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 4 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 Bebootje on 13.11.11 8:27

@jd wrote: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

The reason why bundleman had to turn up, was IMO that Gerry - knowing he was seen at a certain spot - had to distract attention. Remember was going to a different direction. Bundleman was invented "at the spot" so Jane didn't have much time to prepare her story. And it showed.

Bebootje

Posts : 86
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 10:58

@Bebootje wrote:
@jd wrote: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

The reason why bundleman had to turn up, was IMO that Gerry - knowing he was seen at a certain spot - had to distract attention. Remember was going to a different direction. Bundleman was invented "at the spot" so Jane didn't have much time to prepare her story. And it showed.
Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit Wink )
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)
ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.
iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'
iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.
Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.
It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually team McCann)
Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes! Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting. Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.
Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long! 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 rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 11:45

@dragonfly wrote:
@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

Tony, dragonfly, it is my firm conviction that most, if not all, the Tapasniks brains have done much 'leaking' (or could that be 'pickling' with NZ wine?!?) Wink
Seriously though, yes definitely is my answer. Once ok, twice coincidence but three or more ceases to be. Rachel Oldfield leaked so much in that interview she needed the brain equivalent of TenaLady. Along with the many comments of resuscitation, I think she has told us, albeit unintentionally, what in all likelihood happened to Madeleine. Compare her constant references to bumped head and reviving with David Payne, who repeatedly talked OF Madeleine in the past tense. When picked up on by the interviewer, I recall that he used present tense once, possibly twice, before his naughty old brain started tripping his tongue up again!
Its much much harder to lie, lie well and lie repeatedly than people think. The brain will always do its best to force out the truth, and if it can't succeed with words, then the body will feel so uncomfortable that the bodily reactions start. Did you know, foe example, that Disney were correct with Pinocchio? Your nose DOES grow - albeit microscopically - and the swelling of the blood capillaries is what causes that 'itch nose' feeling. Its almost unconscious, you don't mentally register you've felt it but your unconscious does and bingo! You're touching / scratching your nose. Same with ears - and how many times have we seen Gerry pick at those? I'm certain Kate clamps his hand so much to try and control his gesture as well as hers. But, it doesn't work - it'll come out somewhere else. Try the eyes, for starters, and Kate's most attractive Elvis lip-curl!
I do find it hard to fathom how ANYONE watching these lot can believe they are doing anything OTHER than lying through their teeth (many teeth in Pinky's case LOL)

____________________
"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 Bebootje on 13.11.11 13:16

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?

I believe Gerry (and Kate) knew the area very well because of their daily jogging routine. I believe in an earlier death (on May 2) because the McCanns change of daily routine. That they had short but enough time to pull the strings they needed. The years after the disappearing of Madeleine learned not to underestimate the influence the McCanns had/and still have and the influencial people they knew. An initial hiding place in the vincinity of the church seems logic (it is also near the Smith sighting location). Remember Gerry asking for a Priest. I always believed that the priest knows what has happened.

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.

I indeed do believe that Smith sighting is genuine.
The man (and his family) seem very trustworthy out of what I read about them. And the fact that Amaral
stated that "their (the Smiths) testimony was very credible" and should be further investigated. IMO a strong indication of its importance. The arrival of the McCanns in England (four months after the disappearence of Madeleine) jogged his memory and he was shocked. "
The way that the person walked, the clumsy
manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented" are the exact words of Amaral.
An 80% sure is IMO a really high percentage, and I can imagine that the man was torn between his knowledge of what he had seen and the fear what would happen if he wasn't right
.

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.

The man
the Smiths saw averted his eyes from them to signal that he did not wish to speak.
If it was indeed Gerry who was seen by Smith, he knew that he was seen although he tried hard not to make any contact.
He needed something to distract attention if ever the Smith family would remember this encounter. And so bundleman saw the day of light.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html Als you can see on the PDL map of the location of the Smith sighting and the possible route Gerry could have taken from appt 5a, you can see that the area is very quit and desolate. It is also in the opposite direction Jane saw bundleman passing the street.
As far as I know there aren't any more similar sightings of a man and a child that are not identified than the Smith sighting and Jane's bundleman, which is not credible at all. I believe bundleman was a hasty and badly prepared invention ment to distract attention from the Smith sighting
.

