Matt Oldfield and his checks

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Dee Coy on Mon 08 May 2017, 8:14 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:I actually thought JT was crying because she'd just described what she saw, hence crying to make her sighting more credible IMO

It's been cleverly edited to make it look like she's crying because she underestimated the sighting. But look carefully and it becomes obvious she is crying after being undermined by Gerry and his gang of men. Betrayed and without an alibi.



From 1 minute in.

_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
avatar
Dee Coy

Posts : 2177
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  chirpyinsect on Mon 08 May 2017, 9:15 pm

What's_up_doc? wrote:I think I must be in a very niche position here as nobody seems to think he was set up possibly, apart from me and maybe one or two others. I thought the whole point of DP ensuring the rest of  tapas group were out of the McCanns' way on May 3 was because they were in the dark but I suppose that's irrelevant if you believe Madeleine disappeared early evening May 3rd. Are people saying it is likely the whole group were involved? I can totally get the Paynes and JT, possibly RO but I can't see how MO fits into the big picture. If I was going to check on children and the door was open, I don't think I would have entered the room either. I read on CMoMM someone said why did he assume Madeleine was sleeping in the bed behind the door and not the bed under the window and this comment went down very well. For me, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that if the bed under the window is empty, then Madeleine would be asleep in the other bed. He also seems to be the only one who engaged in the searches in a meaningful way and entertained the possibility that she hadn't been abducted. I really am stumped by this one and don't read his behaviour as suspicious although I suspect he held back from commenting on the parenting issue - maybe I need to watch the interview rather than read it and all will become clear!
How do you then explain his description of the room as having 2 windows and the colour being green and yellow? It had one window and was blue and purple. Also, how do you manage to see "bits of breathing" through the solid side of 1 cot and the mesh side if the other?
No! Imo, MO was told to slot in a check to fill in an obvious gap but he wasn't willing to go the whole nine yards and say he saw M.

_________________
Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4635
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  dogs don't lie on Mon 08 May 2017, 10:00 pm

Thanks Deecoy,
Rewatching it there, it's possible that JT could've been crying because she'd just told the crew that
Kate had been moaning that he'd been gone a long time watching football. GM didn't like that at all and seemed quite annoyed about it.
IMO

_________________
Fight for Madeleine x
avatar
dogs don't lie

Posts : 2538
Join date : 2014-11-24
Age : 42
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Dee Coy on Mon 08 May 2017, 10:18 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:Thanks Deecoy,
Rewatching it there, it's possible that JT could've been crying because she'd just told the crew that
Kate had been moaning that he'd been gone a long time watching football. GM didn't like that at all and seemed quite annoyed about it.
IMO

It did cross my mind that she may have been conscious that she'd dropped a massive clanger with the football comment. But this is, of course, a McCann-made documentary, so anything damaging would not have remained in the film, but edited out. So I guess the football comment isn't incriminating after all.

They certainly squashed her flat, though. Gerry is determined the viewer is left with the impression that he chatted to Jes on the opposite side of the road. And he was prepared to undermine Jane's credibility on film to do so. I hate the way they all circle her to dismiss what she's saying. She must have felt bullied, helpless and frustrated. She had gone out there to help and in return was made to look foolish. And also she must have realised that by GM positioning himself there with his back to her left her without an alibi from either him or Jes. She is on her own with her Tannerman sighting. I think the realisation of this and the betrayal of GM is why she weeps.

_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
avatar
Dee Coy

Posts : 2177
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Andrew on Mon 08 May 2017, 10:29 pm

Cutting Edge made the documentary, so maybe the McCanns / Corner didn't have full editorial control over it at all?

Perhaps if they did then that particular scene would have been completely deleted and 'rehearsed properly' another day....

