Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

by Doug D 29.01.14 19:03

The crèche records are basically a disaster area and are bashed about for 68 pages on:

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

Sit down and enjoy a brain-frazzling evening.

The records are rubbish, the staff haven’t got a clue, can’t even count on the fingers of one hand how many kids they were looking after when they went sailing.

Enjoy!

by **PeterMac** 29.01.14 22:24

And let us spell it out again,
The pool, children's pool, Tapas bar, and apartment 5A B C D E ONLY applies to this one area.
Mark Warner have MANY similar complexes across PdL.

The facilities, 24 hours reception, creches and so on service the lot, not just this horrid scrappy bit.

by Clocker 29.01.14 23:38

sami wrote:There is no way a childcare facility will have such an ambiguous collection policy.

Call to the crèche, sure if we are not there try the tapas.

This results in parents wandering about looking for children.

It also prolongs the working day for the nannies who end up in the tapas looking after children whose parents are late playing tennis.

I understood the purpose of the nannies being at high tea was to socialise with parents and children. It was not an extension of the daycare facility.

We cannot figure out the system suggested by Kate for discussion purposes. How then could it be explained in multiple languages and put into practice.

I don't believe their account and taken in context with all of the others in their group being placed away from the complex on that Thursday evening, you have to wonder what the McCanns were doing at tea time.

Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

by Guest 30.01.14 0:05

Clocker wrote:
sami wrote:There is no way a childcare facility will have such an ambiguous collection policy.

Call to the crèche, sure if we are not there try the tapas.

This results in parents wandering about looking for children.

It also prolongs the working day for the nannies who end up in the tapas looking after children whose parents are late playing tennis.

I understood the purpose of the nannies being at high tea was to socialise with parents and children. It was not an extension of the daycare facility.

We cannot figure out the system suggested by Kate for discussion purposes. How then could it be explained in multiple languages and put into practice.

I don't believe their account and taken in context with all of the others in their group being placed away from the complex on that Thursday evening, you have to wonder what the McCanns were doing at tea time.

Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you Clocker, that answers my question. I was on page 35 of the creche thread getting very frazzled.
So the children were taken to the Tapas, and I guess that the parents signed them out there.
If there were children and nannies from all the groups there I guess it could be a bit confusing for the nannies to know who was signing who out.

by Clocker 30.01.14 2:07

dantezebu wrote:
Clocker wrote:
sami wrote:There is no way a childcare facility will have such an ambiguous collection policy.

Call to the crèche, sure if we are not there try the tapas.

This results in parents wandering about looking for children.

It also prolongs the working day for the nannies who end up in the tapas looking after children whose parents are late playing tennis.

I understood the purpose of the nannies being at high tea was to socialise with parents and children. It was not an extension of the daycare facility.

We cannot figure out the system suggested by Kate for discussion purposes. How then could it be explained in multiple languages and put into practice.

I don't believe their account and taken in context with all of the others in their group being placed away from the complex on that Thursday evening, you have to wonder what the McCanns were doing at tea time.

Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you Clocker, that answers my question. I was on page 35 of the creche thread getting very frazzled.
So the children were taken to the Tapas, and I guess that the parents signed them out there.
If there were children and nannies from all the groups there I guess it could be a bit confusing for the nannies to know who was signing who out.

You're welcome Dantezebu and yes, there could well be confusion as B-O-D states there were 10 blonde haired, 3 year old girls in the one group alone.

by **tigger** 30.01.14 6:38

Re above: the Lobster creche sheets don't list as many as ten ever I think.

So that must have been in the other group plus the boys. Do the creche sheets confirm these numbers?

by sami 30.01.14 8:26

Clocker wrote:
Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you for helping Clocker, it's interesting.

I won't be online today as I have work so cannot look myself. Was wondering if there is any other source which explains the system for collection ? Somebody here might remember. I must confess to not being a fan of Ms O'Donnells article in general.

by russiandoll 30.01.14 9:05

from McCann's Swedish interview, where the pair describe the events of 3rd [ the day when routine changed , also the only evening Gerry looked in at his beautiful daughter and her siblings, but he does not repeat that little gem here,] the only time he saw her on any of his checks [ average how many by the Thursday ?] that week, and then she was gone, whoosh, just like that.

Taken by this man, maintains Kate, who despite SY's finest and their CONCLUSION re this INNOCENT person. hangs on to him desperately , almost 7 years later :

Host: Today almost 5 years later what do you believe happened to Madeleine?

