The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 21.04.17 9:34

1. Matthew, when you went to check on the children in 5A on the night of the 3 May, why didn't you go into the children's room?

In your rogatory you state the following:

Reply 'Yeah, and I just don't know why it didn't trigger enough of a thought in my mind to say, you know, but I think it's just because you are going expecting that the worst that was going to happen was that somebody would be upset or out of bed or, you know, or sort of crying'.


4078 'Okay. And is there anything else you can say about what you saw of that bed''
Reply 'No, erm, I don't remember there being a pattern on it, it was, it was just sort of a glimpse and I don't know how reliable my memory is for this, I think it was plain coloured, maybe, if I was to go for it, I'd say it was sort of a light blue, but I really don't recall anything specific about the end of that bed, apart from just registering that there was a bed against that wall and that's probably where Madeleine was'.


From your above comments it is clear that you were unaware of which bed Madeleine slept in. You say that as you approached the children's bedroom, you could see 2 cots in the centre of the room, separated by about a foot (30cm). You say that the cots were orientated lengthways with the long sides parallel to the wardrobes - this is made clearer when you state that you assumed the twins would have been put in with their 'heads towards the window' as that is how you would have laid them. The visibility was good enough to see the twins breathing (we'll come back to that later). You could see the bed against the far wall reasonably well, and you say that the room was lit from a small table lamp behind 'us'? in the lounge area.



If, in your words, one of the 'worst things that could happen' was that one of the children was out of their bed, and you didn't know in advance that Madeleine wasn't sleeping in the bed by the window, and you could see the bed by the window (which may or may not have been dishevelled), and you state clearly that you didn't see Madeleine, why didn't you bend forward and check whether she was in the other bed? After all, you admit to registering that the bed against the wall out of view was only PROBABLY where Madeleine was? If you registered that at the time, surely there was a need to investigate further, rather than turning back around and browsing through the (non-existent) bookshelf/case on your way out.



2. Could you really see the twins breathing in their cots? Why bring this up at all? The end of one cot was solid, not mesh. You say you could see through the mesh sides - from the photos of 5A and the positioning of the cots (however they are moved around) this seems unlikely. Breathing is an assumption we would all make anyway, even if you merely stated that you had seen both of the twins in their cots. Adds weight to the theory that breathing/not breathing is extremely sensitive.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by BlueBag on 21.04.17 9:54

That is an excellent point.

Matthew could see an empty bed by the window.

How did he know that wasn't Madeleine's?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4276
Reputation : 2069
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by sar on 21.04.17 10:57

@skyrocket wrote:1. Matthew, when you went to check on the children in 5A on the night of the 3 May, why didn't you go into the children's room?

In your rogatory you state the following:

Reply 'Yeah, and I just don't know why it didn't trigger enough of a thought in my mind to say, you know, but I think it's just because you are going expecting that the worst that was going to happen was that somebody would be upset or out of bed or, you know, or sort of crying'.


4078 'Okay. And is there anything else you can say about what you saw of that bed''
Reply 'No, erm, I don't remember there being a pattern on it, it was, it was just sort of a glimpse and I don't know how reliable my memory is for this, I think it was plain coloured, maybe, if I was to go for it, I'd say it was sort of a light blue, but I really don't recall anything specific about the end of that bed, apart from just registering that there was a bed against that wall and that's probably where Madeleine was'.


From your above comments it is clear that you were unaware of which bed Madeleine slept in. You say that as you approached the children's bedroom, you could see 2 cots in the centre of the room, separated by about a foot (30cm). You say that the cots were orientated lengthways with the long sides parallel to the wardrobes - this is made clearer when you state that you assumed the twins would have been put in with their 'heads towards the window' as that is how you would have laid them. The visibility was good enough to see the twins breathing (we'll come back to that later). You could see the bed against the far wall reasonably well, and you say that the room was lit from a small table lamp behind 'us'? in the lounge area.