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

Yes i did. Initially they were completely silent about this sighting. Smithman and bundleman couldn't be the same for they left in opposite directions. If Smithman indeed was Gerry it would be the best not to point the attention to this sighting. And they did, for a long time.
But now that the police files are in the public domain and the Smith statements won't go away, and the case shelved, McCanns may be decided to use it for their advantage.
Cause the big public won't remember the specific locations and directions of these sightings. It is a pure media thing. Playing the public.They don't care about what the police knows. They know the truth and the police knows, but can't prove.

They pulled this same category show before with the Fenn statement in relation to the "Mommy why didn't you come when...." incident.


Bebootje

Posts : 86
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-07-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

substitute???

Post by rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 14:57

On other threads here, eg Stella's 'Creche Enquiry', it has been discussed that a 'substitute Maddie' was used for the creche etc, and that said child and family would probably need to leave PdL just as the 'abduction' was all kicking off - after all, who would be suspicious of a family travelling home if they have the correct passports and paperwork??? It was also referenced that this would account for the taxi driver who was 'utterly convinced' that he had Maddie in the back of his taxi with a couple around the 'time' of the 'abduction'.
Bearing this in mind, if the Smith sighting is genuine or even if it's not and Gerry just thought he had - could it be that it was Gerry 'returning' the substitute child to its parents who would've been staying nearby somewhere, but probably not at the Ocean Club? Is there any possibility at all???

____________________
"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 13.11.11 16:32

@Bebootje wrote: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?

I believe Gerry (and Kate) knew the area very well because of their daily jogging routine. I believe in an earlier death (on May 2) because the McCanns change of daily routine. That they had short but enough time to pull the strings they needed. The years after the disappearing of Madeleine learned not to underestimate the influence the McCanns had/and still have and the influential people they knew. An initial hiding place in the vincinity of the church seems logic (it is also near the Smith sighting location). Remember Gerry asking for a Priest. I always believed that the priest knows what has happened.

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.
I indeed do believe that Smith sighting is genuine.

The man (and his family) seem very trustworthy out of what I read about them. And the fact that Amaral
stated that "their (the Smiths) testimony was very credible" and should be further investigated. IMO a strong indication of its importance. The arrival of the McCanns in England (four months after the disappearence of Madeleine) jogged his memory and he was shocked. "
The way that the person walked, the clumsy
manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented" are the exact words of Amaral.
An 80% sure is IMO a really high percentage, and I can imagine that the man was torn between his knowledge of what he had seen and the fear what would happen if he wasn't right
.

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.

The man the Smiths saw averted his eyes from them to signal that he did not wish to speak.If it was indeed Gerry who was seen by Smith, he knew that he was seen although he tried hard not to make any contact.
He needed something to distract attention if ever the Smith family would remember this encounter. And so bundleman saw the day of light.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html


Also you can see on the PDL map of the location of the Smith sighting and the possible route Gerry could have taken from appt 5a, you can see that the area is very quit and desolate. It is also in the opposite direction Jane saw bundleman passing the street. As far as I know there aren't any more similar sightings of a man and a child that are not identified than the Smith sighting and Jane's bundleman, which is not credible at all. I believe bundleman was a hasty and badly prepared invention Kent to distract attention from the Smith sighting.

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

Yes I did. Initially they were completely silent about this sighting. Smithman and bundleman couldn't be the same for they left in opposite directions. If Smithman indeed was Gerry it would be the best not to point the attention to this sighting. And they did, for a long time.
But now that the police files are in the public domain and the Smith statements won't go away, and the case shelved, McCanns may be decided to use it for their advantage.
Cause the big public won't remember the specific locations and directions of these sightings. It is a pure media thing. Playing the public.They don't care about what the police knows. They know the truth and the police knows, but can't prove.

