Weakest Link Part II

I posted a thread on this subject a while ago but I wonder if now the heat is being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the police and the rest of the authoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may keep his freedom. Just a thought!

NoStone wrote:I posted a thread on this subject a wwhile ago but I onder if nw the heat iss being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the oice and the rest of the athoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may kkeep his freedom. Just a thought!

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:I posted a thread on this subject a wwhile ago but I onder if nw the heat iss being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the oice and the rest of the athoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may kkeep his freedom. Just a thought!

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

NoStone wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:I posted a thread on this subject a wwhile ago but I onder if nw the heat iss being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the oice and the rest of the athoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may kkeep his freedom. Just a thought!

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

Lord and Lady Kate plus their servants will ALL get their dues, one of them will HAVE to crack knowing the repercussions of the payout of the newspapers, they all lied - I would not put it past the Yard if all their phones are being bugged as we speak, they are testing the McCanns - they Yard and the PJ (all over Portugal) know that it would have taken the cost of an envelope and a stamp to re-open the case and are scratching their heads and wondering WHY this was NOT done.

There is so much we dont know going on "behind the scenes" gosh I cant wait for ACT 1!
Lets watch Pinkie try and save this sinking ship!
The beautiful Clematis Montana I planted for Maddie two years ago has started to bloom, we all have a smile on our faces today and Lord and Lady Kate are fighting over the loo!.

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:I posted a thread on this subject a wwhile ago but I onder if nw the heat iss being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the oice and the rest of the athoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may kkeep his freedom. Just a thought!

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

I don't think it is as specific as that. Here is one case of murder and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/northernireland

One of the key suspects in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane is to be offered the option of giving Queen's Evidence against his former UDA comrades.

The ex-UDA man was spirited out of Northern Ireland last week after a police tip-off that he was about to be assassinated. He and his family were moved from their home on the Glencairn estate in the Greater Shankill area.

Karen wrote:Lord and Lady Kate plus their servants will ALL get their dues, one of them will HAVE to crack knowing the repercussions of the payout of the newspapers, they all lied - I would not put it past the Yard if all their phones are being bugged as we speak, they are testing the McCanns - they Yard and the PJ (all over Portugal) know that it would have taken the cost of an envelope and a stamp to re-open the case and are scratching their heads and wondering WHY this was NOT done.

There is so much we dont know going on "behind the scenes" gosh I cant wait for ACT 1!
Lets watch Pinkie try and save this sinking ship!
The beautiful Clematis Montana I planted for Maddie two years ago has started to bloom, we all have a smile on our faces today and Lord and Lady Kate are fighting over the loo!.

I think the whole lot of them will have recently purchased unregistered, "throw down," phones!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Karen wrote:Lord and Lady Kate plus their servants will ALL get their dues, one of them will HAVE to crack knowing the repercussions of the payout of the newspapers, they all lied - I would not put it past the Yard if all their phones are being bugged as we speak, they are testing the McCanns - they Yard and the PJ (all over Portugal) know that it would have taken the cost of an envelope and a stamp to re-open the case and are scratching their heads and wondering WHY this was NOT done.

There is so much we dont know going on "behind the scenes" gosh I cant wait for ACT 1!
Lets watch Pinkie try and save this sinking ship!
The beautiful Clematis Montana I planted for Maddie two years ago has started to bloom, we all have a smile on our faces today and Lord and Lady Kate are fighting over the loo!.

I think the whole lot of them will have recently purchased unregistered, "throw down," phones!

Very likely Anna!! But you still have to communicate the throw away numbers to each other - somehow - by txt - email?? Maybe the safest way would be to send a letter!!!!!!

NoStone wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Karen wrote:Lord and Lady Kate plus their servants will ALL get their dues, one of them will HAVE to crack knowing the repercussions of the payout of the newspapers, they all lied - I would not put it past the Yard if all their phones are being bugged as we speak, they are testing the McCanns - they Yard and the PJ (all over Portugal) know that it would have taken the cost of an envelope and a stamp to re-open the case and are scratching their heads and wondering WHY this was NOT done.

