The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Mark Warner Resort

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 13.03.15 3:42

@universe wrote:Back on track...The keys to the resolution of this case in my theory involve the link up between the following financially involved entities..... Mark Warner + Bell Pottinger + Clarence Mitchel + Tony Blair, etc.  Any suggestions re. pedophiles, swinging, microchipping, ivf, nuclear power plants, drug companies , abduction & various ficticious sightings , etc. etc. are only & simply  manufactured  red herrings designed to distract everyone from seeing the true $$$ financial  entities at true reputation/ financial risk due to Madeleine's sad demise. OMO. OMO. OMO.

Hi Universe,

If there was a cover up, ‘managed’ by Bell Pottinger why would John Hill, Manager of the Ocean Club resort, contradict the McCann’s story by saying there was no physical evidence that Madeleine had been abducted? Indeed, days after Madeleine’s disappearance the Independent ran a story that included a quote from John Hill saying "It's still questionable as to whether it's an abduction…”.   That sort of fundamental contradiction with the parent’s story doesn’t seem to me to support the suggestion that a week’s worth of planning by a top PR company took place.

However, more importantly, let's look at the lack of logic behind a ‘McCann/Warner’ mutual cover up. 

If there was a mutual cover-up then both parties would have had to have quickly and rationally, (in the heat of the moment, when presented with a dead child), weighed up the situation, weighed up the huge risks involved for themselves in lying, then also correctly ascertaining the culpability of the other party, and then saying “we’re in this together… let’s help each other out”, (logically, as you'll see below, it would most likely have had to have been the parents broaching the idea to MW and not the other way round).  I really can’t see it happening.  Here's why:

Scenario 1: Babysitter fails in their duty of care and MBM gets up, falls, dies unnoticed.  Outcome: Parents blameless and sue MW for as much as they can (& with their Establishment connections they’ll know they’ll screw every last penny out of MW).  So the parents would be blameless and there’s no need for a ‘deal’ with MW.

Scenario 2:  MBM is sedated. Babysitter fails in their duty of care and MBM gets up, falls, dies unnoticed.  Outcome: Parents would quickly conclude that if MBM awoke she obviously hadn’t been sedated enough and therefore could, supported by their Establishment connections, get off lightly, (obviously, by definition, the sedation would have been minimal for MBM to have woken).  MW would be the most culpable for the death, just like in Scenario 1, and the parents would still sue MW. So the parents would be (almost) blameless, and there’s no need for a ‘deal’ with MW and the ensuing high risk cover-up.

Scenario 3: MBM is sedated and dies in bed. Babysitter doesn’t notice. Outcome: MW would say that their babysitter looked in at the children at the required frequency and, not seeing any movement, simply assumed MBM was sleeping. No one would expect that a babysitter physically inspects a child to make sure they’re asleep and not dead. So MW would be blameless and there’s  no need for a ‘deal’ with the parents.

Scenario 4: MBM is sedated and has some sort of noisy seizure, evidently making a mess and lots of noise, so quite clearly suffered, and wasn’t found for hours because  the babysitter was elsewhere/distracted and missed everything.  The parents instantly know they’ll be ‘done’ for drugging their child and MW know they failed in their duty of care

This is the only scenario I can see there being (potentially) equal culpability. However, faced with a dead child MW would logically not have been the first to propose a deal as they’d have not known at that stage she'd been sedated.  It’s inconceivable that MW would have said “Sorry about that, but can we perhaps do a deal?”, so logically in this scenario the parents would have had to be the first to broach the subject of a ‘deal’ and say to MW something like “Look, we drugged our child, but you should have noticed her dying… so let’s help each other out”.   MW would have then quickly have had the following options to weigh up:
(i) “The parents have admitted drugging their child, that’s what probably killed her, but we should have spotted it.  We may lose £X if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters… but they drugged their child and then asked to do a deal... With that against the parents if we get Bell Pottinger on the case we can come out of this almost blameless”.
…and…
(iii) “The parents have admitted drugging their child, that’s what probably killed her, but we should have spotted it.  We may lose £X if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters… but we may also lose £X if we get a reputation for being somewhere unsafe for kids and families if we go with an abduction story instead.  So let’s hide the death for a week to get a cover-story in place (though evidently no one told the Ocean Club Manager, John Hill!), and pay off all the people involved so as the story of an abduction can be believed. We’ll hope the story never gets out and we’ll accept the reputational damage to MW for being an unsafe place for families because of paedophile stalkers, (instead of just sacking the babysitter and saying we’ll review our babysitting procedures)”.  


