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

Sunday, 6 November 2011

A Rogatory Review

Smoke and mirrors, muddied waters... there's always been speculation that things have been deliberately confused from day one. From the shutters and locks to the timeline. One thing that irritates me is the fact that all of the group's children were left alone to fend for themselves. If it really happened that way - that's what we're expected to believe. So why have the rest of the Tapas group been let off the hook? The only reason that the McCanns have taken most of the rap is because they got caught in the act, unfortunately for their child.


By foot, the McCann children were actually closest to the Tapas bar, where the group of these so called professional parents were dining. All of the other children were dotted here and there in other apartments, a much further distance than apartment 5a. Alone, some of them sick. Yet their parents simply closed their doors and left them?


Below is an extract from Rachel Oldfield's rogatory interview, where she describes the absolutely crap routine of putting her one year old sick baby to bed before skulking off silently to the restaurant - through a passageway so dark, she was afraid to check on her own sick child. Their system of checks involved listening at the doors and windows... the smell checks have been blatantly omitted. Mrs Oldfield then tells us how she believes Madeleine was taken, alive from apartment 5a by the big, bad abductor. Or maybe not.


Read it and weep, folks.
Read it and weep...


~o0o~


"She, yeah because erm, we didn't, we don't really like sleeping in the same room as her but there wasn't really nowhere else to put her cos you know, obviously she was going to bed at seven thirty and then we'd have had to kind of hide in the bathroom or something for the rest of the night, so we put, yeah she slept in our room as well erm".


"Yeah. So basically we'd go and have dinner and then we'd sort of run back you know every fifteen twenty minutes and have a listen at the door and make sure nobody's screaming their head off".


"Erm well we'd go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn't do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she'd settled quite well actually cos she'd been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there's all this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we'd go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn't been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure she hadn't been, in case it was some sort of bug".


1578 "Okay, and the route taken"?


Reply "Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door.


1578 "In through the front door"?


Reply "Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn't really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy".


1578 "Okay. Did you want to mention something about the Doctors in the group"?


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".


~o0o~


Plenty of people who could have tried to revive a child... The cynic in me is screaming that Madeleine's fate has just been described in detail and confirmed by those last few words. I hope I'm wrong. Smoke and muddied waters - time for someone to clear everything up, including their conscience.

Posted by Me, Myself, Moi... at 06:36

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/

I dont think one has to be a cynic to agree that that statement may well contain all the detail one needs to start a very detailed and focussed enquiry.

I could be wrong but didn't one of the Tapas 7 mention in their statement something along the lines of clobbered in the head?

Leaving a sick child like that is despicable.

Just completely astounding to read, even to this day!!! this is the crux of the whole situation!!! These people left babies and young children alone in an apartment which was a good walk away!

This is what they all concerned about when something happened to Maddie! this is why they all bound together to say " it was acceptable parenting!!"

It is also an extremely embarrassing thing for a goverment to have to deal with! a bunch of high flying UK Doctors go abroad and neglect children!! doesnt look good! hence the goverment help from day one. its all that simple!. What actually happened to Maddie!!? I think the actual truth of what happened is also as simple, but no less tragic!

dannybohy wrote:Just completely astounding to read, even to this day!!! this is the crux of the whole situation!!! These people left babies and young children alone in an apartment which was a good walk away!

This is what they all concerned about when something happened to Maddie! this is why they all bound together to say " it was acceptable parenting!!"

It is also an extremely embarrassing thing for a goverment to have to deal with! a bunch of high flying UK Doctors go abroad and neglect children!! doesnt look good! hence the goverment help from day one. its all that simple!. What actually happened to Maddie!!? I think the actual truth of what happened is also as simple, but no less tragic!

I agree and think the truth is very simple...and money motivated. But I don't think the government are the slightest bit interested in these doctors parenting neglect for their kids, nor for any UK citizens. They have a different motive for their involvement and its nothing to do with how our subjects are perceived abroad

jd wrote:

dannybohy wrote:Just completely astounding to read, even to this day!!! this is the crux of the whole situation!!! These people left babies and young children alone in an apartment which was a good walk away!

This is what they all concerned about when something happened to Maddie! this is why they all bound together to say " it was acceptable parenting!!"

It is also an extremely embarrassing thing for a goverment to have to deal with! a bunch of high flying UK Doctors go abroad and neglect children!! doesnt look good! hence the goverment help from day one. its all that simple!. What actually happened to Maddie!!? I think the actual truth of what happened is also as simple, but no less tragic!