Just a thought study
avatar
Andrew

Posts : 13085
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Helenmeg on Tue 09 May 2017, 10:38 am

Cannot believe that Andrew. The Wider Team Mc Cann created that programme and there's no way they didn't have full editorial control - it was
propaganda again and absolutely anything shown to the public was intended to be in there... IMO

avatar
Helenmeg

Posts : 662
Join date : 2014-11-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  dogs don't lie on Tue 09 May 2017, 11:32 am

But you'd wonder why they'd leave in the comment about K moaning that G had been gone a long time, that's something you wouldn't want anyone hearing, imo

_________________
Fight for Madeleine x
avatar
dogs don't lie

Posts : 2538
Join date : 2014-11-24
Age : 42
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Freedom on Tue 09 May 2017, 11:37 am

The same goes for Gerry saying "Eff off etc" in the airport video! Why ever was that left in?
avatar
Freedom
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 14475
Join date : 2014-08-17
Age : 102
Location : The nearest darkened room

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Andrew on Tue 09 May 2017, 11:52 am

Helenmeg wrote:Cannot believe that Andrew.  The Wider Team Mc Cann created that programme and there's no way they didn't have full editorial control - it was
propaganda again and absolutely anything shown to the public was intended to be in there... IMO


As I said though, Helen, it was a Cutting Edge programme. So OK, it would have been heavily orchestrated by Team McCann as that much is obvious. But would they have the final say on absolutely everything and full editorial control......... I very much doubt it.

There were a lot of people observing that JT/GM bit on the street. My guess is they had only one take to do it. And cocked it up. It would look even more suspicious to the observers etc if there was a "Cut - Lets do that bit again and can you learn your lines a bit better" etc......

Rather than take it out completely (which I'm sure TM asked them to do so), they just left it in anyway.

Just my own take on it.
avatar
Andrew

Posts : 13085
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  What's_up_doc? on Tue 09 May 2017, 12:09 pm

I've just been reading the timeline theory and I now understand why MO is not considered a reliable witness. It looks like MO went to check but only checked the windows again, according to sticker book timeline one. Realising this did not fit, the second timeline on the sticker book doesn't refer to MO's second check because for it to fit in with the JT sighting the shutters need to have been raised before MO's second check. Hope I've understood this correctly. So if MO didn't enter 5a that night but only checked windows and the window of 5a was shut this would cause a huge problem with the timeline and his story had to be changed, for him to enter but not notice whether or not the window was open. Very unlike!y he could have not noticed an open window even if the curtains were drawn, so it looks like he never went in.

This explains Chatelaine's points about him giving an incorrect description of the interior of 5a, because he didn't enter but agreed to say he did, ducking out of actually saying he saw Madeleine. I feel like the class dunce but I think I get it now! Hope this is right.

_________________
Do not despair - just fight harder Kathleen Zellner
avatar
What's_up_doc?

Posts : 932
Join date : 2017-03-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Andrew on Tue 09 May 2017, 12:16 pm

That's about the size of it, doc.
avatar
Andrew

Posts : 13085
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Helenmeg on Tue 09 May 2017, 1:41 pm

What's_up_doc? wrote:I've just been reading the timeline theory and I now understand why MO is not considered a reliable witness. It looks like MO went to check but only checked the windows again, according to sticker book timeline one. Realising this did not fit, the second timeline on the sticker book doesn't refer to MO's second check because for it to fit in with the JT sighting the shutters need to have been raised before MO's second check. Hope I've understood this correctly. So if MO didn't enter 5a that night but only checked windows and the window of 5a was shut this would cause a huge problem with the timeline and his story had to be changed, for him to enter but not notice whether or not the window was open. Very unlike!y he could have not noticed an open window even if the curtains were drawn, so it looks like he never went in.

This explains Chatelaine's points about him giving an incorrect description of the interior of 5a, because he didn't enter but agreed to say he did, ducking out of actually saying he saw Madeleine. I feel like the class dunce but I think I get it now! Hope this is right.

