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

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 11.11.11 12:41

Loose lips sink ships - let's hope so hey.

I don't believe the children were ever left alone either. Like others, I think this was a lie to support the abduction hoax.

This quote, taken from RO's statement stood out to me. It sounds strange; She makes it sound like they were both checking the same place. Why would she say - "Russell had stayed in the bedroom" Wouldn't you just say: stayed behind, stayed in the apartment? How did Matthew know Russell had stayed in the bedroom, did he go and check, did he ring him?

"RUSSEL and MATHEW left at the same time. About five minutes later, MATHEW returned saying that the children were all well, and that RUSSEL had stayed in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying."

Maybe nothing, but it doesn't read right to me.

by **HiDeHo** 11.11.11 12:56

I believe the neglect issue to be contrived to allow credibility for an 'abduction' to take place.

However, according to their statements, their children went to the Millenium with them on Saturday, Matthew stayed with them on Sunday (supposedly sick) Rachael stayed in the apartment on Wednesday (possibly Tuesday). ROB was one apartment away on Tuesday.

No mention about Monday.

No proof whatsoever that they left the children alone....but it's always alluded to.

If they claim they were responsible then the abduction couldn't have happened.

Neglect is a trade off for the truth imo

Rachael tried to help (imo) by claiming the last time she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis on THURSDAY.

Madeleine's group played on Tuesday, so does that mean she last saw Madeleine on TUESDAY?

Rachael was apparently playing tennis with Jane at the time the 'last picture' was taken. Jane claims that Madeleine shouted at them...was Rachael oblivious to the family, including Madeleine, being around the pool or was Jane claiming they were there to 'confirm' the 'last picture'?

Why would that discrepancy exist if Madeleine did not disappear until later that day?

by rainbow-fairy 11.11.11 13:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Tony, thank you for providing these interviews - I totally agree with your conclusions.
Most regular posters will be aware of my love of and interest in forensic linguistics! This certainly suggests Ms Oldfield's brain is desperately trying to 'leak' the truth (like Kate).
Yes, this is a very interesting suggestion - that despite a prodigious effort to cover up the truth, the brain somehow 'leaks' the truth, via the sub-conscious, either as you say through the words actually used, or of course by body language and gestures, like shaking of the head whilst asserting something, like avoiding eye contact, like nervous twitching, like scratching one's ear, etc.

Other clues include rapid speech when facing a difficult question, or unusually long-winded answers to simple questions.

And one of my personal favourites, as it crops up so often, saying "I would have done x' instead of 'I did x'.

rainbow-fairy, are you able perhaps to post up some links to some good quality articles on forensic linguistics?

Hi Tony, yes here are a couple:
This first is quite a comprehensive site;
http://deceptionanalysis.com/statement_analysis_content.html
A smaller post on Joana Morais;
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/01/truth-of-lie-is-always-revealed-by-face.html
And of course, Dr Martin Roberts at mccannfiles is always good -
Happy reading! Wink

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.11 13:48

Daisy wrote:Loose lips sink ships - let's hope so hey.

I don't believe the children were ever left alone either. Like others, I think this was a lie to support the abduction hoax.

This quote, taken from RO's statement stood out to me. It sounds strange; She makes it sound like they were both checking the same place. Why would she say - "Russell had stayed in the bedroom" Wouldn't you just say: stayed behind, stayed in the apartment? How did Matthew know Russell had stayed in the bedroom, did he go and check, did he ring him?

"RUSSEL and MATHEW left at the same time. About five minutes later, MATHEW returned saying that the children were all well, and that RUSSEL had stayed in the bedroom as one of his daughters was crying."

Maybe nothing, but it doesn't read right to me.

The statements of Dr Matthew and Rachael Oldfield come under still more suspicion when you consider these two points, extracted durectly from the Madeleine McCann Research Group's '50 FACTS' leaflet:

5. Dr Matthew Oldfield claimed he and his wife arrived at the Tapas bar at 8.55pm, but then went back to the Paynes’ apartment to chase them up as they were late. Dr Russell O’Brien confirmed that: “Matt, around 9pm, got up and said ‘I’ll go and drag them out’.” The Paynes flatly contradicted this.

