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

by Angelique 12.11.11 14:14

I do think the "Gerry searching around the pool" and someone faintly calling "Madeleine" does appear to suggest that Madeleine disappeared on the night of the 3rd. But if Gerry had been given instructions on what to do this would fit nicely.

Just as an aside - ITV are showing The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher again on Monday, November 14th, 2011 on
ITV3 HD from 9:00pm to 11:00pm

by aiyoyo 12.11.11 14:33

pennylane wrote:
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 also believe Maddie died on 2nd May, because 3rd May is the only day with irregular activities, and that gave them 24 hours to plan and dispose of her and get organised for the cover up charade.
Days before were just routine. Also had she died any earlier than 2nd May it would have been too many days to fill in routine without getting noticed about missing Madeleine.

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

Ditto Cheshire Cat

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...

by Guest 12.11.11 15:09

I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

by Shibboleth 12.11.11 18:26

Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 21:13

Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

Shibboleth, a very good, fair point!

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 21:18

Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

Shibboleth, a very good, fair point!

by jd 12.11.11 21:25

Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......

by rainbow-fairy 12.11.11 21:57

jd wrote:Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......

Oh yeh, she sure is - another McCann mouthpiece (paid or otherwise Wink

)

by jd 12.11.11 22:31

rainbow-fairy wrote:
jd wrote:Catriona Baker comes from the same mould as the amazing & incredible Charlotte Pennington......
Oh yeh, she sure is - another McCann mouthpiece (paid or otherwise )

Of course!

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.11 23:46

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'?

by dragonfly 12.11.11 23:57

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'?

Tony I was going to write that last night , you used the correct term in a previous post, 'on the head' would imply either something falling from above , something thrown from the side , or a blow or force, , if a child say walked walked in to pane glass doors you would say they hit/bumped their head you would not use for example 'Madeleine had accidentally been hit 'bumped on the head also why use the word accidentally , of course a child injuring them selves is an accident unless it seems to be empathised , also the quote of if maddie was ill they would not leave her, was said as if it would not be normal to leave an ill child , when infact one tapas couple did leave their child ill alone by their claims

by Angelique 13.11.11 0:00

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

by dragonfly 13.11.11 0:08

Bebootje wrote:Reading this statement again and compared with the statements of passers by and OC staff members of the evening of May 3 gives me the chills.
Cause that could be exactly what happened:

RO statement:
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".

What can you accidentally do to someone?

Compare the following statements with the statement of RO:

21.15 a passer by the car park near Gerry’s appartment overhears
someone calling Madeleine Madeleine

21.20 Executive chef A.E.G.F.P heared some clamour and was informed that a child had disappeared

At around 21:40, he left the restaurant
passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same
table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He
was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one
of those couples;

Property manager B. J. J. W. heard about the news being investigated on the
evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 -
21.40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant,. He then
went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various
local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police
had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.

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 - his colleague told him that
all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having
heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;

All these statements corroborate eachother
in the fact that something happened between 21.15 and 21.30 that caused ALL
tapas leave the restaurant (including Diane Webster). Two statements declare
that the table was embty at 21.40/21.45.

I do not understand this previous earlier alarm?
Everyone had arrived at 9pm Gerry left straight after to do a 'check' yet 12 bottles of wine were drunk in less than a hour?

by aiyoyo 13.11.11 5:56

Shibboleth wrote:
Stella wrote:I have a little question or all those individuals who believe Madeleine died on the 1st, or the 2nd.

Who do you think attended the creche on the 3rd, in the place of Madeleine McCann, without Catriona Baker, the nanny noticing?

Maybe she did notice, and that is why she had to be sent away. Where is she now?

That is a burning question.

As is typical of the mccanns' case, everything surrounding them is a mystery, including mystery surrounding their supposedly 'key' witness.

Here's part of an extract from Mail online

The McCanns believe Ms Baker is a key witness in the defence that they are assembling with the aid of a team of lawyers and investigators.

Notice it is stated that she's a key witness in their defence that they are assembling with help from their legal team and investigators - whatever does that mean? It's either the papers shoddy reporting or the they were badly quoted.
It comes across as if they are roping her in as part of their defence ie working on making her a key witness with help of their lawyers, and not that she is by virtue of the facts of the day indeed a key witness. And, all that the mccanns had to do is to cooperate fully with Police to aid the investigation and to aid themselves - to get themselves eliminated.