Aha - me also - just got it too!!
avatar
Helenmeg

Posts : 662
Join date : 2014-11-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Helenmeg on Tue 09 May 2017, 1:42 pm

Andrew wrote:
Helenmeg wrote:Cannot believe that Andrew.  The Wider Team Mc Cann created that programme and there's no way they didn't have full editorial control - it was
propaganda again and absolutely anything shown to the public was intended to be in there... IMO


As I said though, Helen, it was a Cutting Edge programme. So OK, it would have been heavily orchestrated by Team McCann as that much is obvious. But would they have the final say on absolutely everything and full editorial control......... I very much doubt it.

There were a lot of people observing that JT/GM bit on the street. My guess is they had only one take to do it. And cocked it up. It would look even more suspicious to the observers etc if there was a "Cut - Lets do that bit again and can you learn your lines a bit better" etc......

Rather than take it out completely (which I'm sure TM asked them to do so), they just left it in anyway.

Just my own take on it.  
Yes - see what you mean..Smile
avatar
Helenmeg

Posts : 662
Join date : 2014-11-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Helenmeg on Tue 09 May 2017, 1:48 pm

Matt intrigues me a little from a psychological point of view - in that out of all of them -he seems to remain a chirpy chap - joking - cycling - always looks happy and pleased
in his photos (displayed publicly).  As if he doesn't have any weight on his shoulders which stems from that week in PdL.  He doesn't appear to carry guilt or a troubled conscience.
Which leads me to think - he had a minor part and hasn't knowingly deceived or  actively lied to anyone. (Although I can only see a very minor picture of his life through Facebook etc).

The only thing that contradicts what I have said is his rogatory interview in which he comes across as vague and cringingly  awful as the rest of the cowardly despicable pathetic idiots
avatar
Helenmeg

Posts : 662
Join date : 2014-11-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  What's_up_doc? on Tue 09 May 2017, 2:14 pm

Helenmeg wrote:Matt intrigues me a little from a psychological point of view - in that out of all of them -he seems to remain a chirpy chap - joking - cycling - always looks happy and pleased
in his photos (displayed publicly).  As if he doesn't have any weight on his shoulders which stems from that week in PdL.  He doesn't appear to carry guilt or a troubled conscience.
Which leads me to think - he had a minor part and hasn't knowingly deceived or  actively lied to anyone. (Although I can only see a very minor picture of his life through Facebook etc).

The only thing that contradicts what I have said is his rogatory interview in which he comes across as vague and cringingly  awful as the rest of the cowardly despicable pathetic idiots
I agree Helenmeg, I do think he appears sincere in some way but it looks like he lied - so there's a conundrum. The only thing I can think is that he believed the McCanns, felt sorry for them because he genuinely thought their beautiful daughters been stolen and perhaps felt guilty because he hadn't checked thoroughly ( only windows) he thought he was doing the right thing by supporting their version of events. I don't think he knew the truth and felt by saying that he entered the apartment, he was doing the  right thing at the time. Maybe he and some of the others have had time to reflect and have since told the truth?

Something that's just occurred to me is where does this leave JT and Tannerman? Surely, if she was fully complicit with the McCanns, the timing of her sighting would be different, because she places an abduction at a time that would have been better placed later? Or was the fact that MO offered to check and only did a window check at 9.30 a spanner in the works which they did not have time to adapt their narrative to accommodate, resolving it by making MO change his story and keeping JT's sighting? I need to think about that but it's puzzling - something went wrong that's for sure.

_________________
Do not despair - just fight harder Kathleen Zellner
avatar
What's_up_doc?

Posts : 932
Join date : 2017-03-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Andrew on Tue 09 May 2017, 2:36 pm

Jez Wilkins and the Smith sighting was what went wrong for them, doc.

