The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


RE that Southampton man conversation

View previous topic View next topic Go down

RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by LombardySkeptik on 13.09.14 1:16

Much has been written already about the bizarre focus on not being able to photograph the children etc conversation
 
This took place on the Thursday morning after mini-tennis so between 1030 and noon
I have read that Kate wrote about it in "the bewk" but have not read that, while clearly both RO'B and JT think it an important event as they spend some time on it
 
There is a Query below but for background I have taken some relevant quotes from various rogatory statements – edited only to remove various erms, etc – 4078 is the police questioner – reply is the Tapas reply
 
JT Rogatory
 
 
“But then on the Thursday another group of children came down for their tennis lesson and that’s when Russell and this other person was there with the video camera.  Because just going backwards, I’m thinking Russell dropped Ella off and then came to watch us finishing our tennis lesson with Evie, because Evie didn’t go to the Kids Club.  And after our tennis lesson that day another group of children came down for their tennis lesson, so”.
4078    “Not Madeleine?”
Reply    “Not Madeleine and Ella, no, another group.  And we sort of just watched them starting and that’s when the conversation with this other person with the video camera, because he was taking pictures of his daughter”.
4078    “Are you sure that it was his daughter?”
Reply    “I’m absolutely.  It definitely was his daughter, yes, yeah”.
4078    “So it was not sort of a stranger we have got with a video camera?”
Reply    “No, no, I think he was actually on our flight out, so we had actually spoken to him during the week.  .................................“So, yeah, so we had, erm, the tennis lesson finished, so I’ve had that conversation about ‘Isn’t it awful you can’t watch your daughter’, blah, blah, blah, ‘You can’t film your own daughter’.  And then we (JT and RO'B) walked down to the beach with Evie
 
 
RO'B Rogatory
 
 
"‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.
..................
And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’ or maybe just extending that, you know, ‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’ maybe just to make it a bit more explicit, because that’s what he said, you know, he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know, ‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.
1578    “’The way things are these days you feel like a’?”
Reply    “Yeah, you know, it, it was, it was a, it wasn’t just a ‘Oh I feel a bit dirty taking this’”.
1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’?”
Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him
 
1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were?
 
Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael
--------------------------------------------
 
 
It is generally recognised that ROB, JT, Kate, and Rachel Oldfield were there (although Rachel Oldfield says little about this)
 
 
The KEY Question is
Why would Martin Oldfield claim to be there (unnoticed by the others ---even his best man RO'B)
 
MO states this quite clearly in his Rogatory
 
“Reply "No, I mean, there was nobody that gave you a particularly bad feeling. Erm, I mean, there was one incident where somebody, and I think Russell mentioned, might have mentioned it, about somebody that was videoing and doing pictures of kids, and I remember being there at the time and the video and everything and was sort of speaking to them, but I don't, you know, I didn't really know them, I didn't get any particular vibes, they had children, they had a video camera".
 
Even queerer ---- he can be in two places at once - as he was sailing that morning as he states later on about his Thursday morning movements
 
 
"and I stayed with Russell and went back in for breakfast, because I was going to go down to the beach and sail because they had, erm, either a sailing or a wind surfing, I think they had sailing that morning, so I was going to go down and go sailing, that’s what we’d agreed that I would do. ....... And so I went back in with Russell and E**a and E**e and we had breakfast and then we walked back together and we, Russell had to take E**a and E**e, erm, so he dropped E**a off at the, at her Nursery area which was separate from where we drop G***e, and then he went on and I turned left and went down to the beach and went sailing for that morning.
 
 
So again - WHY would MO invent his attendance at a meeting and conversation where none of his friends saw him, when by all other accounts including his own -- he was sailing???
 
[Apologies if this has been asked and answered elsewhere  – feel free to enlighten me if this is the case]

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 12:54

I think this is a real 'hot potato'. Kate writes about the incident in her book, claiming the man approached the group and told them he felt like a dirty old man filming his daughter playing mini-tennis.

Which, imo, is a nonsensical thing for a father who is innocently taking video-footage of his 3 year old daughter taking part in an activity at a kid's mini club on holidays. I cannot ever imagine a 'normal' parent saying something like that. I've spent hours at events that children (my own and other people's) were taking part in - sports, plays, ballet, activity camps - and not once have I ever heard a parent claim that taking a photo or filming their child 'made them feel like a dirty old man/woman'.

It's just a completely weird thing to say.

So I strongly believe that the Southampton father - Nigel, I think someone says is his name - never said that at all.

What I think happened - and it is backed up by at least one rogatory statement (which I have written about before - I will try to dig it up) is that Nigel approached the  TM group one of whom was filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis.

Nigel told the group - or the person in the group who was doing the filming of his daughter - that their filming of his daughter in that way was making him uncomfortable. In other words, Nigel was suspicious about their behaviour to the extent that it made him uneasy. He distrusted their motives.


In a rogatory statement - one of the very early ones - Russell is questioned about this by police. I presume that what happened was that Nigel told police about the incident and police then questioned the group, and Russell specifically. The account given by Russell is confusing and evasive (although some of the meaning may have been 'lost in translation'.) But it does appear that Russell is obliged to agree that he or members of the TM group were filming. But when asked by police about a video-recorder, Russell claims he did not see one.