Let's put this this way, Maddie was reported missing at around 10pm on 3rd May, CB would only have been one of the day time witnesses, so why was she more crucial (or key) than say cafe serving staff who claimed also to have seen Maddie at snack time toward a later time closer to the evening?

Ms Baker has told friends she is convinced of the McCanns' innocence. She is still in contact with Kate McCann and was said by friends to have been hit hard by her charge's disappearance, even being offered trauma counselling by Mark Warner Holidays.
Intriguingly, Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.

Am I the only one finding it odd that a nanny who barely knows the mccanns stating her conviction of the mccanns' innocence? Besides, if she's been offered counselling, why was she immediately deployed out to Greece? Does MW offer counselling service also in Greece?
She was interviewed for just three hours by police on the morning after Madeleine's disappearance. This compares with the four-and-a-half hours endured by Charlotte Pennington, another nanny at the resort who was witness to Kate's 'hysterical' reaction to Madeleine's disappearance.

In other words CB wasn't the only 'key 'witness then? CP interviewed for more hours is another possible key witness - so why did the mccanns emphasize only her?

The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.

It's a strange move coming so soon after missing Maddie where every witness statement matters to the active ongoing investigation; where as a norm I believe it is presumed that the Management (MW)would keep staff within easy access to aid investigators. Which begs the question: why then did the MW feel it necessary to deploy their staff at a timing crucial to the investigation? Was there any thing sinister in MW's action? Deploying other staff for logistic reason is probably understandable but why CB, the v nanny in charge of Maddie on the day of disappearance? Isn't that very insensitive of MW? or is there an urgently sinister reason for doing so?

They were all linked to the seven holidaymakers who had eaten in the resort's tapas restaurant with Kate and Gerry McCann on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
It is believed Ms Baker has since been reinterviewed by both British and Portuguese police but she has been told not to comment on the investigation.

If she was already sent to Greece how did investigators access her for the re-interview I wonder?

The young nanny, described as 'fun and vivacious', has been deeply affected by Madeleine's disappearance, telling friends of nights without sleep and a complete loss of appetite.
Writing to one concerned friend nine days after Madeleine disappeared, she admitted: 'I was her nanny, so it's been tough for me, you wouldn't recognise me.
'It's hit me so hard I've hardly slept or eaten. My mum came to see me, but transferring me to "San Ag" has put me back at stage one as I am so stressed again.

Strange remarks - why wouldn't her friend recognise her? Shouldn't it have been the mccanns who should feel that way?
Also why was she terribly stressed out when she was already away from crime scene and in a country new to her - it's like another holiday job in a new country, new adventure, hence she should be excited really despite worried about Maddie isn't it? Concerned for Maddie - can understand that, but stressed...hmmmmmm? It's not as if Maddie was lost during her watch?
She wasn't even back in the UK; facing unrelenting press pressure - I believe press coverage of missing Madeleine in Greece is at best limited.

'Love you loads, thanks for writing. I'm sorry I haven't been in touch, I have not been out of the house much.'

To another she added: 'Thanks so much for your support ... I am trying to cope, but not really liking "San Ag"... I don't plan on staying here. If they don't send me back to Portugal. I'll go home.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487506/Revealed-The-nanny-help-clear-McCanns-name.html#ixzz1dYRaQdJb

Sometimes one wonder whether journalist is deliberately being obtuse or they have a tendency to take source's remarks out of context.

by Guest 13.11.11 8:27

Catriona Baker was the main nanny yes, I agree, but she was not the only nanny in the combined classroom. Can we seriously believe that Emma Wilding, the other nanny for the mini group and Amy Tierney the Supervisor, also looked the other way? What about all the parents dropping off and collecting their own children in the days that followed, did none of them notice a different or missing girl? What about the staff who provided high tea every night and all the nannies from all the other groups that would also eat there? Not to mention a tennis coach or two..

If we're encouraged to keep things as simple as possible, this scenario would be the complete opposite.

by Bebootje 13.11.11 8:27

jd wrote: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

The reason why bundleman had to turn up, was IMO that Gerry - knowing he was seen at a certain spot - had to distract attention. Remember was going to a different direction. Bundleman was invented "at the spot" so Jane didn't have much time to prepare her story. And it showed.