If, in your words, one of the 'worst things that could happen' was that one of the children was out of their bed, and you didn't know in advance that Madeleine wasn't sleeping in the bed by the window, and you could see the bed by the window (which may or may not have been dishevelled), and you state clearly that you didn't see Madeleine, why didn't you bend forward and check whether she was in the other bed? After all, you admit to registering that the bed against the wall out of view was only PROBABLY where Madeleine was? If you registered that at the time, surely there was a need to investigate further, rather than turning back around and browsing through the (non-existent) bookshelf/case on your way out.



2. Could you really see the twins breathing in their cots? Why bring this up at all? The end of one cot was solid, not mesh. You say you could see through the mesh sides - from the photos of 5A and the positioning of the cots (however they are moved around) this seems unlikely. Breathing is an assumption we would all make anyway, even if you merely stated that you had seen both of the twins in their cots. Adds weight to the theory that breathing/not breathing is extremely sensitive.
+1 Skyrocket, Morning

sar

Posts : 627
Reputation : 204
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 21.04.17 11:50

@Bluebag & @Sar - thanks both.

When you read carefully there are some very strange comments in MO's rogatory regarding his supposed check. Will try to add more later.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by kaz on 21.04.17 18:30

Hi there Skyrocket. Just love how your forensic mind works .It's the little slips they make that expose the farce it all is.

kaz

Posts : 426
Reputation : 367
Join date : 2014-08-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 21.04.17 23:11

@Kaz - hi and thanks! 

Yes, so many slips. The more you read the statements, the more jump out at you. If a top barrister could get his hands on them all in a court of law I'd book a seat to be there.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by BlueBag on 22.04.17 8:16

Matthew has painted himself into a corner.

Someone really needs to pick him up on this.

Maybe some of Matthew's family, friends and colleagues read this forum (I'm sure they do).

Maybe one of them could ask him.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4276
Reputation : 2069
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by silverdoe on 27.04.17 3:54

It's clear Matthew's in on it, he's too vague. They're not dumb, they're scared. Of the McCann's or the repercussions? He needed and needs to be questioned further because what he say's like the rest just does not make sense. Remember, Kate's book 'Matt said I'll check on Maddy for you. Not the 'children' or 'kids' just Maddy! With that and this, dodgy dodgy dodgy!
avatar
silverdoe

Posts : 2
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2017-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 27.04.17 7:49

Now let's add into the mix what Rachael Oldfield has to say about Matthew's check at about 9.30pm:

1578 'Well okay, for completeness, what did he say he did in the room''


Reply 'Erm well he and Russell went up and they were going to call at Gerry and Kates on the way but for some reason didnt, they went round the back, erm Russell went into their apartment, Matt went into ours, checked on Grace, erm came out, went back to get Russell, thats when he discovered that Evie had been sick, so Russell was sorting her out, erm so he went back round through the car park and out down the road, up the back steps into Gerry and Kates apartment, through the patio door, erm noticed that the door of the apartment was open but not wide open but sort of you know, sort of half open, which'.

01.13.22 1578 'Which door'' 

Reply 'The door to the bedroom, the twins bedroom and Madeleines bedroom, erm and I mean afterwards you know, he said he thought that was unusual because he thought the door would be shut, cos I mean we always shut Graces bedroom door, erm or at least if we did, I mean we always shut it but yeah I know some people would kind of probably just pull the door to, but he didnt expect it to be as wide open as it was, erm so he, well he said you know from kind of standing close to the doorway, he could see that the twins were in their cots and there was no sound, erm so he just assumed everything was alright, he didnt put his head round the door to see if Madeleine was in her bed, but he said he did wonder where she slept, erm poked his head, well you know kind of looked into Gerry and Kates room, just saw there was a double bed there, so you know, assumed they were all in together or, I mean I think he knew that they were all in together, erm but he didnt actually look to see whether Madeleine was there or not'.