There is so much we dont know going on "behind the scenes" gosh I cant wait for ACT 1!
Lets watch Pinkie try and save this sinking ship!
The beautiful Clematis Montana I planted for Maddie two years ago has started to bloom, we all have a smile on our faces today and Lord and Lady Kate are fighting over the loo!.

I think the whole lot of them will have recently purchased unregistered, "throw down," phones!

Very likely Anna!! But you still have to communicate the throw away numbers to each other - somehow - by txt - email?? Maybe the safest way would be to send a letter!!!!!!

Seems like the old-fashioned way may be much safer than any technology!

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:I posted a thread on this subject a wwhile ago but I onder if nw the heat iss being turned up a little bit if its worth re-visiting.

I dont think Mathew Oldfield would want to go to jail if he could help it and I believe that whilst he knows enough of the events that week he was not involved as some of the others e.g. ROB and JT and he seemed to play only a reluctant part in the 'checks' saying at first he only listened outside but then secondly that he did not see Madelene. I think if he spilled the beans he would be seen to be saving the oice and the rest of the athoritites an aweful lot of time and for his role as a relatively minor accomplice - he may kkeep his freedom. Just a thought!

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

I don't think it is as specific as that. Here is one case of murder and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/northernireland

One of the key suspects in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane is to be offered the option of giving Queen's Evidence against his former UDA comrades.

The ex-UDA man was spirited out of Northern Ireland last week after a police tip-off that he was about to be assassinated. He and his family were moved from their home on the Glencairn estate in the Greater Shankill area.

It is the UDA i.e. definitely organized crime which is involved here and therefore I do stand by my assertation that Queen's evidence is specifically aimed at organized crime. This doesn't rule out the possibility that GM is a big boss of some kind and that Oldfield is under threat of assassination if he squeals, but from what I have learned over the past 5 years I think it hardly likely. If you take away all the hype which has been put out by the parents' and their paid helpers, there remains a sad and sordid little affair which will soon be brought to a conclusion by the combined efforts of the highly qualified detectives of both police forces now engaged.

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:

T4two wrote:

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime which carries a substantial jail sentence. So-called plea bargaining isn't done in the UK and if I'm not mistaken, Portugal doesn't practice it either. Bit late in the day for Oldfield to come forward I should have thought, especially as one could now say that he is only doing it because solving of the crime has become inevitable.

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

I don't think it is as specific as that. Here is one case of murder and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/northernireland

One of the key suspects in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane is to be offered the option of giving Queen's Evidence against his former UDA comrades.

The ex-UDA man was spirited out of Northern Ireland last week after a police tip-off that he was about to be assassinated. He and his family were moved from their home on the Glencairn estate in the Greater Shankill area.

It is the UDA i.e. definitely organized crime which is involved here and therefore I do stand by my assertation that Queen's evidence is specifically aimed at organized crime. This doesn't rule out the possibility that GM is a big boss of some kind and that Oldfield is under threat of assassination if he squeals, but from what I have learned over the past 5 years I think it hardly likely. If you take away all the hype which has been put out by the parents' and their paid helpers, there remains a sad and sordid little affair which will soon be brought to a conclusion by the combined efforts of the highly qualified detectives of both police forces now engaged.

I'm fairly sure that it isn't just specifically aimed at organised crime because all the online law dictionaries give it a more general definition.

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

NoStone wrote:

So how does turning Queen's evidence work then??

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

I don't think it is as specific as that. Here is one case of murder and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/northernireland

One of the key suspects in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane is to be offered the option of giving Queen's Evidence against his former UDA comrades.

The ex-UDA man was spirited out of Northern Ireland last week after a police tip-off that he was about to be assassinated. He and his family were moved from their home on the Glencairn estate in the Greater Shankill area.

It is the UDA i.e. definitely organized crime which is involved here and therefore I do stand by my assertation that Queen's evidence is specifically aimed at organized crime. This doesn't rule out the possibility that GM is a big boss of some kind and that Oldfield is under threat of assassination if he squeals, but from what I have learned over the past 5 years I think it hardly likely. If you take away all the hype which has been put out by the parents' and their paid helpers, there remains a sad and sordid little affair which will soon be brought to a conclusion by the combined efforts of the highly qualified detectives of both police forces now engaged.

