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

by canada12 11.05.14 20:21

tigger wrote: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 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 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 might be true, except not at 9.00 PM on 3/5/07.

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

The "recovery position" sounds like she was just lying on her side, but in fact, a true "recovery position" is not a natural position.

Here's a picture of a true "recovery position":
Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 6 Recovery-position

Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 6 Recovery-position

I've taken industrial first aid - it's the position you put an unconscious person in so they don't have their airway blocked or aspirate the contents if they happen to vomit, among other things.

I remember Gerry's remark that Madeleine was in the recovery position, and I always thought that was a very strange thing for him to say. Why would he be that specific about the way she was lying in bed? Would he use that term normally, or would he just say, a person was lying on his or her side.

by XTC 11.05.14 23:10

Bebootje

Your post is very informative and has revealed something to me that as far as I know has never been asked - which is were there any cars on the Car Park at the wooden door side of the apartments close to the time of the incident ? The answer from this lady and her partner is yes- but only one. A small grey car parked right near the window Madeleine was alleged to have been removed through. This was witnessed at 9.58
just before the alarm went off. I wonder who's car that was?

I wonder if the GNR policemen or PJ police asked whether any cars were in the Car Park between 8.30pm and 10.30pm?

If there were - particularly with all the chatter of abduction abounding - wouldn't there be some questions to ask the checkers ( particularly those who went round to the wooden front door entrances) as to whether any cars that were on the car park when checking were no longer there when the alarm was raised?

by Cristobell 11.05.14 23:53

heinzbeanz wrote: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.

What a callous woman she is. 'To make sure nobody is screaming their heads off' shows how little she regards the feelings of the small children left alone in the apartments.

by Okeydokey 11.05.14 23:56

heinzbeanz wrote: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.

...and as transparent as a jelly fish.

by LittleMissy 20.07.14 12:45

candyfloss wrote:Sunday, 6 November 2011

A Rogatory Review

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

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

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

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

~o0o~

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

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

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

1578 "Okay, and the route taken"?

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

1578 "In through the front door"?

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

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

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

~o0o~

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

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

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/

!!!!!!!!! Oooooooh myyyy days. Wow. *picks jaw off floor*

by LittleMissy 20.07.14 12:55

On top of the jaw dropping last paragraph..... before that we learn that, one child was ill, that ill child was left alone whilst parents dined out checking for the 'smell' from time to time. *shakes head*
Oh & not forgetting the mother did not like the checking walk, it made her uneasy, so dark & quiet, eerie it was..... BUT SEEMINGLY OK TO LEAVE CHILDEN ALONE in area, that mother herself admits felt eerie at night. *mind boggling* nah

by j.rob 20.07.14 19:11

heinzbeanz wrote: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.

The phrase "screaming their head off" is no coincidence. The neighbour, Mrs Fenn, heard a child screaming his or her head off on Monday 1st May. Therefore this is a highly charged topic. She is sure that the crying came from the McCann apartment and she thinks that it was a child older than two. Therefore, it seems likely that the screaming she heard was coming from Madeleine.

A child disappears in mysterious circumstances. A neighbour hears a child crying in distress from the parents' apartment a few days earlier. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to start to feel a little suspicious.

The crying went on from 10.30pm until 11.45pm which is one hour and a quarter. And, as reported by Mrs Fenn, it became 'more expressive' as time went on. That is a very, very long time for a child to be crying in distress at night.

I recently heard a child crying out in distress for perhaps 5 minutes, if that, and I was on the brink of ringing the doorbell of the house in question. I made it very clear - standing outside the house - that I was concerned.

Are we sure that Mrs Fenn did not phone Ocean Club reception? Presumably, if she assumed that the crying stopped when the parents returned through the patio doors, then she was aware that the McCann were in the habit of leaving their children in the evening without a babysitter. She presumably thought that the crying went on for so long because there was no adult there to comfort the child?

In any event, we know that Mrs Fenn was concerned enough to phone a friend/relative about it and express her concern. It is also reported that she heard the child crying out 'Daddy' repeatedly. Again, I think the inference being that the child was crying out for his or her Daddy.