A proper spanner in the works. Make that 2 spanners.
avatar
Andrew

Posts : 13085
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Helenmeg on Tue 09 May 2017, 3:46 pm

Yes Doc - I agree - something went wrong - (best laid plans and all that.. ) and probably as Andrew says - JW!
avatar
Helenmeg

Posts : 662
Join date : 2014-11-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Châtelaine on Tue 09 May 2017, 3:59 pm

Both JT and GM have taken some time to ventilate, they didn't like each other ...
Hm ....
avatar
Châtelaine

Posts : 2424
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : France

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  What's_up_doc? on Tue 09 May 2017, 5:51 pm

I've been reading a bit today and I think I'm at the same place, Jez Wilkins and the Smith sighting meant the original plan had to be changed. I've not really considered the evidence of the sticker book timelines before today but they are hugely important and need to be read in conjunction with the statements as they are really important evidence and shed light on the statements IMO. Onwards and upwards!
sunny

_________________
Do not despair - just fight harder Kathleen Zellner
avatar
What's_up_doc?

Posts : 932
Join date : 2017-03-16

Back to top Go down

Priceless: Matt Oldfield witness analysis

Post  poster on Sat 17 Jun 2017, 10:50 pm

Rather than being the bumbling Tweedledums and Tweedldess that Team McCann want us to believe I think that some of the police questioning is brilliant. The bumbling twits are definitely on the other side of the police cordon as the McCanns and Tapas repeatedly demonstrate the moment they open their mouths.

This is some of Matt Oldfield's witness statement. It is an absolute gem and I think contains so much brain-leak that he has pretty much told us what happened. I think the interviewer is clever too and gets him to hang himself hopelessly. I do like the way you can work out how TM's brains work...

Matt has been waffling away for quite some time about the moments after the discovery of Madeleine's alleged abduction. The interviewer very nicely allows him to waffle on and on for ages and then, with great deftness, imo, cuts to the chase beautifully and effectively wraps up Matt in the spider's web that he has effectively spun himself. A bit like digging his own grave, Matt falls hook, line and sinker, imo.

Police interviewer:00.55.19 4078 'You feel helpless''

While seemingly innocuous, this statement is heavily loaded. Madeleine has been missing for only an hour. The first few hours after someone goes missing are the 'golden hours'. There was therefore no reason at all to suppose she might not be found somewhere in the resort or nearby quite soon.  Logically, you would not be losing hope so early on. You would only feel like that if you knew there was nothing you could do.

You either feel helpless in a particular situation or you don't. It's not a wishy-washy feeling. Notice the interviewer has not asked a question but has made a statement. Matt falls straight into the trap, imo. Not only does he succinctly confirm that the interviewer's suspicions are correct, but he elaborates nicely to make quite a clear distinction between those people who have no hope and those people who do. He leaves us in no doubt which category he belongs in.

Matt: 'You are and yet people on the outside of it, erm, responded in a much more practical way, of course, they would do,


Priceless! While those 'inside it' have no hope those 'outside it' do have hope and are therefore much more practical. Of course, ostensibly he might mean that those who are not personally effected can be more objective but I think between the lines he is revealing far more than that.

Matt then very helpfully adds: "...of course, they would do."  bom 10/10 for clarity Matt. It is only natural that those (who are in the dark about what happened) would be more practical while those who know the truth will be running around - possibly like headless chickens even? (Oh sorry, I jumped the gun here but Matt will clarify in a minute or so.... Basketball )

Matt: ...but with decent suggestions about doing this, doing that, you know. But, erm, we were there about sort of eleven, ten past eleven when the GNR sort of Police arrived and there was two of them in a Police car.

The adjective 'decent' is an interesting choice to use in conjunction with the word 'suggestion'. Suggestions can be good or bad or somewhere in-between. The word is more commonly used to describe people and of course objects. In the context of describing people it is a very heavily-loaded word with rich connotations. A decent person might be considered to be someone who was right and proper. A person who would 'do the right thing'. An indecent person would be someone who is the opposite. They will do things that are not right or proper and that offend people. Of course decency can also be feigned. Someone might appear to be a decent person but underneath the cleverly constructed mask might hide an indecent person.