This is despite Kate in her book claiming that Nigel was video-recording his own daughter!

So what I think must have happened is that someone or several people in the group were filming Nigel's daughter in a manner that was odd. Given that this happened on Thursday morning (Nigel being an independent - from the sounds of it - eye witness) I assume that *something* had already happened to Madeleine by then. And the group were in panic-mode and maybe trying to get footage of three/four year old girls playing mini-tennis in an attempt to 'prove' that Madeleine was alive and well during the kids' club mini tennis session.

But given that, according to Kate's book, Madeleine's kids' club group played mini-tennis on Tuesday 1st May in the morning, then that does raise the question as to whether *something* had already happened to her by Tuesday morning. Especially when you consider that the 'tennis ball' photo of Madeleine allegedly taken by Kate on Tuesday morning is just so peculiar. Apart from anything, she is not wearing trainers. We know Madeleine had trainers with her, and I would be surprised if she were allowed to play in sandals. Plus the tennis balls she are holding are not the type usually used in children's mini-tennis.

So I think that the group, on Thursday morning, were trying to get footage of girls playing mini-tennis which they might be able to pass off as Madeleine playing tennis on the Tuesday with her group. But so peculiar and suspicious was their behaviour that it aroused the suspicions of one of the fathers.

The entire group then tried to sanitize the event. But managed to come up with different versions. Kate claims it was Nigel 'feeling like a dirty old man'. Russell gives different accounts of this incident but eventually lines up his story with Kate's. And Matt, too, manages to give conflicting accounts of where he was that morning.

So, based on this, I do believe that *something* had already happened to Madeleine by Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant she could not participate in playing mini-tennis with her kids' club group on Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant there could be no photos of Madeleine from at least Tuesday morning.

Which then takes a time-frame back to Monday night. Mrs Fenn hears crying coming from the McCann apartment for an hour and a quarter. Crying which escalates.

That's when *something* happened, imo. Not necessarily death but a serious incident. (I think other untoward things may have gone on too, but Monday evening was catastrophic, imo).

Theorizing, as always.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 13:35

So, based on this, I do believe that *something* had already happened to Madeleine by Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant she could not participate in playing mini-tennis with her kids' club group on Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant there could be no photos of Madeleine from at least Tuesday morning.

Which then takes a time-frame back to Monday night. Mrs Fenn hears crying coming from the McCann apartment for an hour and a quarter. Crying which escalates.

That's when *something* happened, imo. Not necessarily death but a serious incident. (I think other untoward things may have gone on too, but Monday evening was catastrophic, imo).

Theorizing, as always.

----------

On reflection *something* may have happened even before Monday evening. Kate gives no account of daytime activities on the Monday at all in her book, which is a little odd. She writes about making her 'first foray' to Baptista with Jane to stock up on essentials as the next day was a public holiday..

She does write that the apartment was cleaned on Monday and Wednesday. So that presumably means that the cleaner went into their apartment on the Monday? I wonder if the cleaner also went in on Wednesday? I think there are comments somewhere about the cleaner having noted beds slept in/not slept in

In which case, what was the crying incident as heard by Mrs Fenn on Monday evening? Well, it could still have been Madeleine, even if *something* had happened earlier that day or earlier during the holiday. (This is not a very nice thought.)

 It could possibly have been Kate crying out 'Maddie' - if something bad had already happened to her. Or it could have been one of the twins crying out 'Maddie' or 'Daddy'. 

If, as some have postulated, it was Kate crying out 'Maddie', then does that possibly mean that the crying stopped abruptly when another adult (Gerry? Or another of the Tapas checking on Kate?) entered the apartment at 11.45pm?

Could that possibly account for why Kate, in her book, makes a thing about Madeleine not responding to 'Maddie', even though it is clear that she was known as Maddie?




j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by LombardySkeptik on 13.09.14 14:30

Hi J.Rob
Yes its an odd one - You did post about it in the Game over thread (Page 31)- and I didn't wish to go too much into the oddness per se and indeed if this is part of a distraction for an earlier eventful day of (my thoughts remain either Wed/Thusday rather than earlier in the week)




This conversation and any significance would seem important to the Tapas crowd - for some reason
My take on the Rogatories (from JT and RO'B) were that they both were covering each others statements - and were prompted by the Leicester police in doing so

But why MO would (unasked) volunteer his knowledge of and attendance at this conversation is bizarre (and the failure to be pressed on his contradictory whereabouts disappointing)

It would seem expected that ROB and JT would know about each others statements but how would MO know what they may say

It all seems a bit coordinated to me (how and when i.e., at that time in April 2008, or earlier, ? November 2007 Rothley) - but the exact purpose is unclear (to me) and why MO would pipe up is odd - it wasn't to cover up for Rachel -- who is vague and wrong in her description of that Thursday morning (suggesting if you remember that Madeleine was playing tennis that day rather than the Tuesday) and who makes no mention of Nigel at all even though she was there - (thats the quasi lawyer in her). I think this was another "helpful" mistake by MO

It remains however a clear and striking example of  potential key discrepancies and willful red-herringness (unrelated - in time - to the later checking/abduction scenes)

Indeed -- this aspect has (for me) always ranked up there with the - did FP visit kate at 7 pm that Thursday (i.e. that would be after DP) issue - of course she did not state that in her 2008 Rogatory - but was cited as saying so by Leicester police in her 2007 statements (and of course this was also the 5 PM DP time given) as outined here


"I  have carefully read the written questionnaire that was handed over by David Payne, but I was unable to extract any other information apart from what is already known.

