November 2007

monkey mind wrote:From the artice.....

"A number of newspapers headline with the news that 2 of the Tapas group are seeking to provide fresh statements but wish to remain anonymous because they fear pressure from the McCann family and friends. The reports are instantly dismissed as 'simply untrue' by Clarence Mitchell."

So we are not talking of the Wilkins or Smiths. It's very clear. Unwhooshed. (is that a word??)

And very soon after that the song sheets were handed out at a Rothley Hotel. David Smith (see topic on David Smith) journalist for the Timesonline divulges that JT and ROB did have a baby monitor after being briefed by Gerry after the Rothley meeting! (I can't get over that being briefed, I thought journalists were supposed to ask questions - silly me). So it may be that this second baby monitor was granted permission during that meeting. What else?
A nanny visited the McCanns too, possibly around that time.
Shortly before the meeting we have the two meetings in PdL of BK and Murat and BK and the PJ - who apparently are totally puzzled by him. I couldn't find the report on this meeting by the PJ but it is on the DVD according to another source.
It may be MO and RM after all, I think they didn't know the McCanns very well?

Are we assuming that the two are a couple though? It could have been two who are not joined together in a relationship.

Nina wrote:Are we assuming that the two are a couple though? It could have been two who are not joined together in a relationship.

We can't know, it could also be e.g. ROB and MO and I'm pretty sure that there were indications it was ROB. It would surely not be the Paynes, or Diane Webster, so it's two out of four. RM's testimony is more or less the same, so two out of three?
You may be right.

Very interesting thread, tigger.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id18.html
JT and RO are more implicated imo by association and by their unreliable narration concerning their movements leading up to the 'discovery'.

It makes me shudder whenever I read about the pressure exerted on potential witnesses by the McCanns and makes me more convinced of their guilt. Whether it was a cover-up that spun out of control and had to be contained with all the help they could muster, or something altogether more sinister, we shall one day find out, of that I am convinced.

Found this gem of an article in another topic and feel it should be in here (with Tonys observations). Note the timing of this article....20th November 2007! Just days 'after' the kennedy/murat meeting and Rothley meeting, suddenly its not murat she saw but a man with his faced turned away!. Funny this! This is the start of the change of story taking them away from naming murat as suspect, which up to this point they had done everything possible to do. (the deals/agreement had been done at the meetings, hence all change of stories)

It is also interesting to bare in mind the 'airport bag' story too which clearly was some sort of warning shot to jane tanner to stay in line or else, with tanner's fleece/jeans announcement in her RI statement that followed

To me, it is looking very clearly that jane tanner is absolutely pivotal to the cover up in one way or another. Its interesting to note how much she has put herself out and got involved, whereas her partner ROB is almost non existent. (shouldn't he be supporting her?) What is her motivation for doing this? I always believe it is the 'quiet' ones to watch out for, and imo it is her love for her partner that she has totally put herself out on the line, while he remains under the radar not drawing any attention to himself

Jane Tanner's exclusive interview with The Sun, 20 November 2007

I DID see man abduct Maddie

The Sun

By ONLINE REPORTERS
Published: 20 Nov 2007

MADDIE kidnap witness Jane Tanner yesterday told how she watched the tot being snatched – and insisted she has NO doubt (1) about what she saw.

In an exclusive interview with The Sun – her first with any newspaper – Jane forcefully hit back at critics who have suggested she is lying.

Amid sobs, she said: "I DID see a man that night carrying away Madeleine.

"She WAS abducted."

Tears welling in her eyes, she went on: "I wake up to that image ever day. Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine and I try desperately to remember more detail, what his face was like. (1)

"I think about it over and over again. It’s horrible.

"Madeleine was (2) adorable. Every day I hope this is the day we find her."

Twisting her Look For Madeleine yellow and green wristbands, Jane, 36, then went into detail about the night of May 3.

She told how she and the other members of the so-called Tapas Nine had been leaving the restaurant at the complex in Praia da Luz to check their children.

Returning

It was on one of her visits to see her two daughters that Jane passed Maddie’s dad Gerry, 39 (3). He was returning from seeing his children.

Seconds later she saw a man cross from left to right in front of her with a child lolling back in his arms.

Jane said: "It wasn’t unusual to see people with children, even at that time of night. But my attention was drawn to him because the child had bare feet.

"It was a cold night and I thought that was strange because as a mother I would never have taken my child around at that time without something on their feet or a blanket. All I could see of the child was their legs dangling.

"The man was about ten to fifteen feet in front of me (4) and was walking quite quickly and I can remember thinking, 'That’s odd'.

"But that was all, nothing to make me scream out to make him stop. I never at that time thought it could be Madeleine. I’d just passed Gerry (3) so I thought his children were all asleep in bed."

Jane carried on to her apartment where she found her daughters were fine, (5) so she went back to the tapas bar.

About 15 minutes later her partner Dr Russell O’Brien checked (5) and found one of the girls had been sick (5) so he asked a friend to fetch Jane.

It was while Jane was there that Maddie’s mum Kate, 39, went to see her children at around 10.05pm – and found the girl missing.

Jane said the first she knew was when she looked out of her window and saw the table at the tapas bar was empty (6). She opened the door and there was commotion.

She said: "I saw all our friends outside shouting. I opened the door and one, Rachael, shouted at me, 'Madeleine’ s gone!' As soon as she said that the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick. A feeling of complete horror washed over me."

Minutes later Jane saw Kate. Close to tears, Jane admitted she could not bear to tell her about the man. (7) She said: "At that time it seemed everyone thought Madeleine was hiding. (8)

I knew that if I told her about the man it would shatter that. I was also hoping desperately that I’d been wrong. Instead I took another friend, Fiona, to one side and told her. (9)

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas.

"There were pink and white, they were what Madeleine was wearing. (10) I just felt so awful, I felt I could have stopped this from happening. I think of that everyday.

"I have to live with it forever, that guilt is never going to go away." It has been reported that the man she saw that night was Robert Murat, the first person named as a suspect. But Jane said she simply does not know (11).

Jane, from Exeter, Devon, said: “He had his face turned away (1) and it was dark.

"I’ve done an artist’s impression and want people to look at that and rack their brains as to whether they know him, or if they were on holiday, saw him.

"Please just ring the Find Madeleine Spanish hotline".

OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTS FROM TONY

1. Tanner first of all says 'I try desperately to remember what his face looks like' but later says 'He had his face turned away' (!). Later on, despite his face being 'turned away', she was apparently able to pontificate that 'George Harrison man'/'monster man' looked like the man she had seen (!). Of course, we mustn't forget that at a press conference in September 2009, when the story was the Victoria Beckham-lookalike asking an anonymous British banker for her daughter in downtown Barcelona at 2am, former Chief Inspector Dave Edgar said: "Tanner could have seen a woman".

2. Only four months after Madeleine was reported missing, Tanner uses the past tense about Madeleine.

3. Twice she mentions passing Gerry. Strange...first because Gerry can't remember seeing her down that narrow lane, and second because Gerry was talking to Wilkins but Jane doesn't say anything about her seeing Wilkins. It's as if she hasn't rehearsed very well and has forgotten her lines.

4. 10-15 feet in front. Hmmm. That's about the length of an average-sized bedroom. In just 4-5 paces, she would have bumped into him!

5. If they were 'checking every half-hour', why did Russell O'Brien go to see the girls within 15 minutes of Tanner's visit. And was one of the girls so badly sick that O'Brien had to wash her sheets and pillow-case in the washing-machine AND bath her, even though 15 minutes before, Tanner pronounced the girls 'fine' (one presumes 'fine and sleeping soundly', though she does not say so).

6. Hmmm. So she just 'happened to look' out of the apartment window? She says the Tapas bar table was 'empty'. Yet both Dianne Webster and the waiter maintain that Dianne remained steadfastly at the table after the others rushed off.

7. Yet Russell O'Brien was gaily writing down on a ripped-out cover of Madeleine's Activity Sticker Book: "9.15pm - Jane sees abductor with Madeleine".

8. Come off it, Tanner. Both Dr Gerald McCann and his wife told the media and the police: "We knew instantly that it was an abduction".

9. And we're espected to beleive that Fiona didn't tell Kate either?

10. Did she know what pyjamas Madeleine was wearing? And she didn't actually say the pyjamas were 'white and pink'; she said they 'had a pinkish aspect'. And what happened when the McCanns held up Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas. Little Amelie piped up: 'MADDIE'S JAMAS'. Strange too that Amelie referred to her as 'Maddie' when the McCanns insisted she was alweays called 'Madeleine'?

11. Goncalo Amaral is very very clear in his book. On Sunday 13 May, when Madeleine would have been four years old, Jane Tanner 'adamantly' insisted that when Murat walked past the police van she was in that afternoon, that he was the abductor she'd seen 10 days earlier. This Sun interview was the beginning of a concerted effort by the McCann camp to begin to deny that Tanner had ever positively identified Murat. The Sun interview, presumably carried out at least a day or two in advance of publication on 20 November, followed swiftly on the high-level meeting in the Algarve on 13 November, just a week earlier, between double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst, his lawyer and also the McCanns' 'co-ordinating lawyer', official suspect Robert Murat and his lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, and Murat's mother and aunt and uncle.

"It was a cold night and I thought that was strange because as a mother I
would never have taken my child around at that time without something
on their feet or a blanket. All I could see of the child was their legs
dangling"

I wonder if she thought it was strange that Madeleine was sleeping on top of the covers on her bed that night according to McCann. Or that he didn't tuck her up under the covers when he 'visited' her, what with it being so cold apparently.

I agree that JT is pivotal. Why she has been so servile and did whatever was demanded, I've no idea.

The dates and events are dropping into place very neatly, when it's all put in a row.
I'm going to see what happened in December, because for the life of me I can't work out what the entry for the 30th is about. The McCanns going to an undisclosed destination.

November and December, loose ends were tied up - media were gagged and CR were on their way to a small fortune, as was Murat and Malinka - Amaral 'likes' Malinka a lot I believe. Possibly for the actual removal of the body. Well, he got a 100.000 for it. The T7 got nowhere near that amount which was allegedly given to the Fund. Although we'll never know, seeing the interpretation of 'transparent'.
I think they kept the money - it didn't begin to cover their loss of reputation.

tigger wrote:I agree that JT is pivotal. Why she has been so servile and did whatever was demanded, I've no idea.

The dates and events are dropping into place very neatly, when it's all put in a row.
I'm going to see what happened in December, because for the life of me I can't work out what the entry for the 30th is about. The McCanns going to an undisclosed destination.

November and December, loose ends were tied up - media were gagged and CR were on their way to a small fortune, as was Murat and Malinka - Amaral 'likes' Malinka a lot I believe. Possibly for the actual removal of the body. Well, he got a 100.000 for it. The T7 got nowhere near that amount which was allegedly given to the Fund. Although we'll never know, seeing the interpretation of 'transparent'.
I think they kept the money - it didn't begin to cover their loss of reputation.

"The dates and events are dropping into place very neatly, when it's all put in a row"......Yep! absolutely!

Who torched Malinka's car? Didn't they leave a message like 'talk' or 'don't talk'? Can't remember now....someone was clearly very motivated to do this

Bump...There was this topic on November 2007

Six years on. Hmm. There are the photo opportunities with the twins and Kate and Catrion Baker which Chatelaine posted in the Baker topic. 
Did Catriona Baker get her very own song sheet on the occasion of  her visit? Soon after the Rothley meeting?

tigger wrote:Six years on. Hmm. There are the photo opportunities with the twins and Kate and Catrion Baker which Chatelaine posted in the Baker topic. 
Did Catriona Baker get her very own song sheet on the ocasion of her visit? Soon after the Rothley meeting?

I'll take a look at the photos, thanks

Ah Ms Baker, seems she was shipped off immediately and to America (New York I think) ever since. Wonder how she got her visa so quick and for so long. Hardly comes back to the UK except for family occasions and of course, the Rothley meeting!

Small correction: she got shipped off to GREECE straight-away. She was very unhappy there [documented on Facebook, IIRC]. She then visited Rothley in November 2007. The McCanns confirmed the visit, then said they were withholding her present location for privacy-reasons. Next rumours had it, that she was a nanny at a posh New York estate [without even having proper qualifications. I remember comments, saying that NY students would have been "dying" to do that job for free ...] .

Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

jd wrote:Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

***
Not that I know of. But it would be "strange" to get such a posh job [in NY], when there are so many available, who do ...

jd wrote:Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

I wonder what Mark Warner say about their childcare staff credentials.

I'll have a look.

ETA

Mark Warner childcare

http://www.markwarner.co.uk/family-holidays/sun-childcare

aquila wrote:

jd wrote:Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

I wonder what Mark Warner say about their childcare staff credentials.

I'll have a look.

***
IIRC there has been an "undercover" journalist, applying for a nanny job at MWs and writing an article about it ...

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:

jd wrote:Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

I wonder what Mark Warner say about their childcare staff credentials.

I'll have a look.

***
IIRC there has been an "undercover" journalist, applying for a nanny  job at MWs and writing an article about it ...

That's very interesting.

Here's the link for MW re childcare

http://www.markwarner.co.uk/family-holidays/sun-childcare

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:

jd wrote:Did any of the nannies at MW have proper qualifications?

I wonder what Mark Warner say about their childcare staff credentials.

I'll have a look.

***
IIRC there has been an "undercover" journalist, applying for a nanny  job at MWs and writing an article about it ...

I'd like to think SY have secured all personnel records from MW re their staff from application to appointment. I'd also like to think SY have investigated these British nannies, just as I'd like to think SY have investigated and checked every detail of T9.

Châtelaine wrote:
IIRC there has been an "undercover" journalist, applying for a nanny  job at MWs and writing an article about it ...

It was a BBC Whistleblower documentary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml

Ofsted Whistleblower reveals widespread failings in the care of the under-fives

Viewers will be shocked to see how Imogen Willcocks, a 21-year-old undercover BBC journalist with no experience of looking after children and no professional qualifications, is employed to look after young children under the age of five by two nurseries in Britain, and a leading British holiday company (Mark Warner). Furthermore, they will see her approved as a registered childminder by Ofsted.

Imogen's undercover filming takes place at Just Learning in Cambourne (near Cambridge) and Buttons nursery in west London, as well as a Mark Warner holiday resort in Dahab, Egypt – an upmarket company that markets itself as offering "award-winning childcare".

The undercover footage in the programme reveals:

•A failure to make criminal record and reference checks – The companies that featured in the programme all employed Imogen to look after young children without obtaining CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks, or speaking to any of her referees.

•Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult to child ratios were not always met – At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is

•Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions –  At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.

•No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.

•Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".


From Imogen Willcocks:
Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four. It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare. That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.

I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village. Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers. Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.

When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here." This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.

Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications. Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway. Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.

Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa. Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf. We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison. Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world. No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies."

Holiday ski resort nannies sacked for 'endangering toddlers' lives'
Mark Warner, the British holiday company which promotes itself as being familyfriendly, has been forced to launch an investigation into the standards of its childcare after two of its nannies were sacked for endangering the lives of a group of toddlers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1482383/Holiday-ski-resort-nannies-sacked-for-endangering-toddlers-lives.html

That article is from 2005. -  interesting. If you are going to endanger your children yourself, it's just as well to have a scapegoat handy. 
One who has been proved to be neglectful i.e. one who has 'form'.....and didn't that come out as from zero hour. MW had made them feel safe -  it was their fault, cue the rap sheet to back  them up. 
So MW had good reason to comply by helping pesky witnesses off the premises and generally supplying back-up evidence (eg. tierney) or relocating those with conflicting accounts (Baker). Those two we know - I would expect  some more conflicing witness statements which have been erased, leaving no record.