They pulled this same category show before with the Fenn statement in relation to the "Mommy why didn't you come when...." incident.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with the part of your post I've put in italics, HOWEVER I believe the McCanns care very VERY much about what the police may know. I don't think they give a flying monkey about any of the police evidence that is in the public arena, because they just distort it and use the Joseph Goebbels method - tell a lie so big and keep telling it and eventually the public believe it. Working well too, (except of course for people like us, us irritants, who refuse to be swayed by hysterical, emotional red-top headlines and instead READ THE EVIDENCE OURSELVES AND SEE THE LIE).
BUT the 17% or so of the PJ Files that remain un released are, IMO, something the McCanns worry about intensely - why otherwise would they ask for a 'transparent review' rather than re-opening of the case? No, they are worried about this evidence because they can't spin it, discredit it or more importantly 'back-fit' it, inventing ridiculous stories to account for what is there - ie the 6 dead bodies that contaminated poor CuddleCat and Kate's clown trousers - or Sean's sudden love of sea bass - or Sandy Cameron transporting bags of rubbish and leaking meat!!! Can't explain what you don't know about yourself. THAT is their big worry, nowt else.

____________________
"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 Nina on 13.11.11 17:28

Is there only 17% that the police retained? Is there a set percentage that has to be released? Sorry for the questions I just thought that only a small part had been released.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.11.11 17:45

@rainbow-fairy wrote:Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed...

Here goes

Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit)
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)

If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted.

The only other alternative put forward is that he walked with another alive child. Why would he do that?

Besides that, how could Dr McCann have time to carry a child down to the beach or wherever, place the child somewhere, then return in time to be at G5A along with the other members of the Tapas 9? Remember also that Mrs Fenn asked him (around 10.00pm) what all the fuss was about, and he said something like 'a child has gone missing' (can't remember the actual words)

ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.

Much more likely is that the Tapas 9 had already rehearsed the night's planned events and that they always intended to write down, for the police, 'Jane sees man with child at 9.15pm' - to coincide with the gap between Dr McCann's 9.05pm-9.10pm visit and Dr Matt Oldfield's visit at around 9.30pm.

iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'

More likely the three of them didn't quite line up their accounts correctly. Wilkins probably told the truth in that he didn't see Tanner; Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner didn't get that detail of their stories correct, Dr Gerald McCann said: 'I didn't see Tanner', but Tanner said: 'I saw Gerry'.

iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.

Are you suggesting that Dr Gerald McCann got rid of the child he was (allegedly) seen carrying by Martin Smith at 9.50pm - 10.00pm and then legged it back to the Ocean Club for 10.00pm, then enabling the 'alarm' to be sounded? What did he do with the child?

Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.

It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually Team McCann).

The circumstances under which Mr Smith made his statement, and exactly what he does say in his statement, must be very carefully examined. The subsequent interference by Brian Kennedy in talking to Martin Smith us another factor. Still another issue is that his family members do not say the same as he does about the alleged incident.

Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes!

I think we can all agree on that. Except of course - the McCanns! - with Dr Kate McCann explaining carefull in the book that the two sightings are of one and the same person - 40-45 minutes apart!

Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting.

Not at all, rainbow-fairy. Look at pp. 370-372 of Dr Kate McCann's book and she both fully supports Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' AND says he's the same individual as 'Smithman'.

Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.

So why, then, are both sightings given full and extensive credibility both in the 2009 Channel 4 'mockumentary'/ reconstruction AND in Dr Kate McCann's book?

Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long!

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
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 PeterMac on 13.11.11 17:50

It is of course routine for Police to withhold some vital information, which only they and the perpetrators know, or can know.
The phrase "blunt instrument', or "sharp instrument" is not police incompetence and inability to work out what happened.
It allows them to interview suspects and to filter out the attention seekers who clearly were not involved (surprisingly, more than you might expect)
but then to confirm absolutely that they have the right one. The one who talks about the Stanley knife, or the hammer.
With Sutcliffe, for example the pathologist reported that the women had been stabbed with a Phillips screwdriver. (Don't think too much about it !)
Only the interviewing officers and Sutcliffe himself knew that.

So yes, everyone concerned in this saga, the McCanns, Mitchell, the Tapas group and several others must be still very uneasy
at not being allowed to see everything the PJ has.
How tragic. How very sad.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 17:51

@Nina wrote:Is there only 17% that the police retained? Is there a set percentage that has to be released? Sorry for the questions I just thought that only a small part had been released.

