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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 12:06

There is definitely 'something' going on with the Smith sighting behind the scenes between them all. The mccanns probably used bundelman to counteract after Smith stated he was almost sure it was gerry he saw that night after the easy jet 'jogging the memory' statement. However, if Smith agreed to go along with bundelman (I don't if he did) for the mockumentary then one can assume he was handsomely paid off to do so, and there were enough... shall we say.. 'persuasive people' on board by then

rainbow-fairy "Are you meaning that they were trying to stress heavily that it WAS NOT MURAT they saw?' - Yes this is exactly what I am saying. Its very clear reading his statement

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 12:10

@Tony Bennett wrote:
How many abductors would wander around a small town for 40 minutes with a child they were abducting?

This says it all. In reality, an abductor would never wonder around the streets for 40 minutes with the child

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Gillyspot on 12.11.11 12:15

Didn't Smith say he knew Murat anyway. If so then his "evidence" is as tainted (on behalf of Murat) as Jane Tanners' is (on behalf of the McCanns).

I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night. PDL may have been quiet but it wasn't a ghost town.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.11.11 12:31

@Bebootje wrote:A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, your speculation is founded entirely on the belief that Martin Smith really saw Dr Gerald McCann carrying a child at around 9.50pm - 9.50pm outside Kelly's bar. Even Smith doesn't say he's sure about that, and as 'jd' has explained, there are good reasons to suspect the Smiths' statements.

Against that background, a few comments on your post:

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported.

REPLY: If you assume that anyone would transport Madeleine's body at such a time (just before the alarm was raised).

21:30 Gerry doing his round around the pool making sure he was seen.

REPLY: I think it must have been later than that although I agree that the Ocean Club witness places this at around 9.30pm to 9.45pm

Then brought Madeleine to her first hiding place which I believe was in the vincinity of the church.

REPLY: Have you thought about all the circumstances that would be necessary in order for such a 'hiding' of a body to take place and how long it would have taken someone to accomplish?

He was seen by Smith, who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Of course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky of course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?)

REPLY: I don't for one moment think that Madeleine's body was transported anywhere that evening. Her 'disappearance' IMO occurred before 3 May.

They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smiths? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.

REPLY: The probability is that this was a man carrying a child a very short distance from one place to another, presumably back home e.g. from a restaurant to an apartment. My point was that if 'bundleman' was carrying a child at 9.15pm and then again at 9.50pm he would have been seen by many others during those 35 minutes.

Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

REPLY: Have you considered why the McCanns themselves now say that Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' and Martin Smith-man are one and the same? - and why it took them nearly two years to arrive at this conclusion?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by pennylane on 12.11.11 12:34

@Bebootje wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone Wink.
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long! Wink

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Cheshire Cat on 12.11.11 12:58

@pennylane wrote:
@Bebootje wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone Wink.
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long! Wink

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!



I am still inclined to believe that it was Gerry that Martin Smith saw but the alternative theory is also persuasive.

Cheshire Cat
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 660
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2010-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 13:02

@Gillyspot wrote:Didn't Smith say he knew Murat anyway. If so then his "evidence" is as tainted (on behalf of Murat) as Jane Tanners' is (on behalf of the McCanns).

I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night. PDL may have been quiet but it wasn't a ghost town.

He said he had only just 'seen' him once, in bar a year or 2 previously. Smith has an apartment in PDL and goes there about 3/4 times a year. Being a small town and going there this often with Murat also living there, there is a very good chance they at least knew each other more than a mere sighting in a bar a few years back

"I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night" - This is truth of it

To add in reply to Bebootje - don't forget that this was 'apparently' the first time gerry had been to PDL, most of which spent playing tennis or in the restaurant, so it is unlikely he would have been able to have learnt all the back streets & desolate routes of the town in just 5 days...and if he did learn them then why? he never knew what would happen to Maddie in the few days ahead

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 12.11.11 13:04

I dont believe the two sightings took place at all. JT is an obvious invention to support mccanns theory.
Even Smith's sighting is suspect to me b/c the mccanns never asked investigators to follow up with Smith.
Smith was adamant it wasnt Murat he saw then six months later claimed he's 80% sure it was Gerry from the way the child was carried.
I think Smith is a red herring as well b/c wasnt there speculation that Smith was intimidated by Brian Kennedy - I think the reverse is true - that just like Murat, a deal was struck with Smith when Brian Kennedy met with him.

