Re: What is so special about this particular holiday venue?

by Pershing36 18.12.11 18:42

I am more inclined to think that because they were leaving the kids in creche all day they thought it would look bad to call in a nanny or an evening creche. wouldn't surprise me at all, you will be surprised what silly things people do to keep face.

by Daisy 18.12.11 18:55

pauline wrote:Its really depressing that the media haven't picked up ( maybe they did but daren't print it) this inconsistency about the babysitting services.

Kate has blamed MW because she thought the listening service was available as it is in other MW centres. I mean, if babysitting is important to you, why wouldn't you check and get an email confirming the situation. If you had that confirmation, and there was no such service then you'd be able to get a refund of some sort to cover the babysitting you had to pay for.

it is simply not credible that a group of DOCTORS would not pay for the nannies to babysit, and would prefer to jump and and down during dinner to go and 'check', missing out on the conversation and having their food go cold. they can't all have been misers that they couldn't part with what to them would have been a modest sum to ensure the safety of their small children.

If they were all misers, there was the evening creche provided with the holiday price.

The only logical explanation of this is that the story of the night as provided by the McCanns and tapas mates is not true. I don't think you need to be the world's best investigative journalist to realise this.

They did have confirmation that there was NO listening service before they went on holiday. It's in a couple of the Tapas friends statements (sorry can't recall which right now) that they knew beforehand, this is the reason they gave for wanting their apartments so close together, so they could make alternative 'childcare' arrangements between themselves.

Here's an extract from Nanny Cat Baker's statement in regards to child care provisions:

Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.

* Mornings: 9am-12.30pm
* Afternoons: 2.30-5.30pm
* Dining Out Service 7.30pm-11.30pm

(children
are watched in a room above the main Ocean Club 24hour reception; there
is no extra charge for this service but parents must take and fetch
their own children)

* “Baby sitting Service”: 7.30pm-1am

(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)

The
informant mentions that the work of the play leaders is the same in all
areas specified above and that all colleagues have similar training.
Rotations are scheduled, which means that they change places from week
to week, changing the age group they have to work with.

by Daisy 18.12.11 19:26

Rachel Oldfield confirming that they knew there was no baby listening service before the holiday.

RO: "Reply “Then, and the thing that we did realise at this time of this
email erm, is that there was no erm sort of baby listening, which is
what we had done it at other Mark WARNER resorts, where the nannies go
round and listen every fifteen minutes at the door, erm but because it
was a village and not sort of all in a compound, they didn’t do that, so
you know that meant we either had to be, we either had to take the kids
with us to dinner, or erm you know, find some way of sort of doing baby
listening ourselves, erm and that was partly why we requested you know
us all to have the apartments all together”.

1578 “And who requested that”?

RO: Reply
“Well I think, I mean it was, I think it was Dave or, or and there were
various emails between Dave and Matt and Russell, I wasn’t, I never
seemed to be on the email so erm but I think yeah when it, when we
realised there was no baby listening and that you know, potentially we
could all be spread all over the place, erm we asked if they could make
sure that we’d be together, erm and we were actually so, all the
apartments were close”.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Lance De Boils 18.12.11 21:03

I think it more likely that they were taking it in turns to stay in for the night to babysit than that they "took it in turns" to be "sick".

by Liz Eagles 18.12.11 21:32

Lance De Boils wrote:I think it more likely that they were taking it in turns to stay in for the night to babysit than that they "took it in turns" to be "sick".

It's hard to believe that 9 people were so irresponsible all at the same time isn't it? so Lance I think perhaps some of them were uncomfortable with leaving their kids unprotected and perhaps feigned illness (in order to save face) to do their duty and look after their children.

by Guest 19.12.11 10:47

Nina wrote:Good morning Stella. Does this mean then that there was a member of the group child minding each night? If so were all the children in one apartment or were they in there own apartments with the minder for that night just walking from one to the other apartment to check? Was Madeleine left alone in an apartment? Whose watch was the 3rd?

That is of course supposing that Madeleine "disappeared" on the 3rd. I think it was much earlier with the 3rd being the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] day as it was the last full evening for tapasing before the due back to the UK so had to be that night that Madeleines disappearance was made public.

I am not asking you to answer [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I am just thinking out loud.

It is good to think out loud Nina. Everything you have said is quite possible. I would just like to say though, the 3rd was not their last night. They were due to leave on the 5th, so the 4th was their last night. I think this confusion is born from Matthew Oldfield's statement about checking for the first time that week on the McCann children, "as it was the last night". It was not the last night, the 4th was. Which makes his claims very interesting don't you think? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 19.12.11 11:02

The Garrods (correct name is Gorrod) were neighbours of one of the T7 and would surely have mentioned to them what the childcare facilities were like at OC.

by Guest 19.12.11 13:21

I thought that Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien did not know that their neighbours the Gorrods were holidaying in the same place - and it's true that you can bump into people from home while you're on holiday - so they wouldn't have discussed the child care arrangements together.

by Nina 20.12.11 11:32

Stella wrote:
Nina wrote:Good morning Stella. Does this mean then that there was a member of the group child minding each night? If so were all the children in one apartment or were they in there own apartments with the minder for that night just walking from one to the other apartment to check? Was Madeleine left alone in an apartment? Whose watch was the 3rd?

That is of course supposing that Madeleine "disappeared" on the 3rd. I think it was much earlier with the 3rd being the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] day as it was the last full evening for tapasing before the due back to the UK so had to be that night that Madeleines disappearance was made public.

I am not asking you to answer [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I am just thinking out loud.

It is good to think out loud Nina. Everything you have said is quite possible. I would just like to say though, the 3rd was not their last night. They were due to leave on the 5th, so the 4th was their last night. I think this confusion is born from Matthew Oldfield's statement about checking for the first time that week on the McCann children, "as it was the last night". It was not the last night, the 4th was. Which makes his claims very interesting don't you think? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi Stella, re the 3rd and my comment about it being the last night I should have added their last full normal dining and boozing night as they were to have an early start on the saturday I have read somewhere so the friday night would not have been as long as previous nights for the half horly checks [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] so the alarm 's latest time had to be the thursday night.

by fox 20.12.11 14:24

IIRC It had to be the 3rd to shout 'abduction' because thats when the substitute was going home, they couldnt say 'abduction' when the sub was still there.

Hope that makes sense???

The Fox.

by Guest 20.12.11 14:26

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] The Fox and [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] to the forum.

by fox 20.12.11 14:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Thank you Stella.

by **tigger** 20.12.11 14:39

Hi Stella, That's an interesting observation, forensic linguistics strikes again! Obviously MO knew it was the last night that things would be 'normal'. It was either that or the last night they needed to pretend to check. According to the staff at the Bar not many people left during the evenings.

by Guest 21.12.11 9:09

fox wrote:IIRC It had to be the 3rd to shout 'abduction' because thats when the substitute was going home, they couldnt say 'abduction' when the sub was still there.

Hope that makes sense???

The Fox.

Hi Fox and welcome. Yes, I agree but still feel that the scene on 3rd wasn't the original plan. I can't explain it fully but feel that something went badly wrong around 3rd and they had to improvise.

by tumbleweed 22.12.11 6:52

I know I'm still sort of a newbie around here but I'm desperately curious who this sub child is that I keep catching brief hints of on this forum. If it can't be spoken publicly can someone message me it? I think I have a good guess who it is but want to be sure.

by monkey mind 22.12.11 14:11

I’m with The Fox’s opinion on the 3rd.

There appears to be a link between the seemingly illogical and contrasting ways in .which the child minding services were utilised. Or not. Functionality.
On a normal family holiday one would expect to see the opposite of what in fact we do see. A more random pattern, crèche used some mornings or afternoons, not all. And the evening service used some evenings, not never.

Use of such during the day was very important, they afford the user of such facilities total freedom of movement morning and afternoon. In view of what may have gone on on 28/29th, a necessity I should imagine.

One can conclude therefore that if the use of child minding facilities affords complete freedom of movement then to not use them in the evening will impose limitations, and it did, hence the lack of any even half way plausible explanation. There are two ways of viewing this...

1. If the child minding facilities had been used, the abduction wouldn’t have happened.

2. If the child minding facilities had been used, the abduction couldn’t have happened.

I was interested to read on this thread that the apartments weren’t allocated by the OC or MW holidays individually. Rather the group allocated amongst themselves. I suspected as much.

by **tigger** 22.12.11 15:11

Only post 7 and I'm looking forward to many more, totally with you there, monkey mind.
The subtle difference between 'would' and 'could'. My money's on the last.

by monkey mind 22.12.11 18:09

Hi Tigger,

Yup, the difference is subtle yet huge.

Out of interest, do we know for sure how those apartments were allocated? I apologise I’m still catching up with stuff, trying to get a solid general base before going through the fine detail.

This apartment in particular its location, strikes me as a key issue. Again, there are two ways of looking at this....

1. If you adhere to the abduction theory, then the allocation of that particular apartment, next to the car park, ground floor etc was a miserable twist of fate for the McCanns.

2. And if you don’t, then the acquisition of that apartment was very fortunate. Another wouldn’t have been the end of the world, but 5A is better, will paint a more plausible scenario. Just like leaving the children every night.

We seek plausible excuses for the inexplicable, the fathomless behaviour of leaving one’s children alone every night when really the most logical answer is in plain sight.

And yes, the Ruth McCann from Liverpool does seem a remarkable coincidence, and although she was asked about this, it seems it wasn’t probed to any depth.

by russiandoll 22.12.11 18:22

Me too.....always thought how very handy its location was for the abduction scenario. I have read in the PJ files that certain requests were made by tapas members prior to holiday to ensure adequate rooms, cots etc..
always believed it made sense for them to reallocate amongst themselves as needed once they were happy they were close together, a priority for the group.