I'm fairly sure that it isn't just specifically aimed at organised crime because all the online law dictionaries give it a more general definition.

May I suggest that you read the CPS information. I provided the link in my post above. It is very specific.

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

IMO it very much depends on the crime and the strength of the prosecution's case. Turning 'Queen's evidence' appears to be aimed specifically at organized crime rather than a case of the disappearance of a person and suspected foul play. See first principle Part A, "Accomplices generally to be prosecuted".


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a03

I don't think it is as specific as that. Here is one case of murder and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/northernireland

One of the key suspects in the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane is to be offered the option of giving Queen's Evidence against his former UDA comrades.

The ex-UDA man was spirited out of Northern Ireland last week after a police tip-off that he was about to be assassinated. He and his family were moved from their home on the Glencairn estate in the Greater Shankill area.

It is the UDA i.e. definitely organized crime which is involved here and therefore I do stand by my assertation that Queen's evidence is specifically aimed at organized crime. This doesn't rule out the possibility that GM is a big boss of some kind and that Oldfield is under threat of assassination if he squeals, but from what I have learned over the past 5 years I think it hardly likely. If you take away all the hype which has been put out by the parents' and their paid helpers, there remains a sad and sordid little affair which will soon be brought to a conclusion by the combined efforts of the highly qualified detectives of both police forces now engaged.

I'm fairly sure that it isn't just specifically aimed at organised crime because all the online law dictionaries give it a more general definition.

May I suggest that you read the CPS information. I provided the link in my post above. It is very specific.

I have, but I think I may have missed something. Would you show me where it says that "Queen's evidence," relates only to this kind of crime?

i said this when i was on the 3as and i still say this today . you have a group of friends go on holiday some were just friends of friends , they all left their children .the thing about them all leaving the children alone is how long . it is a rumour - fact that they went and left maddeleine alone longer when going to chaplins ? i dont think on the night of the 3rd all the tapas was in the loop and they got taken in by the flying circus . news streight away bla bla but once the lies were told they got bigger and bigger , some say they should have held their hands up on day 1 i believe that too . BUT they had children and imo getting your family out of portugal was a main aim . did they think this case would still be front page news . i dont think so . the mcanns celebs and the tapas will always be known as the tapas that left their children . dont think they thought the lies they told the pj would affect them and families forever . i do think that 1 maybe 2 people from the group have come clean about what part they played if any
they have to think of a future and they havent any at min

anyone fancy emailing him and suggesting the option of turning Queens before its too late....

Dr Matthew Oldfield (matthew.oldfield@kingstonhospital.nhs.uk)

They only way I can really understand all this with the Tapas friends loyality is, by trying to put myself in their shoes, would I wake up and put myself first to protect myself and my family,,,,,, if I had helped a friend out say for example.....

My friend had accidently say given her child a strong sedative to make her sleep more deeply (especially if I had also been sedating my child,,,there for the grace of god!!), and she OD!!! how would I feel? would I help her cover up this OD, if it ment that we could get away with it without coursing harm or pain to anyone and I was assured that we will be protected by the "right" people then yes I would, forgetting to ask if this protection will last.........
Sh1t now 5years on and I knew the police were investigating this case again and I was told that new evidence has come to light, and also told from a 3rd party who said I should be prepared for the case to be re-opened and I will be involved as an accomplice to the crime, would I speak out and explaine???, yes to right I would, and right now I would be on medication because I would be beside sh****ng myself with fear of the out come, as I was in the taxi going to the police station!!!!

All these Tapas friends had children and families, do they put them 1st or do they stand by their friends???

I know what I would do.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:They only way I can really understand all this with the Tapas friends loyality is, by trying to put myself in their shoes, would I wake up and put myself first to protect myself and my family,,,,,, if I had helped a friend out say for example.....

