Strange Witness Statements

[Carana]

Of course, however there seems to be some confusion whether "The Fund" or Brian Kennedy funded it.
It is not immediately apparent from the accounts filed at CH whether "The Fund Ltd" contracted with Oakley or not. There is nothing to suggest it in the 2007/8 accounts which are broken down to a degree. The 2009 accounts are not broken down and show a lump sum of approaching £1MM as "Merchandising and Campaign Costs" so conceivably it is in there. I don't really care, all I was doing was pointing out who can do what with which and to whom in a contractual sense; ie if Kennedy placed the order and funded it "The Fund Limited" have no contractual relationship and consequently no powers.

Wouldn't anyone paying out that kind of money have a formal contract? And - particularly in view of the nature of the work - have a confidentiality clause in place?

My understanding from Kate's book (which I don't have to hand and some wouldn't accept it anyway) and other reading is that Kennedy helped to find these people; the Fund paid for the services with a renewable contract (or opt-out clause). Money was paid in installments and work appeared to be being done for a while, until it didn't... The contract was terminated (with untold legal wrangling). Halligen didn't pay his sub-contractors who actually did do the work, some of whom may have invested time and their own money upfront) while Halligen swanned off into the sunset until he got caught on other big-time non-related McCann issues and ended up in jail.

If that's the essence of the issue, I can understand that the people who weren't paid (by Halligen) were fuming, but if the work commissioned had already been paid to Halligen's company, then I don't see why the contractor should have to pay twice because their "boss" was a fraud.

I find it feasible that some of the disgruntled ones refused to hand over work to the contractors until the financial issue had been settled / or the contractors had no rights to use the material until such time as there was settlement... which was unlikely to happen with the "boss" in jail.

[Eleanor]

Strange Witness Statements.  How difficulties that to understand?

[pathfinder73]

Madeleine was very close to Gerry; she was always at his side.  Gerry is a typical male and is very organised, but I feel it is Kate who dominates. Gerry adores Kate. When Madeleine was small she would cry a lot. She was a very active baby who did not sleep well. She liked to be carried. She liked people to move around with her and to sing to her. Kate and Gerry found that she craved a lot of attention and were grateful for the help from other members of the family. Because Madeleine did occasionally have bad nights, Kate arranged a bonus system. She would get up in the middle of the night, would go to her parent's room to ensure they were there and would return to her own bed. This situation had gotten better before they went to Portugal. I had a conversation with Kate regarding care of the children in particular, leaving the children to cry until exhaustion and Kate and I both agreed that this was not correct and that the attention should be placed on calking them down. As parents, Kate and Gerry did not let their children cry. On the day before the Portugal trip, I went to their house to keep the children occupied whilst Kate and Gerry packed their bags. We went to the garden and Madeleine recited the book 'We're going on a bear hunt'. She recited this fantastically and without any evidence of unhappiness. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean's crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination. Madeleine dealt well with the arrival of the twins although she was only 22 months old at the time. There was occasionally a pinch or a poke but nothing more than pure jealously. As they began to grow up, they loved their older sister, and spent a lot of time with her. Madeleine taught them many things. I remember one occasion when I was taking care of them and Madeleine took out her doctor play toys and used the thermometer to hit Sean on the head. I spoke with her about taking care of her siblings and not hurting them, at which time she hit Sean once again -- Madeleine was like this, very energetic.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm

[G-Unit]

Madeleine was very close to Gerry; she was always at his side.  Gerry is a typical male and is very organised, but I feel it is Kate who dominates. Gerry adores Kate. When Madeleine was small she would cry a lot. She was a very active baby who did not sleep well. She liked to be carried. She liked people to move around with her and to sing to her. Kate and Gerry found that she craved a lot of attention and were grateful for the help from other members of the family. Because Madeleine did occasionally have bad nights, Kate arranged a bonus system. She would get up in the middle of the night, would go to her parent's room to ensure they were there and would return to her own bed. This situation had gotten better before they went to Portugal. I had a conversation with Kate regarding care of the children in particular, leaving the children to cry until exhaustion and Kate and I both agreed that this was not correct and that the attention should be placed on calking them down. As parents, Kate and Gerry did not let their children cry. On the day before the Portugal trip, I went to their house to keep the children occupied whilst Kate and Gerry packed their bags. We went to the garden and Madeleine recited the book 'We're going on a bear hunt'. She recited this fantastically and without any evidence of unhappiness. Relative to the allegation that Madeleine made regarding Sean's crying, I do not have any idea what possessed Madeleine to make such an affirmation and also would state that Madeleine had a very fertile imagination. Madeleine dealt well with the arrival of the twins although she was only 22 months old at the time. There was occasionally a pinch or a poke but nothing more than pure jealously. As they began to grow up, they loved their older sister, and spent a lot of time with her. Madeleine taught them many things. I remember one occasion when I was taking care of them and Madeleine took out her doctor play toys and used the thermometer to hit Sean on the head. I spoke with her about taking care of her siblings and not hurting them, at which time she hit Sean once again -- Madeleine was like this, very energetic.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm

They didn't seem to need help when on holiday with the Paynes and the Gaspers in 2005;

they worked very hard and worked very hard together, erm, and made it look very easy and that's how it always came across with them, it never, it never seemed arduous or hard'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Although they did get a day off and a 'rest' from Madeleine;

During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

[pathfinder73]

Apensos Vol XII
Page 2620

Policia Judiciaria

National Interpol Cabinet

To: IP Lisbon


Subject: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, born on 12th May 2003


Just for your information.

