Re: Matt Oldfield's Alleged Last Check

by Hicks 27.02.14 20:49

Watching wrote:
Hicks wrote:When you look at it there were so many holes in the Tapas group official story, Take this one for example.........

Extract from Matt Oldfield statement 4th May 2007,

During the meal, it was usual that every 15 minutes an adult went to see if the children were sleeping.

Gerry McCann's version@ 4.14

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh dear!

If ever there was an interview that has guilty written all over it, it is this one Hicks. Some interviews they spatter with their lies, this one is wall to wall lies.
Emotions are mixed when viewing, their gall - their lies, bad attitude, Kate's bad acting, and the fact they sit there believing that the public are being taken in by this, angers. And when Mr tells us their friends v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y spoke with police as though they have done Madeleine some big favour, deserve a pat on the back. It makes me feel sick to the stomach, that this so called proud father can say that. He should have been kicking their arses back onto a a plane headed for Portugal to do a reconstruction, instead he sits there and praises them. It makes me feel both bloody angry - I would happily smack him in the mouth - and terribly terribly sad for the little girl that they care so little, and this footage demonstrates this, no question of that..

Agree. Puke making! At the start of the interview GM looks so smug. He really believes that he has a superior intellect, one that can outwit any opponent.
I would give anything to see that smug look wiped off his face.

by justathought 27.02.14 20:56

Many things really annoy me about the case. Not least Team MCCann and the media, taking us as fools. Think a classic example of this, is trying to portray that 15 minute "checks" were carried out.
To believe such a scenario, the Tapas9 were leaving the table on cue (without timekeeping aids, such as watches/'phones). The travel time to and through to the apartments, checking on the various children etc. would stack up (without including "pit stops"/watching the footie such as GM might or might not have done). You would end up with almost a veritable "Piccadilly Circus" of the Tapas9 bumping into each other as they left and returned to the dinner table. Factor into the equation, that when individuals drink alcohol there time-keeping may slip. The whole tale becomes highly unbelievable and suspect?

by travis macbickle 27.02.14 20:58

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes he does but he means it as a worst nightmare scenario which he thinks is less likely than Madeleine being taken and still being alive.

Travis: I've deleted both your replies as they could be libellous, apart from putting everyone off their supper.

no probs nfwtd,i thought i might have crossed the line. was trying to give an insight from the workingclass glaswegian male angle .will not happen again.

by justathought 27.02.14 21:08

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes he does but he means it as a worst nightmare scenario which he thinks is less likely than Madeleine being taken and still being alive.

Travis: I've deleted both your replies as they could be libellous, apart from putting everyone off their supper.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath"
am sure speaking out of turn. As unaware of the content of the post you deleted. Am sure you were particularly correct in doing so.
But please do not give a reason for a deletion, albeit a qualifier i.e. that it might have put someone off their supper.
Thanks

by justathought 27.02.14 21:12

travis macbickle wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes he does but he means it as a worst nightmare scenario which he thinks is less likely than Madeleine being taken and still being alive.

Travis: I've deleted both your replies as they could be libellous, apart from putting everyone off their supper.
no probs nfwtd,i thought i might have crossed the line. was trying to give an insight from the workingclass glaswegian male angle .will not happen again.

travis macbickle
Not sure what you posted. Were you quoting Rab C Nesbitt?!

by travis macbickle 27.02.14 21:18

justathought wrote:Many things really annoy me about the case. Not least Team MCCann and the media, taking us as fools. Think a classic example of this, is trying to portray that 15 minute "checks" were carried out.
To believe such a scenario, the Tapas9 were leaving the table on cue (without timekeeping aids, such as watches/'phones). The travel time to and through to the apartments, checking on the various children etc. would stack up (without including "pit stops"/watching the footie such as GM might or might not have done). You would end up with almost a veritable "Piccadilly Circus" of the Tapas9 bumping into each other as they left and returned to the dinner table. Factor into the equation, that when individuals drink alcohol there time-keeping may slip. The whole tale becomes highly unbelievable and suspect?

did you actually read the thread from hicks?mccann contradicts oldfields " 15mins" lies!

by travis macbickle 27.02.14 21:21

justathought wrote:
travis macbickle wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes he does but he means it as a worst nightmare scenario which he thinks is less likely than Madeleine being taken and still being alive.

Travis: I've deleted both your replies as they could be libellous, apart from putting everyone off their supper.
no probs nfwtd,i thought i might have crossed the line. was trying to give an insight from the workingclass glaswegian male angle .will not happen again.
travis macbickle
Not sure what you posted. Were you quoting Rab C Nesbitt?!

rab would sort gm out ,no doubt about that!

by russiandoll 28.02.14 8:29

Gerry has the kind of intellect which makes him able to think on his feet and he has the measure of the ever-sharp Sandra, who manages easily to get their backs up with her relevant and straight to the point, simple questions.