And while Mrs Fenn has said that the crying stopped abruptly when she heard the sound of the patio doors being opened/closed - and she assumed this was the parents returning - she does not know this as she was not looking outside at the time. So it could, for instance, have been someone leaving the apartment. Or it could have been someone other than the parents going into the apartment.

In any event, Mrs Fenn - despite her being a key witness who might have seen/heard "the abductor" - is given short thrift by the McCanns. Kate and Jane Tanner are verbally abusive towards her - as helpfully outlined in Kate's ghastly book. And Kate, typically, makes a derogatory personal remark about her, describing her accent as 'plummy' and her response to the McCann staged histrionics and melodrama as 'woefully inadequate."

In views of the prolonged episode of crying that Mrs Fenn had heard coming from the McCann apartment earlier in the week, you can well imagine that she was more than a little bemused by the parents behaviour. Mrs Fenn apparently offered to phone the police but Gerry tells her this has already been done. It would be interesting to know the precise time she spoke to Gerry as the police station logs the first call as being at 10.40pm (or close to that time) I do believe.

It is also very telling, in my opinion, that Gerry does not tell her that it is his daughter who has "been abducted". She learns this later and it is on record that she is surprised that he did not initially tell her that it was Madeleine.

Hmmm.

by j.rob 20.07.14 19:35

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

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

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

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

There must be a very pressing reason why she flags up that there was a horrible smell coming from the apartment. Therefore necessitating the need to wash clothes AND bedding THROUGHOUT the week, including, perhaps the undersheet. (Although I presume their baby was in a cot rather than a bed?)

Given that it appears to be extraordinarily neglectful to leave a baby alone in an apartment, let alone a baby that had chronic diarrhoea every day, there must be a reason that is so important that it overshadows the neglect aspect of this behaviour?

And of course bad smells are a feature of this case, both literally and metaphorically. As is the washing/laundry of clothes, bedding, toys (even curtains it has been suggested). As well as the bathing of children.

Also, why use the expression "grow bag"? A grow bag is something you cultivate vegetables in. Does she mean "baby-grow" - the all in one jump suit that babies often wear? In which case why not use that expression? Or does she mean baby sleeping bag/sleep suit, in which case why not use that expression? Why use the word bag at all?

by Guest 20.07.14 19:53

Rachel probably thinks they're called grow bags! She's a high-flying lawyer, did you know. Let's face it, none of the tapas crew are hands-on parents - dumping their kids in creche on a daily basis (even when one has been mysteriously abducted), seeing them only at meal-times and bedtime, and then leaving them alone (allegedly) sleeping while eating and (lots of) drinking at the nearby bar. I really don't know why some people have children.

by canada12 20.07.14 20:16

j.rob wrote:
It is also very telling, in my opinion, that Gerry does not tell her that it is his daughter who has "been abducted". She learns this later and it is on record that she is surprised that he did not initially tell her that it was Madeleine.

Hmmm.

Obviously trying to disconnect Mrs. Fenn from Madeleine. Gerry IMO is very aware that Mrs. Fenn heard Madeleine crying before this night. And I believe that if he had said, "My daughter has been abducted" or "My daughter is missing", he would have been aware that Mrs. Fenn would have immediately made the connection in her mind. "Daughter crying" and "daughter now missing." Which might have led Mrs. Fenn to make a comment to Gerry about this, or elaborate further on the crying episode, or (horrors), speak to others - particularly the police - about the crying episode.

By stating that it's only a "little girl" who has gone missing, this effectively disconnects Mrs. Fenn from any immediate connection, lets Gerry off the hook so he can escape having to talk to her, and ensures Mrs. Fenn doesn't "helpfully" provide additional immediate information to the police and others.

All IMO.

by j.rob 20.07.14 20:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:[ Extract from Rachael Oldfield's rogatory interview...] "...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”.