I agree and think the truth is very simple...and money motivated. But I don't think the government are the slightest bit interested in these doctors parenting neglect for their kids, nor for any UK citizens. They have a different motive for their involvement and its nothing to do with how our subjects are perceived abroad

A third this opinion that the truth is very simple! The UK Government wished to contain information released into the public domain about the behaviour of these top health workers, coupled with background information re drs' perks and conflicts of interest with drug companies, ash cash etc and how the system is set up to grease their palms. This is about protecting the UK Government/NHS/BMA/GMC and also COMARE from embarrassing revelations. There is no interest in what happened to Madeleine involved at all.... they know the pair are dodgy... it's completely irrelevant to the government (imo)

I can't help feeling COMARE has some sort of factor in this. I am not saying in any way this is a fact, but just a gut feeling. Its a bit coincidential gerry and gordon browns brother were on the same board, and this story happens just when Brown takes the reigns of power

jd wrote:I can't help feeling COMARE has some sort of factor in this. I am not saying in any way this is a fact, but just a gut feeling. Its a bit coincidential gerry and gordon browns brother were on the same board, and this story happens just when Brown takes the reigns of power

Gut feeling for me also, jd! In addition, seeing Gerry talk, there is not a doubt in my mind that he over inflated his importance and threw in his affiliation with COMARE to hustle all and sundry in the UK government from the get go.

Dr Russell O'Brien, Training Programme Director for the South West Peninsular Deanery.... absent from the tapas bar at the time of the alleged crime, and whose partner, Jane Tanner, claims she saw the alleged abductor and Gerry McCann simultaneously, hence the only witness to reveal it could not have been the father.

Another top NHS worker and his partner bites the dust if it were proven Madeleine died in apartment 5A.

pennylane wrote:
Dr Russell O'Brien, Training Programme Director for the South West Peninsular Deanery.... absent from the tapas bar at the time of the alleged crime, and whose partner, Jane Tanner, claims she saw the alleged abductor and Gerry McCann simultaneously, hence the only witness to reveal it could not have been the father. .

Very good point Pennylane...Hadn't seen it this way before, interesting

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".

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.





But then “smoke
and mirrors” started:

Between 21.30 and 22: Fitness
instructor/Waiter J. R. S. went over to
the table and joked with (Diane Webster): "They've left you
alone?" She responded more of less with these words: "No, they went to see if the little girl was
there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the
apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleine's
father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone
as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the
older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the
workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again
running to continue searching. I believe
that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty



















Approx. 21.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from
'Kelly's Bar', heading north, all spread out along the street and they pass a
man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head
against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in
light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and
blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 metre
tall. - The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige
trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80
meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that
looks tanned. (GA)

M. M. M. d. S. declares that on the
night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58 the car park and the
vincinity near Gerry’s appartment was quiet.


(There appearently wasn’t a big
search going on at that point). But there were people searching.





Receptionist Ocean Club H. J. S. L. was on duty and was contacted by a
member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 21.30 and 22.00 who informed
him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. He
immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father
and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.

Bar chef M. J. d. S. R. heard about it
on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millennium
restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.

After 22:00 R.
R. S. B. and his wife were still sitting on the veranda in the B. family
apartment. They heard noises downstairs and afterwards found out that a child
had disappeared. Gerald was seen and spoken to by N.B. and R.R.S.B. They heard
him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on N.B.'s balcony, not far
from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped
in the search.

Between 22H00 and 22H30, waiter J. J. M.
B. was in the kitchen, and was alerted, by a colleague, to the fact that a
guest entered the restaurant screaming, and at this point, the entire group
left in a panic; his colleague proceeded to tell him that the (screaming)
individual indicated that a child had gone missing.










The following could have happened:
08.45 - 09.15 According to Jez Wilkins the meeting with Gerry (a few minutes) took place.
09.15 Madeleine was found dead by Gerry, phone call or text message to Kate? All doctors rush off in an attempt to revive the child
21.40 Table was empty (including Dianne Webster)
21.30 Start smoke and mirrors by Gerry (searching in the vincinity of the restaurant, seen by several people)
21.50 Dianne Webster back at table to confirm smoke and mirrors stating a child disappeared
21.50 Gerry with Madeleine, seen by Smith
22.00 - 22.30 Kate enters restaurant screaming (in an attempt to change peoples perception about the time Madeleine was found missing)
22.30 Fenn, who was watching the news, overheard rumour in and around the appartment.
22.50 GNR was called (first registered call).