Matt has already helpfully classified two distinct groups of people in relation to this case. Those who are 'in' and those who are 'out'.  He has told us which group he is in. He has also told us that the people who are not in his group are understandably responding in a more practical way. While ostensibly this might suggest that they are more practical as they are not emotionally involved, I think the  inference is that those who are unaware of what really happened can have hope which drives practical action. Rather than running around aimlessly these people are also making 'decent suggestions'. He has also told us that those not 'in on it' are coming up with 'decent suggestions' (as opposed to 'indecent' ones, presumably?)

What might an 'indecent' suggestion be? Well, it could possibly describe a suggestion (for Madeleine's disappearance) that referred to something or someone indecent or an indecent reason for her abduction. Now, who was it that claimed that Madeleine was stolen from her bed by an abductor who was probably a paedophile or maybe even stolen into a paedophile ring? Could that possibly be an 'indecent' suggestion? Whereas suggestions such as she could have run off of her own accord and other suggestions for her disappearance that don't involve her having been stolen by a paedophile are 'decent' ones? I think that Dr Amaral's number one possible scenario is that Madeleine left the apartment of her own accord. He's been there and knows the apartment so he must realize it was possible. Kate, however, will not countenance this and writes in her book that it is 'insulting to their intelligence' or words to that effect. You could equally argue that the suggestion that she was abducted was 'insulting to other people's intelligence - not least the police'. But Kate, bless her, really isn't the brightest.

You've got to love TM, they twist themselves into knots of their own making. So devious yet so inept too.

On top of this however I think Matt's account is heavily laden with guilt. He has observed how decent people have reacted and it is in stark contrast to how others have reacted.

Notice how dismissive Matt is of all the 'decent suggestions' - they are 'this and that and you know' - all quite literally irrelevant Matt is telling us. The decent suggestions will achieve nothing he appears to be saying. But he is not so dismissive about the arrival of the police and the sight and sound of the police car pulling up seems etched in his mind.

Matt: Somebody's asked whether the siren was on and I think the lights were flashing but I don't remember, and I may have heard the siren in the distance, but I can't recall.

Haha...here come the cops in suitable style with sirens blazing and lights flashing! A moment that no doubt he and particularly Gerry will never forget.  Matt and Gerry might just as well be wearing  stockings over their heads and carrying a swag-bags this description  is so emotive, imo. I think I can imagine who  'somebody' was?  Just possibly somebody who was flailing around in a complete panic and dreading the arrival of the police. Maybe prostrate on the floor and praying even? affraid: Matt interestingly has a memory lapse about whether the police sirens were wailing. I doubt that this was a sight or sound that either he or Gerry will ever forget in a hurry. (Let's not forget - a terrible crime has been committed, according to Madeleine's parents and friends. Would you not expect them to welcome the police with open arms?)

While it is not entirely clear from Matt's rogatory where 'there' is I think that at this point they are in the OC reception. Presumably the main 24 hour reception area of OC which is some distance from the apartment? This is confirmed by Silvia Baptista in her rogatory - she says she saw Gerry in reception when she arrived.)

Interesting that Gerry is not in or near the apartment when police arrive. He has distanced himself from the scene of the crime and indeed from any of the areas which the family would have frequented that week (where you might logically be expecting to find a missing child). However what is important is that within a few minutes of arriving at the scene of the crime police have picked up the very person who is likely to be the most important person in the case. The father of the child who went missing in mysterious circumstances and who just so happens to be the very last person to see her alive. Notice how police go to Gerry rather than the other way round.  I'd say the police were doing their job quite nicely by picking up the prime suspect within 5 minutes of arrival on the scene.  Cool

Matt: And one of the cleaning ladies I think came to translate, I think this is Sylvia or Sylvie, I'm not sure, but she was there helping, you know, saying, this is, you know, this is the father. And [b]they put him in the car and drove back up to the apartment.[/b]