He states that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 5 pm on the 3rd of May, 2007, in the McCanns’ apartment. Kate and Gerry were equally present then. He did not state the reason why he was in the apartment at that time, or what they were doing. He does not state for how long he stayed there, either.
I have again examined Fiona Payne’s information. In her statement, she says that she went to the McCanns’ apartment at around 7 pm on the 3rd of May, along with Kate. She states that the husband arrived 10 minutes later; it is unclear what husband she is referring to, whether it’s Gerry or her own husband.

Her replies to the written questionnaire are vague, as she replies to the questions saying “according to my statement” or using a similar expression."

See http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/01/gaspar-statements-cover-letter-from.html

These are the pegs upon which JT/ROB, MO/RO, and DP/FP should be hung up and out to dry upon

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by palm tree on 13.09.14 15:40

Was it not Tuesday Mrs Fenn heard the crying? It's looking like Wednesday night that something went wrong when you consider  the cot incident.
IMO

____________________
Fight for Madeleine
avatar
palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.09.14 17:04

DP: He states that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 5 pm on the 3rd of May, 2007, in the McCanns’ apartment.
--------------------------------------------

I have pointed this out NUMEROUS times!

D Payne WAS at the BEACH from 4pm til going back with R O'B/MO AFTER the beach cafe 'treat'.

AT 6:15pm.

So how DCI Mahogany, and 37 'elite' Maddie Cops  at OG can NOT 'see' this blatant 'discrepancy' is way beyond any understanding of my LOGIC!

I should have added: "Of course they have SEEN it, but it's not in their REMIT, to er, pursue that PARTICULAR 'line of inquiry'

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1665
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 17:35

@jeanmonroe wrote:DP: He states that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 5 pm on the 3rd of May, 2007, in the McCanns’ apartment.
--------------------------------------------

I have pointed this out NUMEROUS times!

D Payne WAS at the BEACH from 4pm til going back with R O'B/MO AFTER the beach cafe 'treat'.

AT 6:15pm.

So how DCI Mahogany, and 37 'elite' Maddie Cops  at OG can NOT 'see' this blatant 'discrepancy' is way beyond any understanding of my LOGIC!


Yes, yet another attempt at placing Madeleine as alive and well and everything being fine chez Mc apartment 5A at bath time on Thursday 3rd May!

Yes, sorry evening of Tuesday 1st May - crying incident as heard by Mrs Fenn.

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8609-statement-of-mrs-fenn

Hmmmm.......

But why the need for the 'fake' tennis ball photo allegedly taken on Tuesday morning - so BEFORE the crying incident as heard by Pamela Fenn? 

What was going on on Sunday 29th and Monday 30th April? Very little detail on the day time activities in Kate's book.

How come the press reported the McCanns being in Sagres on, I believe, 30th April? Yet Kate makes no mention of this in her book? Why? This has to  be a big red flag surely?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1581-the-mccanns-family-trip-to-sagres-30th-april

So what happened? Either the McCanns were SUPPOSED to be in Sagres that day but, for some reason, didn't or couldn't go. But the press reported it anyone, which suggests that this was part of a pre-written 'script'.

Or, the McCanns DID go to Sagres that day, as reported by the press, but later on decided to pretend that they hadn't gone. Hence no mention of it in their blogs or in Kate's book. 

And what a strange coincidence (or not!) that on the day before, on Sunday 29th April, a father on the beach at Sagres spotted a suspicious-looking couple taking photos of his three year old daughter who looked remarkably like Madeleine.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm

Yet in this newspaper report, from 22nd July 08, it is claimed that it was on the same day that the McCanns went to Sagres that Nuno Lourenco spotted the suspicious couple photographing his 3 year old child!

Not a single word about this suspicious couple in Kate's book. How odd!