He knows that 15 minute checking scenario creates a crazy picture of constant movement where it would be obvious that there would be no way an unwitnessed abduction could take place, if you could envisage any abduction fitting into this timeline...hence his correction.

The only interviews this pair should be giving is in a police station.

note to self : re-watch how this little episode was played out on the CW programmes and did Redwood say on any of them, UK or abroad, that police thought that this might have been a pre-abduction rehearsal?

by Guest 28.02.14 8:42

justathought wrote:Many things really annoy me about the case. Not least Team MCCann and the media, taking us as fools. Think a classic example of this, is trying to portray that 15 minute "checks" were carried out.
To believe such a scenario, the Tapas9 were leaving the table on cue (without timekeeping aids, such as watches/'phones). The travel time to and through to the apartments, checking on the various children etc. would stack up (without including "pit stops"/watching the footie such as GM might or might not have done). You would end up with almost a veritable "Piccadilly Circus" of the Tapas9 bumping into each other as they left and returned to the dinner table. Factor into the equation, that when individuals drink alcohol there time-keeping may slip. The whole tale becomes highly unbelievable and suspect?

Yes, like in this clip except for the 'portaloos' read 'apartments'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by russiandoll 28.02.14 9:09

There is no comment on any pre- abduction rehearsal from the police or the Mcs as being behind Maddie's question. I note although Kate dismissed it, the actress looked very bothered by it.
Gerry simply said that after the " where were you ? " from his daughter, they made a mental note to REALLY check and that they would not want to think of the children waking and crying wondering where they were.

He then goes on to talk about the meal....interviewed we hear him mention that 30 minutes passed and he said " right, time for my check."

So what constituted REALLY CHECKING Looking as well as listening as he said in another TV piece, as that was the first night he had put his head inside the room?

Or more checks, with shorter gaps in between? Surely that was a way to ensure there would be little time for waking, crying and wondering where your Mummy and Daddy were?

Surely this means that the checks prior to 3rd were not even half-hourly, if 30 minute checks were the improvement they made? So not enough or half-hearted.

Interesting editing, I got quite miffed seeing that the resort they used showed a table and apartments in an enclosed area, as if they only had to negotiate the pool area to check the children and it also showed an apartment with the door to the children's room hinged on the wrong side.

Redwood spoke at length about the apartment and how it was outside the perimeter area of the pool and restaurant and the diagram clearly showed the distance from the bar and that the door opened the correct way, the beds and cots were all as they should have been according to the statements.
We also saw Tanner on a street.

The weather in the last photo shots was cloudy. Kate said it was sunny.

This could all be down to chance, when they were filming. Apartment not where 5a was located, could not be helped. Door on wrong side, could not be helped. Weather, could not be helped. So all the inaccuracies did not matter.

They would not matter if none of the events on 3rd happened as described.

Redwood repeatedly used the words disappearance and missing.

HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW.

He knows, you know.

by HelenMeg 28.02.14 9:46

russiandoll wrote:There is no comment on any pre- abduction rehearsal from the police or the Mcs as being behind Maddie's question. I note although Kate dismissed it, the actress looked very bothered by it.
Gerry simply said that after the " where were you ? " from his daughter, they made a mental note to REALLY check and that they would not want to think of the children waking and crying wondering where they were.

He then goes on to talk about the meal....interviewed we hear him mention that 30 minutes passed and he said " right, time for my check."

So what constituted REALLY CHECKING Looking as well as listening as he said in another TV piece, as that was the first night he had put his head inside the room?

Or more checks, with shorter gaps in between? Surely that was a way to ensure there would be little time for waking, crying and wondering where your Mummy and Daddy were?

Surely this means that the checks prior to 3rd were not even half-hourly, if 30 minute checks were the improvement they made? So not enough or half-hearted.

Interesting editing, I got quite miffed seeing that the resort they used showed a table and apartments in an enclosed area, as if they only had to negotiate the pool area to check the children and it also showed an apartment with the door to the children's room hinged on the wrong side.

Redwood spoke at length about the apartment and how it was outside the perimeter area of the pool and restaurant and the diagram clearly showed the distance from the bar and that the door opened the correct way, the beds and cots were all as they should have been according to the statements.
We also saw Tanner on a street.

The weather in the last photo shots was cloudy. Kate said it was sunny.

This could all be down to chance, when they were filming. Apartment not where 5a was located, could not be helped. Door on wrong side, could not be helped. Weather, could not be helped. So all the inaccuracies did not matter.

They would not matter if none of the events on 3rd happened as described.

Redwood repeatedly used the words disappearance and missing.

HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW.

He knows, you know.