6. Dr Matthew Oldfield changed his story several times. He said he did one ‘check’ on the children, then said he’d done two. He changed his story about the 2^nd check, first saying that he walked by the McCanns’ apartment, later saying he’d entered it. Dr Kate McCann claimed Dr Oldfield said, at 9.30pm: “I’ll check on Maddie for you”. Why didn’t he say: “I’ll check on the children?”

I think it is possible from this to infer that Madeleine was of course already missing/dead, otherwise why didn't Dr Kate McCann recall Matthew Oldfield saying: "I'll check on the children for you"?

When you add these into the mix (again from the '50 FACTS' leaflet):

1. The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they soon changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open. The window had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

2. The McCanns gave different accounts of whether they were both with Madeleine at tea-time on the day Madeleine was reported missing - and gave three different versions of who read the children bedtime stories the night Madeleine was reported missing: (a) Kate (b) Gerry or (c) they both did.

3. Kate McCann said that their friend Dr David Payne knocked on the front door of their apartment at about 6.30pm on 3 May, but was immediately sent away without ever entering. Dr Payne, however, said he came in, saw all three children dressed ready for bed, and stayed for at least several minutes.

4. The McCanns said the children were in their pyjamas by 6.30pm the night Madeleine disappeared, were bathed at 7.00pm and asleep by 7.30pm. But just a few weeks later, in his blog, Gerry McCann wrote: “The twins must like their new cots as they were asleep by 7.30pm which was most unusual”.

10. Gerry McCann on 4 May (the day after Madeleine went missing) said: “Yesterday, Madeleine and and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds at 7.30pm”. Yet when the police arrived at about 11.00pm, they found a bed where Madeleine was supposed to have slept and two cots. Moreover, in a magazine interview in January 2008, Gerry McCann said: “On one bed the twins lay sleeping”.

...the possibility that the crime scene in Apartment G5A was arranged during the evening of 3 May (as dealt with in one chapter from Dr Goncalo Amaral's 'Truth About A Lie') becomes ever stronger.

A probable scenario is:

a) all children being cared for by one or other member of 'Tapas 9' that evening

b) the twins moved in to Apartment G5A shortly before the alarm is raised

c) no 'checking' was being done at all - but the visits to the apartments by Dr Oldfield (twice), Jane Tanner, Dr O'Brien and Dr McCann were (i) to arrange the crime scene and (ii) to move the twins into G5A.

d) Russell O'Brien's convoluted account of his child being sick and him switching the washing machine on is fabricated, being used to cover other things he was doing whilst he was away from the table that evening; similarly Dr. Gerald McCann's account of his viist to the apartment may be fabricated in that he may have left the table for 15 minutes or more for an altogether different purpose.

by rainbow-fairy 11.11.11 14:08

HiDeHo wrote:I believe the neglect issue to be contrived to allow credibility for an 'abduction' to take place.

However, according to their statements, their children went to the Millenium with them on Saturday, Matthew stayed with them on Sunday (supposedly sick) Rachael stayed in the apartment on Wednesday (possibly Tuesday). ROB was one apartment away on Tuesday.

No mention about Monday.

No proof whatsoever that they left the children alone....but it's always alluded to.

If they claim they were responsible then the abduction couldn't have happened.

Neglect is a trade off for the truth imo

Rachael tried to help (imo) by claiming the last time she saw Madeleine was at mini tennis on THURSDAY.

Madeleine's group played on Tuesday, so does that mean she last saw Madeleine on TUESDAY?

Rachael was apparently playing tennis with Jane at the time the 'last picture' was taken. Jane claims that Madeleine shouted at them...was Rachael oblivious to the family, including Madeleine, being around the pool or was Jane claiming they were there to 'confirm' the 'last picture'?