It would explain a lot:
1. It wasn't habit for the women to check (as RO states, the empty car park looked sinister and she was not at ease to pass by alone)
(IMO, it wasn't Kate finding out Madeleine disappeared, but Gerry finding Madeleine dead.)
2. It would explain why Kate left the twins after finding out Madeleine was gone to rise the alarm at the restaurant.
It was needed to provide witnesses to reset the time of disappearence.
3. It would explain the gap between the time Madeleine was found gone and the GNR was called.

Smoke and mirrors indeed

"She, yeah because erm, we didn't, we don't really like sleeping in the
same room as her but there wasn't really nowhere else to put her cos you
know, obviously she was going to bed at seven thirty and then we'd have
had to kind of hide in the bathroom or something for the rest of the
night, so we put, yeah she slept in our room as well erm".


"Yeah.
So basically we'd go and have dinner and then we'd sort of run back you
know every fifteen twenty minutes and have a listen at the door and
make sure nobody's screaming their head off".


"Erm well we'd
go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn't do to be honest, erm but
she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she'd settled quite
well actually cos she'd been tired every evening, erm but every morning
when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her
grow bag and so there's all this sort of horrendous smell, so in the
evenings when we were checking, we'd go into the room just to see if you
know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she
was alright, to make sure she hadn't been sick, partly I think cos Matt
had been sick, just wanted to make sure she hadn't been, in case it was
some sort of bug".

I find this either unbelievably the most dispicable behaviour and attitude possible for a mother to admit OR it's just a total and utter smokescreen. I cannot believe it could be true. I have a 22 month old daughter and for the first 18 months of her life she slept next to me and was breastfed. Never let her out of my sight and let my Mum mind her once when I went out. I just cannot fathom parents who have this detached attitude towards their young, defenseless children. I know I am probably in the more extreme 'attached parenting' bracket (although I just call it being a mother!) I just really cannot believe this to be true of most of the Tapas group, I just can't, I'm sorry, I think it's all just a lie and cover up. The feelings of protectiveness and nurting and care not to mention total worry and anxiety if you are not with your child would overcome you. HOW on earth did this lot NOT feel that way??? How???

Rachel talks about her child as if it were a smelly puppy that needed to be 'put in the corner' and left to wee itself. Ugggh...rotten horrible people.

Upsy Daisy wrote:Rachel talks about her child as if it were a smelly puppy that needed to be 'put in the corner' and left to wee itself. Ugggh...rotten horrible people.

Absolutely agree with you and others here Upsy Daisy. What a disgusting excuse for a mother!

RO: "but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her
grow bag and so there's all this sort of horrendous smell"

If what's she's claiming here is true, there's more than an average chance that her child (baby!) was suffering from dehydration! It's a well know fact if your child has ongoing bouts of diarrhoea/sickness they need extra care and attention because dehydration can set in very quickly and even be life threatening (in such a young child). Yet night after night she leaves her sick child alone. This is wilful neglect! Why wasn't she and her Doctor husband investigated for this neglect?

Where's a doctor when you need one!!

Yes Daisy, abhorrent behaviour. Surely you would notice well before morning time that your child had had a bout of diahorrea? If my little one does, she usually cries shortly after, because a) it's uncomfortable and b) she is not well and anyhow I would notice long before the 'next morning' !!!! In the middle of the night would change her because I'd notice the smell/her crying/her being thirsty, etc..... Negligence at the highest degree, if this is indeed the truth.

Daisy, you are a good Mum, a caring Mum.

If this statement is true about this poor baby, with diarrhoea so bad that it leaks through the sleeping garment and smells so much then I wonder what state these two apologies for parents are that they come back after a night on the lash and are so out of it that they cannot through the rest of the night smell this smell, and it isn't until the morning when they raise themselves from whatever induced stupor they have been in that they then realize she has leaked through her night wear.

Today I read about the number of children in the UK who are abused every year. Imo this poor child is one of the number.

Remind me please someone, who were her parents, and what were their professions.