The McCanns' day trip to pretty Sagres, 16 miles along the coast from Praia da Luz, coincided with
reports of a balding man and a blonde woman taking sneaky pictures of youngsters.
The sinister couple have become prime suspects in the hunt for missing Madeleine.
A holidaymaker grew suspicious of them after the man began secretly snapping youngsters on the beach. When challenged, he fled in a car with the woman.
Officers have now officially ended the ground search for missing Madeleine and are concentrating on evidence from witnesses.
The McCanns are believed to have visited Sagres -which is on the country's southwest tip and effectively the "Land's End" of mainland Europe -on Monday, April 30.
A shopkeeper in the town said she remembered them well.
She said: "On the road into the town, Kate was holding Madeleine's hand. On the other side of the road was Gerry with a baby buggy.
"I remember thinking it odd to see him with a baby buggy because I thought the little girl was too old to need one."
She said it was the same day as the stranger taking photographs, although other witnesses said that happened two days later.
Either way, it seems possible that Madeleine's abductor was watching the beach at Sagres for some time.
Holidaymaker Nuno Lourenco, who is from Sagres but now lives in Germany, was sitting at a cafe with his German wife and their two children when he noticed a man taking pictures of his four-year-old blonde daughter and other children.
He became so concerned at his behaviour that he took his own picture of the man - who was balding with long hair at the back - on his mobile phone.
The picture is believed to have inspired Portuguese detectives to produce their infamous
"egg with hair" photofit of a suspect with a blank face and side-parted hair.
It was also reported that police have identified two people caught on CCTV at a local petrol station as being a couple renting a holiday apartment in the chocolate-box village of Burgau, four miles along the coast.
A blonde woman with shoulder-length hair and a man with middle-parted hair, both about 40, ate breakfast on their terrace of the Solimar
Apartments, according to the Portuguese press.
However, the apartment block in question was deserted and neighbours said they knew nothing about it.
Other holidaymakers were also interviewed, with two men and a woman being taken away still in their swimsuits from the Mark Warner complex where Madeleine vanished on Thursday last week.
The reason for the urgency in not allowing them to get dressed was not clear, but they were not arrested and were being interviewed as witnesses rather than suspects.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454261/Did-Madeleines-abductor-target-familys-visit-remote-village.html#ixzz3DDL8UkOn 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


http://minnea.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/1st-key-sighting.html

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 17:49


j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by jeanmonroe on 13.09.14 17:57

'LAST TIME PAYNE SAW MADELEINE IN MCCANNS APARTMENT AT 5PM"? (SO PAYNE TOLD LEICESTER POLICE)

I DON'T THINK SO!

EVEN PAYNE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AND SAYS HE SAW MADELEINE IN THEIR APARTMENT AT 6:30PM AFTER GM ASKS HIM TO CHECK ON KM AND KIDS!

1485 "Yeah, what sort of time, excuse me it's getting a warm in here, what sort of time was that that you saw them''
Reply "You know I'd say, I'd say you know roughly around three o' clock but very roughly.'

1485 "Yeah very roughly.'
Reply "Err you know I, generally our girls slept in the afternoon say between two and four and err so that'd be the time that I'd have gone out there and I was out there for a couple of hours you know err the, I've done a great deal of windsurfing and you know the conditions were very good.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Err so as I say we were out there for a couple of, I was out there for a couple of hours.'

1485 "So the girls went to bed at, woke up about four, so you think it would have been after four that you'd have gone down to the beach then''
00:25:34 Reply "Err well no because I mean like usually like while they were asleep it's a good time to do you know activities and you know someone could stay behind, look after the children so err Fiona, and I think Dianne, had both stayed behind and you know I said well I'll go get a, get a''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "A windsurf.'

1485 "Right. So did you walk down to the beach on your own then''
Reply "Yes, as far as I remember I think Matt and Russ had gone, gone already, gone down before me.'

1485 "And did you see anybody on your way down''
Reply "Err''

1485 "Your group or other''
Reply "I can't remember.'

1485 "And when you got down to the beach was the beach busy''
Reply "Err not, not horrendously, no. I mean there was some other windsurfers there err you know I remember when I was out windsurfing you know seeing other people windsurfing as well.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "But you know, again, it wasn't particularly busy.'

1485 "How long do you think you stayed out there for''
Reply "I think I was probably out there the best part of a couple of hours.'

1485 "So we're saying around about six o' clock ish, would that be about right''
Reply "Err well I mean we were probably, as I say, windsurfing I was windsurfing around two to four o' clock, then we had the girls come down so there was some playing on the beach.'

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Then we went for something to eat and then we left the err restaurant and err you know, I hadn't got a watch on me, I hadn't you know I hadn't got a mobile, all we had was the camera which you know as I say the time on that suggests that we left the restaurant err you know after six o' clock, so you know just working backwards''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "The time that I thought we'd finished you know''

1485 "Yeah.'

00:27:23 Reply "Water sports would be around four o' clock, then a bit of time on the beach and then you know your meal, which would take an hour, which seems to fit in with the, you know the timescale of events.'

1485 "So who did you leave on the beach when you, when you walked up''
Reply "When, when we left we didn't leave from the beach we left from the err restaurant.'

AFTER 6:00PM!

SO, PAYNE WAS AT BEACH AT 5PM WHEN HE SAYS 'HE SAW MADELEINE, FOR THE LAST TIME', IN MCCANNS APARTMENT AT 5PM!

THEN HE SAYS HE "LAST SEES HER, ER,........ AGAIN!" IN MCCANN APARTMENT AT 6:30pm!

AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER!

GEEZ DEADWOOD, HOW DID YOU EVER GET TO BE A DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR, IF YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THESE BLATANT 'INCONSTANCIES' BY PAYNE?

I CAN SEE THEM AND I'M A DITZY BLONDE!

GROW A PAIR AND DO THE JOB YOU'RE PAID TO DO BY, ME, A UK TAXPAYER, WHO PAYS YOUR WAGES!

GO AND 'FEEL' DP'S COLLAR....TODAY, YOU EFFING TO**ER!