Kate: Well my view hasn’t changed you know since 4th May really, and that is, that a man took Madeleine. And that man was the person who our friend J. Tanner saw carrying a child away from the area of the apartment. And sadly I don’t really know anything else since.

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

by Bishop Brennan 30.01.14 9:06

This topic appears to have morphed into a "creche" thread instead of the original 'tannerman not being removed by OFM site'. Might be worth opening a new thread (or using an existing one) to continue any 'creche' related matters? Back on 'tannerman' and he is looking more and more irrelevant as each day and new bit of news comes out... But still he's kept on in pole position on their website... Odd. Suspicious even...

by Clocker 30.01.14 9:25

sami wrote:
Clocker wrote:
Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you for helping Clocker, it's interesting.

I won't be online today as I have work so cannot look myself. Was wondering if there is any other source which explains the system for collection ? Somebody here might remember. I must confess to not being a fan of Ms O'Donnells article in general.

Morning Sami, no I've never read anywhere of any other guest who have spoken of their stay there, which i feel is odd in itself. I'm not saying that what B-O-D writes is what happened every day but I'm not aware of any reason to disbelieve her.
I haven't read through many of the crèche sheets (they're not as interesting as statements) but I think as Tigger states, 10 blonde 3year olds does seem rather a lot so who exactly knows is anyone's guess.

by Guest 30.01.14 10:23

Clocker wrote:
sami wrote:
Clocker wrote:
Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you for helping Clocker, it's interesting.

I won't be online today as I have work so cannot look myself. Was wondering if there is any other source which explains the system for collection ? Somebody here might remember. I must confess to not being a fan of Ms O'Donnells article in general.
Morning Sami, no I've never read anywhere of any other guest who have spoken of their stay there, which i feel is odd in itself. I'm not saying that what B-O-D writes is what happened every day but I'm not aware of any reason to disbelieve her.
I haven't read through many of the crèche sheets (they're not as interesting as statements) but I think as Tigger states, 10 blonde 3year olds does seem rather a lot so who exactly knows is anyone's guess.

Sorry BB to continue this just a little longer just to clear up a detail. If Admin thinks it appropriate will they move this to another section.

The only mention of the arrangement for the final session of the creches (2.30-5.30) that I can find so far is in the statement of Emma Louise Wilding 5/07/2007.
"When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture. With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants’ teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant. Most of the parents met their respective children here, and the children then remained in their parents’ care."

Note that she was one of the two nannies responsible for the Mini club, Cat Baker being the other one.
When she refers to the "infants" being taken to the creche, I presume she means both Mini clubs, plus or minus the Toddlers.

So within these group there could well be 10 little girls with blond hair. And quite a confusion with many parents and children all together at the same time, signing their children out, if they remember.

Also from this statement:
"She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary."

From Cat Bakers statement 14/04/2008
"She also specifies that in the tourist complex, this service is offered in four different locations, to suit different age groups.
Children between the age of 4 months and 1 year are assigned to the “Baby Club” – the service operates next to the Ocean Club main reception; for children between the age of 1 and 2 – “Toddler” - this service is located in a building close to the Tapas restaurant; for children between the age of 3 and 5—“Mini”- this service is equally located next to the Ocean Club’s main reception; and last, for children between the age of 6 and 9 and between the age of 10 and 13 - “Junior Kids” – the service operates in a space located near the Millennium restaurant."

by Guest 30.01.14 11:25

dantezebu wrote:
"When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture.

Among the many things that I will never forgive the McCanns for, inviting racist slurs like that one on my character as a British parent will be somewhere about halfway up the list.

by Clocker 30.01.14 12:39

dantezebu wrote:
Clocker wrote:
sami wrote:
Clocker wrote:
Evening, hope you don't mind me jumping in but the following is what happened according to Bridget O'Donnell.

The Mark Warner nannies brought the children to the Tapas restaurant to have tea at the end of each day. It was a friendly gathering. The parents would stand and chat by the pool.

Bridget O'Donnell
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Friday 14 December 2007

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

Thank you for helping Clocker, it's interesting.

