The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by russiandoll on 12.12.13 22:34

 The Illusionists.




EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com        

Dr Martin Roberts, 11th December 2013.

THE ILLUSIONISTS
Illusions take many forms. They can be aural or visual, even tactile, but the one thing they cannot be is veridical. And since appearances can deceive in any modality it can sometimes be worth putting one's perceptions to the test; either that or suspend disbelief. In Christopher Nolan's 'magical' film The Prestige (2006), after the 'Pledge' and the 'Turn', the 'Prestige' associated with a stage magician's making songbirds disappear before the eyes of a bewildered Victorian audience depends very largely upon the unnoticed, and unsuspected, squashing to death of a canary or two, the magician's assistants in this case sacrificing their all for his art. Dying for the cause is by no means without precedent therefore.

Six years ago in Praia da Luz, Portugal, a pair of contemporary illusionists were hard at work pledging that they would turn every stone so as to overcome a certain personal hardship, whilst basking in the prestige occasioned by their own daughter's unexplained absence. Not being particularly practised in their craft however, they needed a warm-up trick or two. A card trick for starters, performed with a couple of 'signing-in' cards:

"We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea." (Kate McCann in Madeleine, p.59).

Meanwhile Gerry had already signed Madeleine into her 'lobster' group at the Mark Warner creche (at 2.30 p.m. that afternoon, Tuesday 1 May), and not for the last hour and a half either.

No less amazing is Kate's having been elsewhere at the very same time signing both Sean and Amelie into their 'jellyfish' group, where they stayed for fully two hours and fifty minutes, before Kate signed them out again (at 5.20 p.m.).

How did they do that?

Then, before moving onto the grand illusion, the duo offered up a variation on 'cups and balls'. Not one where the ball appears unexpectedly under a different receptacle, but where the receptacle itself, a young child, cups some tennis balls in her arms and moves back and forth in time, posing for the camera on Monday, yet absent when photographed on Tuesday and when mysteriously seen adopting the very same pose on Wednesday.

Already we are into the realm of illusion. When the camera 'snaps' the subject is not there. Like the body an audience believes has just been impaled inside the magic box. Although our illusionist visitors to the Portuguese Algarve had yet to attain such dizzying proficiency as to make either a Lear Jet or Tower Bridge disappear, they were nevertheless working toward the grand illusion, utilising an entire apartment as their magic box.




          The Magic Circle

"...we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine". (Gerry McCann, September 2007)

It is a rule of membership that practitioners do not reveal their secrets. We are left to guess at their methods. So should one expect the presenter of a vanishing act to 'vanish' his subject completely, i.e., without a subsequent return to the stage followed by thunderous applause, or, in a more down-to-earth context, comprehensively abduct his own daughter, never to be seen again? What would be the point? (Unless of course there was a prior expectation that the show would go on interminably.)

What we can expect is that any illusion we witness is deceptive, just like illusionists themselves. Convincing the Victorian audience, as portrayed in the Nolan film, that 'the bird had flown', required the death of a canary; something the magician could never publicly admit. Technological innovation may since have saved the life of many a captive bird, but what secret door might Madeleine McCann have disappeared through? We were all made to think it was a window at first but, in a typical magician's 'double bluff', this was afterwards revealed to have been transparent misdirection.

The box containing Madeleine McCann was shown to the audience at 9.00 p.m. She was there. And again at 9.30. She appeared to be there still. But after one more rotation, at 10.00 p.m., she was gone. The illusionist's partner checked the box inside and out. There was 'no little body' in the form of Madeleine McCann.

Was the little bird alive or dead? Was it being carried away as the audience looked on? Not alive if so, but with sufficient strength to adapt its cradle, not dead either. Perhaps it was hidden within a secret compartment inside the magic box? Had Madeleine fallen unnoticed behind the sofa? Then it would only be a matter of time before she was discovered and the trick spoilt. She was not discovered. There was no trace of her left that night.

So how was it done? How was the illusion created? Well, despite advances in technology and presentation, the fundamental elements of any good illusion remain the same. The magician's assistant is obviously not in the box when the lid slams shut. Unless of course she's a canary, and expendable, in which case someone has to clean the mechanism afterwards, and before the (next) show.