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 10:58

Bebootje wrote:
jd wrote: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

The reason why bundleman had to turn up, was IMO that Gerry - knowing he was seen at a certain spot - had to distract attention. Remember was going to a different direction. Bundleman was invented "at the spot" so Jane didn't have much time to prepare her story. And it showed.

Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit Wink

)
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)
ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.
iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'
iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.
Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.
It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually team McCann)
Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes! Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting. Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.
Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long! Wink

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 11:45

dragonfly 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'?

Tony I was going to write that last night , you used the correct term in a previous post, 'on the head' would imply either something falling from above , something thrown from the side , or a blow or force, , if a child say walked walked in to pane glass doors you would say they hit/bumped their head you would not use for example 'Madeleine had accidentally been hit 'bumped on the head also why use the word accidentally , of course a child injuring them selves is an accident unless it seems to be empathised , also the quote of if maddie was ill they would not leave her, was said as if it would not be normal to leave an ill child , when infact one tapas couple did leave their child ill alone by their claims

Tony, dragonfly, it is my firm conviction that most, if not all, the Tapasniks brains have done much 'leaking' (or could that be 'pickling' with NZ wine?!?) Wink

Seriously though, yes definitely is my answer. Once ok, twice coincidence but three or more ceases to be. Rachel Oldfield leaked so much in that interview she needed the brain equivalent of TenaLady. Along with the many comments of resuscitation, I think she has told us, albeit unintentionally, what in all likelihood happened to Madeleine. Compare her constant references to bumped head and reviving with David Payne, who repeatedly talked OF Madeleine in the past tense. When picked up on by the interviewer, I recall that he used present tense once, possibly twice, before his naughty old brain started tripping his tongue up again!
Its much much harder to lie, lie well and lie repeatedly than people think. The brain will always do its best to force out the truth, and if it can't succeed with words, then the body will feel so uncomfortable that the bodily reactions start. Did you know, foe example, that Disney were correct with Pinocchio? Your nose DOES grow - albeit microscopically - and the swelling of the blood capillaries is what causes that 'itch nose' feeling. Its almost unconscious, you don't mentally register you've felt it but your unconscious does and bingo! You're touching / scratching your nose. Same with ears - and how many times have we seen Gerry pick at those? I'm certain Kate clamps his hand so much to try and control his gesture as well as hers. But, it doesn't work - it'll come out somewhere else. Try the eyes, for starters, and Kate's most attractive Elvis lip-curl!
I do find it hard to fathom how ANYONE watching these lot can believe they are doing anything OTHER than lying through their teeth (many teeth in Pinky's case LOL)

by Bebootje 13.11.11 13:16

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?
I believe Gerry (and Kate) knew the area very well because of their daily jogging routine. I believe in an earlier death (on May 2) because the McCanns change of daily routine. That they had short but enough time to pull the strings they needed. The years after the disappearing of Madeleine learned not to underestimate the influence the McCanns had/and still have and the influencial people they knew. An initial hiding place in the vincinity of the church seems logic (it is also near the Smith sighting location). Remember Gerry asking for a Priest. I always believed that the priest knows what has happened.

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.
I indeed do believe that Smith sighting is genuine.
The man (and his family) seem very trustworthy out of what I read about them. And the fact that Amaral
stated that "their (the Smiths) testimony was very credible" and should be further investigated. IMO a strong indication of its importance. The arrival of the McCanns in England (four months after the disappearence of Madeleine) jogged his memory and he was shocked. " The way that the person walked, the clumsy
manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented" are the exact words of Amaral. An 80% sure is IMO a really high percentage, and I can imagine that the man was torn between his knowledge of what he had seen and the fear what would happen if he wasn't right.

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.
The man
the Smiths saw averted his eyes from them to signal that he did not wish to speak. If it was indeed Gerry who was seen by Smith, he knew that he was seen although he tried hard not to make any contact.
He needed something to distract attention if ever the Smith family would remember this encounter. And so bundleman saw the day of light.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html Als you can see on the PDL map of the location of the Smith sighting and the possible route Gerry could have taken from appt 5a, you can see that the area is very quit and desolate. It is also in the opposite direction Jane saw bundleman passing the street.
As far as I know there aren't any more similar sightings of a man and a child that are not identified than the Smith sighting and Jane's bundleman, which is not credible at all. I believe bundleman was a hasty and badly prepared invention ment to distract attention from the Smith sighting.