Why would that discrepancy exist if Madeleine did not disappear until later that day?

HiDeHo, agree totally. IMO, the children were all looked after in one apartment, whilst the stay-at-home adult was 'sick' Wink

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 11.11.11 14:20

Tony Bennett wrote:

...the possibility that the crime scene in Apartment G5A was arranged during the evening of 3 May (as dealt with in one chapter from Dr Goncalo Amaral's 'Truth About A Lie') becomes ever stronger.

A probable scenario is:

a) all children being cared for by one or other member of 'Tapas 9' that evening

b) the twins moved in to Apartment G5A shortly before the alarm is raised

c) no 'checking' was being done at all - but the visits to the apartments by Dr Oldfield (twice), Jane Tanner, Dr O'Brien and Dr McCann were (i) to arrange the crime scene and (ii) to move the twins into G5A.

d) Russell O'Brien's convoluted account of his child being sick and him switching the washing machine on is fabricated, being used to cover other things he was doing whilst he was away from the table that evening; similarly Dr. Gerald McCann's account of his viist to the apartment may be fabricated in that he may have left the table for 15 minutes or more for an altogether different purpose.

I have no problem believing any of this. And point b), this would coincide with the Smith sighting?

by rainbow-fairy 11.11.11 21:58

Tony, Daisy, I agree, both answers make absolute sense to me.

by Bebootje 12.11.11 8:48

Seems that the whole evening was fabricated.

I am still puzzled by the fact that there are so many statements pointing out the "disappearence" of Madeleine happened around 21.30. Were al those people mistaken about the time?

21.15 a passer by the McCann appartment overheard someone calling "Madeleine Madeleine"

21.20 At 21H20, Executive Chef A. E. G. F. P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. 21.40 passing through the restaurant he sees tapas table empty.

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40

Dinner finished at around 21H45 and some minutes passed where waiter R. A.E D. L. O. looked towards the table but saw no one.

Between 21.30 and 22: Diane Webster was back at the table. Fitness instructor/Waiter J. R. S. went
over to the table and joked with her.

Between 21.30-22.00 Gerry runs around the pool. He is seen by the fitness instructor.

Approx. 21.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from 'Kelly's Bar', heading north, have an encounter with Gerry (IMO)

Then, between 22H00 and 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.

Around 22.30 Mrs Fenn overhears the rumour in the appartment below.

22.50 GNR registered call.

McCann official timeline, kicks off by Kate making noise in the restaurant.

Was it meant for people to remember this time as the official time of Madeleines disappearence? To provide an alibi for Gerry who was seen searching around the pool (but at a different time). To distract from the real transport of the body? If so, clever but very very risky.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 9:23

Bebootje wrote:Seems that the whole evening was fabricated.

I am still puzzled by the fact that there are so many statements pointing out the "disappearence" of Madeleine happened around 21.30. Were al those people mistaken about the time?

21.15 a passer by the McCann appartment overheard someone calling "Madeleine Madeleine"

21.20 At 21H20, Executive Chef A. E. G. F. P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. 21.40 passing through the restaurant he sees tapas table empty.

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40

Dinner finished at around 21H45 and some minutes passed where waiter R. A.E D. L. O. looked towards the table but saw no one.

Between 21.30 and 22: Diane Webster was back at the table. Fitness instructor/Waiter J. R. S. went
over to the table and joked with her.

Between 21.30-22.00 Gerry runs around the pool. He is seen by the fitness instructor.

Approx. 21.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from 'Kelly's Bar', heading north, have an encounter with Gerry (IMO)

Then, between 22H00 and 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.

Around 22.30 Mrs Fenn overhears the rumour in the appartment below.

22.50 GNR registered call.

McCann official timeline, kicks off by Kate making noise in the restaurant.

Was it meant for people to remember this time as the official time of Madeleines disappearence? To provide an alibi for Gerry who was seen searching around the pool (but at a different time). To distract from the real transport of the body? If so, clever but very very risky.

