When was Bell Pottinger brought in?

by hawkmoth 25.02.17 19:53

An article in The Guardian 6th April 2008 states:
The McCanns' first spokesman
Within hours of the news of Madeleine's disappearance, Alex Woolfall of the London-based PR agency Bell Pottinger was asked by Mark Warner to fly to Praia da Luz as part of a 'crisis' team to help her traumatised parents deal with the media.
However PR Week 9th May 2007 reported
Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD David Hopkins.
Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief A WEEK BEFORE three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz. MD
Anyone know which is true?
If PR Week are correct, why would Mark Warner hire this massively prestigious PR firm, at huge expense, ahead of the event?

-----

Because something had already happened to Madeleine on Sunday 29 April? - Mod

by hawkmoth 25.02.17 20:25

Because something had happened to her on Sunday?

How do you mean - the Mark Warner crew were alerted to it at that point and immediately called in BP? The McCanns confessed to them? That doesn't work does it?

If and only if. PR Week have it right, and BP briefed Resonate a week in advance, it could mean this 'event' was planned...

That's a stretch... but it's important to know: was it a week ahead or wasn't it?

by NickE 25.02.17 21:51

hawkmoth wrote:Because something had happened to her on Sunday?

How do you mean - the Mark Warner crew were alerted to it at that point and immediately called in BP? The McCanns confessed to them? That doesn't work does it?

If and only if. PR Week have it right, and BP briefed Resonate a week in advance, it could mean this 'event' was planned...

That's a stretch... but it's important to know: was it a week ahead or wasn't it?

Think about this theory.
The McCs paid a MW nanny under the table for babysitting in the apartment.
They gave MBM some kind of drug for sleeping and the nanny failed (left the apartment for a short period, smoking, phonecall etc) and an accident occured.
"There's been a disaster" and the disaster would have been even a worse disaster for both McCs and MW if this came out in the daylight.
We also have the very doubtful creche records and a nanny visiting McCs house in Rothley.
It's just a theory,but plausible.

-----

Nick E's theory solves certain problems but not others.

If her scenario is correct, it would explain two very important features of this case:

1. Why the McCanns would need to cover this up
2. Why Mark Warner would need to cover this up.

However, NickE's scenario does not really address two other features:

3. Why the McCanns' Tapas 7 friends would also want to cover this up, and
4. Why there was such an extraordinary level of government and security services involvement in the case from the early hours of the very first day.

I think we probably need to look for some deeper, more sinister reason for points (3) & (4).

- Mod

by **Hobs** 25.02.17 23:20

NickE wrote:
hawkmoth wrote:Because something had happened to her on Sunday?

How do you mean - the Mark Warner crew were alerted to it at that point and immediately called in BP? The McCanns confessed to them? That doesn't work does it?

If and only if. PR Week have it right, and BP briefed Resonate a week in advance, it could mean this 'event' was planned...

That's a stretch... but it's important to know: was it a week ahead or wasn't it?
Think about this theory.
The McCs paid a MW nanny under the table for babysitting in the apartment.
They gave MBM some kind of drug for sleeping and the nanny failed (left the apartment for a short period, smoking, phonecall etc) and an accident occured.
"There's been a disaster" and the disaster would have been even a worse disaster for both McCs and MW if this came out in the daylight.
We also have the very doubtful creche records and a nanny visiting McCs house in Rothley.
It's just a theory,but plausible.

-----

Nick E's theory solves certain problems but not others.

If her scenario is correct, it would explain two very important features of this case:

1. Why the McCanns would need to cover this up
2. Why Mark Warner would need to cover this up.

However, NickE's scenario does not really address two other features:

3. Why the McCanns' Tapas 7 friends would also want to cover this up, and
4. Why there was such an extraordinary level of government and security services involvement in the case from the early hours of the very first day.

I think we probably need to look for some deeper, more sinister reason for points (3) & (4).

- Mod

Your theory falls down at the first hurdle.

The McCs paid a MW nanny under the table for babysitting in the apartment.
They gave MBM some kind of drug for sleeping and the nanny failed (left the apartment for a short period, smoking, phonecall etc) and an accident occured.

If a nanny had been hired officially or otherwise then, had Maddie died whilst in her care, the mccanns would have sued the pants off MW and the nanny would have been charged irregardless of if the mccanns had sedated the children or not.
The children would have been in her care, she was thus the one held to be responsible even if she left the apartment.

If needs be the mccanns would and could have claimed the nanny sedated them or that Maddie had found the pills and eaten them thinking they were candy, even to sharing with her siblings.

Who could prove any different?

If the nanny denied it, how would she know what happened if she had left the apartment?

No need for the mccanns and chums to fake an abduction nor for them to conceal a corpse and file a false police report.
They would be considered innocent, the blame for Maddie's death being laid at the feet of the nanny.