My friend had accidently say given her child a strong sedative to make her sleep more deeply (especially if I had also been sedating my child,,,there for the grace of god!!), and she OD!!! how would I feel? would I help her cover up this OD, if it ment that we could get away with it without coursing harm or pain to anyone and I was assured that we will be protected by the "right" people then yes I would, forgetting to ask if this protection will last.........
Sh1t now 5years on and I knew the police were investigating this case again and I was told that new evidence has come to light, and also told from a 3rd party who said I should be prepared for the case to be re-opened and I will be involved as an accomplice to the crime, would I speak out and explaine???, yes to right I would, and right now I would be on medication because I would be beside sh****ng myself with fear of the out come, as I was in the taxi going to the police station!!!!

All these Tapas friends had children and families, do they put them 1st or do they stand by their friends???

I know what I would do.

Absolutely. If one of them is ever going to do the right thing, it has surely got to be now. Hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

My favourite to do this is Oldfield as well. I think he was meant to be the one to find Madeleine gone but did not do his check. That was how he was to be involved in all of this. He was to see it with his own eyes. No explanation may have been needed to the Oldfields other than that. The Paynes, were the McCanns good friends, so were the obvious first in line choice for providing help or being confided in. I think O'Brien provided medical help that went wrong so he is involved at first hand. Tanner protects her partner and has the sighting to keep the abduction theory alive. I cannot see her coming clean, she has been too emphatic about her side of the story, she will not have the kneck to back track. O'Brien will stay quiet to protect them both. So that leaves Mr Oldfield.......

I don't think I will be able to stand it, if all of this goes quiet again and fades into the background. Surely this time there will be a move forward ?

Lillyofthevalley wrote:They only way I can really understand all this with the Tapas friends loyality is, by trying to put myself in their shoes, would I wake up and put myself first to protect myself and my family,,,,,, if I had helped a friend out say for example.....

My friend had accidently say given her child a strong sedative to make her sleep more deeply (especially if I had also been sedating my child,,,there for the grace of god!!), and she OD!!! how would I feel? would I help her cover up this OD, if it ment that we could get away with it without coursing harm or pain to anyone and I was assured that we will be protected by the "right" people then yes I would, forgetting to ask if this protection will last.........
Sh1t now 5years on and I knew the police were investigating this case again and I was told that new evidence has come to light, and also told from a 3rd party who said I should be prepared for the case to be re-opened and I will be involved as an accomplice to the crime, would I speak out and explaine???, yes to right I would, and right now I would be on medication because I would be beside sh****ng myself with fear of the out come, as I was in the taxi going to the police station!!!!

All these Tapas friends had children and families, do they put them 1st or do they stand by their friends???

I know what I would do.

spot on there is new hope i think . this will never go away . as much as some of them wished in the eary days . if i was a tapas i would walk over hot coals to protect my children . if they had told the truth in 2007 it would be over now

cass wrote: if they had told the truth in 2007 it would be over now

Exactly. And the motive (IMO) for the cover-up - loss of job, home, children and status is going to be the final outcome I reckon. But the gaol sentence is going to be an awful lot longer now - and there is also the matter of the money that they have defrauded.

They probably thought that once the case was shelved, that it was all going to go away and they could get on with their lives.

I would have nothing but admiration for any of the Tapas group who are in the know if they came forward and told the truth. It would take great courage, but it is the right thing to do and they may feel as if a very large weight has finally lifted from them. JMO.

ShabbyTiger wrote:

cass wrote: if they had told the truth in 2007 it would be over now

Exactly. And the motive (IMO) for the cover-up - loss of job, home, children and status is going to be the final outcome I reckon. But the gaol sentence is going to be an awful lot longer now - and there is also the matter of the money that they have defrauded.

They probably thought that once the case was shelved, that it was all going to go away and they could get on with their lives.

I would have nothing but admiration for any of the Tapas group who are in the know if they came forward and told the truth. It would take great courage, but it is the right thing to do and they may feel as if a very large weight has finally lifted from them. JMO.

You'd think there would be one person amongst them who would feel they wanted to tell the truth and bring this case to a conclusion. Just one person. Matthew Oldfield would be a good person to do this and he might even be joined by others. Just one of them could start the ball rolling. Diane Webster? Come on Diane. What did you mean about the McCanns' games? Just one to break the silence and the truth shall set you free.