So, do you see why I don’t think it likely there is a McCann/Mark Warner joint cover up managed by Bell Pottinger?  Mark Warner had nothing, (or at best, very little), to gain and had everything to lose by doing some kind of deal with the parents.
 
If I’ve missed a possible scenario, one where it’s mutually beneficial for the parents and Mark Warner to do a deal supporting each other/covering up for each other, then I’m open to hearing it... but, sorry, I can't for the life of me think of one.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 13.03.15 4:39

Universe to knitted; John Hill was the manager of the Ocean Club resort which is a totally separate entity from  the Mark Warner Resorts company. Warners only have / had a contract  (started in April 2007)  to rent the Ocean Club rooms & facilities  from the Ocean Club company & & they have recently left The Ocean Club area as the sub-let contract has now expired.  Warners & Pottingers  did not let Ocean Club owners or staff in on their coverup, ever; it was only revealed on a "need to know" basis. Could you please read all my previous posts (since December 2014) on both my threads, "Follow The Money Trail" &  "The Mark Warner"  threads as I have previously explained this important fact (& other relevant facts) in detail & having to repeat my researched facts again is time consuming.  I thank you for your interest in my long held theory! OMO. OMO.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 13.03.15 4:53

Universe to knitted; In my theory, the Mccanns were terrified  of an autopsy revealing LONG TERM SEDATION by them of Madeleine & of course they NEVER let Warners or ANYONE  know their fear. OMO. This information is all in my previous threads, please read them because repetition of my ideas is very time consuming.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 13.03.15 6:23

Hi Universe,

Thanks for the clarification about John Hill and Ocean Club versus Mark Warner.  Consider that concern withdrawn. However, the main body of my post still stands about the lack of logic behind a McCann/Mark Warner joint cover-up. 

I'd read all your postings in both threads, so thank you for directing me to them, but I do not need to read them again.  Indeed, I joined this thread, because I'd read everyone's comments and yours, but I couldn't see the logic behind your conclusion. I thought I'd addressed your conclusion by covering it in both scenarios (3) & (4).  Since I probably made the scenarios in my previous posting too broad I'll now combine them into one to hopefully better align with your conclusion:

Scenario 5: "MBM is regularly sedated. On the 29th she dies. She wasn’t found for hours because the babysitter was elsewhere/distracted and missed everything. The parents don't want an autopsy as they'll be found out, Mark Warner's don't want to the disaster of a child dying exposing poor practices"  Are we agreed that's what you're saying?

The first logical conclusion is that MW would not have known that MBM was sedated and so they would not have approached the parents to say "Sorry, can we do a deal".  That then means the parents would have had to have approached MW and said "you are at fault, but we don't want an autopsy... can we do a deal?"  Are we agreed that's logical? 

So...as I said... the potential outcomes appear to be:

(i) (If MBM died peacefully)
- MW could easily say that their babysitter looked in at the children at the required frequency and, not seeing any movement, simply assumed MBM was sleeping. No one would expect that a babysitter physically inspects a child to make sure they’re asleep and not dead. So MW would be able to come out of it blameless and there’s no need for a ‘deal’ with the parents.  Are we agreed this is logical?

(ii) (If MBM had died and one might expect the babysitter to have noticed)
- We need to then imagine the following are what might go through the mind(s) of whoever was standing there representing MW:
(ii-a) “The parents are hiding something as they don't want an autopsy, but we should have spotted her dying/death... We may lose £X and suffer much brand damage if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters... So we could just blame the babysitter andfiddle our own internal paperwork to show we followed its internal procedures and so leave her out to dry. We can then get Bell Pottinger in to make sure the parents are vilified on the front pages of the press because they are hiding something (which will come out in due course) and they asked for a deal and so any weaknesses in babysitting can be buried in the footnotes of Page 6. Yes, the parents may sue us, but considering they told us they regularly sedate her, and just asked us to cover it up, it's very unlikely their claim will get very far. I/we can't risk getting embroiled in a cover up that may destroy Mark Warner... So we'll call the police".

Or...

(ii-b) “The parents are hiding something as they don't want an autopsy, but we should have spotted her dying/death... We may lose £X and suffer much brand damage if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters... So we could just blame the babysitter andfiddle our own internal paperwork to show we followed its internal procedures and so leave her out to dry. We can then get Bell Pottinger in to make sure the parents are vilified on the front pages of the press because they are hiding something (which will come out in due course) and they asked for a deal and so any weaknesses in babysitting can be buried in the footnotes of Page 6. Yes, the parents may sue us, but considering they told us they regularly sedate her, and just asked us to cover it up, it's very unlikely their claim will get very far... but instead we'll risk everything by getting embroiled in a cover up of an abduction. We will still have to employ Bell Pottinger, we will still lose business because people will think Mark Warner holidays are unsafe for kids/families, we run the significant risk that if just one person talks then I/we personally will go to jail for agreeing to a cover up...and Mark Warner's brand and business will suffer irretrievably... So I'll stand here and agree to a cover up".

Would you agree that (ii-a) is the more likely outcome of the two?


In your "regular sedation/culpable babysitter" scenario it seems to me to boil down to there having to be a personal decision by one, or a few, MW employees who put their morals and their fear of possible imprisonment aside, if the cover up went wrong, to go for the high risk (ii-b), over the simple, less complicated, lower risk (ii-a).

As I said, if you can come up with why it would be mutually beneficial for the parents and Mark Warner to do a deal supporting each other/covering up for each other, then I’m open to hearing it... but, again, sorry but I've read all your thread comments and I just don't see that the conclusion you've reached makes logical sense.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by j.rob on 13.03.15 9:25

@universe wrote:Back on track...The keys to the resolution of this case in my theory involve the link up between the following financially involved entities..... Mark Warner + Bell Pottinger + Clarence Mitchel + Tony Blair, etc.  Any suggestions re. pedophiles, swinging, microchipping, ivf, nuclear power plants, drug companies , abduction & various ficticious sightings , etc. etc. are only & simply  manufactured  red herrings designed to distract everyone from seeing the true $$$ financial  entities at true reputation/ financial risk due to Madeleine's sad demise. OMO. OMO. OMO.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a paedo ring element to the story. There are loads of red flags in this direction. I've seen several of the McCann 'home videos' that seriously alarm me as if what they purport to show is 'happy family life' when the cameras are rolling, I dread to think what happens behind closed doors. 

And the FACT that the McCanns fairly swiftly assumed the mantle of 'experts' in missing children suggests to me this was at least part of the 'wider agenda.'

I don't think the nuclear power links can be ignored either. Gerry/Smethurst may have been instrumental in covering up all sorts of nasty secrets. 'Experts' are paid good money to spin a certain line. And avoid potentially very expensive law-suits plus 'shape' public opinion. Bad publicity about health risks surrounding nuclear power stations was the very last thing the Government would want.

I would also be surprised if drug companies/medical finance and politics did not have some role to play. The Enigma at Porton Down link is interesting. Gerry received a call from his boss at Glenfield Hospital shortly before 'the abduction' apparently. I wonder what that was about? It's not impossible that there were some sort of trials or experiments going on. Heck, Madeleine could even have been part of this scenario. 

I agree about 'the sightings'  though, as heavily reported in the press. They most definitely were red herrings, designed to keep alive the idea what Madeleine had been spirited away all over the world by the big bad gypsy or bogey man. The world is a big place and it kept people looking away from where the needed to look. 

Which was at the McCanns, the Tapas, Ocean Club resort and environs and all the staff and guests at OC that week who were all vital eye-witnesses. And would provide vital testimony as to the family's movements that week. And when Madeleine McCann was last seen (if she was ever seen, that is). As I have written before, the McCann and Tapas children would also have been vital eye-witnesses, as well as other children at the resort and especially using the kids' clubs.

The testimony of neighbours such as Mrs Fenn and staff such as cleaners/instructors/nannies obviously could also hold vital clues, imo. 

The sniffer dogs were pretty helpful too of course and thankfully couldn't be Carter Rucked with a gagging order of course!

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 13.03.15 16:46

Red flags & red herrings will hopefully all be sorted out in due course & in due time. yes .

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by NickE on 13.03.15 20:28

Was Philip Edmonds a client to Bell Pottinger?

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".

NickE

Posts : 916
Reputation : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 41

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 14.03.15 15:36

I would love to ask Rebecca Brooks & her husband Charlie why they both chose to pay BELL POTTINGER to (stage) manage their reputations instead of using Rupert Murdock's son in laws PR company (Frueds); now his ex son-in law it seems. He'd sure have heaps of beans to spill now.  OMO. And I wonder who Clarence & Kennedy will pay to do their PR reputation management when necessary. spit coffee

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 15.03.15 2:58

Lets look at a few urgent strategies that Warner would need to put in place after the sudden demise of Madeleine on SUNDAY evening to save their reputation, childminding licence worldwide etc to prove that their nanny was not minding Madeleine in the Mccanns apartment that evening.....Member super sleuths may think of  extra strategies needed as well...
    (1) Need to rush their "Crisis Management Team" from BELL POTTINGERS ....       they did this , as it has been noted that Bells arrived in Praia da Luz ONE WEEK before Madeleine's official "DISAPEARANCE" on Thursday .    (2) Get Robert Murat to rush to Portugal to help the police  with interpreting witness statements & be their eyes & ears co-working with the soon to be upcomming investigation.
      (3) Ask Robert Murat  where there are any vacant apartments he knows of currently in the Praia da Luz area.
       (4) Make nannies, Catriona, Charlotte & Amy sign confidentciality agreements under duress.
        (5) Forge/alter the crech sheets.
             TO BE CONTINUED......
  (6) Play a tape recording very loudly on Tuesday evening of a child crying for one hour in apartment 5a underneath Mrs. Fenn'a apartment to prove that there was no nanny there minding the children.
   ( 6) forensically clean apartment 5a to remove any trace of the nanny having been in all the rooms of apartment 5a.
    (7) Have a media/film crew on sight to present to the world their version of what happened . (Did the PJ or OG ever check when the official arrival time of Jeremy was on Saturday 28th. or Monday 30th.   
              TO BE CONTINUED.....   (All the above  that I have written is OMO as is only a part of my Madeleine Lost theory.
    (8) Warner's to pay the BELL POTTINGER company lot's of $$$ to control the media to present their version of events to the world. (Lord Timothy BELL (Pottinger) has resently confessed  that his company did this).
     (9) Warner's to pay BELL POTTINGER TO USE THEIR POLITICAL  INFLUENCE to help the coverup of the "no nanny used in 5a" mantra. (It was Tony Blair who gave Timothy BELL his Lordship, how cosy).
                      TO BE CONTINUED........

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 15.03.15 9:05

Hi Universe,

I still don't see why the representatives of Mark Warner, on the ground, faced with a dead body and presented by the McCanns with a request to 'do a deal' would go down the high risk route of agreeing to any sort of cover-up.

A few thread comments back I gave what I think is a reasonable challenge to your idea but you seem to have ignored the challenge.  Any theory needs to be challenged and picked at. A good and robust theory will stand up to logical and rational challenge and thus be all the better for being questioned and in turn answered.  Your theory may be spot on, it may be way off the mark, but valid challenge is the way to determine where it is on the  spectrum of validity.  As I articulated (twice now) I see no logical scenario where the people on the ground at Mark Warner, or up the management line, would do anything but call the authorities and let the McCanns receive the bulk of the negative press (which Bell Pottinger would easily have ensured in the circumstances) instead of the high risk option that you are proposing  of implicating themselves in a cover-up.

If I am not making myself clear in my last post challenging your hypotheses then please let me know and I'll re-articulate it again. Thanks.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 15.03.15 14:05

Universe to knitted... You seem to be parroting XTC on my other thread "Follow The Money Thread" by getting me to repeat yet again  what I have so many times stated... ie. It is my theory that Mark Warners did not want to risk losing their valuable worldwide childcare licence if it was discovered that their nanny was minding Madeleine when she died. OMO.  I sure as eggs do not understand what your challenge to me is !!!

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by j.rob on 15.03.15 14:58

Lets look at a few urgent strategies that Warner would need to put in place after the sudden demise of Madeleine on SUNDAY evening to save their reputation, childminding licence worldwide etc to prove that their nanny was not minding Madeleine in the Mccanns apartment that evening.....Member super sleuths may think of  extra strategies needed as well...
    (1) Need to rush their "Crisis Management Team" from BELL POTTINGERS ....       they did this , as it has been noted that Bells arrived in Praia da Luz ONE WEEK before Madeleine's official "DISAPEARANCE" on Thursday . 


-----


If the Crisis Management Team from Belli Pottinger arrived a week before the official 'abduction' date, then this must point to Mark Warner having got wind of some kind of 'plan', surely? How would they know there was going to be a crisis if the crisis did not happen until Sunday evening?


I think there are many hall-marks of a pre-meditated plan. 


But the plan went wrong that week. Or someone/several people decided to sabotage the plan/change the script or pull out.


Hence a last minute panic arose. 


And I wouldn't put it past TM to have tried to deliberately implicate Mark Warner, so they could hide their own culpability for what happened and try to pin the blame on someone else. This would be completely in keeping with their 'modus operandi'.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Guest on 15.03.15 15:31

@universe wrote:Lets look at a few urgent strategies that Warner would need to put in place after the sudden demise of Madeleine on SUNDAY evening to save their reputation, childminding licence worldwide etc

I'd love to know the nature of this worldwide childminding license that you keep referring to.

Far more likely there are separate arrangements in place for each market they operate in.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 15.03.15 20:35

@universe wrote:Universe to knitted... You seem to be parroting XTC on my other thread "Follow The Money Thread" by getting me to repeat yet again  what I have so many times stated... ie. It is my theory that Mark Warners did not want to risk losing their valuable worldwide childcare licence if it was discovered that their nanny was minding Madeleine when she died. OMO.  I sure as eggs do not understand what your challenge to me is !!!
Hi Universe

You seem to be taking challenge personally? Please don't. The challenging of ideas is surely to be encouraged? It is by authors answering challenges that (valid) ideas can be ever better presented and fine tuned...and also, by the same token, it's how weak hypothesis are countered and shown to be poor. 

If me, and others on here are asking for clarification, then (sorry!) but that indicates either it needs to be better articulated or (as I suggest) it is not a robust theory.

I apologise to those fellow members who may have already read my previous challenge to you as, to save you scrolling back, I shall paste it in full below (between the hashed lines):

-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi Universe,

Thanks for the clarification about John Hill and Ocean Club versus Mark Warner.  Consider that concern withdrawn. However, the main body of my post still stands about the lack of logic behind a McCann/Mark Warner joint cover-up. 

I'd read all your postings in both threads, so thank you for directing me to them, but I do not need to read them again.  Indeed, I joined this thread, because I'd read everyone's comments and yours, but I couldn't see the logic behind your conclusion. I thought I'd addressed your conclusion by covering it in both scenarios (3) & (4).  Since I probably made the scenarios in my previous posting too broad I'll now combine them into one to hopefully better align with your conclusion:

Scenario 5: "MBM is regularly sedated. On the 29th she dies. She wasn’t found for hours because the babysitter was elsewhere/distracted and missed everything. The parents don't want an autopsy as they'll be found out, Mark Warner's don't want to the disaster of a child dying exposing poor practices"  Are we agreed that's what you're saying?

The first logical conclusion is that MW would not have known that MBM was sedated and so they would not have approached the parents to say "Sorry, can we do a deal".  That then means the parents would have had to have approached MW and said "you are at fault, but we don't want an autopsy... can we do a deal?"  Are we agreed that's logical? 

So...as I said... the potential outcomes appear to be:

(i) (If MBM died peacefully)
- MW could easily say that their babysitter looked in at the children at the required frequency and, not seeing any movement, simply assumed MBM was sleeping. No one would expect that a babysitter physically inspects a child to make sure they’re asleep and not dead. So MW would be able to come out of it blameless and there’s no need for a ‘deal’ with the parents.  Are we agreed this is logical?

(ii) (If MBM had died and one might expect the babysitter to have noticed)
- We need to then imagine the following are what might go through the mind(s) of whoever was standing there representing MW:
(ii-a) “The parents are hiding something as they don't want an autopsy, but we should have spotted her dying/death... We may lose £X and suffer much brand damage if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters... So we could just blame the babysitter andfiddle our own internal paperwork to show we followed its internal procedures and so leave her out to dry. We can then get Bell Pottinger in to make sure the parents are vilified on the front pages of the press because they are hiding something (which will come out in due course) and they asked for a deal and so any weaknesses in babysitting can be buried in the footnotes of Page 6. Yes, the parents may sue us, but considering they told us they regularly sedate her, and just asked us to cover it up, it's very unlikely their claim will get very far. I/we can't risk getting embroiled in a cover up that may destroy Mark Warner... So we'll call the police".

Or...

(ii-b) “The parents are hiding something as they don't want an autopsy, but we should have spotted her dying/death... We may lose £X and suffer much brand damage if we are (again) found to have crap babysitters... So we could just blame the babysitter andfiddle our own internal paperwork to show we followed its internal procedures and so leave her out to dry. We can then get Bell Pottinger in to make sure the parents are vilified on the front pages of the press because they are hiding something (which will come out in due course) and they asked for a deal and so any weaknesses in babysitting can be buried in the footnotes of Page 6. Yes, the parents may sue us, but considering they told us they regularly sedate her, and just asked us to cover it up, it's very unlikely their claim will get very far... but instead we'll risk everything by getting embroiled in a cover up of an abduction. We will still have to employ Bell Pottinger, we will still lose business because people will think Mark Warner holidays are unsafe for kids/families, we run the significant risk that if just one person talks then I/we personally will go to jail for agreeing to a cover up...and Mark Warner's brand and business will suffer irretrievably... So I'll stand here and agree to a cover up".

Would you agree that (ii-a) is the more likely outcome of the two?



In your "regular sedation/culpable babysitter" scenario it seems to me to boil down to there having to be a personal decision by one, or a few, MW employees who put their morals and their fear of possible imprisonment aside, if the cover up went wrong, to go for the high risk (ii-b), over the simple, less complicated, lower risk (ii-a).

As I said, if you can come up with why it would be mutually beneficial for the parents and Mark Warner to do a deal supporting each other/covering up for each other, then I’m open to hearing it... but, again, sorry but I've read all your thread comments and I just don't see that the conclusion you've reached makes logical sense.

------------------------------------------------

In answer to your reply to me  "I sure as eggs do not understand what your challenge to me is !!!" I'm struggling to present it any clearer than I did in my previous post that I have pasted above.  I have said twice now that I see no logical scenario why the representatives of Mark Warner, faced with a  dead child and a request from the McCanns to 'do a deal', would have agreed to participating in a high risk cover up. In your scenario, why would Mark Warner not simply get Bell Pottinger to ensure the headlines were "Drs druged their kids and asked for a cover up when one died", and take the flak for poor babysitting, (which Bell Pottinger would ensure were kept to the minor detail of any articles?  I really can't make it any clearer than that.

My previous career was as Business Analyst and my job was to help challenge very passionate people about their business ideas to 'test' them to help sift which had merit and which did not. I'm used to people taking challenge personally, but by the same token my logical challenge used to help boost the 'best' ideas by helping fine tune them and plug any gaps. So please, if you are genuinely interested in justice for Madeleine then all I ask is to put emotion and ego aside and welcome the challenge. We are all (hopefully?) here to help, not hinder. Indeed, failing to robustly challenge ideas with common sense and rationality is a disservice to Madeleine and this forum.

To this end I distilled (in the paste, repeated above, of my previous post) the nub of my challenge into the four very simple questions presented in italics. They were purposefully asked as closed questions so they just required a 'yes', 'no' or a 'maybe' response. Once you answer then we can focus on any points we disagree on.  It's nothing personal, and the outcome will simply be one of four things: (i) We agree to differ, but other members have seen two viewpoints and can make their own minds up, or (ii) you see any flaws in your rational and either give up your hypothesis, or (iii) you see any flaws in your rational but re-work it so as it is even better than was before, or (iv) or I see the flaws in my challenge and I happily change and become an advocate of your hypothesis.

So, all I'm asking is for you to not take anythig personally and kindly answer my simple questions.... (and not to repeat anything you'd said to date, as I've read it all).

Thanks.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by aquila on 16.03.15 6:31

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@universe wrote:Lets look at a few urgent strategies that Warner would need to put in place after the sudden demise of Madeleine on SUNDAY evening to save their reputation, childminding licence worldwide etc

I'd love to know the nature of this worldwide childminding license that you keep referring to.

Far more likely there are separate arrangements in place for each market they operate in.

Most definitely Clay.

MW operates in Europe. Each European country has its own laws and its own business operating laws. As for 'worldwide', jeepers, is it being inferred that people from around the globe would consider a MW holiday to flock to the Algarve, play tennis/have a game of golf/eat mediocre food/stay in a pretty average resort/palm their kids off to a creche on the understanding of a 'worldwide childminding licence'?

Far better to look at the tourist profile/guest list of a MW holiday methinks.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 17.03.15 0:36

Universe to Aquila... I did not know that Egypt & Dubai are in Europe, thanks for the geography lesson !. Please look at all the previous research & reports that have been done already into Mark Warners childminding licence being in jeopody even before the Mccanns arrived in PDL due to using young, inexperienced, unqualified, non work visa approved nannies etc. Read info on this in my other thread called "Follow The Money Trail". An abduction of Madeleine was a far better option for Warners than an acknowledgement that their nanny was in apt. 5a minding Madeleine on SUNDAY evening when she fell off the sofa onto tiles & died. Far safer to pay off the Mccanns to say there was no nanny there.
    Aquila, you posted on June 18th. 2013 that "It's all about the contract, if you pay a childminder/babysitter that person is expected to remain in-situ for the time of babysitting. A breach of this contract would be neglect "...... anywhere in the world...Mark Warner & their nanny would have been aware of this obligation.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 17.03.15 4:30

My explanation as to why the Tapas friends agreed to be part of the Mark Warner/Mccann coverup is this;
     There would have been at least two reasons;
      (1) How very easy it is for a highly paid "Crisis Management Team's private investigators" to find DIRT/blackmail evidence past history on Russell, Matthew & David Payne to use against them to keep their silence for Warners benefit.
       (2) Warners could buy their their silence with $$$$$ & media /legal protection via Bell Pottinger's connections.
All that I have written above is OMO & is derrieved at from reading the public Case Files.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Warner

Post by G-Unit on 17.03.15 6:35

Do you think John Hill knew what was going on? I think I remember him saying there was no sign of a break-in.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 17.03.15 6:49

Universe to G-Unit .. John Hill was not in the "need to know " loop because he only worked for the Ocean Club which is a completly seperate company from the Mark Warner Company. I have explained this several times before on this & other threads. big grin .Nice to see that at least somebody is up early with the birds !.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Warner

Post by G-Unit on 17.03.15 7:28

I'm always up early universe; early to bed, you see.  big grin

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Warner

Post by G-Unit on 17.03.15 7:36

@universe wrote:Universe to G-Unit .. John Hill was not in the "need to know " loop because he only worked for the Ocean Club which is a completly seperate company from the Mark Warner Company. I have explained this several times before on this & other threads. big grin .Nice to see that at least somebody is up early with the birds !.
I thought they were the same thing? George Crossland says he (Crossland);

Has been in Portugal since 1982, and is the manager of the tourist complex, the Ocean Club, situated in Luz, Lagos (Algarve), since the year 1984; 
. That in year prior the aforementioned enterprise was sold to a British company called 'Mark Warner', but the deponent continued to exercise his functions as manager; 


and about John Hill;


That at around 22h15 of 03 May 2007, he was alone in his residence, situated in Lagos, and was contacted by John Hill, Mark Warner manager who works in the Ocean Club establishment

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Guest on 17.03.15 9:24

@G-Unit wrote:


and about John Hill;


That at around 22h15 of 03 May 2007, he was alone in his residence, situated in Lagos, and was contacted by John Hill, Mark Warner manager who works in the Ocean Club establishment

Sorry, bit of a tangent, but is the John Hill who manages the Ocean Club the same John Hill with a property agency in Almancil?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 17.03.15 9:58

@universe wrote:I would love to ask Rebecca Brooks & her husband Charlie why they both chose to pay BELL POTTINGER to (stage) manage their reputations instead of using Rupert Murdock's son in laws PR company (Frueds); now his ex son-in law it seems. He'd sure have heaps of beans to spill now.  OMO. And I wonder who Clarence & Kennedy will pay to do their PR reputation management when necessary. spit coffee
Who's Rebecca Brooks?

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by aquila on 17.03.15 10:44

@universe wrote:Universe to Aquila... I did not know that Egypt & Dubai are in Europe, thanks for the geography lesson !. Please look at all the previous research & reports that have been done already into Mark Warners childminding licence being in jeopody even before the Mccanns arrived in PDL due to using young, inexperienced, unqualified, non work visa approved nannies etc. Read info on this in my other thread called "Follow The Money Trail". An abduction of Madeleine was a far better option for Warners than an acknowledgement that their nanny was in apt. 5a minding Madeleine on SUNDAY evening when she fell off the sofa onto tiles & died. Far safer to pay off the Mccanns to say there was no nanny there.
    Aquila, you posted on June 18th. 2013 that "It's all about the contract, if you pay a childminder/babysitter that person is expected to remain in-situ for the time of babysitting. A breach of this contract would be neglect "...... anywhere in the world...Mark Warner & their nanny would have been aware of this obligation.
Could you help me out with a link for this please?

I had forgotten about the Egypt and Dubai holidays offered by Mark Warner however, the holidays offered in Europe (the main thrust of holidays offered by MW) did not require nannies with visas/work permits (as long as they came from European staff which it appears they did).

Mark Warner holidays in PDL didn't offer a baby listening service which was well known to the T9 prior to embarking on their holiday. Two of the couples took baby monitors; the McCanns did not. The nannies could be booked to babysit on a private arrangement at around 10 euros per hour. That's my understanding.

I do understand what you're getting at. I don't understand why your theory is so dogmatic as to blame Mark Warner holidays (a relatively small-fry company in terms of billing) for having enough clout to bring in the big guns to cover up the disappearance of a child - that's unless you are suggesting that MW holidays is a bent operation and offered something a little more than childcare to their patrons and if that's what you're doing you need to spit out some definite grounds for that.

Just as an aside, here is an article from the Daily Telegraph, dated 21st April 2007, less than two weeks prior to Madeleine's disappearance. It's worth a read.

As usual everything in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is confusing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/portugal/740884/Happy-in-a-nanny-state.html

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Daryl Dixon on 17.03.15 10:47

@universe wrote:Lets look at a few urgent strategies that Warner would need to put in place after the sudden demise of Madeleine on SUNDAY evening to save their reputation, childminding licence worldwide etc to prove that their nanny was not minding Madeleine in the Mccanns apartment that evening.....Member super sleuths may think of  extra strategies needed as well...
   
  (6) Play a tape recording very loudly on Tuesday evening of a child crying for one hour in apartment 5a underneath Mrs. Fenn'a apartment to prove that there was no nanny there minding the children.
   ( 6) forensically clean apartment 5a to remove any trace of the nanny having been in all the rooms of apartment 5a.
   
Ah yes, play a tape very loudly of a child crying... seriously?

And you've also included the old chestnut of the apartment being forensically cleaned... it wasn't.

But it's got me wondering if Gerry disposing of the fridge was also one of Warners cunning strategies? big grin

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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