Oldfield "grasses up" the McScams!!?

Question

Thanks to Redsquare:

Transcription of Rachael Oldfield's contribution:

Steve Kingstone: The seven witnesses include Rachael Oldfield who has given her first ever interview to this programme:

Rachael Oldfield: I was there on the night. I spent time with Gerry and Kate during the week, you know, before the 3rd of May and afterwards. You know, their emotions and their reactions was just agonising. It was just no way they’re involved in anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

You know, if you take the common sense approach as well and just look at, you know, timings of how things happened and the fact that they’re both medics, there are four other medics in the group, they would know what to do to resuscitate a child… or anyone else for that matter.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense really would be able to see that they couldn’t have done it. I was there and I know that they didn’t do it.

SK: You know that there are a lot of people, possibly including the police, certainly including a lot of bloggers who have suspicions about your group who’ve written all sorts of things about a potential conspiracy theory. What do you say to them?

RO: Yeah, I mean, you know, it’s outrageous. We’ve all felt very angry about it. We were asked to comply with the Portuguese judicial secrecy laws, which we were made to understand that we could face two years in prison for speaking out. So, you know, as a group we’ve not said anything from day one. And there have been all these rumours flying around and leaks from sources close to the PJ which, you know, we haven’t been able to refute.

We would have loved to have spoken out really and just sort of put the record straight but, you know, we were asked not to. It’s their legal system, their legal process. We believed that the investigation would be the best way of finding Madeleine if we cooperated with the police and, sort of, complied by their rules and regulations. So, you know, we stuck to our side of the… story.

SK: And on their side?

RO: Well, double standards. They leaked information and… these rumours that have flown around for the past year.

SK: So, if the leaks stop, you think the McCanns could let bygones be bygones and move forward?

RO: Yes, absolutely. Errm, they want to find Madeleine. Presumably the Portuguese want to as well.

SK: You’ve all been re-interviewed. I know you can’t talk in detail about what you were asked but as far as you are aware nobody in the group changed any detail in any significant way?

RO: No. We clearly remember the events of that night. You know, you wouldn’t forget them. And nobody changed any sort of story because, you know, there isn’t a story to change.

SK: Gerry and Kate remain suspects. What, in your opinion, needs to happen now for the investigation to move forward?

RO: It would enable the investigation to move forward, and certainly Gerry and Kate to work more closely with the PJ, if the arguido status was lifted. Currently they don’t really have any communication with the PJ, which, when they’re investigating the disappearance of their daughter is quite astounding.

SK: Have they, to your knowledge, heard from Paulo Rebelo. He’s the man heading the enquiry?

RO: Not as far as I know, no.

SK: And what do you think of that?

RO: It is strange.

Answer 1

You know, I got fed up reading that, you know

Answer 2

Oh how I long for the day when everyone leaves this subject alone. If these parents are innocent of all but leaving them on their own in a room and periodically checking on them, then they have a lifetime to spend lamenting their actions and feeling the pain that only parents can feel.

Answer 3

Is that an exact transcript ?

If so, then, you know it makes sense, ..... you know...



Again, yet another of their clan saying

"Lifting the 'suspect' status' would solve everything".



No it wouldn't. I the Police do that knowing it to be wrong, then the whole case will be filed and the investigation is well and truly over. But.... then.... that is precisely what they seem to want, right ?!

I fel that they want the arguido status to be lifted more than anything else.

Answer 4

If anything that statement backs up what the McCanns have been saying all along.They are not responsible for 'it' being their daughters disappearance, as in they did not accidentally or otherwise harm their child and hide her body and considering the great number of medics on hand had anything accidental happened it would be ludicrous to consider that between them all they would not have been able to help.

So you proved nothing despite the 'loaded' headline.

Answer 5

You're clutching at straws. Talk sense. Your observations are bizarre. The use of the word "it" signifies nothing, we all know what they have been accused of.

Answer 6

I would hardly call it grasses up From her statement she is more than obviously sticking up for them. Read it again my friend

Answer 7

That doesn't mean anything you know.

Get a hobby.

Answer 8

I see the flaw.

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense really would be able to see they couldn`t have done IT"

" I was there & I know they couldn`t have done IT"

What is this IT she refers to, that sort of looks like a poor choice of words if she`s trying to "help" the McCanns.

It suggests to me that there WAS an incident & she`s referring to IT.

Answer 9

Seems like, you know, I can't see any grassing up there, you know.

Answer 10

she says, 'you know' an awful lot doesn't she?