I mean for mccanns not to have acknowledged Smith's sighting at all pre shelving, only to mention him in the book in support of JT's sighting post shelving, is odd.

I believe no one walks the street carrying a child on the 3rd. Both sightings were red herring, both invented with help from team mccanns. I believe Maddie was dead before 3rd May but not start of holiday either. May 2nd most likely.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 13:08

@aiyoyo wrote:I dont believe the two sightings took place at all. JT is an obvious invention to support mccanns theory.
Even Smith's sighting is suspect to me b/c the mccanns never asked investigators to follow up with Smith.
Smith was adamant it wasnt Murat he saw then six months later claimed he's 80% sure it was Gerry from the way the child was carried.
I think Smith is a red herring as well b/c wasnt there speculation that Smith was intimidated by Brian Kennedy - I think the reverse is true - that just like Murat, a deal was struck with Smith when Brian Kennedy met with him.

I mean for mccanns not to have acknowledged Smith's sighting at all pre shelving, only to mention him in the book in support of JT's sighting post shelving, is odd.

I believe no one walks the street carrying a child on the 3rd. Both sightings were red herring, both invented with help from team mccanns. I believe Maddie was dead before 3rd May

Yes. Agree with this aiyoyo. I also think the mccans were scared of what Murat knows about the whole scam (not saying Murat was directly involved but he had knowledge)

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by pennylane on 12.11.11 13:27

@Cheshire Cat wrote:
@pennylane wrote:
@Bebootje wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone Wink.
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long! Wink

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!



I am still inclined to believe that it was Gerry that Martin Smith saw but the alternative theory is also persuasive.

Ditto Cheshire Cat

I certainly do not discount the alternative theory, particularly the one put forward by Tony, but as yet I have not been swayed by the arguments to change my opinion - which is that death occurred late 2nd or during 3rd May. I believe Maddie woke up under sedation on the 1st when Mrs Fenn heard crying, prompting the parents to increase the dosage which resulted in a catastrophe...

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Angelique on 12.11.11 14:14

I do think the "Gerry searching around the pool" and someone faintly calling "Madeleine" does appear to suggest that Madeleine disappeared on the night of the 3rd. But if Gerry had been given instructions on what to do this would fit nicely.

Just as an aside - ITV are showing The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher again on Monday, November 14th, 2011 on
ITV3 HD from 9:00pm to 11:00pm

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 12.11.11 14:33

@pennylane wrote:
@Cheshire Cat wrote:
@pennylane wrote:
@Bebootje wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone Wink.
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long! Wink

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!

I also believe Maddie died on 2nd May, because 3rd May is the only day with irregular activities, and that gave them 24 hours to plan and dispose of her and get organised for the cover up charade.
Days before were just routine. Also had she died any earlier than 2nd May it would have been too many days to fill in routine without getting noticed about missing Madeleine.




I am still inclined to believe that it was Gerry that Martin Smith saw but the alternative theory is also persuasive.

Ditto Cheshire Cat

I certainly do not discount the alternative theory, particularly the one put forward by Tony, but as yet I have not been swayed by the arguments to change my opinion - which is that death occurred late 2nd or during 3rd May. I believe Maddie woke up under sedation on the 1st when Mrs Fenn heard crying, prompting the parents to increase the dosage which resulted in a catastrophe...

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 12.11.11 15:09

I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Shibboleth on 12.11.11 18:26

Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

____________________
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” ~ Joseph Stalin, 1897-1953
"If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway." ~ Joe Strummer, 1952-2002

Shibboleth

Posts : 500
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-16
Location : Jaffa - Tel Aviv

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.11.11 21:13

@Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?
Shibboleth, a very good, fair point!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.11.11 21:18

@Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?
Shibboleth, a very good, fair point!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 21:25

Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.11.11 21:57

@jd wrote:Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......
Oh yeh, she sure is - another McCann mouthpiece (paid or otherwise Wink )

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 12.11.11 22:31

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@jd wrote:Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......
Oh yeh, she sure is - another McCann mouthpiece (paid or otherwise Wink )

Of course!