  A Trick Missed

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children...She verified that the twins were in their beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared...After searching the whole apartment thoroughly...she returned to the restaurant, and alerted her husband and the rest of the group to the disappearance". (KM witness statement 4.5.07)

The Smiths' sighting occurred at just before 10.00 p.m. If the child they witnessed being carried was Madeleine McCann then she must have been removed from the apartment before 10.00. Supposing the adult carrier to have been Gerry McCann, why on earth would he wish to abduct his own daughter? And if she were dead?

If it were Madeleine's body the unidentified porter had in his arms that Thursday night, then when did she have her fatal accident, and when was her body discovered? Not at 9.00 p.m., when Gerry found 'no little body' in the parents' bedroom but gazed down upon three sleeping children in their own. Nor at 9.30, when Matthew Oldfield entered the apartment. Although he claims not to have entered the children's room, and therefore could only assume (but not confirm) Madeleine's presence, it scarcely matters, since a child lying fatally injured between the living room sofa and adjacent wall could not have returned to her bed anyway. Even so she would still not have been noticed, in the dark, by Oldfield. It was for the very purpose of exposing hidden objects that Gerry McCann himself claims to have moved the sofa:

"Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was drawn against the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit further away from the window, and he vaguely remembers pushing it back a bit, because his children threw objects behind it, namely playing cards". (GM witness statement 7.9.07)

So, if a child's body was encountered inside apartment 5A between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. that Thursday night, then when exactly, and by whom? If in fact it was discovered earlier then 'abduction' becomes a prepared scenario, not an outcome of spontaneous panic, and the plan seriously contrived.

The McCanns have a 'last photo' to prove that an accident could not have happened before 2.29 p.m. that same day and a crèche register signed 'K McCann' at 5.30. So Madeleine was safe until next seen (as one of the three children) by David Payne at around 6.30. Within the hour she's asleep in bed:

"It was around 7:15 p.m. when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she is sure of this". (KM witness statement, 6.9.07)

The bottom line, as they say, is that either Madeleine McCann was seen by the Smiths, being carried off alive in the arms of a stranger, or she was dead. And if Madeleine's corpse could not have been discovered on the Thursday night, then both it and the unfortunate accident she suffered must have been contingent upon earlier events. How much earlier would govern, in turn, the extent of the subsequent misdirection. The fact that the child seen by the Smiths was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas would seem to rule out the 'Madeleine McCann alive in the arms of a stranger' option, so maybe Kate McCann was right. Maybe Madeleine would have been better off had she been wearing her long-sleeved 'Barbie' ones.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Guest on 12.12.13 23:18

I've read that one earlier. I pity the canaries ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by russiandoll on 12.12.13 23:19

Which ones Chatelaine?  The couple who might have been singing for the police ?!

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Guest on 12.12.13 23:26

The canaries that were killed for the magician's trick.
It's all a metaphor, of course.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by onehand on 13.12.13 7:07

the creche sheets again.


For me there is still no proof that madeleine disappearance had taken place at Thursday evening.
 
It always fascinates me, that mark warner give so much hospitality after the event, from a pr point of view it is madness. For them it means confronting holidaymakers with this type of unrest or crime, a kill of for their business. So it don’t seems to have any logic to keep this family and their activities on their grounds in the middle of people who come to have a good time.
 
It would have made far more sense if mark warner had given a help out to a accommodation outside their grounds. To keep the police and press and grieving family out of sight of other guests. Besides a more logic solution, it would have be kinder to the parents, on that moment seen as victims of an abducted child, why confront those parents with the smiling faces of the usual holiday guests, the laughs of joy of playing children under there balcony. To be confronted with the whispering voices, like: that’s them, the parents of that missing child, anywhere they go on the estate.
So humanly as business like absolute no logic in keeping them there.
 
So i picked my brain and do some wild speculation.
 
One of the star points of a mark warner holiday is take care of children from their guests. There are earlier statements that on other mark warner places the policy around the childcare staff where a bit on the loose sides.
What if this was a far more common problem and also was the standard in pdl?
 
The children could come and go and the parents could bring them in on the times they like. There where only boundary set times and just as a parent wishes they could bring there child in and they have to been taken out before the set time.
 
What we don’t know is what was exactly the procedure about filling in the names and contact info on the creche sheets, it where the parents that had to fill them out, was there always someone from the staff to supervise this actions or was this sheet just lying down on a table or something in a hallway?
 