I thought it was the other way round! If I'm totally honest, I don't actually know for sure! I've got it somewhere that about 82% or so had been publicly released. It takes me so long to load up a page to check elsewhere so its not feasible for me to do. I'm on a mobile you see, and where I live signal is abysmal - I can go two or three hours with none - hence why my replies are sometimes so late. Was meant to join up to a landline and broadband soon but my terrier has just today chewed through the cabling! Sad
Whatever the number, I think its 'prosecution material' - the really damning stuff that wasn't quite enough to ensure a successful trial, but maybe with some more it could be. Although the McCann publicity has done so much, worldwide, could they get a fair trial anywhere (one of the main reasons for the continued publicity, IMO)

____________________
"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 pennylane on 13.11.11 19:27

"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony


I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......


I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

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 rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 19:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed...

Here goes

Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit)
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)

If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted.

The only other alternative put forward is that he walked with another alive child. Why would he do that?

Besides that, how could Dr McCann have time to carry a child down to the beach or wherever, place the child somewhere, then return in time to be at G5A along with the other members of the Tapas 9? Remember also that Mrs Fenn asked him (around 10.00pm) what all the fuss was about, and he said something like 'a child has gone missing' (can't remember the actual words)

ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.

Much more likely is that the Tapas 9 had already rehearsed the night's planned events and that they always intended to write down, for the police, 'Jane sees man with child at 9.15pm' - to coincide with the gap between Dr McCann's 9.05pm-9.10pm visit and Dr Matt Oldfield's visit at around 9.30pm.

iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'

More likely the three of them didn't quite line up their accounts correctly. Wilkins probably told the truth in that he didn't see Tanner; Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner didn't get that detail of their stories correct, Dr Gerald McCann said: 'I didn't see Tanner', but Tanner said: 'I saw Gerry'.

iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.

Are you suggesting that Dr Gerald McCann got rid of the child he was (allegedly) seen carrying by Martin Smith at 9.50pm - 10.00pm and then legged it back to the Ocean Club for 10.00pm, then enabling the 'alarm' to be sounded? What did he do with the child?

Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.

It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually Team McCann).

The circumstances under which Mr Smith made his statement, and exactly what he does say in his statement, must be very carefully examined. The subsequent interference by Brian Kennedy in talking to Martin Smith us another factor. Still another issue is that his family members do not say the same as he does about the alleged incident.

Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes!

I think we can all agree on that. Except of course - the McCanns! - with Dr Kate McCann explaining carefully in the book that the two sightings are of one and the same person - 40-45 minutes apart!

Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting.

Not at all, rainbow-fairy. Look at pp. 370-372 of Dr Kate McCann's book and she both fully supports Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' AND says he's the same individual as 'Smithman'.

Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.

So why, then, are both sightings given full and extensive credibility both in the 2009 Channel 4 'mockumentary'/ reconstruction AND in Dr Kate McCann's book?

Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long!
Tony, thank you for the critique - it always helps! Just two things -
1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

2)Regarding the acknowledgement of the sightings (I was under the impression, from the bit of Kate's book I could stomach to read) that, while still mentioning JT's sighting, she suggested that it was less certain than before? Haven't read all of it as yet. Now, in answer to why is Team McCann now acknowledging AND linking the Smith sighting to JT's seems straightforward to me. They never mentioned it at all, ever, and I think they thought it could be buried/moved away from. Then when they realised it is NOT going away, its in the Files, GA's book, and is one of those 'OMG' statements that has made believers or fencers actually think 'hmmm' and look further into the case - taking all this into account, what choice did they have BUT mention and acknowledge it? Apart from JT's, its the only known 'sighting' and even 'believers' find Jane's less than credible so... I would think its a case of link them and make the most of a very bad, bodged job*

*And herein lies the problem, for me - suppose I was coming round to the way of thinking that both sightings are fabrications to help the McCann and/or Murat cause, why on earth would they be so far apart, time-wise? I could understand it if it were five, ten min, but so far apart? How does that help their cause? Surely no sightings would be better than two, supposedly linked, dodgy sightings? Am I missing something? Or is the whole point of it that it causes total and utter confusion?

I'm not being argumentative, literally this is so thick with smoke and mirrors its hard to breathe, let alone think! 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 rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 20:01

@pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony


I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smith's saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......


I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smith's saw him.
pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

____________________
"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 pennylane on 13.11.11 20:45

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony


I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smith's saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......


I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smith's saw him.
pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

Hi Rainbow-fairy,

I can see why some people believe it all happened earlier. For me personally I favour that it all happening quickly, or at least within 24 hours of Maddie's demise. I agree with you re Murat and think there is a connection between Murat/Malinka and GM.