You are right Nina, can you imagine, poor child lying there in its own poo, unwell, probably very thirsty and parents that really don't care enough, probably pissed as a couple of farts, totally oblivious and only concerned by their own needs. They certainly do nothing whatsoever to make us believe otherwise. I am stunned, that's why I find it hard to believe if this were the scenario.... am more inclined toward smokescreen... however someone else said before, if this is proven to be true ALL of those parents deserve to be severely reprimanded for neglect, if this is the level of their perceived 'acceptable parenting'. I am sure they are probably (although please forgive my assumptions) the type of parents to use controlled crying and let their kids scream for two hours straight until they 'learn' to get to sleep by themselves. Uggh. Makes me shudder thinking about it. Bless those poor little kids.

Daisy wrote:
RO: "but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her
grow bag and so there's all this sort of horrendous smell"

She states - "right through" - which implies that it must have stained and soiled the undersheet, which itself would have needed changing or washing.
And she states - "every morning" -.

This child is in need of medical attention.

They just don't seem to show any shame or concern for their lack of parenting do they. They speak in a very matter of fact way about smell and leakage as though it wasn't an indication of a suffering child,not a child with a one off loose nappy, well baby actually. I am lost for words.

Please excuse the pun, but this is truly sickening. I honestly do not think that ANY parent who actually DID these things would ever admit to it. It makes me ever more certain that the neglect was faked, concocted to cover up far far worse sins. IMHO, obviously

So dreadful it sounds untrue, but why so much unnecessary detail? It is all selfish, from the adults viewpoint..was there a smell? Or are they so thick they think that unless there is a bad odour then it is not bad enough for a nappy to need changing? God help the poor little one's rear end if affected as badly as described, time for the sudocrem .... must have been red raw.
I find this jaw dropping if I am honest. A baby in this condition needs constant attention and nappy changes galore and fluids to make up for what she has lost....its a serious thing in a baby.
I dont know what else to say...whoever took these notes must have been gob-smacked.

I agree. It is inconceivable that this actually happened. You just would not go out to dinner and leave a child unattended in this state. I wouldn't even go out and leave my husband if he was in that condition! Apart from the constant nappy changes, the child would require constant liquid intake to keep hydrated. How the interviewers kept the incredulity out of their questioning I don't know.

maybe it got lost in translation - i think translators are trained to use a neutral type voice so the real feelings could not be expressed on paper

opinionswapper wrote:maybe it got lost in translation - i think translators are trained to use a neutral type voice so the real feelings could not be expressed on paper

Lost in translation? I don't think anything has been lost. As for trained to use a neutral type voice, you mean, robotic? Wouldn't translators if trained in such a way that feelings cannot be expressed, surely they would edit out all those little 'err, erms', that are unnecessary?
I'm pretty sure translators are trained to do exactly that - translate. Not alter the tone of an interview.

russiandoll wrote:So dreadful it sounds untrue, but why so much unnecessary detail? It is all selfish, from the adults viewpoint..was there a smell? Or are they so thick they think that unless there is a bad odour then it is not bad enough for a nappy to need changing? God help the poor little one's rear end if affected as badly as described, time for the sudocrem .... must have been red raw.
I find this jaw dropping if I am honest. A baby in this condition needs constant attention and nappy changes galore and fluids to make up for what she has lost....its a serious thing in a baby.
I dont know what else to say...whoever took these notes must have been gob-smacked.

russiandoll, I so agree with you. Disgusting, and yes that poor baby's bottom truly must've been a sight to behold - and you know what? I'm utterly convinced that if I were to give a signed statement of something similar, I'd end up arrested for child cruelty! Think of the Barnado's ads - you could insert the RO scenario seamlessly into one. It really truly beggars belief that any of these people are walking free. If they behaved in the way they have 'admitted' then it is sheer, outright inarguable neglect and child cruelty OTOH, if these stories were concocted to cover-up the truth - well, you know where I'm going with this!
Just by way of possibly explaining the above IF ITS TRUE - do you think its a sign of their medical training mixed with narcissism and ego? What I mean is, its truly possible that the baby HAD been given electrolytes to counteract the dehydration and from a MEDICAL perspective, they had 'done right' by the child? Same with the above statement regards Maddie and how there were plenty of adults who could revive a child in medical distress? Sadly though it seems no adults thought to 'be there' and comfort a child who could be in emotional distress... IMO, if they did have this attitude it could explain their apparent 'superiority' as in 'don't question us' KMcC saying 'I know what happened, I was there' blah de blah?
Though, I'm not sure, is Rachel a medical woman? I thought not, but the 'attitude' could've rubbed off on her...
Nastier bunch of so called 'decent people' would be hard to find. Again, IMHO, of course

1. Replying to Bebootje, I understand the basis for your suggested sequence of events on 3 May, but there are so many indications that something had already happened to Madeleine before that evening that I think we can discard that. It would for example amount to a claim that Madeleine died between 8.30pm and around 9.00pm and that Jane Tanner immediately went to her apartment and concocted her story about 'bundleman'

2. Looking at Rachael Oldfield's statements, while it is possible that her daughter was suffering from diarrhoea as she claims, I am inclined to look on all the Tapas 9's statements about the claimed checking as lies. I think there is evidence - as discussed on the recent 'Sunday 29th' thread for example - that the children were all looked after by one of the group each night, and there was no checking in place at all.