If those sheets where not under any direct eyes of staff, then it would quite easily to trick something. There are a lot of blank fields in the sheets, so there was not really a serious supervisor in place, i would think. (I can’t find anything that states that the children where active handed over to any staff in combination with the sheets.)
 
Then there would’t have been any staff needed taken in to trick something, just walk in, sign in a child and leave, come back later and sign the child out. You would not need a child. If someone sees you, just mumble something like forgot to fill in my contact number and no one would make a fuss about it. Think! This is common practice in the european parliament, just to earn their fee for the day. There is actually staff to check you are there, but not a check that you stay there, just sign in and out and between no one would know where you are. My own experience from my school days makes me aware there are quite a lot of ways to sneak in and out.
All it needs is some guts to do it.
 
As long the children where in the building, there would not be any need to count numbers, or check the sheets and the child to each other, over and over again. If there was a activity outside the building, you just could wait till they left and sign a child in on the sheets, no staff would know then there has to be another one in.
 
It is not need that the name of any tricked entry will always be the last, lots of people are used to keep one single line free under a header.
If the staff was of the kind of laid back people, they won’t look all to seriously on those sheets again and those who did, look to have the approach of correct some blanks by there own hand and some even use then their own signature.
I understood some creche arrangements where to be paid extra for, so the more, the better.
 
Now the big thumb role in, would some action like this make a company to do far more then you would suspect, history states that you always have to protect your company name and status or you could loose a lot of possible clients. A staff that was not all to seriously, i would count in. would loosing your credits to the public of your childcare service important here, yes, that could be a solid reasons to bring focus on other things.
 
Besides they give accommodation for free, between their other guests, to the family of madeleine, they also give an extra apartment for the use as an office. They had use of the pool, the creche for taking the twins in and free wine.
 
There was quite a quick outplacement for a lot of child-caretakers, while there was not anything that at that time could blame any of them.
One of the caretakers was in quite a mental state as i read it along and why was that? There weren't any critics out on that moment in the direction of the childcare service, what was the burden she took on her mind and shoulders? I have seen people go down in tears by a harsh talk of an employer, because of there lousy skills or behaviour. If she is what stated she is, there almost couldn't be anything like such a strong bond between her and madeleine that would bring her in such a state. Well if there was on a sheet that a child was in your care and you known it was not and you miss the guts to stand up, or you simply could not be sure, that for me would like a more possible route to go out of your mind on her age.
 
So i could think that there could be a fair part for a company to protect their assets, without anyone in on their side to the rest of the theater. If there was some tidying up on those sheets done for the companies sake, that would now set the company with their back at the wall and there would no easy way out, without discredit their name.
 
Maybe it is just in my suspicious mind, but i don’t see anything what is proven the correct state of the creche sheets for the whereabouts of madeleine.
For me no solid proof that madeleine was on the creche that day. It could be all a part of the illussion, as dr. Roberts names it. And maybe the company walked in it with open eyes.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Mirage on 13.12.13 7:30

What an interesting post onehand. Lots to think about there. You are so right about signing in procedures. They are often charts left on a reception table with no personnel in sight.

Mirage

Posts : 1904
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again, a long one this time !

Post by Monty Heck on 13.12.13 17:45

Some interesting points Onehand.  The McCs staying on so long at the OC seemed strange at the time and as you point out, their staying on there like ghosts at the feast could surely not have been in the interests of MW either.  It must have been quite disconcerting for guests there to have been quite literally surrounded by the McCs and entourage during early summer 2007, as the numbers who made their way out to PDL were frankly amazing.  Imagine turning up there with your own young family in tow ready for an enjoyable time, only to have the pall of the McC affair so visibly and constantly apparent, not to mention those collection boxes handily displayed for the "fighting fund".  The atmosphere around the pool or restaurant areas with all the relatives  and co. hanging around must have been extremely subdued to say the least It was all so inappropriate on so many levels and on both sides - what on earth were any of them thinking about?