I won't be online today as I have work so cannot look myself. Was wondering if there is any other source which explains the system for collection ? Somebody here might remember. I must confess to not being a fan of Ms O'Donnells article in general.
Morning Sami, no I've never read anywhere of any other guest who have spoken of their stay there, which i feel is odd in itself. I'm not saying that what B-O-D writes is what happened every day but I'm not aware of any reason to disbelieve her.
I haven't read through many of the crèche sheets (they're not as interesting as statements) but I think as Tigger states, 10 blonde 3year olds does seem rather a lot so who exactly knows is anyone's guess.

Sorry BB to continue this just a little longer just to clear up a detail. If Admin thinks it appropriate will they move this to another section.

The only mention of the arrangement for the final session of the creches (2.30-5.30) that I can find so far is in the statement of Emma Louise Wilding 5/07/2007.
"When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture. With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants’ teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant. Most of the parents met their respective children here, and the children then remained in their parents’ care."

Note that she was one of the two nannies responsible for the Mini club, Cat Baker being the other one.
When she refers to the "infants" being taken to the creche, I presume she means both Mini clubs, plus or minus the Toddlers.

So within these group there could well be 10 little girls with blond hair. And quite a confusion with many parents and children all together at the same time, signing their children out, if they remember.

Also from this statement:
"She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary."

From Cat Bakers statement 14/04/2008
"She also specifies that in the tourist complex, this service is offered in four different locations, to suit different age groups.
Children between the age of 4 months and 1 year are assigned to the “Baby Club” – the service operates next to the Ocean Club main reception; for children between the age of 1 and 2 – “Toddler” - this service is located in a building close to the Tapas restaurant; for children between the age of 3 and 5—“Mini”- this service is equally located next to the Ocean Club’s main reception; and last, for children between the age of 6 and 9 and between the age of 10 and 13 - “Junior Kids” – the service operates in a space located near the Millennium restaurant."

Dantezebu,

You're right when you say that out of the toddler and mini group there could well be 10 blonde girls which could cause confusion. However, I have looked back at the Lobster crèche records and according to those records, there was not 10 x 3 year old girls attending crèche. I think I counted 6 at the most and don't soppose they were all blonde like the article I linked to stated. Maybe there were 10x3 year olds attending high tea but not attended the crèche? I would presume high tea is open to all the child guests whether they attended crèche or not but that's off topic. And finally I agree that the records were taken to tea and the children were signed out there and if they were picked up before tea, then signed out at the crèche.

by paradigm67 30.01.14 13:36

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
"When questioned she states that there are parents that leave their respective children during the whole day and every day at the clubs, and that this is normal within British culture.

Among the many things that I will never forgive the McCanns for, inviting racist slurs like that one on my character as a British parent will be somewhere about halfway up the list.

Got to say that's one of things that has always grated on me. I don't anyone that has ever simply dumped their kids when on holiday.

That expression seems to be oddly reminiscent of one put out by Clarence Mitchell, could almost be from the same script.

by Guest 31.01.14 8:54

Sami wrote:
"I won't be online today as I have work so cannot look myself. Was wondering if there is any other source which explains the system for collection ? Somebody here might remember. I must confess to not being a fan of Ms O'Donnells article in general."

This is from ROB Rogatory 10/04/2008
"And I’m not quite sure what the next bit is, ‘Saw your children with their Nannies at the Mini Club. We met at the Tapas Bar’. I think this is actually, this is, that’s, this is me describing what happened at the end of the afternoon, the afternoon Mini Club. At the end of the morning session we generally had to pick them up from Ocean Club, at the end of the afternoon session the Nannies would bring them up on a little kind of plastic chain, all the kids would sort of hold onto a thing”.
1578 “Yes”.
Reply “And they would walk them through that garden I described on Tuesday and they’d come across the road and go to high tea about five o’clock. So I think, you know, certainly we wouldn’t go to the beach and ‘Saw the children with their Nannies at the Mini Club’, I mean, we went to the beach had a kayak and the children came back to high tea at about half five, erm, brought back by the Nannies from Ocean Club”.
00.45.05 1578 “’The children came back about half five to high tea’?”
Reply “Yeah, from, ‘from Ocean Club accompanied by the Nannies’ which is what they did every day. Maybe, erm, this is just the description of, of what tended to happen. As I say, we didn’t have, you didn’t have to do a pick up at”.
1578 “’The children came back about five thirty pm from Ocean Club’?”
Reply “Yeah, five fifteen, five thirty, yeah”.
1578 “’To’?”
Reply “’To the Tapas area’, there was a sort of raised covered area where they would sit all the kids down and they would bring them out their food, so they were fed separately”.
1578 “’For high tea’?”
Reply “Yeah, I’d never heard of the word ‘high tea’ until I’d been to MARK WARNER."