We report that on 20-10-2007 Frankfurt police received an anonymous call from a woman who was apparently drunk in which she informed the police officer that she lives in Praia da Luz and saw Madeleine McCann accompanied by an English speaking couple, they entered into the following address: Sinop Bristi 27. Then the woman approached the house and read the name Singh on the lock next to the doorbell.

IP Wiesbaden

01-11-2007

[G-Unit]

Perhaps more interesting than strange. These two stayed in G5A before the McCanns. They booked with Thomas Cook, so it seems that the apartments were interchangeable between the various tour operators? Also, they had a daily cleaner, unlike Mark Warner guests. Finally, they booked a two bedroom apartment just for the two of them.

On the 14th of April of 2007, in the company of my partner, June HUGHES, we travelled from Glasgow airport to Portugal for a one week holiday.

We effected the reservation with the Thomas Cook travel agency; a week of holidays in the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz.

It was only myself and June in the apartment and for this reason we did not have any contact with the Creche or child services. We only breakfasted in the apartment and would dine always outside the resort. We never used any restaurants in the Ocean Club.

The only people in the immediate areas of the apartment were the gardeners, whom I saw three times during the week and the cleaning woman who would come every day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm

[pegasus]

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they were leaving the residence through the main door, to place the children in the respective crèches, MADELEINE left running to the left, to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they walked down next to the most remote end of one of those blocks, not knowing exactly which one, and the three children got into one of the gardens at the back. Then they walked down the inside alley at the back, next to the hedges, up to the street that led to the secondary reception

.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta2
Posted this only to answer a question by ShiningInLuz on another thread.
BTW this post is not abouit the GNR dog route, it is about child route on a previous day
Block5 groundfloor goes A to F, then block4 groundfloor goes A to F.
Everyone else will say this route of children was to go between the two blocks.
But IMO it was all the way along north side of both blocks, then around end of block4 by going through the end garden (going in someone's private front gate and out their back gate), then all the way along the alleyway along the south side of both blocks. Does this sound possible?

[Brietta]

.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta2
Posted this only to answer a question by ShiningInLuz on another thread.
BTW this post is not abouit the GNR dog route, it is about child route on a previous day
Block5 groundfloor goes A to F, then block4 groundfloor goes A to F.
Everyone else will say this route of children was to go between the two blocks.
But IMO it was all the way along north side of both blocks, then around end of block4 by going through the end garden (going in someone's private front gate and out their back gate), then all the way along the alleyway along the south side of both blocks. Does this sound possible?

It would more than double their journey, so why would they do it?  There is a clear pathway around Block 5.  I think the route you have suggested would entail climbing over a wall between the blocks.

[pegasus]

It would more than double their journey, so why would they do it?  There is a clear pathway around Block 5.  I think the route you have suggested would entail climbing over a wall between the blocks.

The aim of children having fun is not to get from a to b by the shortest route possible.
The route I described involves gates but no wall climbing IMO.

[Brietta]

The aim of children having fun is not to get from a to b by the shortest route possible.
The route I described involves gates but no wall climbing IMO.

If you are walking around block four it would be necessary to climb the wall to get access to the lane behind block five.

In fact, looking at this photograph ... there is no pathway as there is behind block five; behind block four the gardens go right down to the wall.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[pegasus]

IMO there is a gap between the end of the block and Rua 1 Maio and it is part of a garden.

[misty]

IMO there is a gap between the end of the block and Rua 1 Maio and it is part of a garden.

I'm with Brietta on this. Zooming in on Google Satellite, there doesn't appear to be any pathway at the rear of Block 4, or if there is, it is very very narrow. I don't think the parents would have let the children down that far if they were unfamiliar with the walkway, bearing in mind there is a road right behind the last apartment in Block 4.

[Brietta]

IMO there is a gap between the end of the block and Rua 1 Maio and it is part of a garden.

What I thought was a boundary wall at the back of block four is a small pathway giving access to the gardens which adjoins the wider pathway behind block five ~ no wall between.  Therefore you are correct it would be possible but I don't think they would have used that route as a matter of course.
Is there any record of them cutting through the private garden on any occasion?

I can't get in close enough to determine whether there is a gap allowing access to the garden at the end of the block, I would be surprised if there wasn't ... but I wouldn't traipse my family through private property ... and I doubt if the McCanns would.
So that gives me another reason to doubt ... public pathway perhaps ... private garden, I would say definite no no.

Looking at it on Google Earth ... it is secluded enough to make a reasonable escape route for an abductor ... like block five there are overhanging bushes and a car park.

[Brietta]

I'm with Brietta on this. Zooming in on Google Satellite, there doesn't appear to be any pathway at the rear of Block 4, or if there is, it is very very narrow. I don't think the parents would have let the children down that far if they were unfamiliar with the walkway, bearing in mind there is a road right behind the last apartment in Block 4.

LOL ... our paths crossed, Misty.  Very narrow path there.  As far as I can see from 'walking' Rua 1 Maio there is the appearance of a substantial gate but can't see clearly.

[pegasus]

The statement says "extreme end".
IMO you can get around the extreme end but only if you go through someone's garden, there's probably a gate at the front, and definitly a gate at the back onto the alleyway.