When they did move to other accommodation, they could have rented a villa close enough to the village but in the surrounding countryside where peace and privacy would have been easier to come by.  They opted instead to remain in the village, accessible, visible and complaining about press intrusion.  Seems staying close to the centre of things and keeping an eye on everything was paramount, even at the expense of personal space and privacy.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Guest on 13.12.13 18:20

Monty Heck wrote:Some interesting points Onehand.  The McCs staying on so long at the OC seemed strange at the time and as you point out, their staying on there like ghosts at the feast could surely not have been in the interests of MW either.  It must have been quite disconcerting for guests there to have been quite literally surrounded by the McCs and entourage during early summer 2007, as the numbers who made their way out to PDL were frankly amazing.  Imagine turning up there with your own young family in tow ready for an enjoyable time, only to have the pall of the McC affair so visibly and constantly apparent, not to mention those collection boxes handily displayed for the "fighting fund".  The atmosphere around the pool or restaurant areas with all the relatives  and co. hanging around must have been extremely subdued to say the least It was all so inappropriate on so many levels and on both sides - what on earth were any of them thinking about?

When they did move to other accommodation, they could have rented a villa close enough to the village but in the surrounding countryside where peace and privacy would have been easier to come by.  They opted instead to remain in the village, accessible, visible and complaining about press intrusion.  Seems staying close to the centre of things and keeping an eye on everything was paramount, even at the expense of personal space and privacy.

And at the expense of Mark Warners, and all of their booked guests for that summer

Which begs the question: why on earth did MW bend over backwards to keep accommodating them, supplying them with free bed & breakfast + free booze for all and sundry at their bidding?

Did MW feel guilty?
Were they in any way responsible?

Were they MADE to feel responsible?

Were they acting in such a manner as to pre-empt a claim for damages? Where did Woodfall come in?

What did Alex Woodfall find out about the McCs in the very first days, which enabled him to permanently defuse any claim from them against his boss MW?

Woodfall knows
Mark Warner knows

Where are the police transcripts of their being interrogated?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by margaret on 13.12.13 23:17

Good post one hand but I'm not sure about being able to sign in children without a child, those forms are used for information on how many children are in the crèche, for safety and fire risks.

I don't think any nanny in a resort would not count the names on the list and check if they have the correct amount of children, let alone the two or three nannys on duty at any one time, nobody would want to lose a child.

I think Madeleine mccann was signed in but whether it was THE mm is another matter.
avatar
margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by jeanmonroe on 14.12.13 0:34

Portia wrote:
Did MW feel guilty?
Were they in any way responsible?
...........................................................................................

Why would they, MW, feel 'guilty'?

As the McCanns diliberately left their apartment unlocked, after being told of possible burglaries, in the area, why would that be their, MW's, fault?

echoing: "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?"

G McCann ruling out abduction + his responsibility.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5815
Reputation : 1657
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by onehand on 14.12.13 5:12

there was only one nanny in care, catriona baker, if they stay in the creche. there where max. 7 children in her group.

the different age groups also where in different buildings. so it would not been easy to have one overseeing caretaker, that could do the intake. besides the nanny can't remember for a lot of times, who did sign in or sign out madeleine, that is given the impression that the sheets where not under her eyes. 

if the nanny take over a child through an inside doorway, it is quite normal that she just count in one extra for every time a child is handed over, but this could be totally separated from the filling out sheet activity by parents. this is not a normal daycare creche, but a service on a holiday center.  standards around rules could be less and more laid back than usual. the nanny is just one of a bunch that was there for a free holiday time in the sun, and to get that they look after children and earn some pay out of it. they are cheap and not of the standard you would see in day to day care for children at home.
if you have a good standard, you could let sign the parents sign in and out, but then there would be at least something like the initials of the nanny who did do the actual intake. 

you don't need a child with you, if the sheets where separated from the actual room the children were staying. just pose your child run in, on front of you and do it. people were used to see the parents there, almost all would see you and take it for granted that you was there, later on hardly remember om what time or day. people give quite easily there own interpretations in there mind for things that looks harmless. 

for me it makes mark warner only to blame to give this as an opportunity, but opportunity is not the same as actual help out to cover things up. i do think mark warner could have used time to bring those sheet a bit in order, just to protect their company name. it couldn't be a lot, because there are a lot of blanks in who did sign a child out. overall they are quite messy.
if the nanny find out any discrepancies, would she blow the whistle or not, it would mean her nice job is on the line. or would she just could not remember clearly when madeleine was there and just accepted that, of because she was on the list, her mind did play trick with her, and decide madeleine must have been there.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by columbostogeys on 14.12.13 6:46

onehand wrote:there was only one nanny in care, catriona baker, if they stay in the creche. there where max. 7 children in her group.