I presume this is Silvia Batista. Former head of reception at OC who was at the time head of maintenance and services. Interesting how Matt has downgraded her job description to that of a cleaning lady. This is minimizing and trivializing - he wants to make it appear as if this is not a professional police interrogation but some sort of botch-job with cleaning ladies being used as translators, imo. I am sure that police would have made it quite clear what Silvia's role was and she would not have been introduced as the cleaning lady. She had worked in the resort for a very long time and had a very important role as she was, among other things, responsible for vetting new employees. Therefore she is someone whose job it is to be a good judge of character. Well, Matt describes her as a cleaning lady (there's nothing wrong with being a cleaning lady but it is quite low down in the job hierarchy)  I wonder how Silvia described Matt and his friends in private?

Silvia is,  of course, a very important eye-witness and her rogatory is well worth reading. Notice how from Matt's statement it appears that it is a third party from outside of the TM group who identifies Gerry.  This would suggest that Gerry does not take ownership of the situation, stride up to police and announce: 'I am Madeleine's father.' It is left to someone outside the TM group to point out to police who Madeleine's father is. Talk about distancing behaviour. And remember Gerry tells neighbour Mrs Fenn that 'a child is missing' not 'my child is missing'. (This might of course also provide some support for the kiko theory...) I would imagine Gerry is positively caking it at this point. Notice how Matt states that 'they put him in the car' and 'drove him back up'. This does not sound like a man skipping off willingly into a police car.  Matt cannot say: 'he got in the car' because GM was, I assume,  'put in it'.  (Kate in her book writes by how appalled she was when they arrived at the police station for questioning and no-one offered them a drink or anything. She was expecting the red carpet to be spread out even though there was not one shred of evidence for their theory of what happened and their account of it was so ridiculous as to be laughable. The pomposity of the pair is insufferable...) Silvia also doubts Jane Tanner's testimony as, when she translates Tanner's testimony at 3am she is 'surprised' by Jane Tanner's sighting as she does not believe that Tanner could have had a any view of Tanner-man from where she was standing. Bear in mind Silvia knows the resort very well. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, 3am is when the McCanns ask to see a priest. Silvia also is surprised by this as it is something people do when someone is dying or has just died.

Dear old Matt, though. He really is pouring his heart out to the police interviewer and leaving no doubt as to where he wanted to be and who he wanted to be with that difficult night:

Matt: then, erm, after that we did more[b] headless running around, checked on Grace, erm, you know, at times we were sort of like crossing each other, there was Dave, and running on my own, and sort of the other way, and I then went out on the coast road a bit further down, erm, I don't know what we thought we could do, but it was just better than being close to them and being there.


This, too, is another gem. Matt is telling us that it was preferable to continue to run around like headless chickens than 'being close to them and being there'. I presume he means close to the police( talking to the McCanns) and being 'there' -   apartment 5A? Or Ocean Club generally which presumably by now has unpleasant associations.  It's interesting he mentions checking on Grace because one would assume that his partner would be doing that. But perhaps all TM hands are on deckat this point with timelines being drawn up and all TM children may possibly have been given a little help in the sleeping department to ensure they did not witness the chaos that night?

'Sort of like crossing each other' is an interesting expression. Who is the 'we'? Him and his partner perhaps? After having checked on Grace? ( I feel sure that sedation is a feature of this case...)  It would seem that total panic had set in and nothing short of a miracle is going to save them all. The arrival of the police has caused TM mayhem it would seem. Matt mentions Dave and then 'running on my own'. I think it would be safe to say that the two had words or at least tried to calm/comfort each other at this point.

Matt: errm.., and so we ran out on that, I think this road unfortunately is called, erm, which road is it, Cemetery Road I think it's called, I seem to remember noticing it because it seemed like a horrible, I think it's this bit here'.

