Babysitter Service Explained

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


April 2005 - May 2007 No entries.
But why delete the request for Babysitters?

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

Revised Post from Gerry in original Format. Deleted Area marked in Yellow.

Readable version..

Gerry on 'Friends Reunited'
Original entry:

Good to see so many familiar names and a few faces! Is anyone not doing well?

Finished medicine and working as a cardiology registrar in Leicestersince Jan 2000 (hopefully temporarily). Had a brilliant year in New Zealand 1995/96. Married to Kate (Healy, for those docs in Glasgow) and very happy although no kids-yet!

Don't get to Glasgow that often but have bumped into a few old friends around the southside where my mum still lives.

June 2003- Still in Leicester but now family of 3 after birth of Madeleine Beth on 12/05/03. Thankfully she takes after her mother although definitely has my lungs even without a dew drinks.

August 2004- Bones- glad i left after 5th year! Currently in Amsterdam learning some fancy heart scanning(MRI) but returning to UK in New Year when hopefully will become family of 5. Looking for a consultant job and shortlist is Glasgow, Liverpool, Leicester in fact pretty much anywhere north of Birmingham

April 2005- Back in Leicester and looking for a job. Now father of three with Sean and Amelie joing Maddie. Anyone fancy babysitting?

Revised entry:

Finished medicine and working as a cardiology registrar in Leicestersince Jan 2000 (hopefully temporarily). Had a brilliant year in New Zealand 1995/96. Married to Kate (Healy, for those docs in Glasgow) and very happy although no kids-yet!

Don’t get to Glasgow that often but have bumped into a few old friends around the southside where my mum still lives.

June 2003- Still in Leicester but now family of 3 after birth of Madeleine Beth on 12/05/03. Thankfully she takes after her mother although definitely has my lungs even without a dew drinks.

August 2004- Bones- glad i left after 5th year! Currently in Amsterdam learning some fancy heart scanning(MRI) but returning to UK in New Year when hopefully will become family of 5. Looking for a consultant job and shortlist is Glasgow, Liverpool, Leicester in fact pretty much anywhere north of Birmingham

April 2005- Back in Leicester and looking for a job. Now father of three with Sean and Amelie joing Maddie.

May 2007 Thanks to everyone for support and good wishes, it really does help.

Totally irrelevant.

The matter under discussion is why Gerry and Kate McCann and their group of friends/acquaintances declined to take advantage of the baby sitting services offered at the Ocean Club during their holiday at Praia da Luz in April/May 2007.

In my opinion none of this makes any sense.

Anything reported by the press/media can be reasonably disregarded as they have a tendency to misinform and misquote, if family members were asked why they thought the McCanns declined the childcare services on offer, they wouldn't really know the answer would they, thus they might make an off the cuff comment that has no real value.

If I remember rightly the Ocean Club provided a night time drop-in service at the crèche and a baby sitting service for a few quid a night.

The idea that the McCanns didn't like leaving their children with strangers would be a bit contradictory considering they took full advantage of the crèche service on offer during the day, I believe it to be documented that the daycare nannies also worked the night baby sitting service so they wouldn't be strangers as such.  I can't imagine many parents willing to leave their precious children with a stranger, it would be so much more sensible to stay with the children rather than dump them for a couple of hours whilst they go off to dine.

It is apparent from the group's statements they had no intention of using any baby sitting service, I think it was David Payne who said he'd made inquiries when booking the holiday - hence the family packing a baby monitor!  

Another couple in the group also packed a baby monitor.

Dianne Webster was there, she was dragged along despite being out of their age group.  From her statement she appears to have spent much of the holiday either alone or running around after the family.  My own thoughts, she was there to babysit - perhaps her own family or perhaps a private arrangement to care for all the children in the group, that would seem most logical.

Then something happened.

Assuming a plan was concocted to conceal Madeleine's fate, they realised they would come under scrutiny and severe criticism  for leaving their children alone every night, so created the controversial listening service peddled to explain their reluctance to take advantage of the services offered by the Ocean Club. It stands to reason the DIY listening service was designed to give the opportunity for an abductor to abduct.

Feeble excuses, impractical even unworkable but they were caught in an awkward situation requiring much thought and explanation almost overnight.  This is where they failed abysmally in so many ways, presenting answers to questions yet to be asked.  They should have stayed silent.

If they intended to leave the children alone and check on them because that's what the nannies did on holiday's taken previously by some of the group, why didn't the McCann's and Oldfield's take baby monitors?
They knew before the holiday that the checking service offered by Mark Warner holiday's in other countries was not available in Portugal, hence they decided to do their own checking.
They also knew about the nanny service, paid and unpaid and to say they didn't want to leave the children with strangers, when they did just that, all day every day is nonsense.

Whatever Gerry and Kate's reason, one fact remains clear ... they could not make use of any service after 29th April, because after that day, Madeleine was already 'missing'.

That's debatable and not a proven fact, I don't believe Madeleine was missing before 3rd May.
If Madeleine was missing as early as 30th, would it not be easier to hire babysitters in the apartment with a substitute child who was asleep and they didn't have to interact with rather than a substitute child during the day that they did.
No child of that age would answer to another child's name.

Unless the substitute child woke up for a wee or drink of water...

Babysitter: "Hello Madeleine, would you like a drink of water, or maybe some more Calpol?"

Substitute child: "Why are you calling me Madeleine? My name's Margaret"

I agree, but it would have been better risk wise, to substitute a child at night, who may or may not wake up then have to fully interact with one during the day.
And if, as some believe, the children were drugged, the substitute Madeleine wouldn't have woken up anyway.

What is it you dislike about my post Bird 131?

Crusader [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... pressed a wrong key ... apologies, I respect your views and opinions ... what you suggest in the evenings however was not practical (as pointed out by Jill), then during the day, it would have been easier just to make false entries in the Day Care register (which was a mess).

That's ok, I agree the creche register is a mess and a lot of the entries and times have definitely been made by the same person which does give reason for suspicion. 
I love my opinion being challenged, even better, I love it when I'm proved wrong, debate is the way forward.

Bird131 wrote:Whatever Gerry and Kate's reason, one fact remains clear ... they could not make use of any service after 29th April, because after that day, Madeleine was already 'missing'.

Everything points in that direction but it's yet to be proven by an official source - ideally the Portuguese judiciary.

I don't subscribe to the bungling beer swigging sardine munching deprecation aimed at the Portuguese investigative force by some factions, I have never had reason to doubt the force's diligence and professionalism. Mr Amaral and his team realised from the very beginning that something was very amiss with the key witness statements so they were already working with suspicion at the fore thus would have picked-up on anything indicating an earlier 'missing' time frame.

Nor do I subscribe to the prevailing suggestion the entire Ocean Club, Mark Warner, MI5, the British government were all in on it! Dragged into the furore willingly or unwillingly may be but not part of a conspiracy plot.

So much water has flowed under the bridge over the years, so much debris collected along the way - in particular across social media.

Personally I prefer to stick to the official police investigation, with as little press and media distortion as possible.