AND WHEN YOU DO 'FEEL' HIS COLLAR YOU MIGHT LIKE TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE 'FEW THINGS THAT HE KNOWS, AND CONSIDERS RELEVENT AND PERTINENT TO ESTABLISH THE MATERIAL TRUTH, ABOUT A THREE YEARS OLD CHILD'S 'DISAPPEARANCE'

1485 "Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth''

D PAYNE reply "Err the, THERE ARE a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up.'

HE WOULDN'T TELL THE LEICESTER POLICE!

HE MIGHT TELL YOU!

I WON'T HOLD BY BREATH THOUGH!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1665
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 20:09

Indeed.

So according to detectives (article linked up thread) the McCann family were in Sagres on Monday 30th April.

According to the McCanns they were in a routine at the Ocean Club that day which involved breakfasting at the apartment, dropping children off at their clubs. Having lunch at the apartment, then dropping the children back at their clubs. No mention of going to Sagres at all at this time.

According to an eye-witness who gave a report to police, on Sunday 29th April a suspicious couple took covert photographs of his three year old daughter who looked very like Madeleine at the beach at Sagres. As well as photos of other children. This suspicious couple are not mentioned in Kate's book at all. Police trace the couple back to an apartment where DNA findings have possible links with Jane Tanner and Murat.

According to the newspaper article, a shopkeeper saw the McCanns in Sagres on Monday 30th April with Madeleine. Gerry was pushing an empty buggy, which she thought was strange as Madeleine looked too old to need a buggy (she does not mention seeing the twins.)

According to the newspaper article, the shopkeeper who says she saw the McCanns on Monday 30th April in Sagres thinks this was the same day that the eye-witness father caught the suspicious couple photographing his child who looked like Madeleine. 

But, according to the article, other witnesses say that the suspicious photographing incident was two days later than the McCann visit to Sagres on the Monday  - which would be Wednesday 2nd May.  

Also, possibly of interest is that the suspicious (Polish apparently) photographing couple were caught on cctv at a cafe belonging to a relative of Robert Murats. They arrived in the Algarve on a flight from Berlin on Saturday 28th April - the same day as the Mc Team arrived in the Algarve.


A busy week, methinks.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 13.09.14 20:15

As confirmed by Kate in one of the early TV interviews, when asked why she and Gerry didn't think about physically searching for Madeleine themselves on the night she allegedly 'was taken':

Long pause......."we'd been very busy."

I guess by Thursday night they needed a bit of a rest poor things.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Guest on 14.09.14 9:22

@jeanmonroe wrote:
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "Then we went for something to eat and then we left the err restaurant and err you know, I hadn't got a watch on me, I hadn't you know I hadn't got a mobile, all we had was the camera which you know as I say the time on that suggests that we left the restaurant err you know after six o' clock, so you know just working backwards''

1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "The time that I thought we'd finished you know''

1485 "Yeah.'

00:27:23 Reply "Water sports would be around four o' clock, then a bit of time on the beach and then you know your meal, which would take an hour, which seems to fit in with the, you know the timescale of events.'

1485 "So who did you leave on the beach when you, when you walked up''
Reply "When, when we left we didn't leave from the beach we left from the err restaurant.'

AFTER 6:00PM!

But remember, Hinge and Bracket have spoken - there are NO inconsistencies in the T7 statements.

I was thinking about this the other day - So you've done two hours windsurfing, had a meal (possibly with alcohol), you get back to your complex and while passing the tennis courts your mate asks you not only to join in the game but to look in on his missus on your way to or from getting your gear on. You have plans for an evening meal (definitely with alcohol) in barely two hour's time. What do you do?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by LombardySkeptik on 15.09.14 0:31

I included the DP/FP change in statements (from Oct 2007 to April 2008) as another striking example of contradictions or complete switches

But in this post I was more interested in folks thoughts as to why Martin Oldfield may have wished to Flag up this odd conversation and even inventing his inclusion in it to justify him bringing it up
What may the significance of the conversation be (or is it merely to explain the lack of holiday snaps!)

LombardySkeptik

Posts : 80
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Okeydokey on 15.09.14 1:30

@j.rob wrote:I think this is a real 'hot potato'. Kate writes about the incident in her book, claiming the man approached the group and told them he felt like a dirty old man filming his daughter playing mini-tennis.

Which, imo, is a nonsensical thing for a father who is innocently taking video-footage of his 3 year old daughter taking part in an activity at a kid's mini club on holidays. I cannot ever imagine a 'normal' parent saying something like that. I've spent hours at events that children (my own and other people's) were taking part in - sports, plays, ballet, activity camps - and not once have I ever heard a parent claim that taking a photo or filming their child 'made them feel like a dirty old man/woman'.

It's just a completely weird thing to say.

So I strongly believe that the Southampton father - Nigel, I think someone says is his name - never said that at all.

What I think happened - and it is backed up by at least one rogatory statement (which I have written about before - I will try to dig it up) is that Nigel approached the  TM group one of whom was filming Nigel's daughter playing mini-tennis.