REST SNIPPED

Someone on the Missing Madeleine forum, justice4allkids I think it was, drew attention to this phrase:

if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head

and asked why Rachael Oldfield didn't say:

if Madeleine had accidentally bumped her head

I thought it was a good point. Was it, as rainbow-fairy has pointed out, another example of a 'leaking brain'?

Yes.

Still, I imagine it would not have been very impressive if, when police/social workers and all the rest arrived on the scene, the McCanns and their friends told them: "Madeleine has accidentally been bumped on the head."

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

So this begs a few questions. Did some of them try, but fail? Or did they not try?

Maybe the Smiths saw someone who was in the process of trying to revive a child - taking a child somewhere where he she might receive treatment?

by NickE 20.07.14 21:36

j.rob wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:[ Extract from Rachael Oldfield's rogatory interview...] "...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”.

REST SNIPPED

Someone on the Missing Madeleine forum, justice4allkids I think it was, drew attention to this phrase:

if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head

and asked why Rachael Oldfield didn't say:

if Madeleine had accidentally bumped her head

I thought it was a good point. Was it, as rainbow-fairy has pointed out, another example of a 'leaking brain'?
Yes.

Still, I imagine it would not have been very impressive if, when police/social workers and all the rest arrived on the scene, the McCanns and their friends told them: "Madeleine has accidentally been bumped on the head."

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

So this begs a few questions. Did some of them try, but fail? Or did they not try?

Maybe the Smiths saw someone who was in the process of trying to revive a child - taking a child somewhere where he she might receive treatment?

That thought has crossed my mind many times.
Take a closer look where "LuzDoc" is located.

Rua 25 de Abril 12, Luz

, Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 6 Luzdoc10

Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 6 Luzdoc10

by frost 20.07.14 21:53

There is a brand of sleeping bags for babies which are indeed called grobags

http://gro.co.uk/grobag-baby-sleep-bags

hence people also refer to them as grow bags

by Five Ice Creams 21.07.14 1:43

What I've never understood is why the focus solely on the McCanns regarding the neglect? Why not refocus and publicise THIS interview as far and as wide as possible (via social media)?

Currently, in the consciousness of the public at least, she's simply one of a gang of neglectful/misguided parents. Isolating her as the neglectful parent of an ILL baby will gain specific attention to her OWN words ... to her OWN legal statement ... no speculation, no lies, no conspirancy theory ...

Surely specifc details of this popping up in the FB pages/Twitter feeds of family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and CLIENTS will result in some reaction - she can't sue, it's in the public domain, and it's her OWN words.

I imagine she'll feel the need to redeem her own reputation by withdrawing her statement that she neglected an ILL baby? IMO, we need to bear in mind, it's not only the McCann twins who will have access to the PJ files and have questions, the children of the remainder of that vile mob will have questions too.

Is that too simple? Letting the dogs eat the dogs whilst we watch?

In my defence: new

and I am only expressing my own opinion/views.

by View-from-Ireland 21.07.14 8:44

This thread is a real gem. There is some wonderful, probing analysis on here and reading through it has simply opened up the case to me.

I would like to see her re-interviewed and pressed on the many inconsistencies shown in her original. It's just unbelievable, she has given an account which simply does not stand up to any sort of mild scrutiny.

by j.rob 21.07.14 16:06

canada12 wrote:
tigger wrote: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 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 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 might be true, except not at 9.00 PM on 3/5/07.

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

The "recovery position" sounds like she was just lying on her side, but in fact, a true "recovery position" is not a natural position.

Here's a picture of a true "recovery position":

I've taken industrial first aid - it's the position you put an unconscious person in so they don't have their airway blocked or aspirate the contents if they happen to vomit, among other things.

I remember Gerry's remark that Madeleine was in the recovery position, and I always thought that was a very strange thing for him to say. Why would he be that specific about the way she was lying in bed? Would he use that term normally, or would he just say, a person was lying on his or her side.

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

This always struck me a strange thing to say. Surely this is an example of yet more 'brain leakage' where the truth will come out irrespective of how much a person tries to cover something up, imo.