AnnaEsse wrote:You'd think there would be one person amongst them who would feel they wanted to tell the truth and bring this case to a conclusion. Just one person. Matthew Oldfield would be a good person to do this and he might even be joined by others. Just one of them could start the ball rolling. Diane Webster? Come on Diane. What did you mean about the McCanns' games? Just one to break the silence and the truth shall set you free.

Exactly, Anna. Do they not have any conscience? Maybe they thought, oh well Madeleine is dead and nothing can bring her back so let's help Kate and Gerry to evade prison and keep their careers, home, children and status. They obviously thought the PT police were stupid.

Yep, you are right Anna - just one of them could start the ball rolling and bring this to an end. Surely one of them has a conscience? Surely one of them must want an end to this big black cloud that is hanging over them?

To be frank, there has to be something more than just self-preservation over the actual circumstances of the "disappearance" - Let's face it, do any of us have friends and family that would behave in the way the Tapas 7,9,10 (whatever) have done given all the circumstances?

I'm sure each of us has loving families and devoted friends but if I found myself in a bind of the order that surrounds the Madeleine Case, then I rather think I would unburden myself then await the flatfoots than either choose to live with guilt or expect others to cover for me. The latter is way beyond the requirements of even the closest relationships - so why, oh why, oh why is their such a unified wall of silence?

ShabbyTiger wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:You'd think there would be one person amongst them who would feel they wanted to tell the truth and bring this case to a conclusion. Just one person. Matthew Oldfield would be a good person to do this and he might even be joined by others. Just one of them could start the ball rolling. Diane Webster? Come on Diane. What did you mean about the McCanns' games? Just one to break the silence and the truth shall set you free.

Exactly, Anna. Do they not have any conscience? Maybe they thought, oh well Madeleine is dead and nothing can bring her back so let's help Kate and Gerry to evade prison and keep their careers, home, children and status. They obviously thought the PT police were stupid.

Yep, you are right Anna - just one of them could start the ball rolling and bring this to an end. Surely one of them has a conscience? Surely one of them must want an end to this big black cloud that is hanging over them?

Didn't one of them already have a nervous breakdown? It must be one hell of a secret that binds them like this.

The End Is Nigh wrote:To be frank, there has to be something more than just self-preservation over the actual circumstances of the "disappearance" - Let's face it, do any of us have friends and family that would behave in the way the Tapas 7,9,10 (whatever) have done given all the circumstances?

I'm sure each of us has loving families and devoted friends but if I found myself in a bind of the order that surrounds the Madeleine Case, then I rather think I would unburden myself then await the flatfoots than either choose to live with guilt or expect others to cover for me. The latter is way beyond the requirements of even the closest relationships - so why, oh why, oh why is their such a unified wall of silence?

Excellent post, TEIN. Just what would make someone lie to cover up the death of a child? I think this may be the key to this case. Some people may lie to cover for a friend who is having an affair, or to help them escape a speeding fine. But the death of a child? Come on! To implicate yourself in a serious criminal case?

I remember reading a long time ago that Oldfield;s Lawyer said he wanted to retract his statement and I think he did. Probably it is to do with his check
on 5a at 9.30pm. Maybe he first of all lied by saying he saw Madeleine in her bed, which was not true. The next thing he says in the McCann Docu
that he listened at the Door.

O"Brien is for me is the suspect and he was noticeable by his absence at the Courthouse with the rest of the Group. I read a long time ago that he was called to 5a to do a tracheotomy on Madeleine which failed.This would account for the blood spots on the floor and wall . Just supposing his
daughter was not sick but O"Brien took the blood stained sheet from Madeleine's bed, washed it and draped it over the balcony which 5a never had.
This is why he supposedly had a breakdown on return from the holiday and was off work for a few weeks. Of course ir doesn"t explain how the body was
hidden and disposed of while everyone else was searching. The Paynes , Oldfield and Diane Webster were not aware of any of this and the first they knew waa when Kate raised the alarm.