1578 'He didnt open the door''  


Reply 'He didnt open the door any further no'.

1578 'Wider''


Reply 'Erm well the line of sight from where he was standing sort of from the lounge I think, allowed him to see the two cots with the two twins in and everything was quiet and erm, you know ordinarily we wouldn't, we only really went to see, to look, actually look at Grace because you know Matt had been sick and I'd been sick and she'd sort of seemed to have had an upset stomach, erm but otherwise you know normally if everything was quiet, we wouldn't open the door really, you know just they're quiet, they're not you know, as long as they're not crying thats, or dont seem to be awake, then you just you know, leave them, erm so yeah he saw the twins and then you know, went out, shut the patio doors and you know came back to the table and said everything was okay,'.....

Flip - Rachael doesn't half put her foot in it. Like Matthew, she is obsessed with the orientation of the children's bedroom door and the fact that there 'were 2 cots and 2 twins'. Then she states that her husband had actually told her that he had wondered where Madeleine slept and Rachael tells us that he physically checked the other bedroom to see if she was in there (something Matthew makes no mention of). Why on earth would he do that without checking the bed by the door in the children's room first? If he was concerned enough to check, he would have checked all possibilities - starting by getting a clear view of all beds in the children's room, moving on to the parent's room, and finally the rest of the apartment.

Whichever way you look at it, the storyline makes no sense. It's like watching a poorly scripted film.

Was Matthew supposed to have been the one to raise the alarm (as already suggested before elsewhere) and he got cold feet at the last minute? I'm not sure. Why is he only on one of the handwritten timelines? Were there 2 possible scenarios worked out for the evening?




avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by BlueBag on 27.04.17 12:05

Then she states that her husband had actually told her that he had wondered where Madeleine slept and Rachael tells us that he physically checked the other bedroom to see if she was in there (something Matthew makes no mention of). Why on earth would he do that without checking the bed by the door in the children's room first? 
Another excellent point.


Why hasn't OG questioned Matthew about his story that makes no sense?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4276
Reputation : 2069
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by polyenne on 27.04.17 12:47

It is clear to me that many of the Tapas 7 are complicit in the fate of Madeleine and thus, when the time cometh, should be made to pay for being an accessory, for their dishonesty, for their perjury, for perverting the course of justice, for obstructing the police and maybe more .

David Payne : IMO never saw Madeleine on 3 May, his visit being a necessary alibi
Matthew Oldfield : IMO never did the check on the 3 May, maybe he was supposed to play another role that night 
Jane Tanner : IMO never saw an "abductor" and likely never even walked that route

It is my belief that Dianne Webster was along for the ride to look after ALL the children in the evenings and has probably been unwittingly caught up in the wider story - it would be very difficult for her to now go against the "regular checking" story as this would blow the whole charade apart.

I have sympathy for none of them
avatar
polyenne

Posts : 323
Reputation : 205
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 27.04.17 13:31

Many thanks to PeterMac for sending this thread to Operation Grange thumbsup
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9450
Reputation : 4740
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by sallypelt on 27.04.17 14:12

@skyrocket wrote:Now let's add into the mix what Rachael Oldfield has to say about Matthew's check at about 9.30pm:

1578 'Well okay, for completeness, what did he say he did in the room''


Reply 'Erm well he and Russell went up and they were going to call at Gerry and Kates on the way but for some reason didnt, they went round the back, erm Russell went into their apartment, Matt went into ours, checked on Grace, erm came out, went back to get Russell, thats when he discovered that Evie had been sick, so Russell was sorting her out, erm so he went back round through the car park and out down the road, up the back steps into Gerry and Kates apartment, through the patio door, erm noticed that the door of the apartment was open but not wide open but sort of you know, sort of half open, which'.