She faces charges of homicide or negligent homicide, MW get sued for employing her, mccanns make a bucket of money.

The mccanns are involved in Maddie's death because they have told us they are involved.
The mccanns have told us Maddie is dead because they have told us she is dead.
The mccanns have told us they disposed of her body because they have told us so.
The mccanns have lied throughout because they have told us so.

Innocent people have no reason to be deceptive.
They have no reason to refuse to cooperate.
They have done nothing to feel guilty about.

Guilty people have every reason to be deceptive.
They have committed a crime.
They have every reason to refuse to cooperate
They have done something to feel guilty about

The mccanns own language and behavior tell us Maddie is dead.
If someone else could have been blamed whilst the children were in that person's care, the mccanns would have blamed them.

They lied about the children being left alone because the only way Maddie could have been abducted was if they were left alone.
There would and could have been no abduction if the children were being babysat.

If there was no opportunity for an abduction then it places the mccanns in the firing line and their guilt revealed.

The chums became complicit because there was something else going on that was criminal that if revealed would bring them all down and facing serious jail time

------

Whatever happened to Madeleine, and whenever it happened, there must have been something so unusual about it, something so awful, that the government organised a campaign to support the abduction story and has kept it going at all costs for 10 years. It was something so bad that the Tapas 7 joined in the campaign and have helped to keep it a secret.
Could this be connected with Leicestershire Constabulary, who were being supervised by a top-level national security committee under the chairmanship of Matt Baggott, set up on 8 May 2007, deliberately holding on to the two statements of Dr Arul and Dr Katharine Gaspar for nearly six months...until Goncalo Amaral had been removed from the investigation?
What was in the mind of Dr David Payne when he made those hand and finger gestures and spoke those strange words one sunny summer evening in Majorca, when he, the Gaspars and some other close friends were loosening up after a few glasses of wine? - Mod

by MayMuse 25.02.17 23:58

I agree with Hobs, there could be something far more sinister for so many to be complicit and for Govenment intervention and it become a matter of "national security" ?

Madeleine is abducted according to her parents and friends. Not one of the group queried this assumption, and went along with everything that the McCanns did, or suggested, maybe some of the group even suggested certain things?

In KM's account of the truth for her children, she not only mentions paedophiles she also mentions pornographers?

Something which struck me as odd, how many parents would think of pornographers?

I can't remember the exact passages but it is definitely in her book.

by NickE 26.02.17 15:34

Hobs wrote:
NickE wrote:
hawkmoth wrote:Because something had happened to her on Sunday?

How do you mean - the Mark Warner crew were alerted to it at that point and immediately called in BP? The McCanns confessed to them? That doesn't work does it?

If and only if. PR Week have it right, and BP briefed Resonate a week in advance, it could mean this 'event' was planned...

That's a stretch... but it's important to know: was it a week ahead or wasn't it?
Think about this theory.
The McCs paid a MW nanny under the table for babysitting in the apartment.
They gave MBM some kind of drug for sleeping and the nanny failed (left the apartment for a short period, smoking, phonecall etc) and an accident occured.
"There's been a disaster" and the disaster would have been even a worse disaster for both McCs and MW if this came out in the daylight.
We also have the very doubtful creche records and a nanny visiting McCs house in Rothley.
It's just a theory,but plausible.

-----

Nick E's theory solves certain problems but not others.

If her scenario is correct, it would explain two very important features of this case:

1. Why the McCanns would need to cover this up
2. Why Mark Warner would need to cover this up.

However, NickE's scenario does not really address two other features:

3. Why the McCanns' Tapas 7 friends would also want to cover this up, and
4. Why there was such an extraordinary level of government and security services involvement in the case from the early hours of the very first day.

I think we probably need to look for some deeper, more sinister reason for points (3) & (4).

- Mod

Your theory falls down at the first hurdle.

The McCs paid a MW nanny under the table for babysitting in the apartment.
They gave MBM some kind of drug for sleeping and the nanny failed (left the apartment for a short period, smoking, phonecall etc) and an accident occured.

If a nanny had been hired officially or otherwise then, had Maddie died whilst in her care, the mccanns would have sued the pants off MW and the nanny would have been charged irregardless of if the mccanns had sedated the children or not.
The children would have been in her care, she was thus the one held to be responsible even if she left the apartment.

If needs be the mccanns would and could have claimed the nanny sedated them or that Maddie had found the pills and eaten them thinking they were candy, even to sharing with her siblings.

Who could prove any different?

If the nanny denied it, how would she know what happened if she had left the apartment?

No need for the mccanns and chums to fake an abduction nor for them to conceal a corpse and file a false police report.
They would be considered innocent, the blame for Maddie's death being laid at the feet of the nanny.

She faces charges of homicide or negligent homicide, MW get sued for employing her, mccanns make a bucket of money.