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

Bebootje, it is well known that some of the most successful cover-ups of crimes are based on similar skills to those of the magician/illusionist. His skill is to get people looking in the wrong place, so that he performs his tricks in a place where you are not looking. You don't notice his sleight of hand.

Classic crime cover-ups get you looking both in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

In this case I think the place is correct because of the cadaver dogs' findings.

I think the time of Madeleine's disappearance has been changed, in that she 'disappeared' earlier in the week.

If I'm right about that, the whole sequence of events on the evening of 3 May is a charade, a hoax, a deception.

I don't think for a moment that Gerry McCann or anyone else was openly carrying Madeleine's body through the streets of Praia da Luz around 9.30pm to 10.00pm and I think the Smiths saw another child, not Madeleine.

Incidentally, exactly how the alarm was raised remains a complete mystery. I can't find anyone outside the Tapas 9 group who corroborates Kate McCann running into the Tapas restaurant shouting 'They've taken her', 'They've taken her'. Two women were seen on a balcony around the McCanns' apartment just before the alarm was raised - Jane Tanner and Kate McCann. Then there was a scream. Then the Tapas 9 leave the Tapas restaurant, leaving Dianne Webster behind. Then Gerry McCann is seen roaring like a bull around the pool. The precise sequence of these events is very hard to disentangle.

I suggest this. At a prearranged time, probably shortly after 9.45pm...

* There is a scream

* The Tapas 9 leave the table (this event by the way does not seem to have been noted by the Tapas restaurant waiter)

* Gerry McCann starts roaring like a bull around the pool shouting 'Madeleine', 'Madeleine'.

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 9:43

Bebootje wrote:Seems that the whole evening was fabricated.

I am still puzzled by the fact that there are so many statements pointing out the "disappearence" of Madeleine happened around 21.30. Were al those people mistaken about the time?

21.15 a passer by the McCann appartment overheard someone calling "Madeleine Madeleine"

21.20 At 21H20, Executive Chef A. E. G. F. P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. 21.40 passing through the restaurant he sees tapas table empty.

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40

Dinner finished at around 21H45 and some minutes passed where waiter R. A.E D. L. O. looked towards the table but saw no one.

Between 21.30 and 22: Diane Webster was back at the table. Fitness instructor/Waiter J. R. S. went
over to the table and joked with her.

Between 21.30-22.00 Gerry runs around the pool. He is seen by the fitness instructor.

Approx. 21.55 pm The Smith Family, (4 adults and 5 children) are returning from 'Kelly's Bar', heading north, have an encounter with Gerry (IMO)

Then, between 22H00 and 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.

Around 22.30 Mrs Fenn overhears the rumour in the appartment below.

22.50 GNR registered call.

McCann official timeline, kicks off by Kate making noise in the restaurant.

Was it meant for people to remember this time as the official time of Madeleines disappearence? To provide an alibi for Gerry who was seen searching around the pool (but at a different time). To distract from the real transport of the body? If so, clever but very very risky.

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

Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone Wink

.
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long! Wink

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 9:54

rainbow-fairy wrote:Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smiths, throwing everything into disarray? REST SNIPPED

No, that can't be right.

If it really was Gerry McCann carrying a dead Madeleine through the streets, he would have been seen by dozens of people, not just the Smiths.

The Smiths' evidence was not made public until weeks or even months later.

I have always considered that the Smiths saw another child. To believe that this could possibly have been Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz leads us, I believe, up entirely the wrong path.

It also keeps the focus on Madeleine dying that evening - when there are so many indications that she 'disappeared' earlier in the week.