01.13.22 1578 'Which door'' 

Reply 'The door to the bedroom, the twins bedroom and Madeleines bedroom, erm and I mean afterwards you know, he said he thought that was unusual because he thought the door would be shut, cos I mean we always shut Graces bedroom door, erm or at least if we did, I mean we always shut it but yeah I know some people would kind of probably just pull the door to, but he didnt expect it to be as wide open as it was, erm so he, well he said you know from kind of standing close to the doorway, he could see that the twins were in their cots and there was no sound, erm so he just assumed everything was alright, he didnt put his head round the door to see if Madeleine was in her bed, but he said he did wonder where she slept, erm poked his head, well you know kind of looked into Gerry and Kates room, just saw there was a double bed there, so you know, assumed they were all in together or, I mean I think he knew that they were all in together, erm but he didnt actually look to see whether Madeleine was there or not'.


1578 'He didnt open the door''  


Reply 'He didnt open the door any further no'.

1578 'Wider''


Reply 'Erm well the line of sight from where he was standing sort of from the lounge I think, allowed him to see the two cots with the two twins in and everything was quiet and erm, you know ordinarily we wouldn't, we only really went to see, to look, actually look at Grace because you know Matt had been sick and I'd been sick and she'd sort of seemed to have had an upset stomach, erm but otherwise you know normally if everything was quiet, we wouldn't open the door really, you know just they're quiet, they're not you know, as long as they're not crying thats, or dont seem to be awake, then you just you know, leave them, erm so yeah he saw the twins and then you know, went out, shut the patio doors and you know came back to the table and said everything was okay,'.....

Flip - Rachael doesn't half put her foot in it. Like Matthew, she is obsessed with the orientation of the children's bedroom door and the fact that their 'were 2 cots and 2 twins'. Then she states that her husband had actually told her that he had wondered where Madeleine slept and Rachael tells us that he physically checked the other bedroom to see if she was in there (something Matthew makes no mention of). Why on earth would he do that without checking the bed by the door in the children's room first? If he was concerned enough to check, he would have checked all possibilities - starting by getting a clear view of all beds in the children's room, moving on to the parent's room, and finally the rest of the apartment.

Whichever way you look at it, the storyline makes no sense. It's like watching a poorly scripted film.

Was Matthew supposed to have been the one to raise the alarm (as already suggested before elsewhere) and he got cold feet at the last minute? I'm not sure. Why is he only on one of the handwritten timelines? Were there 2 possible scenarios worked out for the evening?




What I find strange about R Oldfield's interview is SHE WAS NOT THERE! I have never heard of anyone being interviewed in this way before. How on earth can RO know what Matthew Oldfield saw or did, when he went to the McCanns apartment? SHE WASN'T THERE. I feel the same way about Jeremy Wilkins wife. She too, has said what JW did and saw, when he was walking his son, on 3 May. Again, UNLESS SHE WAS THERE ON THE WALK WITH JW, he statement is worthless, because SHE WASN'T THERE!

sallypelt

Posts : 3610
Reputation : 783
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 27.04.17 14:23

@Get'emGoncalo - please pass on my thanks to Peter.

I was just about to post again (at the risk of being repetitive) the link to the ACPO police guidelines on investigating Missing People - these were updated in 2010 (I think that's the last update) and are produced specifically to ensure that all UK forces are working in the same consistent manner. The guidelines couldn't be clearer about the necessity to keep an open mind and to investigate all missing person cases where the 'circumstances are suspicious or unexplained' by using the maxim 'If in Doubt, Think Murder' - purely so that a full investigation is done and no possible clues are missed, not because murder is the only possible explanation.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/missing_persons_sec_edn_2010_en.pdf

Where is the evidence that these guidelines are being followed? The introduction to the guidelines states that they should be implemented 'by chief officers to shape police responses to ensure that the general public experiences consistent levels of service'. We are the general public and all we are fighting for is confirmation that this missing person case is being investigated in a way which is consistent with any other missing person case, before or after. For questioning the blatant inconsistency in this case we are being made to feel like pariahs. How inconsistent does a case have to be before the above maxim is heeded? How many changes of story; how many convenient lapses of memory; how many statements that don't agree with one another; how many pointers do the UK police need - is every single one of them so dense or so blinkered?

No of course they're not. So the only conclusion that we can draw, and have drawn, is cover up. Until Op Grange/The Met give a rational explanation as to why the McCanns and the Tapas 7 have not been questioned properly (and I stress properly) about all the inconsistencies, thereby proving to us, the general public, that this case IS being treated like any other missing person case then how can we be confident that the police force in this country is fit for purpose and is not being controlled by some clandestine body with some hidden agenda. Sounds Orwellian but what else are we to believe?
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Equity on 27.04.17 15:42

My favourite snippet from Mr Oldfield's Rogatory statement is when he describes his reaction to being shown a photograph of Madeleine's bedroom during his second interview by the PJ.

Was this an intentional move by the PJ as they had a suspicion he hadn't been in to the apartment at all?

What d'ya think?

"And one of the things that completely floored me in the, in the interview, the second interview there, they showed me a picture and they showed a picture of the two cots, you know, there's wardrobes along this side, slap bang on the right here, and they said, well how can you see it, I think maybe it was an anguish thing at the time, but I couldn't quite get at what they were, what they were really asking me, I mean, how, because they showed me this picture and you kind of accept it as this is the real situation and it took a while to, well, no, actually, the actual, the original Police Force actually moved them when they cleared the room, they moved them out the way, but, you know, I presume it was just a sort of, a sort of technique within the questioning to sort of make you unsettled, but it was sort of quite unsettling, along with this picture of where the shutters are. But, erm, you know, you wouldn't, the cots were in the middle of the room and of course, you know, there's no way you'd put them at the side, you know, to put your children in and be able to walk round and get them from both sides."

Obviously this wouldn't have been unsettling at all to a witness who immediately pointed out to the officers that the cots were not as they appear in the photograph but were side by side in the middle of the room. Anguish thing my ar*e.

Is there no record of his second PJ interview?
.

Equity

Posts : 58
Reputation : 103
Join date : 2016-05-24

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Irene 2 on 27.04.17 18:45

Did someone forget to prompt him on which way the children's bedroom door opened? Left to right. He didn't need to put his head behind the door to see Madeleine's bed. Their own apartment was probably the other way round. 

When Amaral visited 5A he demonstrated how no-one could have been hiding behind the bedroom door when he was discussing GM's remark about him feeling someone was in the apartment when he claims he checked the children. Not that he put himself out to search the apartment and walked out leaving the children alone again. All so plausible!
Around 4.15 he's standing in the doorway at the foot of Madelien's bed with the door open. 10.02 GM walking into the bedroom. 12.55 onward, Amaral checks the likelihood of someone hiding behind the door. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g

Irene 2

Posts : 76
Reputation : 41
Join date : 2014-06-25

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by BlueBag on 27.04.17 20:01

Let's be honest.

Matthew's story is a load of rubbish.

I wonder if he reads this stuff?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4276
Reputation : 2069
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Verdi on 27.04.17 23:56

The concept of rogatory interviews was processed at the request of the McCanns after their return to the UK from Portugal.  A broad questioning formula was submitted by team McCann which was forwarded to the Portuguese, translated and consequently formally presented to the UK authorities, again translated back into English for the rogatory interviews to proceed.  Apparently they were quite within their rights to make such a request - how far that involves Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior is a matter for conjecture but the UK - Portugal - Portugal - UK - UK - Portugal idea seems rather curious.

Those to be interviewed by rogatory, had six months to prepare for their respective interviews, between the McCanns initial proposal and the set date for the interviews.  Six months is ample time to get their stories straight amongst themselves - they didn't!  During the interviews they could have responded to question with straighforward yes, no, not sure, can't remember answers - they didn't!  Instead they all waffled on packing out with contradictions and errs umms arrs you knows.  This leads me the believe that the interviews were orchestrated to deceive - to throw mass confusion into an already confused state of affairs.

The McCanns and their friends and associates are the only information source to lead an investigation and they made damn sure that all leads they created took different paths - confusion really is good!  The  rogatory interviews have never been, nor will ever be,  of any value to a bona-fide official investigation.  In short they are worthless - good sport for general criticism and comparison but that's where the value begins and ends.

It's all fabrication to bolster the abduction theory.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5859
Reputation : 3317
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Okeydokey on 28.04.17 0:30

It's right that this post is getting a lot of attention.

For me this is one of the keys to unlocking the case.

In importance, I put it along with the Jane Tanner sighting (which - remember? - was not immediately communicated to the parents of the allegedly abducted child!!!...Tanner never even said "He went that way!" - so all witnesses describe a search going on in all directions even though she had no doubt herself, so she claimed, that she had witnessed an abduction!!!).

Here's a link to the full rogatory MO interview:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

As Verdi notes, it's amazing how the Tapas crew - nearly all highly educated professionals, who all needed to have good detailed memories to undertake their work seemed to have suffered a collective and profound memory loss.

But these were also the people who didn't have watches or mobile phones with them, according to Clarence Mitchell (he later retracted his claim about watches, but never about mobile phones). Perhaps they forgot to take them with them?

For me a critical issue (that the UK Police failed to nail down - why?) was the issue of lighting and observing the infants breathing. I remember when my children were ill as infants anxiously looking in on them...even though I had a direct view, I recall you had to get really close to check on breathing even if there was some low lighting.  Oldfield doesn't claim the bedroom light was on or that the shutters were up (not that that would have afforded much light, given if was after dark).  He does make a weird claim it was quite light in the room, presumably to justify that he could see the twins breathing. But not so bright that he would have thought something was amiss and actually gone into the room!!! None of it makes any sense.

You have to ask yourself why do none of the rogatory statements seem in any way straightforward?

Okeydokey

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

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Verdi on 28.04.17 0:34

@Okeydokey wrote:
You have to ask yourself why do none of the rogatory statements seem in any way straightforward?
Nail on head well and truly clobbered thumbsup !

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5859
Reputation : 3317
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Phoebe on 28.04.17 0:35

@Verdi wrote:The concept of rogatory interviews was processed at the request of the McCanns after their return to the UK from Portugal.  A broad questioning formula was submitted by team McCann which was forwarded to the Portuguese, translated and consequently formally presented to the UK authorities, again translated back into English for the rogatory interviews to proceed.  Apparently they were quite within their rights to make such a request - how far that involves Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior is a matter for conjecture but the UK - Portugal - Portugal - UK - UK - Portugal idea seems rather curious.

Those to be interviewed by rogatory, had six months to prepare for their respective interviews, between the McCanns initial proposal and the set date for the interviews.  Six months is ample time to get their stories straight amongst themselves - they didn't!  During the interviews they could have responded to question with straighforward yes, no, not sure, can't remember answers - they didn't!  Instead they all waffled on packing out with contradictions and errs umms arrs you knows.  This leads me the believe that the interviews were orchestrated to deceive - to throw mass confusion into an already confused state of affairs.

The McCanns and their friends and associates are the only information source to lead an investigation and they made damn sure that all leads they created took different paths - confusion really is good!  The  rogatory interviews have never been, nor will ever be,  of any value to a bona-fide official investigation.  In short they are worthless - good sport for general criticism and comparison but that's where the value begins and ends.

It's all fabrication to bolster the abduction theory.
This is a very important point and often overlooked I believe, since the rogatory interviews are longer and give greater detail. People often don't realize that they were no "grilling" carried out by the U.K. police following a set of unanticipated questions from Portugal. The rogatories are useless, only designed to further the idea that the contradictions in their initial P.J. statements are due to their poor recall and incoherence. Pretending to be a bit dim is often a ploy of the crafty.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 472
Reputation : 505
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Okeydokey on 28.04.17 0:58

Dead right Phoebe...how many partners caught out in adultery have claimed not to quite remember something or other! lol

The confusion strategy was apparent from the start.

Are we really supposed to believe that not one of these highly educated professionals (involved in medicine, health and law) didn't understand the importance of preserving the crime scene and preventing all and sundry tramping through it...especially since we know the McCanns claim they knew immediately that their daughter had been abducted and had not wandered off?

Okeydokey

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

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by BlueBag on 28.04.17 8:26

Matthew was quite specific in his interviews about the bedroom visit.

Regardless of what people  think of the worth of rogatory interviews generally, Matthew's story doesn't make any sense.

Someone needs to pick him up on it.

You would think OG would have a few questions if they were an honest investigation.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4276
Reputation : 2069
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by Mirage on 28.04.17 8:45

But it isn't only the sheer nonsense of these testimonies that is so concerning, is it? The interviewing officers have questions to answer too. Such as how David Payne was allowed to get away with his outrageous response when asked about anything else relevant and pertinent to the inquiry. A few things, he opined, but this was not the appropriate forum.

Can you imagine a response like that on Line of Duty?

But the interviewing officer at Leicester let it pass. Then again, I don't suppose anyone though these interviews would ever see the light of day. They must have had collective diarrhoea when they saw the Portuguese archiving files released.

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1902
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: MATTHEW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU RE: YOUR BEDROOM CHECK...........

Post by skyrocket on 28.04.17 8:52

@Verdi - I have to disagree with your overall conclusion:

'The  rogatory interviews have never been, nor will ever be,  of any value to a bona-fide official investigation.  In short they are worthless - good sport for general criticism and comparison but that's where the value begins and ends'.

This general statement concerns me, particularly the word 'sport'. I accept that the answer to the question, 'What happened to Madeleine McCann?' will never be gleaned from the rogatories, but 'of no value' and 'worthless' is entirely incorrect, IMO (and note that I add that).

Let's just think about this for a moment. Say we have 7 educated people, who we will assume for now have involvement in, or knowledge of, a missing child case. For whatever reason they have agreed to help cover up whatever happened. They know they are going to be interviewed as witnesses. @Verdi, what you have proposed above is that in the 6 months prior to the interviews, instead of using the time to get their false stories in line with each other, someone with influence persuaded all of them to use the time to actually make sure that their still false stories were out of line with each other - to create false leads with different paths, you say.

The mind boggles at the complexity. Were/are the tapas 7 that good at acting/remembering? And, beyond that, the overall question for me anyway is, why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells agree to a course of action which would draw attention to the fact that one or more of the group was lying? You could argue that they, for what ever reason, were entirely confident that their statements were never going to reach court, but still it would be huge ask of anyone.

Whatever the truth, the facts are:

- the rogatories are in the public domain (was this ever envisaged by those involved?)
- the statements of each of the tapas 7 are not only inconsistent with each other, but also internally with themselves
- if Madeleine had been abducted on 3 May 2007, between 9pm and 10pm shall we say, there would be no reason at all for there to be such inconsistencies
- inconsistency in itself makes the rogatory statements critically important to any genuine official police investigation, irrespective of the value of the actual content

Beyond that, I actually believe that 7 brains (or 1 for that matter) are incapable of leakage when subjected to questioning, particularly with a skilled interviewer who allows the interviewee to waffle on to their hearts content. The 3 men seem particularly prone to this. In other words, IMO, there are truths in the rogatories; there are more untruths; and there are some irrational actions. It may be difficult to weed out the truths/untruths, but the irrational actions are glaringly clear (as highlighted by this post).

The rogatory statements are far from worthless - fact (IMO!).
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 574
Reputation : 554
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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