Yes, I am sure that Redwood know that the checking 'charade' was just a charade, played out for the purpose of enabling an abduction.
It was like a game of musical chairs and so ridiculous as to be unbelievable, hence none of us believe it.

What I find strange is the way that people like Oldfield were willing to take part in it out of loyalty to Gerald. I think that prior to the death of Madeleine Gerald was probably a popular member of the gang. He had done well in his career in cardiology, was probably 'one of the lads' and quite good company. He must have been fairly well liked to get the loyalty that he did. Matt was willing to take part in the checking scenario but was not willing to go so far as to be the last person who saw Madeleine. Matt and Russ seem like they might be ordinary guys leading an ordinary life until this occurred. Now they are forever linked with this case as part of the TAPAS 9 - biggest crime of the century (in many ways). What possessed them to get involved and assist in covering up a death? Something did (unless not all of them were aware of what they were taking part in).

I wouldn't cover up death in such a way - not for any friend... unless I had to cover it up for my own reasons.

by russiandoll 28.02.14 10:03

Helenmeg,

I am sure that self-interest, rather than loyalty, lies behind this cover -up.

It is very sad [ and it disgusts me ] that it took priority over a child.

by travis macbickle 28.02.14 11:42

russiandoll wrote:Helenmeg,

I am sure that self-interest, rather than loyalty, lies behind this cover -up.

It is very sad [ and it disgusts me ] that it took priority over a child.

exactly ,even jt said she didn,t really know the McCanns.can only be self interest.logically therefore IMO they were all swinging ,sedating or abusing.take your pick.

by Monty Heck 28.02.14 21:05

It's interesting that, when MO intervened and offered to do KMcC's check as she was standing up to go at 9.30, according to her account, MO didn't seem to have asked, neither is either McC recorded as telling him:

that access to the apartment was via the patio doors
which room the children were sleeping in
that the twins were in two cots in the middle of the room
in which bed M was sleeping
that the bed nearest the window had been slept in but not made up again

Anyone who hadn't set foot in the premises before would find this information useful. He must have seen the unmade, empty bed under the window in the children's room but it didn't concern him at all, even though for all he knew it could have been M's. Yet he didn't wonder where on earth she was, or pop his head in at the doorway to make sure she was asleep in the other bed. Instead he saw the twins asleep and breathing (wonder of wonders!) and with that his checking was done. He then reported all well on return to the Tapas.

When M was discovered missing, how could he fail to have been tormented by remorse? Seeing an empty bed aroused no suspicions and he didn't even bother to check the other side of the room; the last person who should have seen the child alive didn't even spare her a glance yet told her parents all was well when in fact he knew no such thing. Quite something to have upon the conscience, if it ever took place.

by justathought 04.03.14 22:08

MO's alibi that he did really check on the McCann children at 9.30 pm on May 3rd, was that he heard the twins breathing. Was the question ever asked of him, how he good differentiate the two children breathing patterns, whilst he only briefly stood in the doorway? He seems confident in his statement he heard both twins breathing.
Secondly and more significantly, why did he not listen out for Madeleine's breathing to confirm she was present within the bedroom? Surely him not hearing Madeleine's breathing must have been a "red flag"

by Guest 04.03.14 22:12

I have merged your thread with this one you started not to long ago justathought.

by HelenMeg 04.03.14 22:58

justathought wrote:MO's alibi that he did really check on the McCann children at 9.30 pm on May 3rd, was that he heard the twins breathing. Was the question ever asked of him, how he good differentiate the two children breathing patterns, whilst he only briefly stood in the doorway? He seems confident in his statement he heard both twins breathing.
Secondly and more significantly, why did he not listen out for Madeleine's breathing to confirm she was present within the bedroom? Surely him not hearing Madeleine's breathing must have been a "red flag"

MO clearly did not wish to lie, and should the truth ever properly emerge, he will have made sure he cannot go down for this. We know that M wasn't in that room or alive when MO checked and so did he (imo.. i think).
He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins.

Although I still feel some of the TAPAS 9 knew more than others...

by justathought 04.03.14 23:13

candyfloss wrote:I have merged your thread with this one you started not to long ago justathought.

Thank you Candyfloss for doing so. I had tried to put my question in the "newbie" section, rather than starting a new thread. But must have hit the wrong button!
I think my question is a significant one, and don't think that MO's explanation as to what happened when he "checked" is true.

by justathought 04.03.14 23:18

HelenMeg wrote:
justathought wrote:MO's alibi that he did really check on the McCann children at 9.30 pm on May 3rd, was that he heard the twins breathing. Was the question ever asked of him, how he good differentiate the two children breathing patterns, whilst he only briefly stood in the doorway? He seems confident in his statement he heard both twins breathing.
Secondly and more significantly, why did he not listen out for Madeleine's breathing to confirm she was present within the bedroom? Surely him not hearing Madeleine's breathing must have been a "red flag"
MO clearly did not wish to lie, and should the truth ever properly emerge, he will have made sure he cannot go down for this. We know that M wasn't in that room or alive when MO checked and so did he (imo.. i think).
He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins.