Nigel told the group - or the person in the group who was doing the filming of his daughter - that their filming of his daughter in that way was making him uncomfortable. In other words, Nigel was suspicious about their behaviour to the extent that it made him uneasy. He distrusted their motives.


In a rogatory statement - one of the very early ones - Russell is questioned about this by police. I presume that what happened was that Nigel told police about the incident and police then questioned the group, and Russell specifically. The account given by Russell is confusing and evasive (although some of the meaning may have been 'lost in translation'.) But it does appear that Russell is obliged to agree that he or members of the TM group were filming. But when asked by police about a video-recorder, Russell claims he did not see one.

This is despite Kate in her book claiming that Nigel was video-recording his own daughter!

So what I think must have happened is that someone or several people in the group were filming Nigel's daughter in a manner that was odd. Given that this happened on Thursday morning (Nigel being an independent - from the sounds of it - eye witness) I assume that *something* had already happened to Madeleine by then. And the group were in panic-mode and maybe trying to get footage of three/four year old girls playing mini-tennis in an attempt to 'prove' that Madeleine was alive and well during the kids' club mini tennis session.

But given that, according to Kate's book, Madeleine's kids' club group played mini-tennis on Tuesday 1st May in the morning, then that does raise the question as to whether *something* had already happened to her by Tuesday morning. Especially when you consider that the 'tennis ball' photo of Madeleine allegedly taken by Kate on Tuesday morning is just so peculiar. Apart from anything, she is not wearing trainers. We know Madeleine had trainers with her, and I would be surprised if she were allowed to play in sandals. Plus the tennis balls she are holding are not the type usually used in children's mini-tennis.

So I think that the group, on Thursday morning, were trying to get footage of girls playing mini-tennis which they might be able to pass off as Madeleine playing tennis on the Tuesday with her group. But so peculiar and suspicious was their behaviour that it aroused the suspicions of one of the fathers.

The entire group then tried to sanitize the event. But managed to come up with different versions. Kate claims it was Nigel 'feeling like a dirty old man'. Russell gives different accounts of this incident but eventually lines up his story with Kate's. And Matt, too, manages to give conflicting accounts of where he was that morning.

So, based on this, I do believe that *something* had already happened to Madeleine by Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant she could not participate in playing mini-tennis with her kids' club group on Tuesday morning. *Something* that meant there could be no photos of Madeleine from at least Tuesday morning.

Which then takes a time-frame back to Monday night. Mrs Fenn hears crying coming from the McCann apartment for an hour and a quarter. Crying which escalates.

That's when *something* happened, imo. Not necessarily death but a serious incident. (I think other untoward things may have gone on too, but Monday evening was catastrophic, imo).

Theorizing, as always.

This is a very interesting theory J.Rob which I think deserves to be highlighted.

The whole incident is one of those I place under the suspicious coincidence category. In and of themselves they might just be abberations/coincidents/bizarre events, but put them together and you have a real WTF collection. As far as I can see, we have a very long list of such events in relation to the Tapas 9 holiday.

I still, however, a problem with the Holiday Club register...those entries have to be explained.



Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Okeydokey on 15.09.14 1:37

MO is what judges call "an unreliable witness". We know that because he claimed to be able to discern the rise and fall of tiny infants'  breathing in semi darkness at a distance of some 8 feet, through the mesh sides of the cots.  It is such an absurd claim as to render ALL his evidence unreliable. We are at perfect liberty to doubt all his evidence if the facts seem to call for doubt.

In this instance, they do appear to call for doubt.

Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Doug D on 15.09.14 8:39

Face down, lying on their tummies, iirc

Doug D

Posts : 2575
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 17.09.14 13:17

@Okeydokey wrote:MO is what judges call "an unreliable witness". We know that because he claimed to be able to discern the rise and fall of tiny infants'  breathing in semi darkness at a distance of some 8 feet, through the mesh sides of the cots.  It is such an absurd claim as to render ALL his evidence unreliable. We are at perfect liberty to doubt all his evidence if the facts seem to call for doubt.

In this instance, they do appear to call for doubt.


WHY does Matt Oldfield make this claim? 

If the first eye-witness reports of a 'commotion' are accurate in terms of timing, then the alarm was raised in terms of a child gone missing at OC well before 10pm, and in fact even before 9.30pm. There are several staff at the resort that claimed they heard 'a commotion' as early as 9.15pm - 9.25pm. 

So, imo, this is when the alarm was 'supposed' to have been raised. The shutters were 'supposed' to have been jemmied.

So - what happened? Either who-ever was supposed to jemmy the shutters was interrupted and couldn't do it. But didn't report back to base. 

Or - someone bailed out of jemmying shutters, for whatever reason. And maybe bailed out of other jobs as well. Or perhaps wanted to sabotage or abort 'the plan' for whatever reason.

So the 9.30pm Matt visit was introduced. But Matt will not say that he saw Madeleine. Thereby raising the question that she had already 'been taken'. But what he WILL say is that he saw the twins breathing. Given that at this stage in the evening Matt is supposedly oblivious to Madeleine's 'abduction', you would think that there would be no reason for him to be checking that the twins were breathing.

His 'brief' was to ensure that the children were all settled and asleep, surely? Not to check that the twins were breathing?