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 Nina on 13.11.11 21:53

Rainbow-Fairy a snip from an earlier post,

1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

I think the night of the 3rd May was when the "abduction" was to be made public. So if there was a substitute Madeleine at the creche and high tea through the week, why then keep this girl until late on the night of the 3rd, for what reason? To have to then walk through the streets with her, or, was it part of the abduction scenario.

No one has ever come forward as being the one walking the streets at this hour and on this day/

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.11.11 22:10

@pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony


I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......


I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

Lovely to have your contribution to the debate, pennylane, and many thanks as always for your past messages of support.

Disagreements are normally handled politely on here and hopefully I'll maintain that tradition with a fewe reponses to your post which I'll outline below in blue

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw.

Let's leave on one side for a moment some very important points, such as the Smith family members disagreeing with each other about what they saw, Smith's obvious attempt to say 'it wasn't Murat', and Brian Kennedy's intervention when he talked to Martin Smith. We must then face the fact that Smith wasn't certain it was Gerry McCann he saw. he was only 80% certain. Then, in or about January 2008, he made a further statement in which he said he was only 60% sure. That is, you'll agree I hope, a rather slender basis for making an assumption that Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann.

On top of that, I raise once again merely by repetition the obvious point: would anyone carry his dead child through the streets of a popular holiday village? I can't think it's ever been done before - and even in panic mode I suggest this is so unlikely that it can be discarded.

I do appreciate by the way that I am up against Goncalo Amaral's hunch that Smith was right and Amaral's further speculation that Dr Gerald McCann was heading for the beach.

I will come to other reasons why we should reject the notion that Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann with child that night.

We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening.

Here I think we come to the crux of the matter. There are I think lines of evidence that suggest that the events of the afternoon of 3 May were planned by the Tapas 9, on the basis that Madeleine had already 'disappeared'.

A. Take the hugely varying accounts of what Dr Gerald McCann was doing up to 7pm that afternoon. There are half-a-dozen versions. That suggests to me that he was not doing what he has said he was doing, but something else.

B. Take the huge contradictions about the alleged visit of Dr Payne to G5A at around 6.30pm. The contradictions about this event are so great as to suggest that this event never happened. Why then has this visit, as it were, been invented? I suggest it is an attempt to show that Madeleine was alive at 6.30pm that day and was seen by a third party - when perhaps she was not alive.

C. Take the evidence analysed by 'kikoratan' which suggests that Dr Gerald McCann and Robert Murat each had their mobile 'phones switched off for the same period of 32 hours: from 3pm on 2 May to 11pm on 3 May. Why could that be? And why did Murat tell 17+ 'porkies' about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May. And why wouldn't Dr Gerald McCann comment on whether he already knew Robert Murat or not?

D. Take the many discrepancies about whether Madeleine had 'high tea' with the nannies that day, or not. Why so many discrepancies? Is this because this event didn't happen either?

These IMO indications that something had befallen Madeleine earlier and that preparations were being made for the unfolding of the abduction hoax.

For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario).

The scenario you have outlined here is of Madeleine's body still being in G5A at after 9.30pm. Now, if that correct, and if as you say ROB (or Oldfield) got 'spooked', can you explain why the party went ahead with an 'alarm' at 10.00pm. If you're right, why not quietly dispose of the body overnight and sound the alarm in the morning? Again, if you are right, and Dr Gerald McCann was really seen by the Smiths carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm-9.55pm, these things would be necessary for the T9 to sound the alarm:

1. Dr McCann finds hiding place for the body

2. Dr McCann hides the body

3. Dr McCann (remember the evidence is his mobile 'phone was switched off until 11pm) has ro rush back to the Ocean Club

4. He then announces: 'Body hidden! All clear! Raise the alarm!'

I ask again if that is a credible scenario. Some even claim Madeleine could have been hidden within the church during this period.

The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong!

I suggest the plan was to have as normal an evening as possible at the Tapas restaurant, with people leaving the table now and then to make it look like they were checking. I suspect that those leaving the table were perhaps arranging the crime scene as suggested in one chapter of Goncalo Amaral's book and as indicated in Tavares de Almeida's report of 10 SDeptember 2007. Dr Gerald McCann says he saw Madeleine alive. Dr Matt Oldfield played his part with a carefully crafted statement saying that he opened the door but didn't actually see Madeleine, and that there was 'more light' than before. His memory about that visit wasn't too good because he had to significantly amend his statement.