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 10:01

Ah - Tony, interesting. I hadn't seen your post til after I put mine up. It seems we agree on the point of times being fudged to create illusion, ie 'look at me not over there'.
You say you don't think G was walking about PdL that night or any night - but do you think it could be another child? To promote the 'abduction' angle in case he was spotted by anyone yet the alley where he met the Smiths was usually deserted that time of night and year - and despite his denials G knew this. He would not have been expecting anyone at all...
Not saying in any way this is right, just throwing it out there...

by Guest 12.11.11 10:29

I always get the feeling that something went wrong on the night. If it was pre planned (as I believe it was) why did they delay phoning the police? I think Bebootje has a point, there were a lot of witnesses who pointed to an earlier time. If the original plan was for Kate to run to the Tapas to raise the alarm why did they wait until only T7 were left?

by jd 12.11.11 10:39

I still believe the Smith sighting was set up by Murat after he was made suspect. Smith didn't say anything to anyone for 2 whole weeks later and only when Murat was made suspect, he made sure he said in his statement that it definitely was 'not' Murat he saw but was vague about all other information....mmmmmm Then reappeared again in September to point the finger at gerry, when he suddenly realised seeing him on the steps of easyjet was him he saw back in May...this despite the mccanns being in the frontline media spotlight for nearly 6 months by then! mmmmmmmm

by Guest 12.11.11 11:12

JD, found this:

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/frontpage/drogheda-family-hit-out-over-madeleine-case-clue-coverage-1060695.html

Wednesday August 08 2007
A DROGHEDA family who may hold vital clues as to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have hit out at media distortion of evidence that they have given to Portuguese police.
Maple Drive man Martin Smith, his wife and his children had just left the Kelly bar, which is located approximately 400 metres from the McCanns? apartment at the Ocean Club between 9.50-10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.

They returned to Ireland the next day, and because the reported abduction times didn?t originally match, they never had cause to examine their journey that night.

As it emerged that Madeleine was abducted around the same time, one of the family members had a flashback of the moment some time later and encouraged the others to jog their memory.

They remembered passing a man walking towards the beach with a child in his arms.

Other than his approximate height and the fact that he was wearing beige clothes they cannot be more specific than that.We are annoyed at how vague our description is,? said the family member.

The family contacted the Portuguese police and flew back over to give evidence.

However, contrary to media reports, Mr Smith had not seen chief suspect Robert Murat in a bar the evening that Madeleine was abducted.He definitely didn?t see him on the night in question,? said a family member.

The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat.They met once in a bar about two years ago. My dad would only know Mr Murat by sight,? said the family member.However, from what he knows, he can say that the man who was carrying the child was not Robert Murat.?

by jd 12.11.11 11:26

I don't think its anything sinister other than Murat just trying to protect himself from being stitched up...anyone would in the same situation. But this Smith statement is just so glaringly obvious there was only one motive for it

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 11:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smiths, throwing everything into disarray? REST SNIPPED
No, that can't be right.

If it really was Gerry McCann carrying a dead Madeleine through the streets, he would have been seen by dozens of people, not just the Smiths.[/b][/i]

The Smiths' evidence was not made public until weeks or even months later.

I have always considered that the Smiths saw another child. To believe that this could possibly have been Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz leads us, I believe, up entirely the wrong path.

It also keeps the focus on Madeleine dying that evening - when there are so many indications that she 'disappeared' earlier in the week.

Seems Tony may now be off line, but I'd like to respectfully point out that NOWHERE in my post did I mention Gerry carrying a dead Madeleine, or indeed Madeleine at all!
All I actually said was 'could Gerry have been spotted by the Smiths, throwing everything into disarray'. I believe, if the sighting is genuine, that it is more likely to be Gerry carrying a different child to add weight to the 'carried away by a paedophile' story. I don't for one minute believe that, although the best place to hide is in plain sight, they would dare carry her corpse through PdL at ANY time of the day and night. I firmly believe that Madeleine was long departed by the 3rd, already in 'storage'. The 3rd, IMO, was purely the 'staging' of the 'abduction'.
One thing (well, two or so actually) Do you believe the Smith sighting genuine, and why would they say it was GMcC? Are you meaning that they were trying to stress heavily that it WAS NOT MURAT they saw? I'll say one thing - my head hurts! They certainly, between them all, did a good job of creating the all-important 'confusion'! It's hard with so many unsure and conflicting witnesses to untangle truth, half-truths and plain fantasy...