I think we can probably conclude that the final part of the creche afternoon session for the mini club was spent n the Tapas for hign tea.
It would be logical for the nannies to bring the register with them, and not leave it in an empty creche.

by sami 31.01.14 9:01

Morning, yes, I spent some time last night reading. It does appear all kids were transferred to the tapas and collected from there. Odd but just my opinion so no doubt it worked for them

Away again today, but the statements as to whether Kate or Gerry signed or were present that evening are all over the place, particularly the nannies statements. Will post links tonight if you need them.

by Guest 31.01.14 9:21

The fact that all the children were there with parents milling in and out would in fact make it much easier for KM to have gone to the Tapas and signed the register on her way back from the run without Maddie being there. Rather than actually going to the creche collecting her child and signing her out in the presence of one nannie. It would also give them time to add any other times for the day that were needed.
It is important because GA uses the fact that KM signed the register (+ or - Cat Bakers statement), as evidence that Maddie was alive at 5.30 on the 1st.

I accept that the creche records are a complete mess, but this system does make it easier for them to falsly the register.
Also it might help explain the reason for the MCs saying on the 1st that they went to the beach etc. and Maddie went back to the creche for the last hour.
They sneeked into the Tapas and signed the register for this day without realising that the children had infact gone to the beach that day and had to retro fit this story.

by **PeterMac** 31.01.14 10:00

Even if vast herds of little children were travelled to the Tapas bar, it still leaves unanswered -
Why did not GERRY sign for Madeleine, since in the book Kate clearly says she returned from her run to find them all having tea.
In other words the children had been handed over, to Gerry.
There is significantly no mention of the herds of other children and nannies, throwing themselves cheerfully into the pool, rushing around the kitchens like banshees
stabbing each other with kitchen knives, and finger-painting with the blood leaking out of the meat taken out of the freezer ready for that evenings service.

"I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry. "

by Guest 31.01.14 10:51

PeterMac wrote:Even if vast herds of little children were travelled to the Tapas bar, it still leaves unanswered -
Why did not GERRY sign for Madeleine, since in the book Kate clearly says she returned from her run to find them all having tea.
In other words the children had been handed over, to Gerry.
There is significantly no mention of the herds of other children and nannies, throwing themselves cheerfully into the pool, rushing around the kitchens like banshees
stabbing each other with kitchen knives, and finger-painting with the blood leaking out of the meat taken out of the freezer ready for that evenings service.

"I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry. "

Please don't be sarcastic PM. It's just a theory. I find it hard to believe in a substitute Maddie, and am looking for how they could get away with signing a register without actually having a child with them. Once maybe, ok. But repeatedly???
It's easy to invent more and more complicated scenarios, involving the complicity of more and more people to explain anomilies. But they have to be realistic. And the more people invoved the more likely that something would give.

Maybe Gerry WAS sat there with the twins. But hadn't yet signed the registers.
That's not so difficult.
And indeed part of the early evening activities after the Tapas high tea did involve the children playing in the play area afterwards. That is documented
So not easy to keep track of who was where.

I would be interested PM to know how you think the MCs signed the registers at all without a child in tow.

by Guest 31.01.14 15:18

dantezebu wrote:The fact that all the children were there with parents milling in and out would in fact make it much easier for KM to have gone to the Tapas and signed the register on her way back from the run without Maddie being there. Rather than actually going to the creche collecting her child and signing her out in the presence of one nannie. It would also give them time to add any other times for the day that were needed.
It is important because GA uses the fact that KM signed the register (+ or - Cat Bakers statement), as evidence that Maddie was alive at 5.30 on the 1st.

I accept that the creche records are a complete mess, but this system does make it easier for them to falsly the register.
Also it might help explain the reason for the MCs saying on the 1st that they went to the beach etc. and Maddie went back to the creche for the last hour.
They sneeked into the Tapas and signed the register for this day without realising that the children had infact gone to the beach that day and had to retro fit this story.