I now reproduce three statements by Rachael Oldfield, the first two in her rogatory interviews, the third in a BBC TV programme sometime during 2007 - I've highlighted a few passages in blue:

ROGATORY - 1st extract

1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

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 of 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’ve 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”.

ROGATORY - 2nd extract

"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".

THE TV INTERVIEW WITH RACHAEL OLDFIELD

(Note this is my own rough transcription, there may be a few words wrong...there may be a better version on mccannfiles for example) Rachel Oldfield)

I was there on the night

I spent time with Kate and Gerry during the week

You know, both before the (debate ?) and afterwards

You know, their relations and reactions which were just agonising

There was just no way they were involved in anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance

Now, if you take the commons sense approach as well and just look, you know, at the timings of how things happened and the fact that they’re both medics

There were four other medics in the group - they would know what to do to resuscitate a child (….?)

Anyone with an ounce of commons sense would be able to say that they couldn’t have done it

I was there and I know they didn’t do it

QUESTION You know there a lot of people, possibly including the police, certainly including a lot of bloggers, who have suspicions about your group and have written all sort of things about potential conspiracy theories and so on, what do you say to them?

Yeah, you know, it’s outrageous

We’ve all felt very angry about it

We were asked to comply with the Portuguese judicial secrecy laws

Which we given to understand that means years in prison for speaking out

There have been all these rumours flying around

So as a group we’ve not been able to speak out from day one

There were all these leaks from the PJ

And we haven’t been able to refute them

It’s their legal system

We would have loved to have really spoken out and put the record straight – but we were asked not to

But it’s their legal process, their legal system…we thought that was the best way of finding Madeleine

If we co-operated with the police and complied with their rules and regulations

COMMENTS:

A. A question arises as to why Rachael Oldfield mentions (a) a possible bump on the head and (b) te need for resuscitation. She does this twice in the two interviews

B. I think the reference to 'it' may be significant. RO says "They couldn’t have done it" and "I know they didn’t do it". Why does she not say for example: "I know they weren't involved in Madeleine's abduction", or "There was no reason for them to think that Madeleine was i nany danger of being abducted". Why does she refer - twice - to 'it'?

C. Compare RO's statement with a curiously similar statement from Dr Kate McCann. I think it went: "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances...".

D. What is the 'it' they are referring to? It is suggestive of a sudden, unforeseen event. These possibilities spring to mind: (i) losing consciousness or dying through over-sedation (ii) an accident, perhaps a fall in which she banged her head, or (iii) a violent event in which someone assaulted Madeleine.

Tony, thank you for providing these interviews - I totally agree with your conclusions.
Most regular posters will be aware of my love of and interest in forensic linguistics! This certainly suggests Ms Oldfield's brain is desperately trying to 'leak' the truth (like Kate).

rainbow-fairy wrote:Tony, thank you for providing these interviews - I totally agree with your conclusions.
Most regular posters will be aware of my love of and interest in forensic linguistics! This certainly suggests Ms Oldfield's brain is desperately trying to 'leak' the truth (like Kate).

Yes, this is a very interesting suggestion - that despite a prodigious effort to cover up the truth, the brain somehow 'leaks' the truth, via the sub-conscious, either as you say through the words actually used, or of course by body language and gestures, like shaking of the head whilst asserting something, like avoiding eye contact, like nervous twitching, like scratching one's ear, etc.

Other clues include rapid speech when facing a difficult question, or unusually long-winded answers to simple questions.

And one of my personal favourites, as it crops up so often, saying "I would have done x' instead of 'I did x'.

rainbow-fairy, are you able perhaps to post up some links to some good quality articles on forensic linguistics?

I have to say that this does come across quite clearly that Ms Oldfield's brain is desperately trying to 'leak' the truth. Its like she is saying what happened reading what you've just posted up