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

Yes i did. Initially they were completely silent about this sighting. Smithman and bundleman couldn't be the same for they left in opposite directions. If Smithman indeed was Gerry it would be the best not to point the attention to this sighting. And they did, for a long time.
But now that the police files are in the public domain and the Smith statements won't go away, and the case shelved, McCanns may be decided to use it for their advantage.
Cause the big public won't remember the specific locations and directions of these sightings. It is a pure media thing. Playing the public.They don't care about what the police knows. They know the truth and the police knows, but can't prove.
They pulled this same category show before with the Fenn statement in relation to the "Mommy why didn't you come when...." incident.

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 14:57

On other threads here, eg Stella's 'Creche Enquiry', it has been discussed that a 'substitute Maddie' was used for the creche etc, and that said child and family would probably need to leave PdL just as the 'abduction' was all kicking off - after all, who would be suspicious of a family travelling home if they have the correct passports and paperwork??? It was also referenced that this would account for the taxi driver who was 'utterly convinced' that he had Maddie in the back of his taxi with a couple around the 'time' of the 'abduction'.
Bearing this in mind, if the Smith sighting is genuine or even if it's not and Gerry just thought he had - could it be that it was Gerry 'returning' the substitute child to its parents who would've been staying nearby somewhere, but probably not at the Ocean Club? Is there any possibility at all???

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 16:32

Bebootje wrote: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?
I believe Gerry (and Kate) knew the area very well because of their daily jogging routine. I believe in an earlier death (on May 2) because the McCanns change of daily routine. That they had short but enough time to pull the strings they needed. The years after the disappearing of Madeleine learned not to underestimate the influence the McCanns had/and still have and the influential people they knew. An initial hiding place in the vincinity of the church seems logic (it is also near the Smith sighting location). Remember Gerry asking for a Priest. I always believed that the priest knows what has happened.

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.
I indeed do believe that Smith sighting is genuine.

The man (and his family) seem very trustworthy out of what I read about them. And the fact that Amaral
stated that "their (the Smiths) testimony was very credible" and should be further investigated. IMO a strong indication of its importance. The arrival of the McCanns in England (four months after the disappearence of Madeleine) jogged his memory and he was shocked. "The way that the person walked, the clumsy
manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented" are the exact words of Amaral. An 80% sure is IMO a really high percentage, and I can imagine that the man was torn between his knowledge of what he had seen and the fear what would happen if he wasn't right.

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.
The man the Smiths saw averted his eyes from them to signal that he did not wish to speak.If it was indeed Gerry who was seen by Smith, he knew that he was seen although he tried hard not to make any contact.
He needed something to distract attention if ever the Smith family would remember this encounter. And so bundleman saw the day of light.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

Also you can see on the PDL map of the location of the Smith sighting and the possible route Gerry could have taken from appt 5a, you can see that the area is very quit and desolate. It is also in the opposite direction Jane saw bundleman passing the street. As far as I know there aren't any more similar sightings of a man and a child that are not identified than the Smith sighting and Jane's bundleman, which is not credible at all. I believe bundleman was a hasty and badly prepared invention Kent to distract attention from the Smith sighting.

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

Yes I did. Initially they were completely silent about this sighting. Smithman and bundleman couldn't be the same for they left in opposite directions. If Smithman indeed was Gerry it would be the best not to point the attention to this sighting. And they did, for a long time.
But now that the police files are in the public domain and the Smith statements won't go away, and the case shelved, McCanns may be decided to use it for their advantage.
Cause the big public won't remember the specific locations and directions of these sightings. It is a pure media thing. Playing the public.They don't care about what the police knows. They know the truth and the police knows, but can't prove.
They pulled this same category show before with the Fenn statement in relation to the "Mommy why didn't you come when...." incident.