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 11:45

jd wrote:I still believe the Smith sighting was set up by Murat after he was made suspect. Smith didn't say anything to anyone for 2 whole weeks later and only when Murat was made suspect, he made sure he said in his statement that it definitely was 'not' Murat he saw but was vague about all other information....mmmmmm Then reappeared again in September to point the finger at gerry, when he suddenly realised seeing him on the steps of easyjet was him he saw back in May...this despite the mccanns being in the frontline media spotlight for nearly 6 months by then! mmmmmmmm

jd, I think this is more than a distinct possibility and as you rightly say there are indications which point in that very direction.

Whilst on the subject of the 'Smith sighting', the following is of more than a little interest.

The McCanns never seemed to comment on the 'Smith sighting'. Then, all of a sudden, we switch on our tellys in early May 2009 to watch the notorious Mentorn TV/Channel 4 'reconstruction'/mockumentary and - lo and behold! - the new version is that Jane Tanner saw 'bundleman' at around 9.15pm only for the Smiths to see 'bundelman' 40 minutes later outside Kelly's Bar! If there was any doubt that the McCanns are now using this to reinforce their abduction assumption, look no further than Dr Kate McCann's recent book, 'madeleine', where she drones on for three pages (pp. 370-2) about the 'similarities' between the two sightings. This is despite 'bundleman' having 'thick, dark, black, long hair' and 'Smithman' having 'short brown hair' (!!!).

by Bebootje 12.11.11 12:03

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone .
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long!

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it. Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 2 110921

Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 2 110921

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 12:04

The formatting of this post has been changed somehow

rainbow-fairy wrote:Seems Tony may now be off line, but I'd like to respectfully point out that NOWHERE in my post did I mention Gerry carrying a dead Madeleine, or indeed Madeleine at all! All I actually said was 'could Gerry have been spotted by the Smiths, throwing everything into disarray'.

REPLY: Your actual words were: "BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's..." Yes, I assumed you meant that he was carrying a 'dead' Madeleine. Those who say this was indeed Gerry McCann usually also suggest that he was carrying a dead Madeleine to a hiding place. For reasons I've explained here and elsewhere, I regard that as impossible.

I believe, if the sighting is genuine, that it is more likely to be Gerry carrying a different child to add weight to the 'carried away by a paedophile' story.

REPLY: So unlikely as to be wholly improbable. Why would he do this 40 minutes after Jane Tanner's claimed sighting of 'bundleman' at 9.15pm? How many abductors would wander around a small town for 40 minutes with a child they were abducting? How could Gerry McCann be seen roaring like a bull around the poolside at the very same time he was being seen by the Smiths?

I don't for one minute believe that, although the best place to hide is in plain sight, they would dare carry her corpse through PdL at ANY time of the day and night. I firmly believe that Madeleine was long departed by the 3rd, already in 'storage'. The 3rd, IMO, was purely the 'staging' of the 'abduction'.

One thing (well, two or so actually) Do you believe the Smith sighting genuine,

REPLY: Broadly, yes in the sense that it seems the Smiths saw someone carrying a child. Mind you, the Smiths' accounts (I think three of the family gave statements) contain some inconsistencies. 'jd's post is worth a read regarding the Robert Murat connection - and we must bear in mind that Brian Kennedy contacted Martin Smith - what was that conversation about, I wonder?

and why would they say it was GMcC? Are you meaning that they were trying to stress heavily that it WAS NOT MURAT they saw?

REPLY: I think this could be the case, yes.

I'll say one thing - my head hurts!

REPLY: The 'Smith sighting' has been a puzzle for all of us.

They certainly, between them all, did a good job of creating the all-important 'confusion'! It's hard with so many unsure and conflicting witnesses to untangle truth, half-truths and plain fantasy...

