Re: Matt Oldfields 'check'

by Guest on 17.10.13 15:37

@Nereid wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@Nereid wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:As it has already been stated, Matthew Oldfield and Adrian J Oldfield aren't brothers, and I too, have done a check and, to-date, I cannot find any immediate connection.
In that case: Mods, can you please delete the photos (including the one I just posted) of Adrian Oldfield from this thread.
Nereid, I have found out personal information about Adrian Oldfield and it would be wrong of me to post it on the forum. That's why my post was rather short and to the point. They may well be related, but from my research, there doesn't appear to be an immediate connection. The mothers maiden names are different, and I know the names of both the Oldfield's parents.
Sallypelt, I think you're quite right. If we're not certain he is in any way related, we shouldn't speculate. Not fair on a person who's got nothing to do with it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Good advice yes

by tiny on 17.10.13 15:47

@Lioned wrote:Can i just say i started this thread just to throw up more anomalies in the statements and SY/crimewatch reconstruction.
Like most here i dont believe a word of it and the crimewatch programme had just confirmed to me that all the tapas lot including Ma Webster are liars.
I am not certain that 'Smithman' is 'gerryman' but i think we can show that gerry had the opportunity to be in Smithstreet at the right time.

I have said all along that the tapas lot know what happened to Madeleine,can you imagine all these people know and yet not one of them have the guts to tell the truth but let the mccanns make pots of money andtell lies.disgusting lot .

by geh007 on 17.10.13 15:52

@tiny wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Can i just say i started this thread just to throw up more anomalies in the statements and SY/crimewatch reconstruction.
Like most here i dont believe a word of it and the crimewatch programme had just confirmed to me that all the tapas lot including Ma Webster are liars.
I am not certain that 'Smithman' is 'gerryman' but i think we can show that gerry had the opportunity to be in Smithstreet at the right time.
I have said all along that the tapas lot know what happened to Madeleine,can you imagine all these people know and yet not one of them have the guts to tell the truth but let the mccanns make pots of money andtell lies.disgusting lot .

Which makes it so unlikely.

I've not seen one coherent argument that explains why the T9 group would have gone to such lengths and risk what they have.

It's nonsensical.

by Guest on 17.10.13 16:11

Hi I am a newbie making my first post.
I have read loads and loads. But what is the real thinking about MO's involvement?
I cannot find any previous mention of this, but it must be somewhere.
Maybe MO is Smithman.
What if, instead of just listening at the windows when he first went down to dinner, he went into the apartment, and something happened with Madeleine.
Which is why when GM got up to go for his check at around 9ish, MO was a little disturbed. In one of his statements he mentions that he felt put out that GM still went to do his check even though he had just told him that all was quiet.And he tried to stop hime going by reassuring him all was quiet.
And this would account for the door having been in a different position, when GM makes his check.
And then when KM gets up to do her check at 9.30, MO jumps up and says he would do it.
(maybe this accounts for the little scene in the German version with Kate looking uncomfortable).
Any how, it would account for the door being moved agin from the position Gerry said he put it back in.
Time to construct an abduction scene. Windows etc. And put Madeleines body somewhere, from where he could move it when the s**t hit the fan later, and there was chaos.
This would fit in with the restaurant staff saying that the table had emptied by 9.40, and the Smithman sighting around 10.
It's just an idea.
And I do still think MCs are the most likely.

by tiny on 17.10.13 16:13

@geh007 wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Can i just say i started this thread just to throw up more anomalies in the statements and SY/crimewatch reconstruction.
Like most here i dont believe a word of it and the crimewatch programme had just confirmed to me that all the tapas lot including Ma Webster are liars.
I am not certain that 'Smithman' is 'gerryman' but i think we can show that gerry had the opportunity to be in Smithstreet at the right time.
I have said all along that the tapas lot know what happened to Madeleine,can you imagine all these people know and yet not one of them have the guts to tell the truth but let the mccanns make pots of money andtell lies.disgusting lot .
Which makes it so unlikely.

I've not seen one coherent argument that explains why the T9 group would have gone to such lengths and risk what they have.

It's nonsensical.

well they would have read the files,and then realized things were not as the mccanns have stated,so IF they didn't know then they do now,so why on earth have they let it go on for 6 years

by Lioned on 17.10.13 17:07

Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?

by geh007 on 17.10.13 17:12

@Lioned wrote:Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?

And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.

by tiny on 17.10.13 17:14

@geh007 wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?
And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.

OH YES

by Guest on 17.10.13 17:34

@geh007 wrote: [...]

And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.

***
Since this is the MO "check" thread ... You seem to completely ignore, that his statement about his 9:30 pm check doesn't count up. Asked to describe apartment 5A, he gets the curtain colours wrong, the table shape wrong and picks up a book from a non-existing bookshelf. He is, probably, describing his own apartment, thinking they'll all be alike ...

There are many possible reasons for T7 to toe the party line. Some of them fairly innocent, other more serious. Fact IS that the massive hole, you are referring to, is in their statements of May 4, May 10 2007 and the rogatory ones in 2008.

Apart from that: I do resent being called a member of a conspiracy brigade. Thank you.

by ProfessorPPlum on 17.10.13 17:38

Deleted sorry but I think this may be not in order to do this.

by nobodythereeither on 17.10.13 17:47

Châtelaine wrote:
@geh007 wrote: [...]

And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.
***
Since this is the MO "check" thread ... You seem to completely ignore, that his statement about his 9:30 pm check doesn't count up. Asked to describe apartment 5A, he gets the curtain colours wrong, the table shape wrong and picks up a book from a non-existing bookshelf. He is, probably, describing his own apartment, thinking they'll all be alike ...

There are many possible reasons for T7 to toe the party line. Some of them fairly innocent, other more serious. Fact IS that the massive hole, you are referring to, is in their statements of May 4, May 10 2007 and the rogatory ones in 2008.

Apart from that: I do resent being called a member of a conspiracy brigade. Thank you.

Well said, Chatelaine.

by The Slave on 17.10.13 17:48

geh007 ....... is that you, Gezza? big grin

by nobodythereeither on 17.10.13 17:52

@The Slave wrote:geh007 ....... is that you, Gezza?

Same thought had occurred to me big grin

by The Slave on 17.10.13 17:54

He's p****d off any way. laughat

by Nereid on 17.10.13 18:02

@The Slave wrote:geh007 ....... is that you, Gezza?

Fancies himself James Bond now eh? big grin

by endgame on 17.10.13 18:03

@geh007 wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?
And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.

I think there is a massive difference between all premeditatedly deliberately conspiring together to commit a crime and covering it up and being sucked in after the crime to look the other way, tell a helpful lie, be economical with the truth. perhaps the word conspiracy is sometimes used loosely but there is a vast amount of cold hard evidence to suggest complicity in some form of cover up. Cover ups by friends family. people who don't want to get involved etc. are extremely common even in the case of murder let alone in the case of a possible accident which might have disastrous consequences for anyone with even a loose connection to what went on.

ETA I think anyone with a basic awareness of psychology will understand that once the threshold of involvement, however tenuous, has been crossed, it is extremely difficult to go back particularly when there is intense group pressure and the thought that you could be responsible for ruining the lives of anyone you might incriminate. I think the sequence of statements interviews amended statements etc by the Tapas 9 show clear indications of them wrestling with this dilemma.

by geh007 on 17.10.13 18:07

@endgame wrote:
@geh007 wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?
And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.
I think there is a massive difference between all premeditatedly deliberately conspiring together to commit a crime and covering it up and being sucked in after the crime to look the other way, tell a helpful lie, be economical with the truth. perhaps the word conspiracy is sometimes used loosely but there is a vast amount of cold hard evidence to suggest complicity in some form of cover up. Cover ups by friends family. people who don't want to get involved etc. are extremely common even in the case of murder let alone in the case of a possible accident which might have disastrous consequences for anyone with even a loose connection to what went on.

I could accept that if you were talking about a couple of people or a less serious crime. But this is a total of 9 people, with the death, disposal and cover up of the death of a 3 year old child for over 6 years.

It's just too many, too much and for too long to be credible in my opinion.

ps. apologies for flippant use of conspiracy, no offence intended.

by endgame on 17.10.13 18:13

@geh007 wrote:
@endgame wrote:
@geh007 wrote:
@Lioned wrote:Something ties them all together,if the mccanns got done for neglect then but for the grace of God you could say
the others were negligent also.
Or you can speculate on a number of other things if you want .

Ask yourself why they are all liars ? And SY have changed the nights timeline ?
And that drives 9 people to collude in the death and disposal of a 3 year old girl?

Not a chance.

It's the one massive, massive hole with the conspiracy theory brigade.
I think there is a massive difference between all premeditatedly deliberately conspiring together to commit a crime and covering it up and being sucked in after the crime to look the other way, tell a helpful lie, be economical with the truth. perhaps the word conspiracy is sometimes used loosely but there is a vast amount of cold hard evidence to suggest complicity in some form of cover up. Cover ups by friends family. people who don't want to get involved etc. are extremely common even in the case of murder let alone in the case of a possible accident which might have disastrous consequences for anyone with even a loose connection to what went on.
I could accept that if you were talking about a couple of people or a less serious crime. But this is a total of 9 people, with the death, disposal and cover up of the death of a 3 year old child for over 6 years.

It's just too many, too much and for too long to be credible in my opinion.

ps. apologies for flippant use of conspiracy, no offence intended.

See my amendmenet above. Don't underestimate the enormous power of this psychological pressure.

by Lioned on 17.10.13 18:24

Whatever your views on what happened you have to wonder why the mccanns have not been completely candid and why they surrounded themselves in a protective cloak so quickly after Maddie vanished.

There are major discrepancies in the statements and the SY interpretation on crimewatch,thats what we are talking about on this thread.

The Matt Oldfield statement is pivotal in my opinion.

by Mirage on 17.10.13 18:24

Just looking over M O's Rog' statement...

He says he did that 'listening' check at 5 to 9. or about 9.
He then goes on to wonder why gerry has to go and do another check a little after 9.

Reply "So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids. But, you know, you don't, you know, we're all sort of responsible for our own children and you wouldn't sort of say, you know, you don't need to do that, I just sort of felt, oh I've listened, you don't need to do that because I've kind of just done it, but I hadn't gone into the apartment, so, erm".

Have you ever heard anything like it. I wouldn't let this rambling idiot check on my goldfish. Could you imagine how long it would take him to articulate if there was erm erm erm anything wrong?

by Guest on 17.10.13 18:31

Don't forget that it's on record, that MO actually didn't know McCs children too well.
This has been raised before, but I bring it up again:
- would you, mother, let an unfamiliar MALE let check on your children?
- WHAT could he do, IF the children were awake and crying?
- Call back to Tapas and ask YOU to come over to sooth them?
- And WHY did IIRC MO say that he would look at Madeleine ...?

by ProfessorPPlum on 17.10.13 19:07

@ProfessorPPlum wrote:Deleted sorry but I think this may be not in order to do this.

That's ok. Just responding to someone's request

by Guest on 17.10.13 19:11

@ProfessorPPlum wrote:
@ProfessorPPlum wrote:Deleted sorry but I think this may be not in order to do this.
That's ok. Just responding to someone's request

I sent you a pm PPP

by Nereid on 17.10.13 19:40

When Matthew went for his check at 9.30 and offered to check for Kate, so she didn't have to go, Russell got up and joined Matthew to check as well. Why didn't Matthew offer to check for Russell?

After all, he knew Russell much better than Kate, didn't he?

by worriedmum on 17.10.13 19:43

@Nereid wrote:When Matthew went for his check at 9.30 and offered to check for Kate, so she didn't have to go, Russell got up and joined Matthew to check as well. Why didn't Matthew offer to check for Russell?

After all, he knew Russell much better than Kate, didn't he?

Interesting point.

Regarding MO saying Gerry still wanted to check even though MO had just been, there is another ay of looking at this surely-why did Gerry want to go only five minutes after?

Most recent topics