Bebootje, I absolutely agree with the part of your post I've put in italics, HOWEVER I believe the McCanns care very VERY much about what the police may know. I don't think they give a flying monkey about any of the police evidence that is in the public arena, because they just distort it and use the Joseph Goebbels method - tell a lie so big and keep telling it and eventually the public believe it. Working well too, (except of course for people like us, us irritants, who refuse to be swayed by hysterical, emotional red-top headlines and instead READ THE EVIDENCE OURSELVES AND SEE THE LIE).
BUT the 17% or so of the PJ Files that remain un released are, IMO, something the McCanns worry about intensely - why otherwise would they ask for a 'transparent review' rather than re-opening of the case? No, they are worried about this evidence because they can't spin it, discredit it or more importantly 'back-fit' it, inventing ridiculous stories to account for what is there - ie the 6 dead bodies that contaminated poor CuddleCat and Kate's clown trousers - or Sean's sudden love of sea bass - or Sandy Cameron transporting bags of rubbish and leaking meat!!! Can't explain what you don't know about yourself. THAT is their big worry, nowt else.

by **Nina** 13.11.11 17:28

Is there only 17% that the police retained? Is there a set percentage that has to be released? Sorry for the questions I just thought that only a small part had been released.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.11 17:45

rainbow-fairy wrote:Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed...

Here goes

Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit)
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)

If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted.

The only other alternative put forward is that he walked with another alive child. Why would he do that?

Besides that, how could Dr McCann have time to carry a child down to the beach or wherever, place the child somewhere, then return in time to be at G5A along with the other members of the Tapas 9? Remember also that Mrs Fenn asked him (around 10.00pm) what all the fuss was about, and he said something like 'a child has gone missing' (can't remember the actual words)

ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.

Much more likely is that the Tapas 9 had already rehearsed the night's planned events and that they always intended to write down, for the police, 'Jane sees man with child at 9.15pm' - to coincide with the gap between Dr McCann's 9.05pm-9.10pm visit and Dr Matt Oldfield's visit at around 9.30pm.

iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'

More likely the three of them didn't quite line up their accounts correctly. Wilkins probably told the truth in that he didn't see Tanner; Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner didn't get that detail of their stories correct, Dr Gerald McCann said: 'I didn't see Tanner', but Tanner said: 'I saw Gerry'.

iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.

Are you suggesting that Dr Gerald McCann got rid of the child he was (allegedly) seen carrying by Martin Smith at 9.50pm - 10.00pm and then legged it back to the Ocean Club for 10.00pm, then enabling the 'alarm' to be sounded? What did he do with the child?

Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.

It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually Team McCann).

The circumstances under which Mr Smith made his statement, and exactly what he does say in his statement, must be very carefully examined. The subsequent interference by Brian Kennedy in talking to Martin Smith us another factor. Still another issue is that his family members do not say the same as he does about the alleged incident.

Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes!

I think we can all agree on that. Except of course - the McCanns! - with Dr Kate McCann explaining carefull in the book that the two sightings are of one and the same person - 40-45 minutes apart!

Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting.

Not at all, rainbow-fairy. Look at pp. 370-372 of Dr Kate McCann's book and she both fully supports Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' AND says he's the same individual as 'Smithman'.

Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.

So why, then, are both sightings given full and extensive credibility both in the 2009 Channel 4 'mockumentary'/ reconstruction AND in Dr Kate McCann's book?

Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long!

by **PeterMac** 13.11.11 17:50

It is of course routine for Police to withhold some vital information, which only they and the perpetrators know, or can know.
The phrase "blunt instrument', or "sharp instrument" is not police incompetence and inability to work out what happened.
It allows them to interview suspects and to filter out the attention seekers who clearly were not involved (surprisingly, more than you might expect)
but then to confirm absolutely that they have the right one. The one who talks about the Stanley knife, or the hammer.
With Sutcliffe, for example the pathologist reported that the women had been stabbed with a Phillips screwdriver. (Don't think too much about it !)
Only the interviewing officers and Sutcliffe himself knew that.

So yes, everyone concerned in this saga, the McCanns, Mitchell, the Tapas group and several others must be still very uneasy
at not being allowed to see everything the PJ has.
How tragic. How very sad.

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 17:51

Nina wrote:Is there only 17% that the police retained? Is there a set percentage that has to be released? Sorry for the questions I just thought that only a small part had been released.