the different age groups also where in different buildings. so it would not been easy to have one overseeing caretaker, that could do the intake. besides the nanny can't remember for a lot of times, who did sign in or sign out madeleine, that is given the impression that the sheets where not under her eyes. 

if the nanny take over a child through an inside doorway, it is quite normal that she just count in one extra for every time a child is handed over, but this could be totally separated from the filling out sheet activity by parents. this is not a normal daycare creche, but a service on a holiday center.  standards around rules could be less and more laid back than usual. the nanny is just one of a bunch that was there for a free holiday time in the sun, and to get that they look after children and earn some pay out of it. they are cheap and not of the standard you would see in day to day care for children at home.
if you have a good standard, you could let sign the parents sign in and out, but then there would be at least something like the initials of the nanny who did do the actual intake. 

you don't need a child with you, if the sheets where separated from the actual room the children were staying. just pose your child run in, on front of you and do it. people were used to see the parents there, almost all would see you and take it for granted that you was there, later on hardly remember om what time or day. people give quite easily there own interpretations in there mind for things that looks harmless. 

for me it makes mark warner only to blame to give this as an opportunity, but opportunity is not the same as actual help out to cover things up. i do think mark warner could have used time to bring those sheet a bit in order, just to protect their company name. it couldn't be a lot, because there are a lot of blanks in who did sign a child out. overall they are quite messy.
if the nanny find out any discrepancies, would she blow the whistle or not, it would mean her nice job is on the line. or would she just could not remember clearly when madeleine was there and just accepted that, of because she was on the list, her mind did play trick with her, and decide madeleine must have been there.

............................................................................................................................................................

I dont think holiday creche workers remember all the children they have in the their charge. They must see so many over the course of a holiday period, each child looks the same as the other.

If you look at Paynes daughter she is the image of Maddy and could easily have been mistaken for her. 

Didnt Jez wilkins wife say when she was watching tennis she had no clue if Maddy was there as she could see at least 10 blonde little girls running around they all look the same, and they do. I constantly see 4 year old year Maddy girls in supermarkets, in shops etc. They all have a similar look.

I dont think for one minute a child is made special by one of the nannies, its just a job for them another day to get through before they can go out and enjoy themselves at night.


I dont believe for one minute there were strict procedures in place for signing in and out children. When did they last do a fire exercise? One of the reasons for signing in is for fire etc. The staff are supposed to take the list outside in a fire drill and count off heads. How many times did they have a fire drill? 

Isnt the day creche part of the holiday package? So if this is the case they dont even need names to send out bills or invoices.....

I think the exercise was just a futile one, a procedure which I am sure was never really maintained. Can you imagine how many times you would have to train a new member of staff the procedures? I am sure the turn around on staff was high. I dont believe for one minute there was much procedure going on. 

When we had visitors coming to our works they had to sign in and out for fire drill purposes, it was done on their own recognizance many a time they forgot to do so. 

I think you have made some great points onehand.

____________________
The Dogs Dont Lie
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
columbostogeys

Posts : 174
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Guest on 14.12.13 9:45

columbostogeys wrote:
I dont think holiday creche workers remember all the children they have in the their charge. They must see so many over the course of a holiday period, each child looks the same as the other.

If you look at Paynes daughter she is the image of Maddy and could easily have been mistaken for her. 

When we had visitors coming to our works they had to sign in and out for fire drill purposes, it was done on their own recognizance many a time they forgot to do so. 


I totally agree. Such as day care nurseries, there are strict procedures for signing in and out and the staff take their responsibilities seriously. Alternatively, venues such as privately run soft play centres and the like, nothing like as rigourous.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 14.12.13 10:08

For a long time people have been asking questions like "How come people like Alex Woolfall were suddenly on hand. The entity with the most to lose would have been Mark Warner holidays. I can imagine them reacting to minimise (at least try) the damage whether or not they were in some way responsible. "Quick some family's kid has gone missing and they're busy telling the world's media that she was abducted from her bed! This could destroy us!" would be a credible response from MW. As would getting in some form of 'crisis management'.