Ah, so Matt wasn't running on his own then? He was with David Payne. And they were both running together on a road the name of which he remembers as it was the road that leads to the cemetery. Wow. Amazing brain-leak. Matt even confesses that he remembers noticing the name because it seemed like a horrible (coincidence/irony?) But why horrible? A huge search for an alive Madeleine is underway so what relevance does Cemetery Road have? Well, there can only be a few answers to that. But I suggest it means Madeleine is dead by then and that a cemetery has significance or will have. At this juncture, it is interesting (although macabre) to look back on Dr Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine had been placed in the coffin of a dead woman who was cremated at Luz church some weeks later. He must have good reason for stating this. I think the funeral of the woman was supposed to have been three weeks later. This would coincide with the rental of the Renault Scenic to which of course it is on record that cadaver dogs alerted. Dr Amaral considers that the body was stored in a fridge (freezer?) and that there was fluid in the car that was consistent with this thesis.  But that is stepping ahead. The point is that noting the name of the road as Cemetery Road and also placing David Payne as being with him is suggestive to me that Madeleine is dead and that both Matt and David Payne know this and have had some involvement at least in the cover-up.

Police Interviewer: 4078 'It covers quite a lot of area'.

Ye Gods - look how long the interviewer has allowed Matt to talk (or at least how much he has revealed in what he has said) before s/he interjects again! Amazing. But notice the point at which he cuts in again. It is the point where Matt has revealed that he remembers the name Cemetery Road. The interviewer I presume has noted that Matt has said something relevant and wants him to elaborate on the 'cemetery' theme. And, never the one to disappoint, Matt takes the bait and does just that. No going back on anything or: "Oh I don't know why I said that - how can it be relevant?" He just keeps digging his own grave, imo. Although, perhaps of note, he appears a bit less sure about the name of the road and also where the road leads to...perhaps the interviewer was hoping that Matt would fully take the bait and respond along the lines of 'yes, its a long road but it leads to the cemetery and it's very sad but ..... is dead.' Even Matt is not quite that clueless and makes a minor repair, imo:

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

Nevertheless, there's a repetition of the name of the road. I would have thought that it would take you to the cemetery primarily rather than the coast but I presume that Matt is at last cottoning on to the fact that his flagging up of running on this road is tantamount to wearing a flashing neon sign stating: this is the road that leads to understanding what happened....

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


lol!  lol!  lol! Brilliant. The police interviewer has made a complete fool of Matt and he has quite literally dug his own grave and is now nearly in Australia. What fun the interviewer must have had! S/he has just been told what was relevant but realizes that Matt is utterly clueless and the interviewer has played the double if not triple bluff. I like it! And on Matt stumbles, seeming oblivious to how he has been played and how the interviewer has, imo, seen right through his account.

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


I wonder why Matt mentions Nathan but not only that also reveals that he knew him from previous MW holidays? (Why is the word Mark Warner in caps as well?) Everything is done for a reason with TM. There we have the cross metaphor again, only this time 'cross paths' with people who were 'sort of' searching. I presume that people that were 'sort of searching' were TM and those who were 'in' and the people that were properly searching were ones who were 'out'. You are either searching or you are not. So I presume the 'sort of' searchers were the ones who were were instead running around like headless chickens...It is also interesting, imo, that Matt mentions dogs barking. We know that Kate gives an account of being bitten by a dog that week (I think Thursday?) when she is allegedly out running with Matt. I just wonder if it is possible that there was some odour around Kate (and possibly others) that might make a dog bark or be aggressive? We know dogs are an important feature of this case and we know that their sense of smell is incredible.

All of the above pure theory and speculation as always. Nothing stated as fact.
avatar
poster

Posts : 1506
Join date : 2015-06-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  What's_up_doc? on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 12:30 am

Thank you poster for a really insightful post. Cemetery Road is interesting because there is a reference in the file of witnesses reporting seeing one of the group near the church that night. Do we know if Cemetery Rd is near the church?