I thought it was the other way round! If I'm totally honest, I don't actually know for sure! I've got it somewhere that about 82% or so had been publicly released. It takes me so long to load up a page to check elsewhere so its not feasible for me to do. I'm on a mobile you see, and where I live signal is abysmal - I can go two or three hours with none - hence why my replies are sometimes so late. Was meant to join up to a landline and broadband soon but my terrier has just today chewed through the cabling! Sad

Whatever the number, I think its 'prosecution material' - the really damning stuff that wasn't quite enough to ensure a successful trial, but maybe with some more it could be. Although the McCann publicity has done so much, worldwide, could they get a fair trial anywhere (one of the main reasons for the continued publicity, IMO)

by pennylane 13.11.11 19:27

"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 3 260239

Rachael Oldfield's Rogatory Interview - Notes from a Potting Shedder - Page 3 260239

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smiths saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smiths saw him.

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 19:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed...

Here goes

Bebootje, even after reading and digesting Tony and jd's posts, I still tend to agree with you - I'll explain why, logically if I can (admittedly, not my strongest suit)
1)Why did Jane Tanner invent 'bundleman'
2)Why at that time
3)Why at that particular spot?

It is my opinion that
i)Gerry was spotted (or BELIEVED he was) - either by the Smiths or persons unknown doing something he didn't want them to see (not necessarily carrying any child)

If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted.

The only other alternative put forward is that he walked with another alive child. Why would he do that?

Besides that, how could Dr McCann have time to carry a child down to the beach or wherever, place the child somewhere, then return in time to be at G5A along with the other members of the Tapas 9? Remember also that Mrs Fenn asked him (around 10.00pm) what all the fuss was about, and he said something like 'a child has gone missing' (can't remember the actual words)

ii)This happened at the time Mr Smith stated hence the need to peg the 'time of abduction' back to 9.15ish.

Much more likely is that the Tapas 9 had already rehearsed the night's planned events and that they always intended to write down, for the police, 'Jane sees man with child at 9.15pm' - to coincide with the gap between Dr McCann's 9.05pm-9.10pm visit and Dr Matt Oldfield's visit at around 9.30pm.

iii)Gerry could only be properly alibi'd by Jez Wilkins in street, therefore Jane saw Mr A.N.Other carrying off MBM, but crucially and helpfully neither Gerry nor Jez saw abductor, despite the 'proximity'

More likely the three of them didn't quite line up their accounts correctly. Wilkins probably told the truth in that he didn't see Tanner; Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner didn't get that detail of their stories correct, Dr Gerald McCann said: 'I didn't see Tanner', but Tanner said: 'I saw Gerry'.

iv)Time of 'discovery of abduction' now forced back to approx 10 pm, Gerry safely back for 'alert'.

Are you suggesting that Dr Gerald McCann got rid of the child he was (allegedly) seen carrying by Martin Smith at 9.50pm - 10.00pm and then legged it back to the Ocean Club for 10.00pm, then enabling the 'alarm' to be sounded? What did he do with the child?

Now, to me, the above would explain why Dianne Webster didn't move the second time, with smoke mirrors and fudging of times her alibi was complete.

It would also, IMO, still work if Mr Smith's validity and impartiality are in doubt (ie, is he actually Team McCann).

The circumstances under which Mr Smith made his statement, and exactly what he does say in his statement, must be very carefully examined. The subsequent interference by Brian Kennedy in talking to Martin Smith us another factor. Still another issue is that his family members do not say the same as he does about the alleged incident.

Why? Well, as a couple of posters have stated, no sensible abductor would possibly walk the streets of PdL for 45 minutes!

I think we can all agree on that. Except of course - the McCanns! - with Dr Kate McCann explaining carefully in the book that the two sightings are of one and the same person - 40-45 minutes apart!

Nowadays Kate McCann seems to be distancing herself from the Tanner-Bundleman sighting.

Not at all, rainbow-fairy. Look at pp. 370-372 of Dr Kate McCann's book and she both fully supports Jane Tanner's 'bundleman' AND says he's the same individual as 'Smithman'.

Again, why? IMO, they have pulled off a masterstroke - made both sightings unreliable and not credible for the reasons I've just stated.

So why, then, are both sightings given full and extensive credibility both in the 2009 Channel 4 'mockumentary'/ reconstruction AND in Dr Kate McCann's book?

Why would they do this? Well, IMO, NO sighting at all would be better than Jane's ridiculous ever evolving one and Smiths that implicates Gerry = no real credible sighting = they just say MBM has 'vanished without a trace'.
Et, voila! The general public will believe both sightings, people like us on this board will believe neither/one.
And whoosh, clunk, just like that - more confusion. Perfecto!

Please feel free to dissect and disentangle if needed - a bit like yesterday morning, I've not been up long!

Tony, thank you for the critique - it always helps! Just two things -
1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

2)Regarding the acknowledgement of the sightings (I was under the impression, from the bit of Kate's book I could stomach to read) that, while still mentioning JT's sighting, she suggested that it was less certain than before? Haven't read all of it as yet. Now, in answer to why is Team McCann now acknowledging AND linking the Smith sighting to JT's seems straightforward to me. They never mentioned it at all, ever, and I think they thought it could be buried/moved away from. Then when they realised it is NOT going away, its in the Files, GA's book, and is one of those 'OMG' statements that has made believers or fencers actually think 'hmmm' and look further into the case - taking all this into account, what choice did they have BUT mention and acknowledge it? Apart from JT's, its the only known 'sighting' and even 'believers' find Jane's less than credible so... I would think its a case of link them and make the most of a very bad, bodged job*

*And herein lies the problem, for me - suppose I was coming round to the way of thinking that both sightings are fabrications to help the McCann and/or Murat cause, why on earth would they be so far apart, time-wise? I could understand it if it were five, ten min, but so far apart? How does that help their cause? Surely no sightings would be better than two, supposedly linked, dodgy sightings? Am I missing something? Or is the whole point of it that it causes total and utter confusion?

I'm not being argumentative, literally this is so thick with smoke and mirrors its hard to breathe, let alone think! Wink

by rainbow-fairy 13.11.11 20:01

pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smith's saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smith's saw him.

pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

by pennylane 13.11.11 20:45

rainbow-fairy wrote:
pennylane wrote:"If as claimed Dr Gerald McCann walked from Apartment G5A towards the beach with a recently-dead child, he could have been seen by several people - the most enormous risk to take. I think we can rule that out on those grounds alone. Of course he would be spotted."

Hi Tony

I really don't think your reason shows a certainty that it wasn't Gerry the Smith's saw. We do not know what the Mc's original plans were that evening. For example, perhaps ROB was meant to move the body, or do something strategic to the plans, and got spooked for some reason forcing Gerry to think on his feet and act fast at the last minute (just one possible scenario). The greatness of the risks depends on how backed into a corner they were at the time. There may be things that we do not know about within their plans for the evening of 3rd May that went drastically wrong! I don't think one can dismiss this scenario so quickly based on something being considered too risky. The risks of not acting at that point may have been far greater than the risk Gerry took.......

I personally suspect the Mc's had another apartment to utilise and this was where Gerry was going with Maddie when the Smith's saw him.
pennylane, I agree that to rule things out on the grounds of risk seems a bit hmm... however I don't really think Maddie was moved that evening BUT I definitely agree that the McCanns had an available apartment possibly procured with the help of Murat.

Hi Rainbow-fairy,

I can see why some people believe it all happened earlier. For me personally I favour that it all happening quickly, or at least within 24 hours of Maddie's demise. I agree with you re Murat and think there is a connection between Murat/Malinka and GM.

by **Nina** 13.11.11 21:53

Rainbow-Fairy a snip from an earlier post,

1)I don't believe Gerry McCann walked anywhere that night with Madeleine, I'm as sure as I can be that she had already been, for want of a nicer word, 'stored'
However, as per my post on page 8, could it have been the suggested 'substitute Madeleine' being taken to her parents? If this were the case, Gerry could easily still be back by 10 for 'kick-off'

I think the night of the 3rd May was when the "abduction" was to be made public. So if there was a substitute Madeleine at the creche and high tea through the week, why then keep this girl until late on the night of the 3rd, for what reason? To have to then walk through the streets with her, or, was it part of the abduction scenario.

No one has ever come forward as being the one walking the streets at this hour and on this day/