So what is going on here? Could it be that, given that Kate has told us that the twins were probably sedated, he was providing cover in the event that the twins had been taken to hospital and checked out? And maybe had been found to have been sedated? And not by a mystery random abductor either? 

And/or could it be that the breathing, or not breathing, of young children (a child?) was something of a sensitive topic area? One young child maybe had already stopped breathing, or was not breathing properly, by this stage. And Matt is covering his back in the event that a further calamity ensues. Threatening to blow everything out of the water.

Jane Tanner, as others have suggested, invented Tannerman not so much to protect the Mcs as to protect her partner Russell O'Brien whose specific area of medical expertise relates to acute emergency medicine.

An area of medicine that may well have been of significance in this case. Suppose it was found that Madeleine had needed emergency treatment but that this had been delayed, not carried out or not adequate? How would that look when the care of young children that holiday was in the hands of a group of doctors? At least one of whom had expertise in acute emergency medicine and resuscitation, for instance.

The addition of the Matt 9.30pm 'check' is certainly an oddity. Rather like Jane Tanner's 9.15pm 'sighting' of Tannerman at pretty much the precise time that Jez Wilkins and his pram allegedly bump into Gerry outside the apartment.

IMO the performance was due to begin at between 9pm and 9.15pm. But curtains up was delayed. And a potential 'disaster' would have ensued had not Clarence Mitchell been dispatched (or already on the scene) to clean up the mess.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 17.09.14 13:57

And, talking of fellow guests reporting suspicious behaviour during that week at OC. It is on police record that Jez Wilkins reports to Portuguese police on Friday, the day after Madeleine disappeared, that between 7.30pm and 8pm on Thursday evening he saw a blonde 'rasta-man' behaving suspiciously in the Tapas restaurant at the OC club.

This person is, apparently, later identified by police as being Gerry's surfing buddy Mike Sperrey who is ruled out of the enquiry, apparently, because he is a fellow guest at the OC (ahem -where on earth is Inspector Clouseau when you need him??)

In later police reports made after his return to the UK, Jez claims he was not in the Tapas restaurant that evening. But stayed in the apartment to eat with his partner. But left his apartment for some time to push his baby around the resort in a pram to settle him. Which is how he bumped into Gerry outside the McCann apartment at 9.15pm (ish). 

Depending on which police report you read, Jez either omits rasta-man completely (the first report after he returns to England, I do believe). Or mentions him behaving suspiciously but this time in the toilets near the Tapas. Interesting, imo, that Jez  initially drops 'rasta-man' but then finds a way to reinstate 'rasta' in his revised version of events. Jez obviously cannot have spotted rasta acting suspiciously  in the tapas restaurant if Jez dined in his apartment that evening. But Jez overcomes this hurdle by claiming he spotted rasta when he visited the toilet near the Tapas bar as he was pushing his pram around the resort. And rasta appeared to be taking longer than might be usual.

Gerry McCann, Jez Wilkins and Mike Sperrey all seem to have been called short that evening what with these toilet visits! And I wonder how easy it was for Jez to fit him pram into the toilets near the Tapas bar? Or did he leave the pram outside?

Keystone Cops, anyone?

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.09.14 14:07

@j.rob wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:MO is what judges call "an unreliable witness". We know that because he claimed to be able to discern the rise and fall of tiny infants'  breathing in semi darkness at a distance of some 8 feet, through the mesh sides of the cots.  It is such an absurd claim as to render ALL his evidence unreliable. We are at perfect liberty to doubt all his evidence if the facts seem to call for doubt.

In this instance, they do appear to call for doubt.


WHY does Matt Oldfield make this claim? 

If the first eye-witness reports of a 'commotion' are accurate in terms of timing, then the alarm was raised in terms of a child gone missing at OC well before 10pm, and in fact even before 9.30pm. There are several staff at the resort that claimed they heard 'a commotion' as early as 9.15pm - 9.25pm. 

So, imo, this is when the alarm was 'supposed' to have been raised. The shutters were 'supposed' to have been jemmied.

So - what happened? Either who-ever was supposed to jemmy the shutters was interrupted and couldn't do it. But didn't report back to base. 

Or - someone bailed out of jemmying shutters, for whatever reason. And maybe bailed out of other jobs as well. Or perhaps wanted to sabotage or abort 'the plan' for whatever reason.

So the 9.30pm Matt visit was introduced. But Matt will not say that he saw Madeleine. Thereby raising the question that she had already 'been taken'. But what he WILL say is that he saw the twins breathing. Given that at this stage in the evening Matt is supposedly oblivious to Madeleine's 'abduction', you would think that there would be no reason for him to be checking that the twins were breathing.

His 'brief' was to ensure that the children were all settled and asleep, surely? Not to check that the twins were breathing?

So what is going on here? Could it be that, given that Kate has told us that the twins were probably sedated, he was providing cover in the event that the twins had been taken to hospital and checked out? And maybe had been found to have been sedated? And not by a mystery random abductor either? 

And/or could it be that the breathing, or not breathing, of young children (a child?) was something of a sensitive topic area? One young child maybe had already stopped breathing, or was not breathing properly, by this stage. And Matt is covering his back in the event that a further calamity ensues. Threatening to blow everything out of the water.