The mccanns are involved in Maddie's death because they have told us they are involved.
The mccanns have told us Maddie is dead because they have told us she is dead.
The mccanns have told us they disposed of her body because they have told us so.
The mccanns have lied throughout because they have told us so.

Innocent people have no reason to be deceptive.
They have no reason to refuse to cooperate.
They have done nothing to feel guilty about.

Guilty people have every reason to be deceptive.
They have committed a crime.
They have every reason to refuse to cooperate
They have done something to feel guilty about

The mccanns own language and behavior tell us Maddie is dead.
If someone else could have been blamed whilst the children were in that person's care, the mccanns would have blamed them.

They lied about the children being left alone because the only way Maddie could have been abducted was if they were left alone.
There would and could have been no abduction if the children were being babysat.

If there was no opportunity for an abduction then it places the mccanns in the firing line and their guilt revealed.

The chums became complicit because there was something else going on that was criminal that if revealed would bring them all down and facing serious jail time

------

Whatever happened to Madeleine, and whenever it happened, there must have been something so unusual about it, something so awful, that the government organised a campaign to support the abduction story and has kept it going at all costs for 10 years. It was something so bad that the Tapas 7 joined in the campaign and have helped to keep it a secret.
Could this be connected with Leicestershire Constabulary, who were being supervised by a top-level national security committee under the chairmanship of Matt Baggott, set up on 8 May 2007, deliberately holding on to the two statements of Dr Arul and Dr Katharine Gaspar for nearly six months...until Goncalo Amaral had been removed from the investigation?
What was in the mind of Dr David Payne when he made those hand and finger gestures and spoke those strange words one sunny summer evening in Majorca, when he, the Gaspars and some other close friends were loosening up after a few glasses of wine? - Mod

As I said,it's just a theory and one of many theroies but I don't think "the Gaspar" theory adding up either.
Most of the people think's paedos are the worst scums on the earth and especially when you have own kids.
In this tapasgang/pact we have two other families and I highly doubt that these moms and dads would keep quiet and lie to protect them if her "disappearance" is caused by some kind of sexual abuse.

by Reggiregg 26.02.17 16:39

I clearly remember in the early days talk of a PR agncy being in PdL for a week before the news about Madeleine broke. Then that info seemed to disapear. Now we see it again, with Resonate named as part of bell Pottinger. Sometimes I feel the whole thing was either pre- planned or part of something huge and sinister.

by willowthewisp 26.02.17 17:30

Reggiregg wrote:I clearly remember in the early days talk of a PR agncy being in PdL for a week before the news about Madeleine broke. Then that info seemed to disapear. Now we see it again, with Resonate named as part of bell Pottinger. Sometimes I feel the whole thing was either pre- planned or part of something huge and sinister.

Add to this scenario of a comment from a former Arquido,"that he was just an ordinary guy who became embroiled in a **ck up?
This person was either contacted to assist persons after 30 April 2007,flying out to Portugal on 1st May 2007 on a falsehood given to the Portugal PJ,where he quickly became an interpreter of events to Police activity to become a"Patsy"?
This arquido met the missing girls Father on the morning of 4 May 2007 introduced by a tapas friend Russell,then when Gerry was asked on Camera,"Did he know (RM) before Madeleine had disappeared,cough,I'm not going to comment on that"?
Throw into this mix one Martin **nt from Sky News,who had very secretive phone conversations with this arquido and legal firms connected to Brian Kennedy,Metodo3,who then became the Abductor that Jane Tanner had seen on the 3 May 2007,Creche Dad/Smithman Crime Watch October 2013?
Then include the Sworn Testimonies to Leveson Inquiry,which revealed how the McCann family had paid £500,000 to become headlines in Daily News Papers for Twelve months after Madeleine's disappearance,to have the case shelved in July 2008,just what legal advice was given to the former arquidos from their legal team?
Yes the case isn't straight forward as CMMoM readers know all too well!

by Yvie Han 26.02.17 21:08

Has anyone heard of Mark Warner before this case ?

I have and have been on one of their holidays.

Mark Warner has a big tie into the Medical Industry somehow, I went 20 years ago with an aunt who was a medical prof, her and her husband another medical prof had been on many Mark Warner holidays, and always me many other professional in similar fields.

Has anyone looked into Mark Warner and their links?

My opinion is she was sedated as were the twins, probably most nights, having 3 children under 4yo is exhausting and trying, and lets face it she certainly isn't mother earth, or from what I have read has much patience thats for sure.

How on gods earth did 2 x 2 yo sleeps through the commotion of that night, being lifted and moved into another apartment without a murmur.

There is no other explanation for that other than sedation, one angel-like 2 yo may sleep like a log, BUT two not a chance.

I think a previous night whilst they were out, under heavy sedation M woke, and had an accident, and that is how she died, that would account for the sofa, blood, cadaver.

Now if that be the case, then whatever they gave her, they would be in for a Multi Million pound payout, suing a pharmaceutical company.

BUT they are Doctors, and with other doctors in the group.

Do they do a deal on the quiet with the company, these companies have government all wrapped up too.

Not only that, if it so much as got out and went public, then there could be 1000's of others going in for a claim, where other children also have had accidents/ injuries/ serious internal damage, due to the medication.

Possibly could be the reason why a body would have to be completely removed so no PM as a coroner would suss it out straight away.

Just a thought

And this would be WHY the TAPAS lot also have the massive PACT and kept deadly silent, they know better than to ever leak the story and go against those Pharmaceutical giants, their livelihoods would be destroyed.

Could this be why Bell Pottinger were called in? I really do not think Mark Warner could stretch to BP fee's.

by NickE 26.02.17 22:26

Yvie Han wrote:Has anyone heard of Mark Warner before this case ?

I have and have been on one of their holidays.

Mark Warner has a big tie into the Medical Industry somehow, I went 20 years ago with an aunt who was a medical prof, her and her husband another medical prof had been on many Mark Warner holidays, and always me many other professional in similar fields.

Has anyone looked into Mark Warner and their links?

My opinion is she was sedated as were the twins, probably most nights, having 3 children under 4yo is exhausting and trying, and lets face it she certainly isn't mother earth, or from what I have read has much patience thats for sure.

How on gods earth did 2 x 2 yo sleeps through the commotion of that night, being lifted and moved into another apartment without a murmur.

There is no other explanation for that other than sedation, one angel-like 2 yo may sleep like a log, BUT two not a chance.

I think a previous night whilst they were out, under heavy sedation M woke, and had an accident, and that is how she died, that would account for the sofa, blood, cadaver.

Now if that be the case, then whatever they gave her, they would be in for a Multi Million pound payout, suing a pharmaceutical company.

BUT they are Doctors, and with other doctors in the group.

Do they do a deal on the quiet with the company, these companies have government all wrapped up too.

Not only that, if it so much as got out and went public, then there could be 1000's of others going in for a claim, where other children also have had accidents/ injuries/ serious internal damage, due to the medication.

Possibly could be the reason why a body would have to be completely removed so no PM as a coroner would suss it out straight away.

Just a thought

And this would be WHY the TAPAS lot also have the massive PACT and kept deadly silent, they know better than to ever leak the story and go against those Pharmaceutical giants, their livelihoods would be destroyed.

Could this be why Bell Pottinger were called in? I really do not think Mark Warner could stretch to BP fee's.

And why did they refuse to hand over MBM's medical records to the Portuguese police?
Jayne Jensen was a businesswoman,anyone knows if she also was in the medical business?
She called the "Swansea number" at May 2 and spoke for 52sec just 2,5hours after this same "Swansea number" called a 15sec phonecall to Kate's phone.
It's very hard to think this is a coincident.

by Verdi 26.02.17 23:01

Yvie Han wrote:Has anyone heard of Mark Warner before this case ?

I have and have been on one of their holidays.

Mark Warner has a big tie into the Medical Industry somehow, I went 20 years ago with an aunt who was a medical prof, her and her husband another medical prof had been on many Mark Warner holidays, and always me many other professional in similar fields.

Has anyone looked into Mark Warner and their links?

As this seems to be your area of interest - have you?

Have you always been fertilising this 'theory' or did you join this forum in the last couple of weeks with a purpose in mind? A number of theories have been presented in the past about Mark Warners, ranging from swingers holidays to adults only to classy professionals to family - to my way of thinking, this all equates to a holiday company that attracts a range of clients from all walks of life.

The other day I noticed the Ocean Club was referred to as a high class (or words to that effect) holiday destination. I've stayed in 3* hotels with more class than the Ocean Club has to offer.

If you're looking for 'hobby holidays' there are hundreds of small time companies that cater for individual tastes. To think of Mark Warners' Ocean Club joint as a 'frankenstein laboratory' is a conspiracy theory too far for my liking.

Forgive my asking but with all the water under the bridge I'm at a loss to understand your stance.

by Yvie Han 26.02.17 23:36

To be honest Verdi, it is those type of comments that make the public not want to come on a forum, because of assholes like you.

Shall we say I have been otherwise engaged over the last few years, and not that its any business of yours, well actually it isn't so I won't even say it.

Probably the best thing for you to do is pop this forum onto private instead, if you cannot be courteous and polite.

BY the way, you banging on about it and wanting MSM and everything else to lift the cover, the more people you have interested in this story AGAIN after 10 yrs the better IMHO.

Some people have just joined as it is in the spotlight again, god forbid they have an opinion or a theory with the likes of you around.