Almost as strange as Kate's account of how she found the twins at 10pm on Thursday evening:

"I wandered into the children's bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies. In spite of the noise and the lights and general pandemonium, they hadn't stirred. They'd always been sound sleepers, but that seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too?"

Quite why a mother who has discovered one of her children missing would be so nonchalant as to "wander" into the bedroom where her remaining children were sleeping is anyone's guess. A very strange choice of word. Despite Kate herself describing a strange 'crouch-like sleeping position and despite the fact that the twins appear to be practically in a coma and despite the fact that she writes that she was checking them for "signs of life" and despite the fact that Kate herself mentions the possibility of sedation, neither Kate or Gerry or any of their doctor friends tries to move or rouse the twins and check that they are okay.

There can only be ONE explanation for this.

Surely this is all more "brain leakage". Kate has told us what has happened, imo.

And don't forget that Matt at his 9.30pm 'check' reported that he saw the twins chests moving - in other words he reports that he saw the twins breathing in their cots.

Oh what a dreadful pickle they all got themselves in. Madeleine really did deserve better.

My own theories, as always.

by j.rob 21.07.14 16:52

Guest 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.

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

I wonder whether Madeleine ever went to the mini club at all? If, as some have suggested, there was pre-planning that dated from before the holiday then it might have been easier to pretend that another child was Madeleine. To have had Madeleine enrolled into the club for a few days and then disappear (before she was supposed to have disappeared on Thursday evening) might have been even harder to explain. It would also look very suspicious indeed if Madeleine stopped going to the mini-club a day or two BEFORE her alleged abduction.

And other children might have noticed and asked questions. Given how different she looks in various photographs, it would appear that the 'confusion' technique was at play here. No-one quite knew what she looked like. And the first poster photo of her was very out of date, digitally manipulated and not even accurate (showing a colomba when she didn't, in fact, have one - I mean that is just - ridiculous as Gerry himself might say. In fact, it would very effectively prevent Madeleine being found, so I can only presume that was the intention.)

I presume this is why so much emphasis is put on Madeleine being at the mini-tennis session with her mini club on Tuesday (the tennis balls photo) and on Madeleine being in the OC club resort on Thursday (the 'final photo' of Madeleine, allegedly sitting by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.) Sadly, I can only reach a conclusion that Madeleine was in neither of these places at those times. And I can only conclude that the absence of up to date photos is not a coincidence.

At one stage, holiday-makers were being urged to send any of their photos taken at Ocean Club that week to Team Mc! Allegedly to help identify 'the abductor'. That must have been a goldmine of information for TM in terms of potential witnesses and other information about holiday-makers and their children.

Some people have said that it is unbelievable that another child could have been passed off as Madeleine, but I do not think that is the case. The signing-in and out register is often quite chaotic. Staff are used to high volumes of children coming and going.

Even in settings such as schools, staff can get muddled over children and names. I can remember having parent-teacher meetings where teachers clearly had no idea which child was mine even after a year or more of teaching them! This especially happened when there were quite a few children who looked vaguely similar and shared the same name.

by NickE 21.07.14 22:50

I think "Kiko" have been in contact with Robert Naylor,and he admitted that Gerry signed in Elizabeth at Creche.

by rainbow-fairy 22.07.14 1:24

I totally agree with all your thinking there, j.rob.
I'm not 100% sold on the 'sub' theory, but it certainly is possible, and as you point out, not as difficult as maybe it first appears yes

by rainbow-fairy 22.07.14 1:45

I actually find this statement of Rachel's the most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly in the 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it! coffee

by **tigger** 22.07.14 7:07

Yes, she's a very bad liar. i must read it again but is the smell account closely related to her tying herself into knots about 5 no six doctors, naming them and then the passive suggestion about 'been' bumped on the head. Accidentally. Not Maddie having an accident, falling or whatever, but 'been' which for me is different.
'i've been bumped' is quite different from 'I bumped' .

Rachel was not entirely on board with the official line on the shutters either in her early statement.
She stuck to the handwritten timeline - all shutters down, including those of the patio doors.

by nglfi 22.07.14 8:47

rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of Rachel's the most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly in the 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it!

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements. Almost everyone, adults and children alike, seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to, like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes. It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.

by HelenMeg 22.07.14 10:01

nglfi wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of Rachel's the most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly in the 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it!

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements. Almost everyone, adults and children alike, seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to, like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes. It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.

Yes - this is a good point. I also do not believe for one minute in NEGLECT. Also, this need to mention the smell and sickness of her baby. Most reasonable people would have felt such guilt in that situation, at leaving a baby who was ill and soiling her nappy - they would not wish to advertise it. The fact that she mentions it and emphasizes the sickness / smell says that she was trying hard to cover up something else.

Yes, she may have been needing to explain why there was a lot of washing done / why there was a strong smell / maybe it was an over-embellishment (often done when people lie).
Lets assume for a minute that there was no neglect. Maybe her statement is simply trying to say ' Yes there WAS neglect / YES YES we did neglect our babies ' so that we all believe the ABDUCTION.

One thing for sure is that whatever, was going on, they are all complicit in covering it up.

by rainbow-fairy 22.07.14 11:08

HelenMeg wrote:
nglfi wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of Rachel's the most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly in the 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it!

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements. Almost everyone, adults and children alike, seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to, like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes. It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.
Yes - this is a good point. I also do not believe for one minute in NEGLECT. Also, this need to mention the smell and sickness of her baby. Most reasonable people would have felt such guilt in that situation, at leaving a baby who was ill and soiling her nappy - they would not wish to advertise it. The fact that she mentions it and emphasizes the sickness / smell says that she was trying hard to cover up something else.

Yes, she may have been needing to explain why there was a lot of washing done / why there was a strong smell / maybe it was an over-embellishment (often done when people lie).
Lets assume for a minute that there was no neglect. Maybe her statement is simply trying to say ' Yes there WAS neglect / YES YES we did neglect our babies ' so that we all believe the ABDUCTION.

One thing for sure is that whatever, was going on, they are all complicit in covering it up.

Thank you nglfi and HelenMeg, you have both summed up exactly what I was getting at yes

Just relieved my sleepy pondering made sense big grin

I can (just about) understand implicating yourself in something if you had something to hide, but I still believe it would be in the context of 'minimising', not making yourself appear an even bigger monster!

Definite reason for the mention. I didn't think about all the washing of sheets, in retrospect that makes a lot more sense than maybe cadaver smell, *unless* it was in an apartment that wasn't actually searched.
I still think there is much confusion about where the T9/children were, and where they actually had 'access' to on that holiday.
All just my opinion... But, whatever, 'no neglect - no abduction'...

by HelenMeg 22.07.14 11:27

rainbow-fairy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
nglfi wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of Rachel's the most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly in the 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it!

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements. Almost everyone, adults and children alike, seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to, like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes. It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.
Yes - this is a good point. I also do not believe for one minute in NEGLECT. Also, this need to mention the smell and sickness of her baby. Most reasonable people would have felt such guilt in that situation, at leaving a baby who was ill and soiling her nappy - they would not wish to advertise it. The fact that she mentions it and emphasizes the sickness / smell says that she was trying hard to cover up something else.

Yes, she may have been needing to explain why there was a lot of washing done / why there was a strong smell / maybe it was an over-embellishment (often done when people lie).
Lets assume for a minute that there was no neglect. Maybe her statement is simply trying to say ' Yes there WAS neglect / YES YES we did neglect our babies ' so that we all believe the ABDUCTION.

One thing for sure is that whatever, was going on, they are all complicit in covering it up.
Thank you nglfi and HelenMeg, you have both summed up exactly what I was getting at
Just relieved my sleepy pondering made sense

I can (just about) understand implicating yourself in something if you had something to hide, but I still believe it would be in the context of 'minimising', not making yourself appear an even bigger monster!

Definite reason for the mention. I didn't think about all the washing of sheets, in retrospect that makes a lot more sense than maybe cadaver smell, *unless* it was in an apartment that wasn't actually searched.
I still think there is much confusion about where the T9/children were, and where they actually had 'access' to on that holiday.
All just my opinion... But, whatever, 'no neglect - no abduction'...