REPLY: "And, in fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, to know what is true and what's not" - Dr Gerald McCann, 24 August 2007, in an interview with BBC TV Scotland

by jd 12.11.11 12:06

There is definitely 'something' going on with the Smith sighting behind the scenes between them all. The mccanns probably used bundelman to counteract after Smith stated he was almost sure it was gerry he saw that night after the easy jet 'jogging the memory' statement. However, if Smith agreed to go along with bundelman (I don't if he did) for the mockumentary then one can assume he was handsomely paid off to do so, and there were enough... shall we say.. 'persuasive people' on board by then

rainbow-fairy "Are you meaning that they were trying to stress heavily that it WAS NOT MURAT they saw?' - Yes this is exactly what I am saying. Its very clear reading his statement

by jd 12.11.11 12:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
How many abductors would wander around a small town for 40 minutes with a child they were abducting?

This says it all. In reality, an abductor would never wonder around the streets for 40 minutes with the child

by Gillyspot 12.11.11 12:15

Didn't Smith say he knew Murat anyway. If so then his "evidence" is as tainted (on behalf of Murat) as Jane Tanners' is (on behalf of the McCanns).

I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night. PDL may have been quiet but it wasn't a ghost town.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 12:31

Bebootje wrote:A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, your speculation is founded entirely on the belief that Martin Smith really saw Dr Gerald McCann carrying a child at around 9.50pm - 9.50pm outside Kelly's bar. Even Smith doesn't say he's sure about that, and as 'jd' has explained, there are good reasons to suspect the Smiths' statements.

Against that background, a few comments on your post:

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported.

REPLY: If you assume that anyone would transport Madeleine's body at such a time (just before the alarm was raised).

21:30 Gerry doing his round around the pool making sure he was seen.

REPLY: I think it must have been later than that although I agree that the Ocean Club witness places this at around 9.30pm to 9.45pm

Then brought Madeleine to her first hiding place which I believe was in the vincinity of the church.

REPLY: Have you thought about all the circumstances that would be necessary in order for such a 'hiding' of a body to take place and how long it would have taken someone to accomplish?

He was seen by Smith, who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Of course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky of course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?)

REPLY: I don't for one moment think that Madeleine's body was transported anywhere that evening. Her 'disappearance' IMO occurred before 3 May.

They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smiths? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.

REPLY: The probability is that this was a man carrying a child a very short distance from one place to another, presumably back home e.g. from a restaurant to an apartment. My point was that if 'bundleman' was carrying a child at 9.15pm and then again at 9.50pm he would have been seen by many others during those 35 minutes.

Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

REPLY: Have you considered why the McCanns themselves now say that Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' and Martin Smith-man are one and the same? - and why it took them nearly two years to arrive at this conclusion?

by pennylane 12.11.11 12:34

Bebootje wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone .
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long!

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory! Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 2 444319

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!

by Cheshire Cat 12.11.11 12:58

pennylane wrote:
Bebootje wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone .
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long!

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!

I am still inclined to believe that it was Gerry that Martin Smith saw but the alternative theory is also persuasive.

by jd 12.11.11 13:02

Gillyspot wrote:Didn't Smith say he knew Murat anyway. If so then his "evidence" is as tainted (on behalf of Murat) as Jane Tanners' is (on behalf of the McCanns).

I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night. PDL may have been quiet but it wasn't a ghost town.

He said he had only just 'seen' him once, in bar a year or 2 previously. Smith has an apartment in PDL and goes there about 3/4 times a year. Being a small town and going there this often with Murat also living there, there is a very good chance they at least knew each other more than a mere sighting in a bar a few years back

"I believe NO ONE saw ANYONE carrying a child that night" - This is truth of it

To add in reply to Bebootje - don't forget that this was 'apparently' the first time gerry had been to PDL, most of which spent playing tennis or in the restaurant, so it is unlikely he would have been able to have learnt all the back streets & desolate routes of the town in just 5 days...and if he did learn them then why? he never knew what would happen to Maddie in the few days ahead

by aiyoyo 12.11.11 13:04

I dont believe the two sightings took place at all. JT is an obvious invention to support mccanns theory.
Even Smith's sighting is suspect to me b/c the mccanns never asked investigators to follow up with Smith.
Smith was adamant it wasnt Murat he saw then six months later claimed he's 80% sure it was Gerry from the way the child was carried.
I think Smith is a red herring as well b/c wasnt there speculation that Smith was intimidated by Brian Kennedy - I think the reverse is true - that just like Murat, a deal was struck with Smith when Brian Kennedy met with him.

