

This group of people arrive at a holiday resort with symptoms of vomiting and diarrhoea. The party includes young children and babies who at risk of severe illness due to dehydration. Not only are the children in the party at risk of illness, but anyone else who they come into contact with on the holiday. How did Racheal know it wasn't rotavirus? Any GP or other medic will know that rotavirus for example is highly contagious and can be a serious illness in babies. Was this outbreak of a potentially serious and contagious illness reported to Mark Warner? If it wasn't rotavirus, it might have been food poisoning, was this reported? Was there any attempt to isolate the cause of this infection and prevent the spread to others?

Harriet94

Posts : 137
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum