On page 364 of Kate McCann’s book “Madeleine” she says “The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be)”.
Now what I want to show is that one of the “British tour operators” was interfering with the facts behind the Madeleine McCann case too. Was this the reason the case was never solved?
On page 364 of Kate McCann’s book “Madeleine” she says “The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be)”.Well let's see if we can solve this bit "(and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be)" first.
Now what I want to show is that one of the “British tour operators” was interfering with the facts behind the Madeleine McCann case too. Was this the reason the case was never solved?
LolThe McCanns have admitted that they were stupid to think the kids were perfectly safe in that situation but what we are talking about is prior information. Had the tour operators sufficiently informed their customers of the dangers based on prior incidences and were they really involved with deliberately suppressing prior events?
What a sad cow kate mccann comes across at times, she left her three vulnerable babies on their own in an unsecure flat available to enter by anyone and has the narcisistic gall to slag off the tour operators for her and her stupid husbands disgraceful mistake, read enough tonight!!! No ms kate it wasnt the tour operators fault it was all your faults
The McCanns have admitted that they were stupid to think the kids were perfectly safe in that situation but what we are talking about is prior information. Had the tour operators sufficiently informed their customers of the dangers based on prior incidences and were they really involved with deliberately suppressing prior events?
The McCanns have admitted that they were stupid to think the kids were perfectly safe in that situation but what we are talking about is prior information. Had the tour operators sufficiently informed their customers of the dangers based on prior incidences and were they really involved with deliberately suppressing prior events?
You mean the events allegedly communicated to the McCanns by the British Consul on 4th May? What advice did the FO have for visitors to Portugal in 2007? Today they say;At this stage I am making no claims about dates that this information was given to Kate that she writes about in her book. I will check the text later but from memory it is not clear, (but a cursory look it appears that the information was given about 1 year later).
Make sure your holiday accommodation has adequate security. Lock all doors and windows at night and when you go out. If you’re worried about security at your accommodation, speak to your tour operator or the owner. Familiarise yourself with the contact details of the local PSP (city police) or GNR (rural and small town police).
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/portugal/safety-and-security
Seems like common sense to most people, but I suppose they have to assume that the odd idiot will be travelling.
Have you never heard of common sense ?What we are specifically examining is whether the British tour operators deliberately suppressed incidences of child molestations and accidents prior to the McCann incident. We are not considering the sensibility of leaving the apartment unlocked. We are looking at facts of events that happened prior and whether they were divulged.
Have you never heard of taking responsibility for your actions ?
No one else can be blamed for what the Mccanns did in leaving their children alone and unprotected, repeatedly, in a foreign country.
Are you part of the 'not me gov' culture, where you prefer to blame others for your own mistakes as the Mccanns have done ?
What we are specifically examining is whether the British tour operators deliberately suppressed incidences of child molestations and accidents prior to the McCann incident. We are not considering the sensibility of leaving the apartment unlocked. We are looking at facts of events that happened prior and whether they were divulged.
Were they reported to the police? Did the police inform the British authorities? Did the British authorities inform travelers to that country? So there is quite a few players but Kate seems to be blaming the tour operators, so that must mean the Police were not informed or the incidents were downplayed in someway.
It is quite a tricky topic but it is one that should be able to be proven one way or the other.
The McCanns have admitted that they were stupid to think the kids were perfectly safe in that situation but what we are talking about is prior information. Had the tour operators sufficiently informed their customers of the dangers based on prior incidences and were they really involved with deliberately suppressing prior events?
Have you never heard of common sense ?
Have you never heard of taking responsibility for your actions ?
No one else can be blamed for what the Mccanns did in leaving their children alone and unprotected, repeatedly, in a foreign country.
Are you part of the 'not me gov' culture, where you prefer to blame others for your own mistakes as the Mccanns have done ?
That is only part of it Stephen. Had the parents been forewarned that the complex had a history of break-ins then I have no doubt whatsoever that they would never have left the children alone or left their apartment unlocked.
What we are specifically examining is whether the British tour operators deliberately suppressed incidences of child molestations and accidents prior to the McCann incident. We are not considering the sensibility of leaving the apartment unlocked. We are looking at facts of events that happened prior and whether they were divulged.
Were they reported to the police? Did the police inform the British authorities? Did the British authorities inform travelers to that country? So there is quite a few players but Kate seems to be blaming the tour operators, so that must mean the Police were not informed or the incidents were downplayed in someway.
It is quite a tricky topic but it is one that should be able to be proven one way or the other.
Certainly they suppressed details of previous incursions and burglaries, any business owner would do the same.OK if you think that is a fair business practice, how much earlier could an event occur to allow John Hill still to be correct?
He has been employed by the Ocean Club since March 2006 and has no knowledge of any untoward situation involving Ocean Club users or in the village itself, other than some damage and minor thefts.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
I will have to disagree on that one Angelo.
The parents had a duty of care, and can you tell me anywhere in inhabited countries, holiday resorts or otherwise, where there is no risk of crime.
Remembering of course, the Mccanns locked the apartment during the daytime.
Were there any cases of child molestations at OC?I don't know but I'm specifically looking at John Hill's definition of trouble. Some situation worse than "some damage and minor thefts."
OK if you think that is a fair business practice, how much earlier could an event occur to allow John Hill still to be telling the truth?http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
is that within the last 5 minutes prior to Madeleine going missing or during the entire time "since March 2006". Does the forum agree?
By village does he refer to Praia da Luz? It still depends on his knowledge so I would need to prove an incident happened (other than some damage and minor thefts) that he had knowledge of in Praia da Luz sometime since March 2006.
How can you disagree? Had the parents been warned they would have been on their guard instead of thinking they were holidaying in some crimefree utopian paradise.
But that is all that has been reported, some minor break-ins and thefts. To my knowledge there was no record of any assaults or sex attacks previously in the Luz area. There was most certainly no child abductions in the immediate area.How did you confirm this?
I find that a very naive approach.
Nowhere is 100% crime free.
I would not assume going abroad to a holiday resort would guarantee a crime free area.
So if the Mccanns thought the area safe, why did they lock their apartment during the day ?
Since with that point , your argument falls flat on it's face.
The Mccanns are to blame
I find that a very naive approach.Please this is not the point of this thread, we are considering whether there was any incident in PDL or more specifically involving the OC over the last year and in particular whether there was .any incident that could have an effect on the missing MM. So that John Hill was correct when he stated:
Nowhere is 100% crime free.
I would not assume going abroad to a holiday resort would guarantee a crime free area.
So if the Mccanns thought the area safe, why did they lock their apartment during the day ?
Since with that point , your argument falls flat on it's face.
The Mccanns are to blame
- He wishes to add that he does not know of any motive that could have been the cause of the Madeleine's disappearance.
So in your view Mark Warner did nothing wrong in suppressing knowledge of prior incursions?
Please this is not the point of this thread, we are considering whether there was any incident in PDL or more specifically involving the OC over the last year and in particular whether there was .any incident that could have an effect on the missing MM. So that John Hill was not lying when he stated:
Are you excusing the Mccanns stupidity ???That issue is irrelevant to this issue in question.
That issue is irrelevant to this issue in question.
You're clutching at straws.the other sayings are the "the last straw" and "the straw that broke the camel's back". This to me has the appearance of being a very important straw, one where I think in the end the tour operators may need to reimburse the UK government for all the expenses used in the MM case.
What we are specifically examining is whether the British tour operators deliberately suppressed incidences of child molestations and accidents prior to the McCann incident. We are not considering the sensibility of leaving the apartment unlocked. We are looking at facts of events that happened prior and whether they were divulged.
Were they reported to the police? Did the police inform the British authorities? Did the British authorities inform travelers to that country? So there is quite a few players but Kate seems to be blaming the tour operators, so that must mean the Police were not informed or the incidents were downplayed in someway.
It is quite a tricky topic but it is one that should be able to be proven one way or the other.
the other sayings are the "the last straw" and "the straw that broke the camel's back". This to me has the appearance of being a very important straw, one where I think in end the tour operators may need to reimburse the UK government for all the expenses used in the MM case.
the other sayings are the "the last straw" and "the straw that broke the camel's back". This to me has the appearance of being a very important straw, one where I think in end the tour operators may need to reimburse the UK government for all the expenses used in the MM case.
What an absurd idea! How much responsibility can you put onto a tour operator? They are responsible only for things they can control, such as activities and equipment. They can't be held responsible if daft holidaymakers fail to take basic precautions to safeguard their belongings.
According to Kate McCann she was told about the incidents on 4th May by the British Consul. Later she claims to have found references to the incidents in the PJ files. Also;I see your point. When she is writing this passage on page 364 she is remembering back to a previous incident where she was told of the "spate of incidents" but having it reconfirmed in 2008 with evidence.
I got in touch with the retired British consul for the Algarve. He told me that he used to have regular monthly meetings with British tour operators along the coast in Albufeira, at which crime was invariably one of the topics covered. At one of these meetings in August 2006 he had been informed by the tour operators of the spate of incidents I’d heard about the day after Madeleine was taken, in which an intruder had got into holiday apartments at night, climbed into children’s beds and subjected them to various forms and degrees of molestation.
Madeleine Kate McCann.
So if they attended these meetings the Ocean Club management may have had knowledge of these incidents. In 2006 the management wasn't Mark Warner. The Consul was aware but seems to have done nothing to make holidaymakers aware apart from sharing his concerns with a parent after her child disappeared.
What an absurd idea! How much responsibility can you put onto a tour operator? They are responsible only for things they can control, such as activities and equipment. They can't be held responsible if daft holidaymakers fail to take basic precautions to safeguard their belongings.I have intentions to explain this.
I have intentions to explain this.
I am planning to show that the staff in all probability were aware of a previous incident that night that had a direct bearing on the MM case, and the fact that it wasn't divulged meant the MM case has gone unresolved for nine and a half years.
There's an awful lot of loose cannons in this thread.It is possible for that incident ("previous sexual molestation incident in Luz") to be unknown to the OC or Mark Warner staff. It would have to be an incident that there could be extremely low possibility that the management staff in all probability are unaware of.
Were any of the arrivals, whether Mark Warner, Thomas Cook or others given direction to take standard security precautions?
What information did the consul have access to, and what was imparted to tour operators? Which tour operators attended these briefings? What did said tour operators impart to their clients?
What was the real OC record re thefts, burglaries and molestation of children? There appears to be one theft that may or may not have been a burglary. And Mrs Fenn's seemingly non-reported incident.
From memory, after Crimewatch 2013 didn't OG claim there had been 1 previous sexual molestation incident in Luz itself, without provision of further details, but had that been reported at the time?
I have intentions to explain this.
I am planning to show that the staff in all probability were aware of a previous incident that night that had a direct bearing on the MM case, and the fact that it wasn't divulged meant the MM case has gone unresolved for nine and a half years.
I see no connection?Is it possible for you to explain your view a little more? I am just looking at evidence suggestive of a cover-up not the possible incident covered up.
Is it possible for you to explain your view a little more? I am just looking at evidence suggestive of a cover-up not the possible incident covered up.
Stephen made a good point earlier, there are few if any places in the world which are crime free. That said however, my view is that the guests at OC were lulled into a false sense of security and that appears to be confirmed by later comments. I would say that OC and MW were complacent and failed in their duty of care. At the very least security measures and procedures could have been put in place to deter unwanted intruders.
I can't see any connection between a prior incident which might or might not have taken place and the inability to solve the Madeleine disappearance. Am I missing something Rob?Not really, for that would be a possible reason for not divulging it, but it still should have been covered under the all encompassing "knowledge of any untoward situation involving Ocean Club users or in the village itself" statement.
Not really, for that would be a possible reason for not divulging it, but it still should have been covered under the all encompassing "knowledge of any untoward situation involving Ocean Club users or in the village itself" statement.
There may not have been any knowledge "of any motive that could have been the cause of the Madeleine's disappearance".
To know about "motive" is much more complicated than knowing about "the untoward situation". The only way to show prior knowledge of the "the untoward situation" is to show evidence suggestive of a cover-up.
The motive is only known to the perpetrator, but the incident points to the perpetrator and without that you don't get the resolution to the case. That is the connection that I propose.
(I feel this is a strong argument.) So taking it backwards, if for sheer financial reasons the OC management decide to cover-up a prior incident and know of no motive connecting the two cases, the incident of MM going missing remains unresolved. It is not the cause of the incident but it contributes to the non-resolution.
By prior incident do you mean an attempted abduction of a child? If so, what evidence is there for this?No attempted abduction of a child is implied. It is something simple, hardly worth mentioning, better forgotten. That type of accidental incident.
Not really, for that would be a possible reason for not divulging it, but it still should have been covered under the all encompassing "knowledge of any untoward situation involving Ocean Club users or in the village itself" statement.Unless you have definite evidence of a prior incident and the cover-up thereof you are very definitely in libel territory.
There may not have been any knowledge "of any motive that could have been the cause of the Madeleine's disappearance".
To know about "motive" is much more complicated than knowing about "the untoward situation". The only way to show prior knowledge of the "the untoward situation" is to show evidence suggestive of a cover-up.
The motive is only known to the perpetrator, but the incident points to the perpetrator and without that you don't get the resolution to the case. That is the connection that I propose.
(I feel this is a strong argument.) So taking it backwards, if for sheer financial reasons the OC management decide to cover-up a prior incident and know of no motive connecting the two cases, the incident of MM going missing remains unresolved. It is not the cause of the incident but it contributes to the non-resolution.
Unless you have definite evidence of a prior incident and the cover-up thereof you are very definitely in libel territory.That is very true and why it is really difficult to have a perfect cover-up. It is imperfectly covered up that is why I can say there is evidence for it. The cover-up is of a private situation not directly involving the McCanns.
Frankly, on a scale of 0 to 10, cover up of a previous incident defines a perfect zero. It would require knowledge restricted to very few, which is not how an incident works. There are other OC staff, the person at the centre of such an incident, quite possibly other visitors, quite possibly the GNR and the PJ. That's a lot of muck to throw around.
The incident in Luz that surfaced after Crimewatch 2013 was, from memory, not reported to the police at the time, and I believe not reported to the person's parents until late 2013. How the OC could be covering up something the parents didn't know about is challenging.
That is very true and why it is really difficult to have a perfect cover-up. It is imperfectly covered up that is why I can say there is evidence for it. The cover-up is of a private situation not directly involving the McCanns.
[I assumed it was these McCann "parents" you were referring to.]
Unless you have definite evidence of a prior incident and the cover-up thereof you are very definitely in libel territory.
Frankly, on a scale of 0 to 10, cover up of a previous incident defines a perfect zero. It would require knowledge restricted to very few, which is not how an incident works. There are other OC staff, the person at the centre of such an incident, quite possibly other visitors, quite possibly the GNR and the PJ. That's a lot of muck to throw around.
The incident in Luz that surfaced after Crimewatch 2013 was, from memory, not reported to the police at the time, and I believe not reported to the person's parents until late 2013. How the OC could be covering up something the parents didn't know about is challenging.
Stephen made a good point earlier, there are few if any places in the world which are crime free. That said however, my view is that the guests at OC were lulled into a false sense of security and that appears to be confirmed by later comments. I would say that OC and MW were complacent and failed in their duty of care. At the very least security measures and procedures could have been put in place to deter unwanted intruders.
I would be interested to know why you think that, who did the lulling and how they did that. The only ones I have seen saying they were lulled are the McCanns, were there others?
Even if you've been lulled into thinking the resort is safe, the inexplicable point for me is how many parents would leave mobile children in a situation where they could get out? One look at that balcony and I would expect any parent to take precautions to keep their children away from it unless supervised.
Very simply, the OC had a problem with sneak thief's but both they and their agents failed to alert holidaymakers or put in place appropriate security measures.
Very simply, the OC had a problem with sneak thief's but both they and their agents failed to alert holidaymakers or put in place appropriate security measures.
I have seen one recorded incident of theft from 5L on 16th April 2007, which was possibly due to an unlocked door. The witness had heard of a few more during her 21 years of service at the Ocean Club.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
Does that constitute a problem requiring warnings and security measures? I would say it requires warning guests to lock up when leaving their apartments. Was this in the Welcome Pack issued to guests? I don't know, but it could have been, along with the information that safe deposit boxes were available at reception for valuables.
Am I in a minority when I say that I've never needed warning to lock my holiday accommodation any more than I have ever needed warning to lock my home?
None of that addresses the point about mobile children being left with access to a dangerous balcony anyway. I think there was a warning sticker on the patio doors about that also.
Wasn't there an intruder in the very apartment above the McCanns weeks earlier? This incident alone should have alerted the resort management to this ongoing problem.Mrs Fenn wasn't part of the OC and does not appear to have reported this to the police until around Sep 2007.
Wasn't there an intruder in the very apartment above the McCanns weeks earlier? This incident alone should have alerted the resort management to this ongoing problem.
I have seen one recorded incident of theft from 5L on 16th April 2007, which was possibly due to an unlocked door. The witness had heard of a few more during her 21 years of service at the Ocean Club.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-GONCALVES.htm
Does that constitute a problem requiring warnings and security measures? I would say it requires warning guests to lock up when leaving their apartments. Was this in the Welcome Pack issued to guests? I don't know, but it could have been, along with the information that safe deposit boxes were available at reception for valuables.
Am I in a minority when I say that I've never needed warning to lock my holiday accommodation any more than I have ever needed warning to lock my home?
None of that addresses the point about mobile children being left with access to a dangerous balcony anyway. I think there was a warning sticker on the patio doors about that also.
Only the Brits could think it was not their responsibility to take care of their possessions and valuables and to lock up, without being told to do so by a third party ............nanny state or what ?
The average Brit should not even bother taking out insurance. They would invalidate it by their own actions; Oh I didn't realise I had to lock up and set the alarm. The estate agent who acted for the vendor of the house didn't tell me I should do that or that there had been burglaries in the area, nor did the vendor. How should I know it was risky?
You can imagine how that will go down that on a claims form can't you?
There is evidence that a child disappeared from her bedroom within a holiday apartment as well as evidence of an intruder.
Perhaps issues such as appropriate lighting ... security of apartment keys ... security patrols along the lines of those instituted in the open resort after Madeleine's disappearance might have had an effect had they been in force.
The height of the balcony or lack of it is in my opinion an irrelevance.(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/03/article-1052055-021A2CEB000004B0-912_468x286.jpg)
If you are referring to the open window and shutter as evidence of an intruder then that is not supported by the forensics.
No matter how many extra free weeks of accommodation OC granted the McCanns it still will not make up for their mistakes IMO. It makes me feel like they think they can buy your kids off you.
I don't know if any mistakes were made by OC/MW but their prime concern following Madeleine's disappearance was their reputation. That's understandable if you read their online reviews. I have seen criticism of their food, accommodation, staff and sports facilities, but most people praise their child care arrangements.
One thing the management must have been very aware of is that their employees, according to Matthew Oldfield, agreed to place the group next to each other so they could operate their own listening service. A resort employee was also told this was happening on 29th April and she allegedly asked another employee to confirm it was OK to grant a booking for the week at the Tapas because of it.
It certainly wasn't MW's fault that the group chose to leave their kids home alone. The question is whether they should have intervened either at the time of booking or at the resort?
Do you think any of the Tapas group would have taken any notice if they had ?Part of the 57 page summary "http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm says the Portuguese were satisfied with the level of checking the Tapas group did on their kids.
Part of the 57 page summary "http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm says the Portuguese were satisfied with the level of checking the Tapas group did on their kids.
Does it?You must be reading one of the arguments rather than the final summation, for that would mean all 3 families (that didn't have the baby monitor) are guilty of the same crime then and I didn't read about that.
the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
..... I am trying to find blame for others but I just can't seem to find any. Note: the McCanns didn't leave their wallets or money in the apartment...Your points again:
1. The adults making their own child care arrangements, which they discussed before they left the UK.- Staying in with the kids, except on the first night, doesn't seem like an option.
2. Other parents in the group left a child, who was reported as being unwell, alone.- Who was that? I seem to recall ROB and JT spending time with theirs.
3 The child Madeleine complained to her parents about being left alone, The parents ignored the child's concern and left their children alone in an unlocked apartment-again.- The next night the frequency of the visits was increased.
4. The 'checking service' was a 'listening' service. so if a child had choked on their own vomit and died the checking would not have flagged that up- it didn't flag up an abduction in progress- now did it?What sort of checking could have prevented a determined abductor?
