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

Nina wrote:If it was GM carrying the body of Madeleine then his clothes would have been contaminated with the scent of cadaverine as KM trousers and top were, yet his clothes were not alerted to.

That is a very good point Nina, one that has to be considered. But in the interest of being fair, he could have thrown them away, if they had blood on.

Nina wrote:

Stella wrote:

Nina wrote:If it was GM carrying the body of Madeleine then his clothes would have been contaminated with the scent of cadaverine as KM trousers and top were, yet his clothes were not alerted to.

That is a very good point Nina, one that has to be considered. But in the interest of being fair, he could have thrown them away, if they had blood on.

But Kate's clothes didn't have blood on them, just the scent of cadaverine. Yes he could have thrown them away but that is all extra time to change and dump them.

Kate and Gerry had all night on 3rd. They were not out searching with the others, plus who knows what they got up to with a little help from their friends not just prior to the 3rd, but from the 3rd onwards.

There are pro's and con's for the demise earlier than the 2nd, and pro's and con's for demise from 2nd to 3rd.... Whenever the opposing argument is put forth, myself and others see gaping holes in it, and likewise from the opposing opinion. I just don't see the slam dunk of certainty in either option I'm afraid, and so I lean a certain way at present due to the way I see the information to hand and my own gut instinct.

This sort of thing started from the morning of the 29th. If nothing happened until the 1st or 2nd, why would these discrepencies have needed to start as early as 9.30 am on the 29th??

This alone suggests to me that we are looking at something happening on the night of the 28th.

Stella wrote:

This sort of thing started from the morning of the 29th. If nothing happened until the 1st or 2nd, why would these discrepencies have needed to start as early as 9.30 am on the 29th??

This alone suggests to me that we are looking at something happening on the night of the 28th.

Sorry Stella, what discrepancies do you mean specifically.

pennylane wrote:

Stella wrote:

This sort of thing started from the morning of the 29th. If nothing happened until the 1st or 2nd, why would these discrepencies have needed to start as early as 9.30 am on the 29th??

This alone suggests to me that we are looking at something happening on the night of the 28th.

Sorry Stella, what discrepancies do you mean specifically.

There is no question in my mind, that those two signatures were made by the same person. Why would anyone want to do that?

pennylane wrote:

Stella wrote:

This sort of thing started from the morning of the 29th. If nothing happened until the 1st or 2nd, why would these discrepencies have needed to start as early as 9.30 am on the 29th??

This alone suggests to me that we are looking at something happening on the night of the 28th.

Sorry Stella, what discrepancies do you mean specifically.

My apologies Pennylane, I thought you had been following this forum for ages.

What do you make of the handwriting in both of those entries?

Stella wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Stella wrote:

This sort of thing started from the morning of the 29th. If nothing happened until the 1st or 2nd, why would these discrepencies have needed to start as early as 9.30 am on the 29th??

This alone suggests to me that we are looking at something happening on the night of the 28th.

Sorry Stella, what discrepancies do you mean specifically.

My apologies Pennylane, I thought you had been following this forum for ages.

What do you make of the handwriting in both of those entries?

Thank you Stella. I remember this discussion back on 3A's, and there was a split of opinion back then too. I think the pen looks the same, but the 'e's' look very different to me.

Shibboleth wrote:There is no question in my mind, that those two signatures were made by the same person. Why would anyone want to do that?

That's right Shibboleth and why from day one, on the 29th, if 'everything' was alright up until the 2nd or the 3rd.

There are those who see gaping holes, but we see the vista....

pennylane wrote:Thank you Stella. I remember this discussion back on 3A's, and there was a split of opinion back then too. I think the pen looks the same, but the 'e's' look very different to me.

Actually, this never came up on 3A's. It only first started at the end of last year over on MCF and myself and Kiko were virtually shown the door for wanting to disuss it. There was not a split of opinion either, there was just those who did not want this being discussed.

Do you see the arrows pointing to the letter A, what do you make of them with the same little ticks, in the same positions?

Stella wrote:

pennylane wrote:Thank you Stella. I remember this discussion back on 3A's, and there was a split of opinion back then too. I think the pen looks the same, but the 'e's' look very different to me.

Actually, this never came up on 3A's. It only first started at the end of last year over on MCF and myself and Kiko were virtually shown the door for wanting to disuss it. There was not a split of opinion either, there was just those who did not want this being discussed.

Do you see the arrows pointing to the letter A, what do you make of them with the same little ticks, in the same positions?

I remember this discussion a long time ago Stella, and I remember the same letters being called into question... but if you are certain it wasn't 3A's then I accept your memory is better than mine, and that it was on MCF where the discussion took place.

In answer to your question. Yes there are similarities, and it COULD be the same handwriting, but I see differences too.

It's frustrating isn't it, Stella!

I'm not saying definitely 'no,' I'm merely saying not necessarily so imo

About the "Smithman" (great name by Tony ). His direction was towards the beach area, instead of what you would expect from a father bringing his child home. If that had been the case, you would expect he was going the same direction as the Smiths. I don't know the specific place, but I've been to Portugal algarve, where in most places the entertainment is concentrated in the beach area.
There must be a reason why Amaral was so interested in this sighting and maybe this is why (cause he does know the area).

About the crying incident which was reported by Fenn. I think there does exist a big difference in crying by a 3 year old or 2 years or younger. Because of the vocabulaire. Helas Fenn was not asked why she thought it was Madeleine, but she appearently did.

About what I said that the twins would notice Madeleine absence if this was longer than 1 or 2 days. The twins would have noticed she wasn't there in the evening and could have babbled about that. Very risky.

About the chreche records I have to agree with Pennylane. I wouldn't dare to conclude they aren't falsified, but even so not that they are. The only conclusion that I can make is, that they are very sloppy and not reliable. And that the nannies in that respect weren't very reliable.
Would Cat Baker admit that she didn't notice Madeleine where in fact the creche records show that she must have been there? How does that make her look? Maybe she was confused and relieved, that the McCanns were so supportive. And yes, why is the focus on Cat Baker where there were also other nannies responsible for Madeleines' group. Or were the other nannies not sure about Madeleines presence?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/timeline.html


Reading
the timelines again (which is very enlightning, cause i forgot a lot in time) ifound the following statements that are in fact interesting

About the fact that the streets of PDL were quiet at nights:

M. M. M. d. S. declares that on the night 03-05-07, she leftthe apartment at around 21H58—she remembers the exact time because sheasked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on thetelephone in the lounge;
They left the building and the deponent and her boyfriend took the Opel Frontera, previously indicated, which was parked out front of the apartment, in
the private parking area of Block 6 where her friend’s apartment was located;
. She declares that the night was good with a breeze, and that it was dark;
. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of
people, and that in the immediate areas of the blocks she saw no vehicle withthe exception of a small car, that appeared to her grey in colour, parked closeto the window of the McCann apartment; She declares further that she mentioned this fact to her boyfriend and that it
wasn’t yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement
was nill;
. States that she looked at the exit of the apartment and that from the flat above the McCanns, she saw light, and also in from of the apartment, but she could not define, concretely, where she saw the light when she passed theMcCann apartment;
. Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, andnothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her
suspicions

Accountant
J. D. N. d. O. N. notes that on May 03, 2007, (Thursday), at around 23H00, at home, in Ramalhete, Casa ***, Praia da
Luz, Luz, Lagos, situated close to the OC resort, he noticed “much movement and traffic that was out of the ordinary,

Thereare several different times mentioned for the disappearence of Madeleine; starting at 21.15.
The statement of the tapas restaurant waiter pinpoints the alarm risen by Katebetween 22.00 and 22.30 h. I can't find one single statement to establish that Gerry McCann indeed was present at the restaurant at 22.00h. He only statest hat “the
entire group left in a panic”.

Between 22H00and 22H30, waiter J. J. M. B. was in the kitchen, and was alerted, by a colleague, to the fact that a guest entered the
restaurant screaming, and at this point, the entire group left in a panic; his colleague proceeded to tell him that the (screaming) individual indicated thata child had gone missing.

About "bundleman"


S.B. translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as beinga brunette. This lady told the GNR officers, and S.B. translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child....
but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.


That is strange, why – if Jane Tanners story was genuine – would her own husband go on
searching in the exact opposite direction?
David Payne and Matthew Oldfield also were spotted in direction to the beach. The exact spot maybe is known by the police but can’t be concluded out of this statement. But it is possible They were in the the same area as Russel was spotted.
So why was Russel - and possibly David and Matthew - searching at that area. The area“Smithman was seen”? Could it be to prevent other people searching at that area?

At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by V. K. and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel.

Estimated time around 23.10 pm BothDavid Payne and Matthew Oldfield were seen by E.L.K. when she was on her way to
the beach, the search area to which she was assigned by L. J. (child care director and search coordinator)

I strongly believe the support of the McCanns came along this line.

Sometime between 00.30 and 1.00 a.m Kate calls her parents: "I had a phone call from Kate asking me to contact
Father P.S. He’s a friend of Kate and Gerry’s. Paul married Kate and Gerry and baptised Madeleine and she needed to speak to him".

S. B.mentions that at around 3.00 a.m. Madeleine’s parents asked for thepresence of a priest on location. They didn’t explain the reason why they
wanted a priest, but the deponent found the fact strange as there were no indications that the little girl was dead, and that’s the circumstance under
which usually the presence of a priest is requested.

'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann Daily Mail

Last updated at 10:03 18
October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished
last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.
According to reports, Father Jose Manuel Pacheco claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply "supporting two lost souls."

But, bizarrely, he also appeared to say he had been the victim of some form of deception.
It has also emerged Father Pacheco was apparently called in to see his superior, Algarve Bishop Manuel Quintas and warned about his behaviour.
In the days after Madeleine vanished on May 3, the McCanns, both 39 and devout Catholics, frequently sought refuge at the priest's church.

They became so close to Father Pacheco, he gave them the keys to the tiny building so they could go in to pray whenever they liked.

However, his friendship with the couple appeared to spectacularly backfire after police became convinced Kate had told him she had killed her daughter during confession.

But he has vowed to take whatever she had said to the grave, despite being quizzed by detectives.
Father Pacheco appeared to virtually vanish from the public eye in the weeks after Gerry and Kate were made arguidos - or official suspects.

The pair left Portugal without saying goodbye and handed the church keys to another
clergyman.
Last week, police moved in to search the churchyard and there has been some suggestion that they may consider digging for Madeleine's body at the location.

Father Pacheco, runs two churches and teaches at three local schools, yesterday broke his silence.
According to the Daily Express, he admitted he had become too close to the couple, still official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
"I was deceived," he said.

"I was just doing my job supporting lost souls. I would do that with any family who were in their situation. I didn't do anything wrong.


Father Pacheco, 46, said he had felt compelled to help Kate and Gerry because of their "inconsolable grief".

Bebootje, great post! Thank you for outlining the information above. I often do not have the clarity of mind to make the lengthy points required to explain myself (due to insomnia/fatigue). The arguments put forth that it could not have been Gerry that Smith saw have still not convinced me, as we still do not know what the cause of death was or exactly when it happened!

I also believe the reason K&G stayed in their apartment all night when kind folks were out searching for their child, was because they were still making it up as they went along. Which implies something very recent imo. If this was planned well ahead, I believe Kate and Gerry would have been out there too, in order to make it look convincing... but something went horribly wrong that night forcing them to do some brainstorming throughout the night. jmo.

We think very much alike Bebootje. Thanks again!

That is strange, why – if Jane Tanners story was genuine – would her own husband go on
searching in the exact opposite direction?
David Payne and Matthew Oldfield also were spotted in direction to the beach. The exact spot maybe is known by the police but can’t be concluded out of this statement. But it is possible They were in the the same area as Russel was spotted.
So why was Russel - and possibly David and Matthew - searching at that area. The area“Smithman was seen”? Could it be to prevent other people searching at that area?

And why did Gerry, the following morning, take Katey on a wild goose chase jumping over walls and scrabbling through bushes when he, Gerry, knew about the alleged sighting by JT.
p. 83 " We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes.".
And when Katey found out that Gerry already knew about the "sighting' and therefore of the direction in which the search should have been conducted, she did not react by killing him.
p. 83 "That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street. Although Gerry and our friends had been trying to protect me from further distress by not telling me about this sooner, when they did I was strangely relieved."
She felt strangely relieved ... that a whole hour had been totally wasted, ( and that her new trainers had got muddy).
This is totally preposterous.

PeterMac wrote:

That is strange, why – if Jane Tanners story was genuine – would her own husband go on
searching in the exact opposite direction?
David Payne and Matthew Oldfield also were spotted in direction to the beach. The exact spot maybe is known by the police but can’t be concluded out of this statement. But it is possible They were in the the same area as Russel was spotted.
So why was Russel - and possibly David and Matthew - searching at that area. The area“Smithman was seen”? Could it be to prevent other people searching at that area?

And why did Gerry, the following morning, take Katey on a wild goose chase jumping over walls and scrabbling through bushes when he, Gerry, knew about the alleged sighting by JT.
p. 83 " We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes.".
And when Katey found out that Gerry already knew about the "sighting' and therefore of the direction in which the search should have been conducted, she did not react by killing him.
p. 83 "That morning I learned of the man Jane had seen in the street. Although Gerry and our friends had been trying to protect me from further distress by not telling me about this sooner, when they did I was strangely relieved."
She felt strangely relieved ... that a whole hour had been totally wasted, ( and that her new trainers had got muddy).
This is totally preposterous.

Strange that Gerry knew about JT's sighting, yet involved kate in a wild goose chase jumping over walls looking into ditches and holes in the god forsaken hours in the early hours the morning after.

Strange that neither gerry nor the group of friend saw fit to inform kate about JT's sighting? Why keep it from especially kate.....isn't Maddie also gerry's child? Where was kate when they told gerry that anyway - did JT have to specially drag gerry aside to give him that info?

Was gerry thinking the abductor already killed and dumped Maddie when he led kate to search ditches and holes, yet didn't seem to be in same panic mood to search hours earlier when nearly the entire village was out there searching the general area?
What led him to think, only a few hours after the search party failed to find anything, that Maddie could possibly be in ditches and holes in the vicinity where the search party had looked earlier?

Which begs the question:
If kate and gerry's 'ditches and holes' search area was the same area as that covered by the earlier search party, did gerry seriously believe 'the pedophile' he claimed took Maddie, managed to perpetrate against Maddie (doing what kate imagined he did in her bewk) and simultaneously proceeded to kill then dump her in ditches or holes, carrying out all those deeds all this while in v. vicinity as the commotion of the search party, without any fear of being spotted by the extensive search party hunting for him?

Otherwise how to explain why gerry lead kate to search ditches and holes in an area already covered by search and police party aided by dogs, hours earlier, that yielded nothing?

When did gerry expect the pedoephile to have time to return to the vicinity to ditch Maddie's body? In the interim time between the police's search and his?

Or did he believe Maddie was already killed by the Pedo in the apt who then dumped her corpse in the ditches or holes in the vicinity before fleeing, hence the reason for his search?

Yes, the mccanns search of ditches and holes is strange indeed to say the least. The mccanns' every utterance is like boils on their bum, a nagging pain which won't go away.

Just been reading this thread (thanks tigger for linking it). Not come across it before.

Very interesting reading indeed.

---

Andrew77R wrote:Just been reading this thread (thanks tigger for linking it). Not come across it before.

Very interesting reading indeed.

This one went off topic too but I love PeterMac's post above - of course it doesn't make sense unless Gerry thought a bit of bracing exercise would do Kate some good ...  

Just bumping this up again as it doesn't appear in the debate section so can easily be missed. As we're discussing the Oldfields anyway. 

As for my previous post: seems from PeterMac's post that the McCanns aren't one of those couples who talk much to each other. Surely Kate would never have written the paragraph as quoted above  otherwise? 

So later that morning  Kate was relieved to have heard about the fast walking, faceless abductor, didn't Gerry know her well enough to understand that it would cheer her up? 
Not that I'll ever understand it, my first reaction would be to scream why the ..... didn't you say something last night, to me, to the police... 
No, twelve hours after the event it's a relief to Kate to hear about the sighting. Well, well. 

- and I've gone off topic so from a few pages back, folks, it''s all RO again and for RussianDoll especially, that bump on the head quote. Which is still pretty strange.

Apart from the illness issue discussed on the other thread, the following things stand out for me with regard to MO:

1. He mentions the man with the video:


"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".


2. The run. Despite having a wife and child unwell. Despite  having been unwell himself all weekend. Despite not liking running, we learn the following:


"........., . But, erm, yeah, but, erm, no, she's quite a good runner and I quite enjoy it every now and again, but, if it's sort of unusual and you're sort of exploring a bit".

4078 "And how did..."

Reply "I can't remember how that came about".

4078 "That is what I was going to ask".

3. The not seeming to know JW, yet he and  MW rep had awoken this man at 1am to tell him the news, but that he was not needed for the search.

Reply "No, there'd be rarely, rarely anybody about, maybe an occasional one person. Erm, tut, was he, was it the chap, whose name I can’t remember, he had a child who was willing to be part of, or was being suggested for the interview, Jeremy, Jeremy or somebody?"

4078 "Yeah".

Reply "Who had a child and I think I'd seen him around because I think their child didn't sleep particularly well and he may have been pushing or he might have been collecting from crèche, but what day or what time, I don't really remember".

4078 "How did you come to know Jeremy?"

Reply "It was a couple that we spoke to while we were on, Jeremy I think I spoke to on the coach, either on the coach or we already said something, you know, something when we were checking in, sort of that'd have been four o'clock in the morning or whenever it was, and there was, so I think I spoke to him on the coach or on the plane on the way over, definitely on the coach or on the plane on the way over, and sort of said hi every now and again, but didn't, erm, you know anything more than that really".

4078 "And did you speak to him during the holiday?"

Reply "Yeah, just on odd occasions".

4.The search.

....................And then, erm, after that we did more headless running around, checked on G****, erm, you know, at times we were sort of like crossing each other, there was Dave, and running on my own, and sort of the other way, and I then went out on the coast road a bit further down, erm, I don't know what we thought we could do, but it was just better than being close to them and being there, erm, and so we ran out on that, I think this road unfortunately is called, erm, which road is it, Cemetery Road I think it's called, I seem to remember noticing it because it seemed like a horrible, I think it’s this bit here".

4078 "It covers quite a lot of area".

Reply "You're basically out on, I think this is Cemetery Road or one of these roads and it just takes you out down the coast and there's lots of new build sort of resorts going up".

4078 "And all the areas that made a search, with hindsight or at the time, there was nothing that you can think of that might be relevant to?"

Reply "No, because as you went on you'd meet other groups, there was Nathan, one of the waterfront people, who managed the waterfront, who we'd met previous on a MARK WARNER holiday, so, you know, you'd sort of cross paths with people who were sort of searching and then, you know, it'd get deserted and there were dogs barking at you as you sort of wandered around, because some of the apartments were occupied and some were still being built, so there was a kind of a bit of, a sort of a lonely sort of isolated place,but, you know, it was all very sort of close, and there was nothing, you know, looking for sort of like funny parked cars or, erm, you know, anything really that seemed a bit odd".

5.And see how he rounds it off:

4078 "Then there was this awkward question that, is there any supplementary explanation…” (Meaning from the PJ I'm guessing - how bally awkward of them)

Reply "No.”

4078 "That you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth.”

Reply "No there’s nothing that we haven’t, err I haven’t suggested or thought of (inaudible).”

When it comes to Matthew Oldfield comment is sometimes superfluous. But I join the dots of what he says and I'm sure any interviewing officer worth their salt would do the same. Wouldn't they?

eta: Just noticed this:

4078 "You’ve already given an account of how you got involved in the searches and the fact that you went to speak to people at reception, and you noticed Nathan, somebody from Mark Warner.”

Reply "Yeah, water front manager err who we’d met before on a previous Mark Warner holiday. I think he recognised us or maybe he recognised Rachael and then the association to me err but err yeah we knew, we’d met him before.”

So did he first see this bod at reception? Or was it the search? Or had he seen him at reception first and then again "in a kind of a bit of a sort of a lonely sort of isolated place" while looking for "funny parked cars".

Quelle coincidence! either way.

I bet MO was bloody glad when they found out there had been technical difficulties and some of this pure garbage would never reach the ears of sentient beings.

WHEN did MO 'realise' that he, via the McCanns, would of/should of been the last person to 'see' a 'live' Madeleine?

He later goes to great lengths to say he didn't 'see' Madeleine but goes into great detail of 'seeing' the twins, in their seperate cots, 'breathing'

WHEN did it dawn on him that  the police would be have been told that HE would have been the last person to supposedly have seen Madeleine 'alive' in her bed?

The 'all quiet' excuse he gave for not 'seeing' Madeleine, but he did SEE the twins, dosen't stand up.

She may well have been 'quiet', in her bed, for any number of 'reasons' (sick, choked on vomit, banged/BUMPED her head on chest of drawers (as RO possibly 'suggested') and lying unconscious besides her bed, etc.,) in fact,. any number of reasons to explain her 'quietness' but MO is telling us he didn't take that ONE extra stride into the kids room, to confirm Madeleine was sleeping soundly in her bed, because it was 'quiet'

Here's something i learnt on my first aid course "DEAD people are very, very, QUIET"

He is a supposedly intelligent bloke, and a doctor to boot, and he's telling us he didn't check Madeleine because it was all 'quiet'

OH please, don't insult our intelligence Mr O.

WHY would you NOT check on all THREE children that you have 'volunteered' to check for the McCanns?

Why not just stick your head through the unlocked patio door, hear nothing, and then return to tapas, saying all 'quiet'?

WHY bother entering the McCanns unlocked apartment at all, go to kids room, not enter and not bother to ensure all THREE kids, are 'safe'?

As your mate GM said 'it just dosen't stack up"

But at least you had the good sense to 'clarify/ensure' that you were NOT the last person to see a 'live' Madeleine, putting that particular 'claim' firmly on Madeleine's father, GM's shoulders.

jeanmonroe wrote:WHEN did MO 'realise' that he, via the McCanns, would of/should of been the last person to 'see' a 'live' Madeleine?

He later goes to great lengths to say he didn't 'see' Madeleine but goes into great detail of 'seeing' the twins, in their seperate cots, 'breathing'

WHEN did it dawn on him that  the police would be have been told that HE would have been the last person to supposedly have seen Madeleine 'alive' in her bed?

The 'all quiet' excuse he gave for not 'seeing' Madeleine, but he did SEE the twins, dosen't stand up.

She may well have been 'quiet', in her bed, for any number of 'reasons' (sick, choked on vomit, banged her head on chest of drawers and lying unconscious besides her bed, etc.,) in fact,. any number of reasons to explain her 'quietness' but MO is telling us he didn't take that ONE extra stride into the kids room, to confirm Madeleine was sleeping soundly in her bed, because it was 'quiet'

He is a supposedly intelligent bloke, and a doctor to boot, and he's telling us he didn't check Madeleine because it was all 'quiet'

OH please, don't insult our intelligence Mr O.

WHY would you NOT check on all THREE children that you have 'volunteered' to check for the McCanns?

Why not just stick your head through the unlocked patio door, hear nothing, and then return to tapas, saying all 'quiet'

WHY bother entering the McCanns apartment at all, go to kids room, not enter and not bother to ensure all THREE kids, are 'safe'

All this garbage is in the public domain and you can bet your boots it will come back to bite any number of people on the backside in due course. Naturally, these people think they can hide behind one another. Wrong and it will come to pass in God's good time that they will be revealed.

How can anyone can look at this and other similar rogatories and say these persons are of no interest to the inquiry?

Well, the times they are a-changing. Someone will be punished big time in the future for dereliction of duty and letting this child down. It's so in your face that's the thing. So so wrong it screams at you to help her.

jeanmonroe wrote:WHEN did MO 'realise' that he, via the McCanns, would of/should of been the last person to 'see' a 'live' Madeleine?

He later goes to great lengths to say he didn't 'see' Madeleine but goes into great detail of 'seeing' the twins, in their seperate cots, 'breathing'

WHEN did it dawn on him that  the police would be have been told that HE would have been the last person to supposedly have seen Madeleine 'alive' in her bed?

The 'all quiet' excuse he gave for not 'seeing' Madeleine, but he did SEE the twins, dosen't stand up.

She may well have been 'quiet', in her bed, for any number of 'reasons' (sick, choked on vomit, banged/BUMPED her head on chest of drawers (as RO possibly 'suggested') and lying unconscious besides her bed, etc.,) in fact,. any number of reasons to explain her 'quietness' but MO is telling us he didn't take that ONE extra stride into the kids room, to confirm Madeleine was sleeping soundly in her bed, because it was 'quiet'

He is a supposedly intelligent bloke, and a doctor to boot, and he's telling us he didn't check Madeleine because it was all 'quiet'

OH please, don't insult our intelligence Mr O.

WHY would you NOT check on all THREE children that you have 'volunteered' to check for the McCanns?

Why not just stick your head through the unlocked patio door, hear nothing, and then return to tapas, saying all 'quiet'?

WHY bother entering the McCanns unlocked apartment at all, go to kids room, not enter and not bother to ensure all THREE kids, are 'safe'?

As your mate GM said 'it just dosen't stack up"

But at least you had the good sense to 'clarify/ensure' that you were NOT the last person to see a 'live' Madeleine, putting that particular 'claim' firmly on Madeleine's father, GM's shoulders.

Gerry McCann stood in the doorway having a proud father moment.

Kate McCann 'nearly' didn't go into the children's room until she noticed the door was 'not how we had left it'.

MO didn't go into the children's room so he says and didn't see Madeleine but wished he had.

Apparently everyone was afraid to go into the children's room.

Madeleine, your daddy and your mummy didn't tuck you in when they popped in to check on you. Your mummy and daddy didn't check if you were warm in your bed.

That's how it strikes me - and it's not normal.

As any real parent will tell you, it's when the kids ARE or GO 'quiet' that is most 'worrying' or 'suspicious'!

When they are 'boistrous and screaming their heads of, larking about. etc' you KNOW they are ok.

But if they suddenly go 'quiet' the red flag goes up!

All imo. (and experience!)

But what do i know?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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

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

I just want to correct my post - from 3 years ago - oops!  
Of course there was no 'lost in translation' - this was the Rogatory Interview with Leics Police!
Think I was having a bad day! (Or still in shock from Rachel's vile words  )

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

RACHEL OLDFIELD Reply "Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they'd  accidentally DONE anything TO Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn't quite right, I mean they wouldn't have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would or sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they're parents and you'd kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally BEEN bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know tried to revive a child, erm".
-----------------------------------------------------

"there were plenty of people THERE who could of, you know, tried to revive a child, erm".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

YEP. "TRIED" and 'FAILED', miserably, imo.

eta: RO: "really would be able to see that they couldn’t have done it. I was THERE and I know that they didn’t do it."

She never did EXPLAIN what the 'IT' was, that the McCanns could NOT hve 'done' or did NOT 'do', did she?

jeanmonroe wrote:WHEN did MO 'realise' that he, via the McCanns, would of/should of been the last person to 'see' a 'live' Madeleine?

He later goes to great lengths to say he didn't 'see' Madeleine but goes into great detail of 'seeing' the twins, in their seperate cots, 'breathing'

WHEN did it dawn on him that  the police would be have been told that HE would have been the last person to supposedly have seen Madeleine 'alive' in her bed?

The 'all quiet' excuse he gave for not 'seeing' Madeleine, but he did SEE the twins, dosen't stand up.

She may well have been 'quiet', in her bed, for any number of 'reasons' (sick, choked on vomit, banged/BUMPED her head on chest of drawers (as RO possibly 'suggested') and lying unconscious besides her bed, etc.,) in fact,. any number of reasons to explain her 'quietness' but MO is telling us he didn't take that ONE extra stride into the kids room, to confirm Madeleine was sleeping soundly in her bed, because it was 'quiet'

Here's something i learnt on my first aid course "DEAD people are very, very, QUIET"

He is a supposedly intelligent bloke, and a doctor to boot, and he's telling us he didn't check Madeleine because it was all 'quiet'

OH please, don't insult our intelligence Mr O.

WHY would you NOT check on all THREE children that you have 'volunteered' to check for the McCanns?

Why not just stick your head through the unlocked patio door, hear nothing, and then return to tapas, saying all 'quiet'?

WHY bother entering the McCanns unlocked apartment at all, go to kids room, not enter and not bother to ensure all THREE kids, are 'safe'?

As your mate GM said 'it just dosen't stack up"

But at least you had the good sense to 'clarify/ensure' that you were NOT the last person to see a 'live' Madeleine, putting that particular 'claim' firmly on Madeleine's father, GM's shoulders.

It was more than one extra stride I'd say from where he said (in the mockumentary)  he was positioned. More like four or five  feet IIRC. He was claiming he could see the twins' breathing in semi darkness through mesh sides from a distance of about 8-10 feet.  It was also cold that evening we are told by JT. Presumably the children had some bedding on as well. But - well - he has no difficulty seeing the rise and fall of their breathing.

This topic is a huge red flag for me. 

RO says she went back to check...

to make sure 'nobody is screaming their head off'. 

Nobody?  

I thought they only had one child. So who else would be screaming apart from her child whom she doesn't name? 

The phrase 'screaming their head off' is such an odd phrase too. The sort of thing you'd say if the child screaming may possibly wake another child. 

Again, I thought she was left alone. I'd be more inclined to use a gentler phrase about a child being upset at being left alone and poorly. 

Leads me to think all the children were left together. 


I find the whole of RO statement abhorrent and cannot fathom why their poorly daughter was left alone at all. 


And MO is as slippery as an eel.

There were a number of remarks which were not repeated much - imo after PR advice - one is the 'proud father moment' over- egging the pudding imo and another one which annoyed me no end;  when he last saw her she was lying in the recovery position and one of the T7 had commented that that was a typical doctor's observation. i.e. nobody but a doctor would have noticed that.

My point is that it shows up the mindset of that group. The superiority complex they appear to suffer from for a start.

Come to think of it, for all we know that recovery position remark might be true, except not at 9.00 PM on 3/5/07.

**%^€>~}{<€*$$+¥¥><~,,!!!!!! ( translation not available)