I think its really good o bring these things up and re-examine them. I have often thought Rachel's attitude was strange - almost as if she had no real feelings for her child (which cant be true and is not likely to be true). It didn't make sense. She had to be covering up something. It was more important to hide XX than it was to admit that her baby was left despite having diarrhea and dirty nappies.

Like you say, it has never really been established whether the children were left in one room and supervised each night by an adult (the adult who happened to be sick), or whether the children were never left at all (only on the 3rd May to enable abduction). We just dont seem to know... frustrating..

If I were in a group of adults and children on holiday... what would I do? Well, I would put my children to bed - probably later than usual - although at the age of 1, 2 or 3 etc probably wold stick to their usual routine. Myself or partner / husband would stay with them. One of us or both would stay in to be with them. I wouldnt want my very young child to be in a room with all the others, supervised by another adult.
I think most other Mums / Dads would feel similarly. Therefore I think that this group did exactly that.

I dont for one moment think this group of people were monsters (cowards - yes). I think they cared for their children as most of us do. I just think they got themselves into a situation and decided to lie and cover up to save their careers and reputations.

by j.rob 22.07.14 12:24

Angelique wrote:This strange phenomenon appears catching:

Russell O'Brien: "You're far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some', you know, 'random stranger'. Erm, which in light of the way that the Police investigation has gone, erm, it feels like, you know, erm, a real kick in the nuts"
1578 "'Far more like to get clobbered by'?"
Reply "You know, you're far more likely to have, you know, you know, to have a problem with somebody, from somebody you know, and we actually said, and that was actually sort of said, you know, we all worry about, you know, a small number of fairly kind of sick perverts".
1578 "Rather than a stranger?"
Reply "Rather than a stranger, yeah, but, huh, erm, which of course, you know, of course statistically is true, erm."

From:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id356.html

Russell's statement is a classic. The police must have thought they had struck gold.

For greater clarity I've snipped bits without altering the meaning.

Russell: You are far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some random stranger

Police: Far more likely to get clobbered by?

Russell: Far more likely to have a problem with somebody you know. We actually said we all worry about a small number of fairly sick perverts.

Police: Rather than a stranger?

Russel: Rather than a stranger. Yeah.

by j.rob 22.07.14 12:36

I dont for one moment think this group of people were monsters (cowards - yes). I think they cared for their children as most of us do. I just think they got themselves into a situation and decided to lie and cover up to save their careers and reputations.

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

I think you are cutting way too much slack for them. There was a distinct lack of care with regards to Madeleine, at least, in my opinion. The behaviour of both Gerry and Kate following their daughter's mysterious 'disappearance' has sent shivers down my spine. I find it devoid of sincere human emotion.

What about all the children of the Tapas group? How are they going to process all this as they grow up? The twins have been left a hideous lifelong legacy. IF at some stage it is discovered that the parents and/or their friends/acquaintances are complicit in some way in what happened, what a horrible burden to bear. Emotionally, psychologically and so on. The other children of the group - some of whom were friends with Madeleine. What kind of message is this sending out to them?

Hope they've got some good therapists lined up, because, IMHO, they are most certainly going to need them.

All my own views. Hope I am wrong.

by nglfi 22.07.14 13:39

HelenMeg wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
nglfi wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: I actually find this statement of listeninghe most worrying of all the Rogatories (maybe with the exception of DP's)
I find it sinister, and sick.
Apart from that something is bugging me. Its hard to explain where my thinking is going but;

I am firmly 'no neglect' camp - I just don't believe it happened. IIRC, GA was erring towards all the children being looked after together somewhere.

What I find difficult to understand is this. Even if this were a straightforward case of neglect, resulting in a genuine stranger abduction, WHY would RM feel the need to 'admit' to the fact she not only left her tiny baby, but that said tiny baby was so poorly she was soiling not only her gro-bag but also the bedding, resulting in a 'horrendous smell'?
Like it or not, it is human nature to 'minimise' mistakes - the McCanns have been doing it all along - but not Rachel. Again, why?
Looking at her statement, it screams 'I am an unfit mother, my child should be in care'!
What need was there to mention the ill baby? As far as we know it wasn't mentioned before in this depth, and she could have just said she left the baby and that was that. Who would there be to drop her in it and say it was poorly (if anyone even knew)?
She said she didn't like the walk to the apartment and found it scary, yet felt fine to leave her baby there? In a group where the majority were medics she still thought it ok to leave a baby that was so obviously ill? I don't believe it for one second.

This mentioning of the illness and 'smell' is what is getting to me.
Is the 'smell' mentioned for a reason? If we can't be certain where the children were, where Maddie was?
I don't think it can be that, considering the dogs only alerted to 5A - but then there was apartment 5J where the dogs showed an interest.
Do we know who was in 5J? Could this have been the 'babysitting' flat? Maddie left there for some time?
Referring to a smell there?
I don't know, it just feels to me like the mention of smell is almost trying to 'cover' something...

I'm probably way off and its late so may not have explained as clearly as I'm pondering it!

I agree with this. It's been a while since I've read the rogatories fully, but something that struck me at the time was the common theme of illness running throughout the statements. Almost everyone, adults and children alike, seems to have been sick at some point or other. Why? It's not as if Portugal is an unhygienic country, or one that takes a lot of adjusting to, like middle eastern countries for example. IMO there has to be a reason for mentioning it, and I think that is the washing of sheets and bedclothes. It's silly because if they hadn't mentioned it at all it might not stand out as something unusual (I do know if people that weirdly do this on holiday), but the exaggerated need to explain it away is a huge red flag.
Yes - this is a good point. I also do not believe for one minute in NEGLECT. Also, this need to mention the smell and sickness of her baby. Most reasonable people would have felt such guilt in that situation, at leaving a baby who was ill and soiling her nappy - they would not wish to advertise it. The fact that she mentions it and emphasizes the sickness / smell says that she was trying hard to cover up something else.

Yes, she may have been needing to explain why there was a lot of washing done / why there was a strong smell / maybe it was an over-embellishment (often done when people lie).
Lets assume for a minute that there was no neglect. Maybe her statement is simply trying to say ' Yes there WAS neglect / YES YES we did neglect our babies ' so that we all believe the ABDUCTION.

One thing for sure is that whatever, was going on, they are all complicit in covering it up.
Thank you nglfi and HelenMeg, you have both summed up exactly what I was getting at
Just relieved my sleepy pondering made sense

I can (just about) understand implicating yourself in something if you had something to hide, but I still believe it would be in the context of 'minimising', not making yourself appear an even bigger monster!

Definite reason for the mention. I didn't think about all the washing of sheets, in retrospect that makes a lot more sense than maybe cadaver smell, *unless* it was in an apartment that wasn't actually searched.
I still think there is much confusion about where the T9/children were, and where they actually had 'access' to on that holiday.
All just my opinion... But, whatever, 'no neglect - no abduction'...
I think its really good o bring these things up and re-examine them. I have often thought Rachel's attitude was strange - almost as if she had no real feelings for her child (which cant be true and is not likely to be true). It didn't make sense. She had to be covering up something. It was more important to hide XX than it was to admit that her baby was left despite having diarrhea and dirty nappies.

Like you say, it has never really been established whether the children were left in one room and supervised each night by an adult (the adult who happened to be sick), or whether the children were never left at all (only on the 3rd May to enable abduction). We just dont seem to know... frustrating..

If I were in a group of adults and children on holiday... what would I do? Well, I would put my children to bed - probably later than usual - although at the age of 1, 2 or 3 etc probably wold stick to their usual routine. Myself or partner / husband would stay with them. One of us or both would stay in to be with them. I wouldnt want my very young child to be in a room with all the others, supervised by another adult.
I think most other Mums / Dads would feel similarly. Therefore I think that this group did exactly that.