Jane Tanner, as others have suggested, invented Tannerman not so much to protect the Mcs as to protect her partner Russell O'Brien whose specific area of medical expertise relates to acute emergency medicine.

An area of medicine that may well have been of significance in this case. Suppose it was found that Madeleine had needed emergency treatment but that this had been delayed, not carried out or not adequate? How would that look when the care of young children that holiday was in the hands of a group of doctors? At least one of whom had expertise in acute emergency medicine and resuscitation, for instance.

The addition of the Matt 9.30pm 'check' is certainly an oddity. Rather like Jane Tanner's 9.15pm 'sighting' of Tannerman at pretty much the precise time that Jez Wilkins and his pram allegedly bump into Gerry outside the apartment.

IMO the performance was due to begin at between 9pm and 9.15pm. But curtains up was delayed. And a potential 'disaster' would have ensued had not Clarence Mitchell been dispatched (or already on the scene) to clean up the mess.
Yes, I'm with Okeydokey in thanking you j.rob for some very interesting ideas on 'Southampton man'.

Now, as regards Matt Oldfield's evidence, which is shot through with loads of problems, there was one aspect of his evidence, or about his evidence, which registered with me many years ago. I'm not sure I could find this easily now.

It amounts to this:

Either in one of his own statements, or in one by one of the friends, it is said that Matt Oldfield said at 9.30pm:

"I'll check on Madeleine for you".

Not:

"I'll check on the children for you".

I don't want to send anyone on a wild goose chase. But the significance of him claiming to have said that is I think fairly obvious

I have a distinct recollection of Matt or someone stating that these were the words he said.

I don't believe one single word of Matt Oldfield's testimony about this visit btw.

The idea, shown on the selective Crimewatch reconstruction on 14 October last year, that Kate and Matt stood up virtually side by side, with Kate stating "I'm going to check the children" and Matt replying: "No, no no, please let me do it" (or words to that effect) was just so ludicrous that it somehow, alone, cast doubt on the whole 'checking' story.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14901
Reputation : 2994
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by Doug D on 17.09.14 14:28

21. Dr Kate McCann claimed that Dr Oldfield said, at 9.30pm: "I'll check on Maddie for you". Why didn't he say: "I'll check on the children?" Why, when all three children were sleeping in the same room, as the McCanns have stated, did he only refer to checking on Madeleine?
 
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id363.html
 
Not what it says in KM’s statements or the bewk.
 
Must be a newspaper report or interview.

Doug D

Posts : 2575
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 17.09.14 16:44

In Kate's book, she records that Matt 'offered to look in on our three while he was there.'

This seems to me to be quite a desperate attempt by Kate to imply that all three McCann children were fine at 9.30pm on Thursday evening, when that was not the case. 

Otherwise, why not just say: 'I'll check on your kids', or something.

But I agree that everything that Matt has said is highly questionable (apart from noting the irony of searching along Cemetery Road on Thursday night). 

With regards to the Southampton man, this incident would have been so easy for police to verify. If his name, as reported in one of the rogatory statements I do believe, is Nigel and he has a three year old daughter who was in the kid's club that week, then it would be the simplest thing in the world to have tracked him down. As no doubt he was. 

And no doubt his version of events is on record somewhere. 

Who knows, perhaps Nigel DID get some video-footage of a mini tennis session in which his daughter was participating which might have included some or even ALL of the 'pretty, blonde pink' little girls that were in the kids' club? Perhaps Nigel's daughter was, despite what Kate wrote in her book, in the same group as Madeleine. And Nigel might have had photographic evidence that Madeleine was NOT where TM claimed she was that week. Or evidence that the girl who was supposed to be Madeleine in the creche was not, in fact, Madeleine McCann.

Just a thought. TM were pretty desperate to get hold of everyone's holiday snaps and films from that week to scrutinize them for incriminating evidence, oops sorry! I mean scrutinize them for clues as to 'the abduction'.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: RE that Southampton man conversation

Post by j.rob on 17.09.14 17:01

Snipped from the rogatory upthread:


So it was not sort of a stranger we have got with a video camera?”
Reply    “No, no, I think he was actually on our flight out, so we had actually spoken to him during the week.  .....


If we are to believe that Madeleine was on the flight out to Portugal (pretty much the only photographic 'evidence' that she was on that holiday is the footage of her boarding the plane and on the airport bus - if indeed that was her) then perhaps it is possible that Nigel made contact with TM and Madeleine on the flight/journey over. And if his daughter was a similar age to Madeleine it is possible that the two made contact on the plane or on the journey, as children often do. 


I just think it is so odd that TM record this incident and conversation in quite a bit of depth. And of course riddled with the usual inconsistencies. 


Did Nigel 'clock' something peculiar about TM from an early stage maybe? Perhaps he was keen for his daughter to make friends at the creche that week (as you are, especially if your child is not with siblings/friends) and noticed something strange in the Mcs behaviour?


If he had clocked oddities in TMs behaviour at an early stage then the filming incident (on Thursday, allegedly, but who knows when it was as Kate's book is hardly 'the gospel truth') may have freaked him out even more. 

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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