Clever!

by bobbin 31.01.14 16:38

Portia wrote:
dantezebu wrote:The fact that all the children were there with parents milling in and out would in fact make it much easier for KM to have gone to the Tapas and signed the register on her way back from the run without Maddie being there. Rather than actually going to the creche collecting her child and signing her out in the presence of one nannie. It would also give them time to add any other times for the day that were needed.
It is important because GA uses the fact that KM signed the register (+ or - Cat Bakers statement), as evidence that Maddie was alive at 5.30 on the 1st.

I accept that the creche records are a complete mess, but this system does make it easier for them to falsly the register.
Also it might help explain the reason for the MCs saying on the 1st that they went to the beach etc. and Maddie went back to the creche for the last hour.
They sneeked into the Tapas and signed the register for this day without realising that the children had infact gone to the beach that day and had to retro fit this story .

Clever!

Yes, very clever....And again, there is some obfuscation with Kate, running past all the friends and children eating tea at the Paraiso, them having spent the afternoon on the beach, 3rd May at a picnic on the beach.

Kate asks Madeleine if she minded not having gone to the beach since somehow the 'invitation' to go all together had not materialised (one is lead to believe/ Kate tried to make-out she was a bit miffed), thus Kate had gone 'jogging'.

I had wondered who was looking after Maddie in creche on the afternoon of 3rd May if the 'others had gone to the beach' and Maddie had been left out.

However, this is confusion itself. Had the nannies taken the children to the beach from the creche club on Thursday 3rd May ? or just the 1st, the day that was rainy and K and G went off to buy ice-creams (worry about leaving the 3 children alone to help with the ice-creams crossing the road) and sunglasses.

Furthermore, didn't it appear somewhere else, that they actually sat at a table and K and G had a drink whilst the ice-creams were had, or am I getting further confused with another report.

Back to the 3rd, how come some children were at Tapas for tea, yet the Tapas friends and their (picnic) children, who had gone to the beach on 3rd May had then gone to tea at Paraiso.

Were none of these children at creche that p.m. ?
This is the day (3rd May) that Dianne Webster (statement) refers to them (her and the Payne's) not having the 'kid' with them so they decided to go to the beach.

If they didn't have the older Payne child, (didn't she normally go to Maddie's creche in the morning) where was she (the kid) if not on the beach, yet appears to have been 're-collected' in time from where ? for the Paraiso CCTV tea time.

If anyone has a clear picture, that would be interesting.
Otherwise, I just have to accept that the back-filling etc. to make things fit, is now't more than inconsistent hogwash, which cannot be made to tally, indicating to me that Maddie was probably well gone (RIP little one), well prior to 3rd May.

I'll try to go back and find it, but Mitchell spoke of the McCs wanting to be freed of their arguido status, and have access to all of the police files so they could instruct their own Private Investigators to look for Maddie, since, with the case being archived, no one would be looking for her.

Little did Gerry and Kate (or Mitchell come to that) know, that under Portuguese law, the files would be made 'public' anyway, and it's our access to all of the information that is not 'exclusive' to the McCs which has kiboshed their little and bigger agenda, all in one fell swoop.

The back-fitting is most indicative.

by jeanmonroe 31.01.14 17:08

If they didn't have the older Payne child, (didn't she normally go to Maddie's creche in the morning) where was she (the kid) if not on the beach, yet appears to have been 're-collected' in time from where ? for the Paraiso CCTV tea time.
-----------------------------------------------------

All 'staged'

"It couldn't be us look here we all are at the Cafe"

"Couldn't be Kate look there she is running and waving"

"I wonder why Kate didn't jog over to us all and get herself seen on the CCTV?"

If, IF, 'something' had happened to Madeleine about that time (5:30pm onwards) that would leave time for a 'sniffer' scent to occur.

by TheTruthWillOut 31.01.14 17:31

What amazes me more than anything (and reading the last few posts just reinforces it) is why hasn't anyone at the resort that week come out and said their story is very suspect? Even in retrospect.......

Surely the people there that week would have seen first hand how dodgy the story is. Not one person questioning anything AFAIK...... dontgetit

I really have to wonder why.

The closest thing I've seen of questioning what happened that week was the Klara Lethbridge video and she was too scared to actually say anything in the end.

by sami 31.01.14 17:51

Portia wrote:
dantezebu wrote:The fact that all the children were there with parents milling in and out would in fact make it much easier for KM to have gone to the Tapas and signed the register on her way back from the run without Maddie being there. Rather than actually going to the creche collecting her child and signing her out in the presence of one nannie. It would also give them time to add any other times for the day that were needed.
It is important because GA uses the fact that KM signed the register (+ or - Cat Bakers statement), as evidence that Maddie was alive at 5.30 on the 1st.