I mean for mccanns not to have acknowledged Smith's sighting at all pre shelving, only to mention him in the book in support of JT's sighting post shelving, is odd.

I believe no one walks the street carrying a child on the 3rd. Both sightings were red herring, both invented with help from team mccanns. I believe Maddie was dead before 3rd May but not start of holiday either. May 2nd most likely.

by jd 12.11.11 13:08

aiyoyo wrote:I dont believe the two sightings took place at all. JT is an obvious invention to support mccanns theory.
Even Smith's sighting is suspect to me b/c the mccanns never asked investigators to follow up with Smith.
Smith was adamant it wasnt Murat he saw then six months later claimed he's 80% sure it was Gerry from the way the child was carried.
I think Smith is a red herring as well b/c wasnt there speculation that Smith was intimidated by Brian Kennedy - I think the reverse is true - that just like Murat, a deal was struck with Smith when Brian Kennedy met with him.

I mean for mccanns not to have acknowledged Smith's sighting at all pre shelving, only to mention him in the book in support of JT's sighting post shelving, is odd.

I believe no one walks the street carrying a child on the 3rd. Both sightings were red herring, both invented with help from team mccanns. I believe Maddie was dead before 3rd May

Yes. Agree with this aiyoyo. I also think the mccans were scared of what Murat knows about the whole scam (not saying Murat was directly involved but he had knowledge)

by pennylane 12.11.11 13:27

Cheshire Cat wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Bebootje wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Bebootje, forgive me as I'm thinking out loud here - could it be that the 'abduction' WAS planned to start at the earlier time, hence people hearing 'too early that a child had disappeared BUT THEN 'GMcC' was spotted by the Smith's, throwing everything into disarray? This would explain, I think, Kates late entrance to Tapas screaming - to prove Gerry was there when she found Madeleine - gone .
It would also explain why Dianne Webster didn't bother to leave the restaurant a second time - she already had her alibi?
Its amazing how in chaos times can be skewed and fudged...
If anyone can see a problem with what I've said, feel free to say - I've not been up that long!

A theory could be: 21:30 was the real time (the body) of Madeleine was transported. 21:30 Gerry doing his round around te pool making sure he was seen. Then brought Madeleine to her first hidingplace which I believe was in the vincinity of the church. He was seen by Smith , who was 80% sure it was Gerry. (Off course it could be another man, with another child but then what a coincidence. Risky off course, but wouldn't it not be more curious if he was seen at that spot lugging a big heavy bag?) They didn't have a car at that time. And why would he be seen by dozens of people. In that case, wouldn't there be a lot more sightings like the Smits? The streets were quiet in PdL at that time and he could have taken the desolate route.
Gerry could be back slightly afer 22.00 when Kate raised the alarm making a big noise of it attending people at the (a different) time of disappearence. That would explain why it was nescessary for Kate to raise the alarm in the restaurant. To distract and reset the time of disappearence. Smoke and mirrors, they are very good at it.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with your theory!

The McCann and Co's original version of events was in complete disarray and fell apart quickly, very much as if they didn't have long to put it together... ham-fisted and almost last minute is how I would describe their story!

I am still inclined to believe that it was Gerry that Martin Smith saw but the alternative theory is also persuasive.

Ditto Cheshire Cat Murat - Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 2 260239

I certainly do not discount the alternative theory, particularly the one put forward by Tony, but as yet I have not been swayed by the arguments to change my opinion - which is that death occurred late 2nd or during 3rd May. I believe Maddie woke up under sedation on the 1st when Mrs Fenn heard crying, prompting the parents to increase the dosage which resulted in a catastrophe...