I dont for one moment think this group of people were monsters (cowards - yes). I think they cared for their children as most of us do. I just think they got themselves into a situation and decided to lie and cover up to save their careers and reputations.

Something I've never understood, well two things actually -
1 - why this emphasis on 'listening' at the door, rather than going in to check on the children. If you've made the effort to get up from your seat and walk up the stairs, why not make that final step and actually look inside at your baby, you know, just to make sure they're ok?
2 - something that really doesn't add up about the statements is the idea that they would take turns to get up from the table to check, but mostly (apart from one or two occasions) only check their own children. If they're getting up anyway, why not make the effort to check each child so that only one parent has to get up at a time?? If they were only checking their own children, why the need to get up from the table separately? Doesn't make sense.

by j.rob 22.07.14 13:50

While Rachael's statement is very peculiar, her partner, Matt was the one who returned to Luz to do the creepy 'Madeleine was Here' re-enactment of his 'final check' at 9.30pm that Thursday evening.

An early police statement of Russells is also of interest as it includes the mysterious video-recording episode which happened, apparently, on the morning of Thursday 4th May. Kate writes about this in her book - page 64 - and, imo, spins and tries to sanitize the version of events. But her account fails to be convincing and I think it is another classic example of how TM manage to tie themselves up in knots.

What is of interest is that in an early police statement, Russell gives an account of how a holiday-maker, Nigel, approaches the group on Thursday morning as they (members of the Mc group) are video-recording Nigel's child during a mini-tennis session. Russell's account of this suggests that Nigel approached the Mc group and told them that their video-recording of his daughter was making him feel uncomfortable.

Yet in the statement, Russell says he does not remember seeing a video-recorder!

In Kate's book, she claims that it is Nigel who is video-recording his own daughter playing mini-tennis and it is Nigel who volunteers the information to the Mc group that "filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man."

I have written at length elsewhere about this very strange episode. But I do not believe for one minute that Nigel told Kate or Russell that he felt like a dirty old man. The idea is preposterous. Far more likely to be true is the account given by Russell in an earlier police statement in which Nigel was concerned about the group filming his daughter without his permission.

In later police statements, Russell's account of this incident is either different or ommitted. Matt also gives an account of this incident in which I think he claims that Nigel is video-recording his own daughter and Matt found nothing strange about that.

No - why would there be anything strange about Nigel video-recording his own daughter playing mini-tennis. However, there would be something strange about a member of the MT video-recording Nigel's daughter, wouldn't there?

Apart from anything, why would the McTeam want to film someone else's child playing mini-tennis when they appear to have not filmed their own children or even taken any photos of them during the week. No photos of any of their children playing with Madeleine or the twins, for instance?

Oh, I forgot, there is that peculiar one with Gerry supposedly playing with Madeleine and a couple of other children near the Wendy House at Ocean Club. But that looks photo-shopped/staged/fake, imo. That is another very strange photo. At first glance, I thought the tall man walking away wearing cut-offs was Gerry. But then I saw Gerry goofing around supposedly playing with his children. And the man near the Wendy House is looking perplexedly at whoever is taking the photo - the only person of the group engaging with the photographer.

Why is it that in so many of the MT photos there is no engagement with the photographer of those supposed to be the important ones in the photo but, instead, engagement from what at first glance appear to be random people in the background? You see this time and time again and it is just so weird.

Almost as weird as the video-recorder that Nigel saw TM using. But Russell can't remember seeing. And Kate saw Nigel using. And then, later, Russell and Matt saw Nigel using.

Would be good to hear Nigel's account of this episode.

More smoke and mirrors I suppose.

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8649-statement-of-russell-o-brien-11th-may-2007

by Judex 22.07.14 15:44

You all point out these glaring anomalies so coherently and convincingly that it seems to me utterly incomprehensible that SY (who must be reading this!) have still not been shamed ("disgraced"???) into doing what we all know needs to be done, instead of playing circuses "for the English to see" (which, coincidentally, is the Portuguese idiom for doing something just for show!)

Keep up the good work!