Although I still feel some of the TAPAS 9 knew more than others...

HelenMeg
"He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins".
True. But by doing so he implicated himself in the disappearance? By telling a "half-truth"?

by Okeydokey 05.03.14 1:17

HelenMeg wrote:
justathought wrote:MO's alibi that he did really check on the McCann children at 9.30 pm on May 3rd, was that he heard the twins breathing. Was the question ever asked of him, how he good differentiate the two children breathing patterns, whilst he only briefly stood in the doorway? He seems confident in his statement he heard both twins breathing.
Secondly and more significantly, why did he not listen out for Madeleine's breathing to confirm she was present within the bedroom? Surely him not hearing Madeleine's breathing must have been a "red flag"
MO clearly did not wish to lie, and should the truth ever properly emerge, he will have made sure he cannot go down for this. We know that M wasn't in that room or alive when MO checked and so did he (imo.. i think).
He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins.

Although I still feel some of the TAPAS 9 knew more than others...

How did he see the twins breathing, as he claimed, given it was in semi darkness, he was standing several feet away (by his own admission in the mockumentary) and the cots had mesh sides...plus we were told it was a cold night by JT so it's likely they were covered in any case.

Care to explain that?

If he wasn't telling the truth about seeing the twins breathing, then he is implicated.

by worriedmum 05.03.14 9:07

Per-lease!

When did any parent/babysitter go and check on children by 'listening to them breathe'? Unless there is a pre-existing medical condition, don't we all 'take it as read' that that is exactly what they will be doing-breathing?
I would go IN and check they were asleep.
I would go IN and check that they were in bed.
I would go IN and check that they hadn't kicked their covers off.
But I can't say, apart from the time when a newborn sleeps through the night for the first time, that I have ever checked by' listening to them breathe'.

Especially from outside the room.

by HelenMeg 05.03.14 10:21

justathought wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
justathought wrote:MO's alibi that he did really check on the McCann children at 9.30 pm on May 3rd, was that he heard the twins breathing. Was the question ever asked of him, how he good differentiate the two children breathing patterns, whilst he only briefly stood in the doorway? He seems confident in his statement he heard both twins breathing.
Secondly and more significantly, why did he not listen out for Madeleine's breathing to confirm she was present within the bedroom? Surely him not hearing Madeleine's breathing must have been a "red flag"
MO clearly did not wish to lie, and should the truth ever properly emerge, he will have made sure he cannot go down for this. We know that M wasn't in that room or alive when MO checked and so did he (imo.. i think).
He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins.

Although I still feel some of the TAPAS 9 knew more than others...
HelenMeg
"He spoke the truth - he did not see or check on Madeleine, only the twins".
True. But by doing so he implicated himself in the disappearance? By telling a "half-truth"?

Oh - I' dont excuse any of the TAPAS 9 - they are all involved in a cover up - I'm just loking at each one of them and trying to understand the dynamics. I still believe some knew more than others. I'm just saying that MO was careful to try and avoid outright lies i.e. that he saw Madeleine - trying to cover himself.
However, he took part in the 'negligence charade' so he is part of the cover up.

by jeanmonroe 05.03.14 10:30

MO returns to tapas after his 'check' of McCann children.

GM "thanks Matt, are our three kids alright?"

MO "er yeah, all three soundly sleeping, i even saw the twins breathing"

GM "and Madeleine"?

MO "er, um i didn't actually 'check' her"

GM "oh, that's alright, thankyou for checking"
----------------------------------------------------------------

Not a very LIKELY 'conversation' is it?

by Mirage 05.03.14 12:00

jeanmonroe wrote:MO returns to tapas after his 'check' of McCann children.

GM "thanks Matt, are our three kids alright?"

MO "er yeah, all three soundly sleeping, i even saw the twins breathing"

GM "and Madeleine"?

MO "er, um i didn't actually 'check' her"

GM "oh, that's alright, thankyou for checking"
----------------------------------------------------------------

Not a very LIKELY 'conversation' is it?

Fits in with all the other unlikely conversations though, you must admit, Jean. They didn't want a normal response to stick out like a sore thumb, like:

GM: Waddya mean? You didn't check Madeleine.

MO: Well, I didn't go into the room.

GM Waddya mean you didn't go into the room?

MO: Well I stood in the lounge and saw the twins' chests rising and falling evenly.

GM: Waddya mean? It's too dark to see their chests rising and falling.

MO: Well anyway it was all quiet in there.

GM: Waddya mean all quiet?

MO: You know, deathly quiet.

GM: (Roars like a bull. Falls to knees and rolls round the floor.)