I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took...

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.


'When the Smiths saw him'. This I think is one of the troubles with the 'Smith sighting'. If one STARTS with the premise that Dr Gerald McCann was definitely seen by Smith at 9.50am outside Kelly's bar, then one has to fit everything around that. If on the other had you discard this claimed 'sighting', and look at all the other surrounding evidence, IMO the following picture develops: Madeleine had already disappeared some time earlier that day or week, and the entire sequence of events from around 8pm onwards was an elaborate charade. There is absolutely no other evidence apart from the dubious Smith 'sighting' that Dr Gerald McCann was anywhere other than in and around the Tapas bar and the Ocean Club until the GNR arrived.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Murat says he visited 2 apartments on the afternoon on 3 May

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.11.11 22:16

@rainbow-fairy wrote:pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

See items in red below (from our long Murat article):

The Mystery of Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause:

An examination of Robert Murat’s involvement in events following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

By Tony Bennett, April 2010

PART FOUR: CHAPERS I TO K


I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30am but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

6. He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.

7. He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.

8. The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.

9. He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said.

10. On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.

11. He had not driven to Michaela’s house that morning after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law.

12. He now remembered that he and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13. He and Michaela had lunch with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex and her father-in-law, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14. Michaela’s daughter C______ was not with them that day, contrary to his previous story.

15. They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.

16. He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.

17. He previously said he had woken at 9.00am on Friday 4 May. He now admitted he had telephoned Michaela at 8.27am and must have got up earlier.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
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 rainbow-fairy on 13.11.11 22:31

@Nina wrote:Rainbow-Fairy a snip from an earlier post,

1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

I think the night of the 3rd May was when the "abduction" was to be made public. So if there was a substitute Madeleine at the creche and high tea through the week, why then keep this girl until late on the night of the 3rd, for what reason? To have to then walk through the streets with her, or, was it part of the abduction scenario.

No one has ever come forward as being the one walking the streets at this hour and on this day
Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened.
I'm really not sure - this is a headspinner - just what the McCanns wanted Wink Or maybe its the Gemini curse - I can see about seven sides to every story, which is not always helpful, believe me!
As for why they would keep the 'substitute' til 'abduction time' - Honestly? Who knows? This involves second-guessing the McCanns and I find it exceedingly hard to imagine why they do certain things BUT she would obviously be needed at creche, high tea and pick-up time. Possibly it was thought easier to take her away from the scene later at night than very early evening OR maybe she had to be there until 'kick-off' to cover any unforeseen circumstances - being seen, visitor to flat, a hundred things. Truth is, I doubt we'll ever know frankly. Poor Madeleine.

____________________
"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 Tony Bennett on 13.11.11 22:41

@rainbow-fairy wrote:Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened...
I agree.

The answer is IMO (2), and in this connection let us remember when the Smith 'sighting' was first publicly announced - namely months after the event.

Now, if Smith had come forward on 4 May and said: 'My goodness, me and my family saw a man carrying a child at just before 10.00 last night', then a public announcement would have been made that day and Smith's description given out to the media.

But did Smith report his 'sighting' immediately? Not I think for a couple of weeks or so.

If he really did see someone (and I have my doubts), I suggest it was most likely a holidaymaker taking his child back to his apartment with him after she had fallen asleep whilst he was out.

ETA: For those who think Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann, consider this: whilst he was walking around Praia da Luz carrying a child, he could easily have been seen by any one of dozens of Ocean Club guests who would recognise him. Just as happened with Jez Wilkins, in fact...

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
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 13.11.11 23:47

Hi Tony, thank you for your informative reply, I shall certainly read it thoroughly when I am not so tired, and try not to be so fixated on my opinions

I agree with yourself and others that they are covering something up earlier in the week.... I felt it may be due to what type of holiday they were on and who they were meeting up with?? When Madeleine first went missing in 2007, I really suspected something had happened to her earlier than the Mc's were saying, and I held this opinion for some time, but the more I read the less convinced of this I became, and it all seemed so hastily cobbled together.

You are quite right I should have said "when the Smith's allegedly saw him," as I realise this is not a certainty.