I agree with you that the questioning I really skilkful. Matt appears the most troubled member of the group IMO. The comment about the arrival of the police is interesting. If someone is missing, the arrival of a police car would be very significant, because the police might have news, they might even have discovered the missing person, so this would be very much a focus IMO.  I remember this feeling when my dog was chased off a park and ran home, a man wound down his window to speak to me and my first thought was he knows something. I find these actions, reactions very counter intuitive. You get the impression they are passive observers, too detached from the search. It's late now but lots to think about here...

_________________
Do not despair - just fight harder Kathleen Zellner
avatar
What's_up_doc?

Posts : 932
Join date : 2017-03-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Heisenburg on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 9:05 am

poster wrote:Matt: Somebody's asked whether the siren was on and I think the lights were flashing but I don't remember, and I may have heard the siren in the distance, but I can't recall.
.[/b]

Not forgetting a couple of others might have heard a siren.
avatar
Heisenburg

Posts : 1346
Join date : 2016-01-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  poster on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 2:15 pm

Heisenburg wrote:
poster wrote:Matt: Somebody's asked whether the siren was on and I think the lights were flashing but I don't remember, and I may have heard the siren in the distance, but I can't recall.
.[/b]

Not forgetting a couple of others might have heard a siren.

Yes indeed. The arrival of police cars would most definitely have been a moment that was memorable. And no doubt there were others who were out and about 'crossing each other' even who were looking and listening.

But I was thinking a bit more about Matt's answer below. Following up on the Cemetery Road flagging up, the interviewer then probes further but frames the question in a negative which again I think is a clever device to put Matt off his guard and ensure some nice brain-leak. So when the interviewer innocently asks (bearing in mind that Matt has just effectively told the interviewer that Madeleine is dead) :

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

If Matt wasn't such a helpful chappie there would be one answer to this which would be: 'no'. Matt has already told the interviewer that he wasn't searching because he knew there was no point. He has flagged up the relevance of 'Cemetery Road' so we know that death is on his mind. We know that TM were all running around like headless chickens that evening. Presumably because police were arriving and there was the problem of a dead body to deal with. So the next logical question would be: 'Where was the body hidden?'

Obviously, this cannot be asked directly but in Matt's eagerness to talk and possibly also his need to 'spill the beans' but in an oblique fashion I think he might give the answer of where the body might have been hidden that evening/night. Or at least where the body might be near. Again, the interviewer plays right into his hands by framing the question in a negative. This disarms Matt who presumably is unaware of how much he is giving away and on he rambles.  He is specifically asked about areas where he searched went and he gives a fairly detailed reply.

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

-----------

So I deduce from the above answer that Matt (and whoever else with with him) had to get further away from OC so as to stop crossing paths with other people who were searching. He then got to a place that was deserted, where dogs were barking at him and where some apartments were occupied but some were still being built. 'A sort of lonely sort of isolated place, but you know, it was all very sort of close and there was nothing, you know.' Okay so when the coast is completely clear, when there is no-one around and no-one overlooking him and whoever he was with, then looking for a 'funny parked car' comes into play I presume. This would make sense of course because with searches going on through the night (despite what Kate writes in her book) there would be a need to get the body far away from the area, imo.

Purely speculative as always.
avatar
poster

Posts : 1506
Join date : 2015-06-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Châtelaine on Sun 18 Jun 2017, 2:31 pm

I agree: very evasive and lenghtly replies.
But, what bothers me most, is the multiple use of "sort of" ...
avatar
Châtelaine

Posts : 2424
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : France

Back to top Go down

Re: Matt Oldfield and his checks

Post  Ferrino on Fri 30 Jun 2017, 3:17 pm

It interests me that Russell kind of 'disappears' from the equation, when initially they BOTH said they were going to check on the children. Russell supposedly goes to his apartment instead, even though 5A is on the way. His daughter has apparently been sick, though Jane checked (supposedly) just 10 mins earlier and she was asleep and fine. Possible yes, but questionable.

Why does Russell's offer to check disappear? Was he really washing his daughter's sheets?
avatar
Ferrino

Posts : 36
Join date : 2017-06-29

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum