Re: 25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up

by Nina Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:28 pm

Elça Craig wrote:
aquila wrote:The creche setup was never right imo. There are so many things Stella pointed out which even if considered on a 'stand-alone' basis simply aren't credible...the creche wristbands being one of them - I'm only singling out one point in a very long list.

To my knowledge there has never been a declaration from anyone using the OC creche facilities that their children were required to/were wearing wristbands. Were these wristbands fitted on entry to the creche and removed on exit when the parent signed their child out? Were such wristbands held by the employees of the creche? There certainly hasn't been a released photo of the T9 children wearing a wristband. Such wristbands hold information about child registration and creche care - and even DNA.

There was a photograph posted up on the forum a little while ago (I'm hoping someone can remember it and post it up again) showing the 'snake' - the children in the care of nannies holding onto a snake/chain to make sure they were secure whilst walking to and from beach activities/crossing roads etc.
Can I second a request for a photo of Sammy snake?

Sammy may well be a VIP. Or should that be a VIS?

This wasn't our Sammy Snake though it was taken from an advert for MW if I remember correctly.There was another of a room with children painting and also one of children on a beach preparing to go sailing.

by Doug D Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:05 pm

This one maybe? This lot have all got wristbands. I'm sure Cat Baker said she had written out the wristbands on Sunday, but don't recall whether anything was ever said about them being put on.

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 Perdepera-waterfront4

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 Perdepera-waterfront4

by Nina Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:16 pm

Doug D wrote:This one maybe? This lot have all got wristbands. I'm sure Cat Baker said she had written out the wristbands on Sunday, but don't recall whether anything was ever said about them being put on.

Yes this one they are all wearing wristbands.This isn't the one Isaw though Doug D.The one I am searching for they were walking down a street.

by G-Unit Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:02 pm

Another interesting snippet from Fiona Payne's rog. interview. When describing their mornings she said they went to the Millenium each day for breakfast, then she took Scarlet to baby club (Main Reception) and Dave took Lily (Tapas). They then went to the water sports at the beach, returning to pick up the children at lunchtime;

would have gone to pick the kids up, again, I'd generally go and get Scarlet and Dave would then go and get Lily'.........

1485
'Did you see Madeleine and the twins during the day up until Thursday''
Reply
'Not, not very often. Erm, I mean, the twins probably a bit more, just because picking, you know, picking Lily up at lunchtime or whatever, erm, they'd be picking the twins up.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

She should have seen Madeleine more often than the twins, really, because she didn't pick Lily up, her husband did.

She saw her on the Thursday though. They got very wet and cold sailing that day (the day that was the best, weather-wise). They went back to their apartment to get more clothes and then to the Tapas pool;

And then it was time to pick up the kids, so Kate and I walked from the Tapas area over to the main reception, going between, you know, there was a sort of path that went between the other Ocean Club complex as well along the road, erm, and she picked up Madeleine and I picked up Scarlet and then we walked back together and that was the only day we ever did,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Kate agrees, but she seems to have set off from the apartment;

I returned to our apartment before Gerry had
finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out
Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda. After
preparing some lunch, I went with Fiona to pick up

Madeleine and Scarlett,

when we got back they, you know, Kate too Madeleine to their apartment for lunch and, erm, I went up to ours for lunch.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Or did she go to get Lily?

At the Toddler Club near the Tapas restaurant
Fiona collected Lily and headed back to her flat.
Madeleine and I met up with Sean, Amelie and Gerry

and returned to ours for lunch.

Kate's book Chapter 5

by G-Unit Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:55 pm

The beach and the sailing;

According to the creche activity sheet the Lobsters went to the beach on Tuesday for a double session from 2.30pm to 4.30pm and on Thursday from 10am (or 1030am) to 11am.

Cat Baker 10th May;

We were told by Catriona that the only days they went to the beach were Tuesday afternoon (1 May 2007) between 15:30 and 16:30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock (see attached table [of creche activities]).

Emma Wilding cared for the other Mini group;

When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm

The two 'Mini's' nannies both say they went to the beach on Wednesday, but they didn't according to the sheet.

Reading Cat Baker's statements she took the Lobsters to the Mini sail with Alice Stanley on Thursday morning. As she and Emma were colleagues, Emma must have noticed that Cat and her six charges had gone out? No;

She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm

So Emma didn't notice the children had gone sailing and that it was Kate who collected MBM.
She also didn't notice them disappearing in the afternoon, when they did go to the pool for an hour.

Lyndsay Johnston mentions the sailing, but not the day;

The informant tells us that on a date which she cannot be precise about but which was some time last week, Madeleine McCann participated in a boat trip, organised by the company's crêche. Several children participated in this outing to the sea, accompanied by the employees mentioned above and an expert in water activities, whose name she is not aware of.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm

The 'employees mentioned above' are Cat, Emma and their supervisor Amy. So according to Lyndsay the whole Mini Club went on the sailing trip with all three staff. Something never mentioned by Amy and completely forgotten by Emma? On the ball those nannies, weren't they?

by Verdi Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:56 pm

G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.

Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.

by Nina Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:23 pm

Verdi wrote:
G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.
Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.

But then the parents managed to snatch a bit of shut eye before they went out jumping over hedges for an hour.

by Verdi Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:33 pm

Nina wrote:
Verdi wrote:
G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.
Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.
But then the parents managed to snatch a bit of shut eye before they went out jumping over hedges for an hour.

Be fair, they must have been thoroughly exhausted after all that whining and dining, looking for a scrap of paper to write a timeline, tidying the apartment, giving a conducted tour of the apartment to chance callers, phoning all and sundry in the UK, praying to Mecca, banging fists against on the veranda and busting beds - I'm exhausted just thinking about it!

The claimed nocturnal child checking system adopted by the McCanns and their mates just begs closer scrutiny along with the child day care. I don't believe for moment that they all left their children alone every evening in their respective apartments; the odd selfish parent/guardian might elect to do so but not a group of nine adults and willingly sanctioned by a grandparent - I don't buy it. Many times it's been questioned as to why Kate McCann left the twins alone again when she rushed back to the restaurant to raise the alarm, especially as she was so sure that Madeleine had been snatched by a lurking predator. Simple answer in my opinion - she didn't because the twins were not in apartment 5A, that or Madeleine was not in apartment 5A. The most likely scenario would be for a private arrangement for baby sitting with one of the Warners contracted child care workers, or all the kids lumped in one location with the Paynes state of the art baby monitor.

Russell O'Brien, during his rogatory interview in April 2008, mentions meeting Charlotte Pennington en-route for PdL (the same flight I believe) who he thought was caring for the Payne children. Why he said that I know not, according to Pennington's statement she was child educator (? at the baby club, four months to one year olds whereas the Payne's two children were at the time one and two years old. Perhaps it was just a throw away comment - or even a Clement Freudian slip. Pennington also said in her testimony that she personally encountered Maddy/Madeleine on two specific occasions, Sunday 29th and Thursday 3rd May - now there's an extraordinary coincidence. What would appear to be the two most important days of the week and up pops Charlotte Pennington to vouch for Madeleine's well-being!

It's interesting to note that Charlotte Pennington's name does not initially appear on the list of child care workers for the spring/summer 2007 season - but later appears suddenly as if by magic which really does make me wonder where she fits in with this soap (Australian?) opera. I think I read somewhere that she claimed to have worked as a private nanny in the UK as part of her extensive CV - could be something, could be nothing but she sure bust a gut to put herself up front with tales of the unexpected.

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

by G-Unit Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:47 am

Verdi wrote:
G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.
Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.

I agree that certain people's evidence is tainted. That doesn't make it worthless though. There's information in there that they didn't mean to give, just as there is in the Mc's interviews. Take Russell O'Brien's rog. He is definite about Matthew Oldfield being ill on Sunday;

Matt was unwell and I recall I went to see him, he had been suffering from a stomach upset so I can say that there were only eight adults at the Tapas bar that night........On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry’s apartment as well as Rachael and Matt’s. I had taken Matt’s keys and I believe that their door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times. We kept our shutters down, and the patio door was closed I am not sure whether theirs was the same. I recall that Kate and Gerry’s apartment was accessed by the patios door which was left closed and unlocked.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

They tell such beautiful stories. There was Russell taking the trouble to check Matt's child despite Matt being in the apartment with her. It seems Rachael had locked Matt in there too if she had the keys at the table. There was only one for each apartment.

The purpose of the story is what is interesting. Was it to demonstrate that the Mc's left the patio door open as early as Sunday? Was it to demonstrate that others had checked on the Mc's children before Matt's out of the ordinary check on the Thursday? Was it to show that the Mc children were all present in their apartment on Sunday?

by G-Unit Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:21 am

Verdi wrote:
Nina wrote:
Verdi wrote:
G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.
Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.
But then the parents managed to snatch a bit of shut eye before they went out jumping over hedges for an hour.
Be fair, they must have been thoroughly exhausted after all that whining and dining, looking for a scrap of paper to write a timeline, tidying the apartment, giving a conducted tour of the apartment to chance callers, phoning all and sundry in the UK, praying to Mecca, banging fists against on the veranda and busting beds - I'm exhausted just thinking about it!

The claimed nocturnal child checking system adopted by the McCanns and their mates just begs closer scrutiny along with the child day care. I don't believe for moment that they all left their children alone every evening in their respective apartments; the odd selfish parent/guardian might elect to do so but not a group of nine adults and willingly sanctioned by a grandparent - I don't buy it. Many times it's been questioned as to why Kate McCann left the twins alone again when she rushed back to the restaurant to raise the alarm, especially as she was so sure that Madeleine had been snatched by a lurking predator. Simple answer in my opinion - she didn't because the twins were not in apartment 5A, that or Madeleine was not in apartment 5A. The most likely scenario would be for a private arrangement for baby sitting with one of the Warners contracted child care workers, or all the kids lumped in one location with the Paynes state of the art baby monitor.

Russell O'Brien, during his rogatory interview in April 2008, mentions meeting Charlotte Pennington en-route for PdL (the same flight I believe) who he thought was caring for the Payne children. Why he said that I know not, according to Pennington's statement she was child educator (? at the baby club, four months to one year olds whereas the Payne's two children were at the time one and two years old. Perhaps it was just a throw away comment - or even a Clement Freudian slip. Pennington also said in her testimony that she personally encountered Maddy/Madeleine on two specific occasions, Sunday 29th and Thursday 3rd May - now there's an extraordinary coincidence. What would appear to be the two most important days of the week and up pops Charlotte Pennington to vouch for Madeleine's well-being!

It's interesting to note that Charlotte Pennington's name does not initially appear on the list of child care workers for the spring/summer 2007 season - but later appears suddenly as if by magic which really does make me wonder where she fits in with this soap (Australian?) opera. I think I read somewhere that she claimed to have worked as a private nanny in the UK as part of her extensive CV - could be something, could be nothing but she sure bust a gut to put herself up front with tales of the unexpected.

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

The Payne children were L, in Toddler 2 and S, a baby of 11 months.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_335.jpg

by Verdi Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:00 pm

Or if we're looking to absolute precision..

Fiona Payne witness statement - 4th May 2007

The witness has two children, of the female sex, who are two and one years old respectively.

David Payne rogatory interview - 11th April 2008

1485 ”How old are your children sorry? Did you say…”

Reply ”Err yes Scarlet will be two in May and Lily will be four in August.”

Fiona Payne rogatory interview - 10th April 2008

We have got two children, Scarlet who is the youngest who is, who will two next month and Lily who is four in August.

Judging by the witness statements, the rogatory in particular, Russell O'Brien appears to be the most confused about things in general. Off the top of my head he heavily relied on Jane Tanner's version of events - will check that out later. Whatever, I'm not sure it's very wise to try and analyze everything he said during the rogatory interviews, or any of the others for that matter - it would take forever and just go round in circles. The interviews do however make for interesting reading if only for entertainment value. Garbled is a relative understatement!

by Verdi Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:38 pm

Russell O'Brien witness statement - 4th May 2007

The informant completely corroborates the statements by his partner Jane Tanner and Rachael Mampilly.

Russell O'Brien witness statement - 11th May 2007

Questioned regarding his routine during the holidays, he confirms in all of his previous declarations and that his version is absolutely in line with his companion's Jane Tanner. He also verifies in the total conformity between his declarations and those of Jane Tanner regarding the holiday trip, of the constitution of the group and of the daily routine of the adults and the children which accompanied this group in the tourist complex, the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz-Lagos.

Russell O'Brien rogatory interview - 8th/10th April 2008

I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made by Jane TANNER (my wife) and I have been allowed to see these documents, this was done in the presence of DC 1578 GIERC.

I wish to add that Jane’s statement covered our routine from the 28th April 2007-2nd May 2007 quite comprehensively and my original Portuguese statement referred to Jane’s statement, this was therefore a good point of reference for me.

by G-Unit Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:59 pm

Verdi wrote:Or if we're looking to absolute precision..

Fiona Payne witness statement - 4th May 2007

The witness has two children, of the female sex, who are two and one years old respectively.

David Payne rogatory interview - 11th April 2008

1485 ”How old are your children sorry? Did you say…”

Reply ”Err yes Scarlet will be two in May and Lily will be four in August.”

Fiona Payne rogatory interview - 10th April 2008

We have got two children, Scarlet who is the youngest who is, who will two next month and Lily who is four in August.

Judging by the witness statements, the rogatory in particular, Russell O'Brien appears to be the most confused about things in general. Off the top of my head he heavily relied on Jane Tanner's version of events - will check that out later. Whatever, I'm not sure it's very wise to try and analyze everything he said during the rogatory interviews, or any of the others for that matter - it would take forever and just go round in circles. The interviews do however make for interesting reading if only for entertainment value. Garbled is a relative understatement!

For creche purposes 11 months old, hence a baby.

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_335

by G-Unit Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:48 pm

Looking at the Lobsters Minis signing in sheets all the children were Mark Warner guests. By looking at the list of Mark Warner guests it's possible to match the Jellyfish/Starfish sheets to the appropriate children. They are also Mark Warner guests. Looking at the Tapas dining sheets and the Tennis booking sheets they were all Mark Warner guests. It looks like the Tapas facilities and the Kids Clubs could have been exclusively Mark Warner that week.

by kaz Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:10 pm

Just wondered why the sheet for McCanns/ Paynes does not show x1 cot in the corner like the others below to justify the remark, '' 3 extra cots required.''

by G-Unit Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:18 pm

kaz wrote:Just wondered why the sheet for McCanns/ Paynes does not show x1 cot in the corner like the others below to justify the remark, '' 3 extra cots required.''

Just an example of Dr Payne's lack of form filling in abilities?

by Verdi Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:30 pm

G-Unit wrote:
kaz wrote:Just wondered why the sheet for McCanns/ Paynes does not show x1 cot in the corner like the others below to justify the remark, '' 3 extra cots required.''
Just an example of Dr Payne's lack of form filling in abilities?

@G-Unit

Hope you don't mind my asking, wouldn't normally be so presumtuous but the user name is identical - are you one and the same that posts on the UK Justic Forum?

If so, can you post up your comments here about the relaibility of the nanny's statements please? I've been vaguely following the Richard D Hall's video thread and noticed the G-Unit post on 15th March. I for one, am always appreciative of anyone who takes the trouble to go into such detail.

There is also another excellent post on the subject authoried by one 'xtina' on page 6 of the same thread subject also on 15th March which I think is worth a wider audience. For reasons best known to myself, I'm reluctant to post-up member comments from another venue.

by skyrocket Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:34 pm

@G-Unit

Re: the Kids Club - it was actually a Mark Warner set up, exclusively for their guests in PDL. The staff were all employed by MW and I assume that they rented the space for the clubs from the Ocean Club. I think Thomas Cook also also ran a club, but it was not for as wide an age range. Like you, I have a niggling feeling that there is a lot more to find out about the MW Kids Club.

I believe that the Tapas Restaurant booking sheet is solely for MW guests - so that both MW and the Ocean Club could keep a tab on who ate where (Tapas or Millenium).

Another interesting point is that the Reap's 3 year old daughter H***** is shown booked on the 'Mark Warner Property/Arrival List' as Miss H Reap (3 years) requiring 1 x mini club for the first week (which was the 28 April - 5 May), but she is the only child (only person infact) missing from all the 'Ocean Club Check In' lists (the Reaps check in appears as 2 + 0 persons only). This is apparent on all the check in sheets where the Reap's name appears (at least 6 daily produced sheets). The Reaps did not use MW flights or transfers and were booked into the same apartment, GP04, for 2 weeks from the 28th. One of the Carpenters could perhaps be considered to be missing on the first Check In sheet, where the party appears as 3 and then a blank space. This is corrected to 3 + 1 baby on all the following sheets. So of all the MW guests booked, H***** Reap is the only one who doesn't appear as checked in.

by G-Unit Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:15 pm

The Reaps liked their tennis. They had a lesson every morning. I wonder where the child slept? No cot or extra bed requested.

by Phoebe Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:28 pm

https://sorry-about-the-mess.co.uk/

Above is a parent's review (2015) of childcare arrangements at Mark Warner in Lemos. How things seem to have changed from Luz 2007 - if they have.

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 Mark-warner-childcare-2

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 Mark-warner-childcare-2

According to Cat Baker's rogatory statement. on May 3rd, when Madeleine allegedly went sailing she "cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean....We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time".

My technical skills are rubbish but I hope the above picture has been fully copied. It clearly shows 2 instructors/minders pushing these little boats around in KNEE-DEEP water! I had always been aghast at the notion of 3 year olds being taken out to sail in windy conditions. Obviously a "mini sail" with M.W. involved children being pushed about in knee-deep water. What on earth is Cat babbling about when she refers to a launch bringing the children out to the main sailing boat and children having the opportunity to "return to port" as if on the high seas?? This for me absolutely confirms my suspicions that Cat was nowhere near the mini-sail on May 3rd. She cannot even accurately describe what it involved - unless of course M.W. went insane and took 3 year olds out onto the open water!!

Another interesting point is the following -

Security and safety
"Upon entrance to every childcare session, the children are given a wristband detailing their name, room number, and any specific allergies or requirements (Rory’s always had a note about needing to use his own specific sun cream). At the evening film club, there is a name card placed at the foot of every bed. At the beginning of our holiday, we were asked to write down a password (a different one for each child). Every time we came to collect our children, we were asked for this password. The childcare team stuck to this religiously regardless of whether they clearly recognised us as Arlo and Rory’s parents"
Did M.W. always follow this protocol and were the creche workers in Luz sloppy or did this level of security re. who collected children only come into practice when the shortcomings of the Ocean Club were exposed to the public through the P.J. files?

by worriedmum Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:29 pm

This photo?
http://www.markwarner.co.uk/images/605/340/perdepera-waterfront4.jpg 25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 Perdepera-waterfront4

by Phoebe Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:35 am

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 2Q==

25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up - Page 2 9k=

Yeah Cat. A launch (no less) was needed to take the children out to the "little yellow boats" for the "Mini--Sail". spit coffee

by Roxyroo Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:44 pm

Verdi wrote:
Nina wrote:
Verdi wrote:
G-Unit wrote:
Verdi wrote:Sorry to be cynical - nah, second thoughts I'm not sorry at all - but you'd be hard pushed to make any sense out of the Tapas crew rogatory interviews, oh and my my, how miraculously their respective recall did improve over time - but then they did have nearly a year to re-create their story. You really have to marvel at the reason behind those tale telling rogatory interviews.
collective
The article featured in the Guardian, courtesy of Bridget O'Donnell is in my opinion utter nonsense, not even worthy of mention. Unless of course she was working behind the scenes, so to speak, for the planned Crimewatch production - then of course it could be considered an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find, on the surface it serves no other purpose.

Who knows, had the creche staff concerned not been so swiftly relocated and the PJ investigation allowed to continue unimpeded, the creche issue may have been probed with more diligence.
O'Donnell's article was clearly an over sentimental sympathy piece. If she accidentally leaked some 'truths', though, then it's worthy of mention.

It's the same with the rog interviews. On the face of it they're not useful because the people concerned had time to work out what to say, they were allowed to see their previous statements etc. Nevertheless there are nuggets of information to be found when people got carried away and just waffled on. It was only after quite a few readings that I picked up the fact about where all the creches/clubs were on 4th.
Ah but there we go again - reverting to what the McCanns and their friends said. Their collective account of events is about as reliable as a 20 year old Reliant Robin - 2 wheels + 1 manufactured in the land of ginger pigs.

As regards O'Donnell's fantasy, her credibility went out the window when she and the old man went back to bed after being called upon around 1:00am on 4th May when the world and it's wif were out searching for little Madeleine McCann - now there's something to contemplate warts 'n all.
But then the parents managed to snatch a bit of shut eye before they went out jumping over hedges for an hour.
Be fair, they must have been thoroughly exhausted after all that whining and dining, looking for a scrap of paper to write a timeline, tidying the apartment, giving a conducted tour of the apartment to chance callers, phoning all and sundry in the UK, praying to Mecca, banging fists against on the veranda and busting beds - I'm exhausted just thinking about it!

The claimed nocturnal child checking system adopted by the McCanns and their mates just begs closer scrutiny along with the child day care. I don't believe for moment that they all left their children alone every evening in their respective apartments; the odd selfish parent/guardian might elect to do so but not a group of nine adults and willingly sanctioned by a grandparent - I don't buy it. Many times it's been questioned as to why Kate McCann left the twins alone again when she rushed back to the restaurant to raise the alarm, especially as she was so sure that Madeleine had been snatched by a lurking predator. Simple answer in my opinion - she didn't because the twins were not in apartment 5A, that or Madeleine was not in apartment 5A. The most likely scenario would be for a private arrangement for baby sitting with one of the Warners contracted child care workers, or all the kids lumped in one location with the Paynes state of the art baby monitor.

Russell O'Brien, during his rogatory interview in April 2008, mentions meeting Charlotte Pennington en-route for PdL (the same flight I believe) who he thought was caring for the Payne children. Why he said that I know not, according to Pennington's statement she was child educator (? at the baby club, four months to one year olds whereas the Payne's two children were at the time one and two years old. Perhaps it was just a throw away comment - or even a Clement Freudian slip. Pennington also said in her testimony that she personally encountered Maddy/Madeleine on two specific occasions, Sunday 29th and Thursday 3rd May - now there's an extraordinary coincidence. What would appear to be the two most important days of the week and up pops Charlotte Pennington to vouch for Madeleine's well-being!

It's interesting to note that Charlotte Pennington's name does not initially appear on the list of child care workers for the spring/summer 2007 season - but later appears suddenly as if by magic which really does make me wonder where she fits in with this soap (Australian?) opera. I think I read somewhere that she claimed to have worked as a private nanny in the UK as part of her extensive CV - could be something, could be nothing but she sure bust a gut to put herself up front with tales of the unexpected.

There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

I have had my suspicions re. Pennington being a crisis actor from the very start.
There is growing evidence that crisis actors ARE being used. Call me a tin foil hatter if u want, but propaganda is the name of the game.
Crisis-solutions is just one company doing this. Using amputees. Thats as much as i.m willing to sway on here but if anyone wants to find out more Ole Dammegard has done some work on this, find his channel on utube. Also Enchanted Life Path channel actually phoned up one of these companies to ask about pricing etc. Think the vid is called "call to crisis com"
Pennington was a part time actress wasnt she? And money talks

https://youtu.be/Wog-zpHMqug

https://youtu.be/fS1bq_YrcgU

by skyrocket Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:22 pm

For anyone interested in x-professional fairy/Shortland Street actress/beauty queen/nanny/in the thick of things Charlotte, here's the link to the main Charlotte Pennington thread:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12930p225-charlotte-pennington#371378

Despite several emails backwards and forewards Shortland Street have still failed to send me a simple description of Charlotte's character and her storylines. I have asked only for details of a fictional character - nothing personal. All reference to her character has been wiped off the internet - unless someone can find something. Her character was on the Shortland Street Wiki site but it was removed in 2009 by a single contributor - usually when an item is changed or removed, the history can be accessed to allow you to look at the page, prior to the change. This has been blocked by admin so that there is no way of seeing what was there before. Very unusual. Her character redirects to a general character list page - no other characters do this and there are loads as SS started in the early 1990's. Her co-actor Andrew Laing appeared with Charlotte in 96/97 seasons and then left and re-appeared as a different character a few years later. Although his later character is fully described, again all reference to his earlier storylines (which would include Charlotte) have been removed. The reason I asked initially was only to try and check Charlotte's age!

by Verdi Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:05 pm

@skyrocket

Does it really matter? Has this any relevance to the alleged disappearance of Madeleine McCann do you think? If verification of Charlotte Pennington's authenticity and/or reliability as a witness is what you're looking for, look no further than her witness statement and the subsequent press reports where she is quoted adlib.

The forum link that you took the trouble to post, a Charlotte Pennington thread, is currently featured amidst the Latest Topics widget, which is clearly visible no matter what thread members and/or guests are reading. Indeed, it was an active topic only 24 hours ago.

If you, or anyone else, are interested in discussing Charlotte Pennington in general, would you please take it to the appropriate thread. Thank you.