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Leakage?

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.11.11 23:46

@Tony Bennett wrote:[ Extract from Rachael Oldfield's rogatory interview...] "...you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

REST SNIPPED

Someone on the Missing Madeleine forum, justice4allkids I think it was, drew attention to this phrase:

if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head

and asked why Rachael Oldfield didn't say:

if Madeleine had accidentally bumped her head



I thought it was a good point. Was it, as rainbow-fairy has pointed out, another example of a 'leaking brain'?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by dragonfly on 12.11.11 23:57

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:[ Extract from Rachael Oldfield's rogatory interview...] "...you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

REST SNIPPED

Someone on the Missing Madeleine forum, justice4allkids I think it was, drew attention to this phrase:

if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head

and asked why Rachael Oldfield didn't say:


if Madeleine had accidentally bumped her head



I thought it was a good point. Was it, as rainbow-fairy has pointed out, another example of a 'leaking brain'?


Tony I was going to write that last night , you used the correct term in a previous post, 'on the head' would imply either something falling from above , something thrown from the side , or a blow or force, , if a child say walked walked in to pane glass doors you would say they hit/bumped their head you would not use for example 'Madeleine had accidentally been hit 'bumped on the head also why use the word accidentally , of course a child injuring them selves is an accident unless it seems to be empathised , also the quote of if maddie was ill they would not leave her, was said as if it would not be normal to leave an ill child , when infact one tapas couple did leave their child ill alone by their claims


____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Angelique on 13.11.11 0:00

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


____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by dragonfly on 13.11.11 0:08

@Bebootje wrote:Reading this statement again and compared with the statements of passers by and OC staff members of the evening of May 3 gives me the chills.
Cause that could be exactly what happened:

RO statement:
Reply "Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are
both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group erm
four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any
chance they'd accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or
erm you know something wasn't quite right, I mean they wouldn't have
just left her
and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you
know, they would or sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and
Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors,
because you know they're parents and you'd kind of go to anyone to see
who could help but if you got, you know Doctors as friends who were
there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if
Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever
the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of
people there who could of you know tried to revive a child, erm".

What can you accidentally do to someone?

Compare the following statements with the statement of RO:















21.15 a passer by the car park near Gerry’s appartment overhears
someone calling Madeleine Madeleine



21.20 Executive chef A.E.G.F.P heared some clamour and was informed that a child had disappeared



At around 21:40, he left the restaurant
passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same
table occupied by the three couples, empty
,
who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He
was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one
of those couples;

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the
evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 -
21.40
from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant,. He then
went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various
local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police
had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.

Dinner finished at around 21H45 and
some minutes passed where waiter R. A.E D. L. O. looked towards the table but saw no one - his colleague told him that
all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly
. He remembers having
heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;






All these statements corroborate eachother
in the fact that something happened between 21.15 and 21.30 that caused ALL
tapas leave the restaurant (including Diane Webster)
. Two statements declare
that the table was embty at 21.40/21.45.




I do not understand this previous earlier alarm?
Everyone had arrived at 9pm Gerry left straight after to do a 'check' yet 12 bottles of wine were drunk in less than a hour?

____________________


dragonfly

Posts : 318
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by aiyoyo on 13.11.11 5:56

@Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

That is a burning question.

As is typical of the mccanns' case, everything surrounding them is a mystery, including mystery surrounding their supposedly 'key' witness.

Here's part of an extract from Mail online

The McCanns believe Ms Baker is a key witness in the defence that they are assembling with the aid of a team of lawyers and investigators.

Notice it is stated that she's a key witness in their defence that they are assembling with help from their legal team and investigators - whatever does that mean? It's either the papers shoddy reporting or the they were badly quoted.
It comes across as if they are roping her in as part of their defence ie working on making her a key witness with help of their lawyers, and not that she is by virtue of the facts of the day indeed a key witness. And, all that the mccanns had to do is to cooperate fully with Police to aid the investigation and to aid themselves - to get themselves eliminated.

Let's put this this way, Maddie was reported missing at around 10pm on 3rd May, CB would only have been one of the day time witnesses, so why was she more crucial (or key) than say cafe serving staff who claimed also to have seen Maddie at snack time toward a later time closer to the evening?


Ms Baker has told friends she is convinced of the McCanns' innocence. She is still in contact with Kate McCann and was said by friends to have been hit hard by her charge's disappearance, even being offered trauma counselling by Mark Warner Holidays.
Intriguingly, Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.

Am I the only one finding it odd that a nanny who barely knows the mccanns stating her conviction of the mccanns' innocence? Besides, if she's been offered counselling, why was she immediately deployed out to Greece? Does MW offer counselling service also in Greece?
She was interviewed for just three hours by police on the morning after Madeleine's disappearance. This compares with the four-and-a-half hours endured by Charlotte Pennington, another nanny at the resort who was witness to Kate's 'hysterical' reaction to Madeleine's disappearance.

In other words CB wasn't the only 'key 'witness then? CP interviewed for more hours is another possible key witness - so why did the mccanns emphasize only her?


The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.

It's a strange move coming so soon after missing Maddie where every witness statement matters to the active ongoing investigation; where as a norm I believe it is presumed that the Management (MW)would keep staff within easy access to aid investigators. Which begs the question: why then did the MW feel it necessary to deploy their staff at a timing crucial to the investigation? Was there any thing sinister in MW's action? Deploying other staff for logistic reason is probably understandable but why CB, the v nanny in charge of Maddie on the day of disappearance? Isn't that very insensitive of MW? or is there an urgently sinister reason for doing so?

They were all linked to the seven holidaymakers who had eaten in the resort's tapas restaurant with Kate and Gerry McCann on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
It is believed Ms Baker has since been reinterviewed by both British and Portuguese police but she has been told not to comment on the investigation.

If she was already sent to Greece how did investigators access her for the re-interview I wonder?

The young nanny, described as 'fun and vivacious', has been deeply affected by Madeleine's disappearance, telling friends of nights without sleep and a complete loss of appetite.
Writing to one concerned friend nine days after Madeleine disappeared, she admitted: 'I was her nanny, so it's been tough for me, you wouldn't recognise me.
'It's hit me so hard I've hardly slept or eaten. My mum came to see me, but transferring me to "San Ag" has put me back at stage one as I am so stressed again.

Strange remarks - why wouldn't her friend recognise her? Shouldn't it have been the mccanns who should feel that way?
Also why was she terribly stressed out when she was already away from crime scene and in a country new to her - it's like another holiday job in a new country, new adventure, hence she should be excited really despite worried about Maddie isn't it? Concerned for Maddie - can understand that, but stressed...hmmmmmm? It's not as if Maddie was lost during her watch?
She wasn't even back in the UK; facing unrelenting press pressure - I believe press coverage of missing Madeleine in Greece is at best limited.


'Love you loads, thanks for writing. I'm sorry I haven't been in touch, I have not been out of the house much.'

To another she added: 'Thanks so much for your support ... I am trying to cope, but not really liking "San Ag"... I don't plan on staying here. If they don't send me back to Portugal. I'll go home.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487506/Revealed-The-nanny-help-clear-McCanns-name.html#ixzz1dYRaQdJb

Sometimes one wonder whether journalist is deliberately being obtuse or they have a tendency to take source's remarks out of context.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 13.11.11 8:27

Catriona Baker was the main nanny yes, I agree, but she was not the only nanny in the combined classroom. Can we seriously believe that Emma Wilding, the other nanny for the mini group and Amy Tierney the Supervisor, also looked the other way? What about all the parents dropping off and collecting their own children in the days that followed, did none of them notice a different or missing girl? What about the staff who provided high tea every night and all the nannies from all the other groups that would also eat there? Not to mention a tennis coach or two..

If we're encouraged to keep things as simple as possible, this scenario would be the complete opposite.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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