I accept that the creche records are a complete mess, but this system does make it easier for them to falsly the register.
Also it might help explain the reason for the MCs saying on the 1st that they went to the beach etc. and Maddie went back to the creche for the last hour.
They sneeked into the Tapas and signed the register for this day without realising that the children had infact gone to the beach that day and had to retro fit this story.

Clever!

The collection time, it now appears, was not a collection time, but a one for all scrum at the Tapas bar. Turn up, sign for your kids, and stay and eat. I can honestly say I have never ever come across such an arrangement in any type of childcare facility, holiday camps or otherwise. Mad.

Yes indeed danezebu, a very easy system to abuse. There is also huge scope for witnesses like the cook who claims to have seen Madeleine to be mistaken. So back again to the same question - who was the last independent witness to see Madeleine on Thursday and at what time ?

by Guest 31.01.14 18:03

TheTruthWillOut wrote:What amazes me more than anything (and reading the last few posts just reinforces it) is why hasn't anyone at the resort that week come out and said their story is very suspect? Even in retrospect.......

Surely the people there that week would have seen first hand how dodgy the story is. Not one person questioning anything AFAIK...... I really have to wonder why.

The closest thing I've seen of questioning what happened that week was the Klara Lethbridge video and she was too scared to actually say anything in the end.

It does make you wonder doesn't it. I've yet to totally convince myself of the "independence" of anybody there.

by jeanmonroe 31.01.14 18:22

TheTruthWillOut:
What amazes me more than anything (and reading the last few posts just reinforces it) is why hasn't anyone at the resort that week come out and said their story is very suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------

What amazes me more than anything is why hasn't anyone at the resort that week come out and SOLD their 'story'

A good story from an ex or present employee of OC could possibly set them up for life or certainly make life a lot 'easier'.

The old NOTW were 'delivering in brown paper bags and carrier bags' up to £30,000 in CASH for a 'good' story.

Paul McMullan, former features executive on the News of The World, alongside Anne Diamond, and gets a very frank and honest appraisal of the situation – carrier bags of cash changing hands for stories, sign off from the bosses. It’s all there.

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

RAY MARTIN: Hacking the stars for celebrity gossip was just the tip of the tabloid iceberg. What’s been revealed is a widespread network of journalists, police and government authorities dealing in stolen information.

PAUL MCMULLAN: The most I’ve ever paid in cash was 30,000 quid, two carry bags, 15 grand in each. Thank you very much.

RAY MARTIN: 30,000 pounds?

PAUL MCMULLAN: 30 grand. So that’s a big carrot to dangle in front of anyone, a policeman, anyone…

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

THAT'S what amazes me, NO actual OC employee 'stories' anywhere!

by ultimaThule 31.01.14 19:21

jeanmonroe wrote:If they didn't have the older Payne child, (didn't she normally go to Maddie's creche in the morning) where was she (the kid) if not on the beach, yet appears to have been 're-collected' in time from where ? for the Paraiso CCTV tea time.
-----------------------------------------------------

All 'staged'

"It couldn't be us look here we all are at the Cafe"

"Couldn't be Kate look there she is running and waving"

"I wonder why Kate didn't jog over to us all and get herself seen on the CCTV?"

If, IF, 'something' had happened to Madeleine about that time (5:30pm onwards) that would leave time for a 'sniffer' scent to occur.

If, IF, 'something' had happened to Madeleine, it couldn't have been earlier than 3 May 2007 because KM told us that on the morning of that particular day, the child asked 'where were you when Sean and I cried?'

It couldn't have happened earlier than 6pm because, as KM has told us, she carried Madeleine who was exhausted after, to coin PeterMac's phrase, a strenuous session of finger painting back to 5A around that time.

It couldn't have happened earlier than 7pm because, as KM has told us, Madeleine was happily engaged in hearing two bedtime stories, playing with her mother's engagement ring, and scoffing milk and biscuits, before that time.

It couldn't have happened earlier than < insert appropriate time > because < insert one of KM or GM's tales >

All the world's a stage and the worlds of some are more staged than others.