I've always believed that simpler, less 'conspiratorial' motivations lie at the heart of this case; I.e. basic forces like fear, guilt, greed and stupidity. From the outset, MW would have most to lose from a child going 'missing' and most influence when it came to the initial 'pulling of strings'. More so assuming MW is a British business - that's where the high level clout is likely to have been, not with some nefarious and yet practically untraceable secret life led by Gerry McCann. IMO.

____________________
The prime suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be permitted to dictate what can and can't be discussed about the case
avatar
ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Guest on 14.12.13 10:48

Yes prof Plum I agree with you.

Odd then, that MW let themselves be dragged through the mud till date, not putting full emphasis on their own managers' early statement that the apartment and shutters was not at all tampered with;

and why not publicize your cautioning your guests about the risk of burglary?

and why go along with the 'round table' saga?

and why ship all the hired help (nannies) out to Greece (?) the next week?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Mirage on 14.12.13 13:19

I think MW have a lot of questions to answer related to the points Portia has raised.

Shipping the nannies elsewhere might have been a rationale for damage limitation if they hadn't  accommodated the McCann family on site where others were trying to holiday. They even allowed them to continue sending the twins to the creche.

I know the family were asked to go weeks later, but by then the reputational damage to the resort had been done by having  the world's media circus concentrated there. It was a daily reminder on a global basis that a child had gone missing from her bed in their family-orientated resort.

Any company would want to put a physical distance under such circumstances IMO .

Mirage

Posts : 1904
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by oakeso on 14.12.13 13:44

I've always thought MW were in a similar situation to the PJ in that given the media circus reputation was key and the most important driver was that actions needed to be stamped with TM approval. MW must have  played ball because to this day none of them has made even one negative comment about them. 

Their insurers would have had a key part in decision making given that they cover things like loss of profits, public liability, libel etc.

____________________
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” 
avatar
oakeso

Posts : 62
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The cellar - looking for NZ labels

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Mirage on 14.12.13 14:32

oakeso wrote:I've always thought MW were in a similar situation to the PJ in that given the media circus reputation was key and the most important driver was that actions needed to be stamped with TM approval. MW must have  played ball because to this day none of them has made even one negative comment about them. 

Their insurers would have had a key part in decision making given that they cover things like loss of profits, public liability, libel etc.

Sorry, I don't quite follow what point you are making oakeso.

"I've always thought MW were in a similar situation to the PJ in that given the media circus reputation was key ....."


The PJ were investigating a missing child case. Hardly sharing the same concerns as a holiday company! Among the many concerns Amaral had over political interference, I don't remember him once agonising over the reputation of the PJ in the glare of the world's media. He was, by all accounts, too busy trying to elicit co-operation from the British authorities.


"...and the most important driver was that actions needed to be stamped with TM approval."


Why do you lump the PJ in to the same category as MW?  Where is your evidence that the  PJ were beholden to the whims and demands of the Mcs?  They were impeded in their investigation by political interference according to Amaral.


"Their insurers would have had a key part in decision making given that they cover things like loss of profits, public liability, libel etc."


MW had nothing to fear with regard to public liability. They had two self-confessed negligent parents who had gone out night after night leaving three tiny children in an unlocked apartment adjacent to a public road. Two parents who had taken full advantage of creche facilities by day, but who had not hired the self-same nannies by night. That negligence trumps all other issues that an insurer might ordinarily consider.

Mirage

Posts : 1904
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by onehand on 14.12.13 17:30

I don’t believe easily in conspiracy, no necessity in this case, if you put the goals of mark warner and the mccann’s on a line. Those are different, but go along each other for some time nicely.
 
I don’t think mark warner was in on any law-breaking, they could find out some gaps in there safety regulations around their childcare service. But that’s not law breaking from their site, just a managing gap that happen more often then not.
Somebody could had made use from such a gap, but that’s on that person. Leaving your front door open is not the same as give an invitation to take what you like.
 
But the goal of mark warner would be in keeping their company name and status in the up.
 
There is room for a deal, the family would not make any accusations on failing staff or bring other insinuations on the name of the company and for that , the company could give them access to their own network, this could also be the most logical reason, for so much people far out the league of the maccann’s, in on their side. As PPP already remarked in his post.
 
Woolfall was there to mind the business of mark warner and assisting the mccann’s was on that moment part of that position.
To make all of this happen, no one on mark warner had to be let in, in details of a crime if that was what happen.
 
There was no need to let an insurer make any decision, for that a company has his legal team. They give at most an advise, the rest of the decisions is always up in the hands of the board members.
 
Maybe, the outing confusion is good, is adopted from a sentence used by any time by woolfall. For his goal it was okee, for finding a missing child or even something of less value like your front door key, it is certainly useless.
 
Conspiracies sound nice, but most people and companies has enough personal or business goals to mind.  Mingle those in to a larger group and there would be a lot of conflict between such goals. Also put people in on the same level of info and they talk to the others in such a group, when people talk, they could be heard over. But it is in our nature when in the same group we feel safe to talk and discuss. Keep anyone you can use apart is the way to go for full effect.
 
It is quite easy to trick someone in, use them, without they, in advance, would know that they are being used. As soon as there are borders, for such a person, are crossed over, they sometimes don’t see a route out and you have them in for more.For the t9 you could think of a partly same goal, but for the most much later after the third of mai, there is more ground covered for a larger commitment.
 

But it is only in my suspicious mind for now, just hypothetical, but i got some experience from another field of  investigations on crime then abductions and a little bit of crimes to humans and much more is done, because of more common practice in the reality , then by conspiracies. I see it far more like a game of chess, just one king and queen on each side, the rest some helpers and a lot of useful pawns out on the fields.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by Angelique on 15.12.13 2:42

onehand

I agree with your way of thinking about how people were drawn into helping during the disappearance of Madeleine.

Users do this to gain a certain advantage. They play on the good nature of people especially during a crisis. It's only natural for decent human beings to want to help someone in distress. I believe that is what happened in this case. You could say that the willingness of MW staff to do all they could to help was their downfall and was turned and used as a lever against them. I have seen this happen in other circumstances but for MW under the scrutiny of the world media and press it must have been incredibly difficult to stand and watch it happen in front of them. No wonder little was made about the statement about the shutters - it was lost in the melee of clicking cameras and press statements.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by suep on 15.12.13 6:08

onehand

Going back to your first post on this thread about the creche records, I think you made some very important observations. I agree with you that its unlikely there was a member of staff supervising the signing in and out of children, especially those in MM's age group and older. With younger children like the twins and with babies there would be a need for staff to physically hand them over to parents and so the signing process would be more likely to be done properly. But with older children this is not so necessary.
I noticed that on some occasions the nanny has signed out not only MM but other children in her group which suggests to me that parents forgot to do it sometimes when collecting their children, which also suggests there was no strict system involving a member of staff standing by a table at the door with the sign in/out sheets ensuring it was done properly.

Also in her statement Catriona Baker said that there were separate sheets for morning and afternoon. In the case of the twins' group this was correct but Ms Baker was not working with this group, she was with MM's group and in this group the same sheet was used for morning and afternoon sometimes with a line drawn under the morning signings. You'd expect Ms Baker to know this if she was paying serious attention to the correct procedure for picking up and dropping off children.

Given the sloppiness of record keeping in MM's group I don't think it would be that difficult to sign in a child who wasn't actually there.

suep

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by tigger on 15.12.13 6:23

Very good points!

Curiously the other creche records were pristine, only the Lobster creche had the messy ones.

Another point is the lack of  artwork produced by Maddie. There is a list somewhere of the activities,
No 'last drawing'  no sculpture, nothing in 5a.

Maddie allegedly had learned a little dance on the Thursday, which she said she would show her the next day.
This little tale was  dropped from the programme, perhaps because most parents know that a child would not wait, tomorrow being  far away for children who have no temporal awareness.
For that reason both the dance and Maddie saying she'd had the best day ever were dropped from the fairy tale imo. Probably as advised by the PR.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by onehand on 15.12.13 8:33

all of the activities from or around madeleine comes mostly from the parents, also what she was wearing when and where, i miss back up in the statements from the other t7 or others to put a time on any of it. there are bits and pieces, but nothing that they look very certain of. 
the best one is russell in his rogatory statement, where he stated he did see madeleine on thursday morning, when he take ella to the creche. but after lunchtime i can't find any solid statement any one really knows where madeleine was, apart from the parents.
even what she was wearing on the time she supposed to disappear comes from the parents. 

russell sounds quite sure, but it will be easy to place such minor thoughts on the wrong day. he also lacks in telling what madeleine was doing. a simple question from the officer on this could have helped a lot. and you can ask such a question without falling in steering the witness to much. there was also no tape from this interview, because the video equipment did not work properly , 2008 in the uk! 

in this first rogatory on 8-4-2008 he sounds like a persons with his mind in good order. but because there was no tape or video, he did another session 2 days later, in there he looks a total different person. with just an ordinary confusing mind about times and places.

first rogatory: 

On the 3rd May 2007 I saw Madeleine in the morning a couple of times this was when I dropped Ella off.


I collected Ella from the Ocean Club before she went up to tea at the Tapas Bar, I cannot say whether Madeleine was there or not.

he said those sentences apart.

second rogatory:

On this occasion we were on the beach and as it got towards five o’clock I, I pelted up the hill to collect Ella before they were taken up to the main complex.  Does that make sense?  And so, erm, the reason that I think this is in here is, you were asking me I think if I’d saw Madeleine there, now because I got there before the children had left, by rights Madeleine should have been there as well, unless Kate and Gerry had taken her out earlier for some reason.  Erm, with eleven months passage, I can’t, if I’m honest with you, I can’t picture whether Madeleine was there.  But, generally speaking, by this point in the afternoon people were not, we weren’t collecting, we weren’t doing any collecting in that afternoon, so I think Madeleine will have been there.  Erm, but if I’m honest, I can’t, you know, hand on heart, say, when I picked Ella up and took her down to the beach before the Nannies took her up to, erm, for high tea, that I saw Madeleine there.  But I got in early enough to get Ella out before the end of, well, you know, arrived just before they actually left to go up, so by rights she should have been there”.


same russell, just to days apart!


in the first he looks like a sound witness, in the second  its lost that completely.

if i go by what would be the practical side of live, it will be far easier to just let it look that madeleine was out in the open on thursday at daytime, longer is far more difficult to handle. but that will bring the timeline for an disappearance at least back to the day before. 
longer i don't think is likely, you need some days with little routines to fill in other peoples mind, before the will get in the fase that they will assume, a following day will equell up to those before. just in the same manner as russell examples in his second rogatory statement. 

david payne's is also not a credible witness statement, there is to much noise alone from how long he was in the apartment at thursday and there are at least 4 versions, david's, kate's gerry's and fiona. all to different to make it one believable event that has happened on that moment of that day.

or was the canary not longer in her cage? or was there a need to let every one out there just think, she still was save in her cage.

i don't go for a stand-in for madeline, to complicated and to risky.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by PeterMac on 15.12.13 8:44

onehand wrote:    Just clearing up the tiny fount.
first rogatory: 
On the 3rd May 2007 I saw Madeleine in the morning a couple of times this was when I dropped Ella off.

I collected Ella from the Ocean Club before she went up to tea at the Tapas Bar, I cannot say whether Madeleine was there or not.

he said those sentences apart.
second rogatory:
On this occasion we were on the beach and as it got towards five o’clock I, I pelted up the hill to collect Ella before they were taken up to the main complex.  Does that make sense?  And so, erm, the reason that I think this is in here is, you were asking me I think if I’d saw Madeleine there, now because I got there before the children had left, by rights Madeleine should have been there as well, unless Kate and Gerry had taken her out earlier for some reason.  Erm, with eleven months passage, I can’t, if I’m honest with you, I can’t picture whether Madeleine was there.  But, generally speaking, by this point in the afternoon people were not, we weren’t collecting, we weren’t doing any collecting in that afternoon, so I think Madeleine will have been there.  Erm, but if I’m honest, I can’t, you know, hand on heart, say, when I picked Ella up and took her down to the beach before the Nannies took her up to, erm, for high tea, that I saw Madeleine there.  But I got in early enough to get Ella out before the end of, well, you know, arrived just before they actually left to go up, so by rights she should have been there”.


same russell, just two days apart  
in the first he looks like a sound witness, in the second  its lost that completely.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Dr. Roberts again: The Illusionists

Post by onehand on 15.12.13 8:49

thank you very much, peter mac.

onehand

Posts : 117
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-10-31

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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