I have drawn a different conclusion from yourself regarding the McCanns finally mentioning the Smith sighting in 2009... I think the Mc's tried their utmost to avoid it like the plague because it was legitimate.... and so they waited as long as they could, but with Amaral and all and sundry discussing it daily.... they could no longer ignore it, and saw their mockumentary as an opportunity to finally mention it whilst diluting it down, and morphing Tanners alleged abductor into the Smith's one, thus allowing Gerry his much needed get out clause.
Thank you again Tony, I shall try and expand my horizons, although it has taken a long time to arrive where I am.


pennylane x

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 listener on 14.11.11 0:03

@pennylane wrote:

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

The car being 'aired'?

Dogs and the car?

Mileage on the car?

Many hundreds of 'English/foreign owned,timeshare' vacant appartments?

Which appartment? The Smith sighting may well turn out to be a 'false herring' - but I believe she was stored somewhere

listener

Posts : 565
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by jd on 14.11.11 1:01

Looking at it in black and white & taking the personalities out of the equation....someone that cannot be positive about anything except for being positive about who they definitely know they didn't see, says very clearly the motive for their statement

Also, they cannot be sure about the description on who they saw... yet...they can be sure who it was definitely not! Wasn't born yesterday!

He couldn't see the mans face on his alleged sighting so how can he know it was definitely not Murat?

All the sightings are red herrings and nobody saw any sightings that night. It is total garbage and absolute lies on all sides and a waste of time speculating on, there was no sightings


____________________
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 14.11.11 1:07

And if a professional gang abducted Maddie, does anybody seriously think that they would be would be wondering around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes carrying her. We are led to believe with all the false sightings years later and the propaganda in the press that a professional gang took her. Im sorry but professionals do not act in this way, only amateurs who do not know what they are doing could possibly wander the streets for 40 minutes. Lets get our heads on please!

Its all lies....lies to make money

____________________
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 14.11.11 6:58

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Nope, nobody has come forward and said it was them. This could be for one of the following reasons:
1)It was Gerry McCann - he's hardly going to implicate himself, is he???
2)Despite all the publicity, the 'real' man has never come forward
3)The sighting never actually happened...
I agree.

The answer is IMO (2), and in this connection let us remember when the Smith 'sighting' was first publicly announced - namely months after the event.

Now, if Smith had come forward on 4 May and said: 'My goodness, me and my family saw a man carrying a child at just before 10.00 last night', then a public announcement would have been made that day and Smith's description given out to the media.

But did Smith report his 'sighting' immediately? Not I think for a couple of weeks or so.

If he really did see someone (and I have my doubts), I suggest it was most likely a holidaymaker taking his child back to his apartment with him after she had fallen asleep whilst he was out.

ETA: For those who think Smith saw Dr Gerald McCann, consider this: whilst he was walking around Praia da Luz carrying a child, he could easily have been seen by any one of dozens of Ocean Club guests who would recognise him. Just as happened with Jez Wilkins, in fact...
Tony, I can see what you mean. However, I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind!
1)If it really were a 'fabricated' sighting designed to support team McCann/Murat, why then would he make the lead actor so similar sounding to Gerry? Then time them so far apart? I don't see how it would help in any way?

____________________
"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 14.11.11 7:22

@jd wrote:And if a professional gang abducted Maddie, does anybody seriously think that they would be would be wondering around the streets of PDL for 40 minutes carrying her. We are led to believe with all the false sightings years later and the propaganda in the press that a professional gang took her. Im sorry but professionals do not act in this way, only amateurs who do not know what they are doing could possibly wander the streets for 40 minutes. Lets get our heads on please!

Its all lies....lies to make money
jd, who has mentioned professional gangs? I haven't seen any mention of it on this topic?
Can I just politely pick up on something from the post above this one, please? You mention that the sighting is not credible because they didn't see the face but were certain it wasn't Murat. With all due respect, a person's face isn't their only identifying feature, is it? I can spot people I only know 'by sight' from behind and their way of walking. Didn't they say the 'knew Murat by sight'? This would make it even more likely that they could discount it being him without needing to see a face. Didn't he have a peculiar gait from his earlier motorbike accident?
Not saying you're wrong and the 'sighting' definitely happened, just that you don't need to see a face to know who someone isn't, if you get me!

____________________
"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

Page 4 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