Weakest Link Part II

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

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

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?

My understanding was that it applied in many different situations Anna. But say it was only organised crime - is not a pact between a group of people covering up a crime - organised - and serious?? As is folks coming together to put millions through a fund they knew to be fraudulent....?? I think its coverd on all counts dont you.....who is MO's solicitor I wonder - perhaps they should be meeting over Sunday lunch if anyone has the ability to even swollow at the moment!!?

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.

Depends who's doing the asking though lily, if it was Dr.Gerry-the-two-bit-chancer-McCann l think l'd have to decline.

AnnaEsse wrote:

NoStone wrote:
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!

You do know they can get the letters out of envelopes - even without steaming don't you?

They insert a tube in the corner of the envelope that isn't stuck down, insert a long pair of tweezers, pull and roll the letter inside up in the tube and out the envelope, then back in again.

I saw it on Jim'll Fix It l think it was, one little boy wanted to be a spy!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012
#McCann : Libel Trial - If Called OLDFIELD May Find Himself In The Position Of Arguido.
Dr. Matthew Oldfield, why, if as some believe the McCanns are innocent have they not questioned Oldfields statements ?

McCann ,it is claimed last saw Madeleine around 9 pm. Matt did the alleged 9.30 check claiming to have seen the twins breathing. Matt's, description of the cots is correct, however one cot has both sides filled in , the filled in side facing the door (as photograph of crime scene clearly shows) Oldfield could not possibly have seen one of the twins breathing without entering the room and peering into the cot, to do this he would have had to pass Madeleines bed TWICE ! AND yet Oldfield STILL insists he did not see Madeleine, the ONLY reason he was in the apartment, to check on ALL three children. Therefore it is beyond bizarre to even comprehend on his return to the tapas bar he did not relay this to the McCanns !

If the McCanns are innocent then Matthew Oldfield is the Prime suspect and this should be proven in the libel trial if he is called to repeat his allegations.

1) He claims not to have seen Madeleine

2 ) More importantly he could not possibly have seen one of the twins breathing without entering the room which he has denied.

3) If he has lied about entering the room the question should be why ?

4) Making Oldfield a suspect may be the only way to get at the truth.

5) It is VITAL that Dr.Amaral's lawyer requests the cleaner of Apartment 5A to testify, she witnessed cots in seperate rooms, May 2nd 2007.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm


Verbatim : From Dr.Matthew Oldfields Rogatory

So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".

http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html

This makes so much sence to me,Matthew Oldfield either saw Madeleine or he was lying about going into the room,either way he's lying & the question is WHY...

Also we should remember Kate McCann saying that when she had entered the bedroom the door was at a different angle than it was when they had left it. Now Gerry McCann and Matthew Oldfield had both been to the room to do checks so why would the door be at the same angle as it was left when she and Gerry McCann had left to go out. This would imply to me that she thought nobody had been back to check the room. Why aren't police picking up on this kind of thing.

I seem to remember Oldfield'd Lawyer saying his client was going to Portugal to alter his Statement

Oldfield returned the favour I think.....McCann did him a favour when he was going through a bad time regarding a patient dying due to late diagnosis and he spoke up for him.


It's obvious he didn't go into the apt to check and did so at the shutters....and I dont believe the twins were inside 5a either, just poor little Madeleine.

ive thought the twins were elsewhere from the start . all the children in one place baby alarm on . and all checking one appartment , i mean they are getting up every 5 mins during the meal . noooo too selfish for that