5. Kate had discussed her fears about leaving the kids alone, but left them anyway.Increased frequency of checking implemented.
Your points again: - Staying in with the kids, except on the first night, doesn't seem like an option.- Who was that? I seem to recall ROB and JT spending time with theirs.- The next night the frequency of the visits was increased. What sort of checking could have prevented a determined abductor? Increased frequency of checking implemented.
They set out with no intention of staying in with their children, using the night creche or hiring a baby-sitter.
The Oldfield child wasn't right, she seemed to have the runs every night.
The O'Brien child was kept out of kids club because she wasn't well. The O'Briens did increase their checking intervals, Jane Tanner said.
If the McCanns increased theirs [to every 30 minutes] how often had they been checking previously?
There are many dangers involved in leaving children home alone, which doctors with experience of A & E would be aware of. I'm no doctor and I can list them! Leaving those patio doors open to that balcony was negligent no matter what the Portuguese said.
Add in the Payne's listener, it leaves Madeleine as a bit of an odd one out.Had there been a listening device in the McCann's apartment would those little bits of extra noise made by sliding open the sliding window and gently lifting Madeleine out of bed been enough to hear over the noise in the restaurant. I have my doubts. If Madeleine woke and cried, maybe, but if lifted gently kids can remain asleep. It would be the regular presence of the adults checking the rooms the biggest deterrent to any random abductor, to the point I think an abductor would not have risked it.
Had there been a listening device in the McCann's apartment would those little bits of extra noise made by sliding open the sliding window and gently lifting Madeleine out of bed been enough to hear over the noise in the restaurant. I have my doubts. If Madeleine woke and cried, maybe, but if lifted gently kids can remain asleep. It would be the regular presence of the adults checking the rooms the biggest deterrent to any random abductor, to the point I think an abductor would not have risked it.
No-one knows why or how Madeleine McCann disappeared. No-one knows who checked the children or how often it was done. Only one witness saw any of them near the apartments on the evening of 3rd May, and neither he nor the two Tapas diners were seen by a couple who were in the area at roughly the same time.You aren't asking for much are you! Well any accidental death would that be picked up with a baby monitor? It reminds me of cockpit voice recorder and how many times they analyse the recording before they get a clue as what might have caused a plane crash. I can't see how a baby monitor would help unless someone came into the apartment and smashed it up and made the kids scream. OK it would be very useful if a child woke up and started incessant crying, but to prevent a stealthy child abduction it would pointless.
Speculation about the noise made by an abductor is pointless therefore. First you need to demonstrate the abductor existed.
You aren't asking for much are you! Well any accidental death would that be picked up with a baby monitor? It reminds me of cockpit voice recorder and how many times they analyse the recording before they get a clue as what might have caused a plane crash. I can't see how a baby monitor would help unless someone came into the apartment and smashed it up and made the kids scream. OK it would be very useful if a child woke up and started incessant crying, but to prevent a stealthy child abduction it would pointless.
Meanwhile the British Tour Operator has provided accommodation that presumably meets any necessary codes, has put warning notices in apartments, has provided a creche and baby sitting service.
It is hard to see how they are culpable in any way.
...And if it were anyone else I would agree, but this is the McCanns- who are victims and it was obviously someone elses fault, some days it seems it was everybody elses fault!
"What sort of checking could have prevented a determined abductor?" Robbie quote
The sort that has the children enjoying dinner with their parents kind of checking-like not lettig your children outof your sight unless a responsible adult is looking after them and why was this the Tour Operators fault?
Meanwhile the British Tour Operator has provided accommodation that presumably meets any necessary codes, has put warning notices in apartments, has provided a creche and baby sitting service.That is certainly the view the OC management want to maintain. But there has been an incident and no one wants to take responsibility for it. Goncalo and the PJ could tell that the Tapas 7 statements didn't ring true so he could start thinking they are part of it. Now whether SY feels the same I'm not sure, maybe they prefer an abductor and to treat the McCanns and Tapas 7 as victims. But the opportunity for an abductor is very slim, and this should have allowed for the friend's statements to be very coherent but they are not, so Goncalo ruled out abductors and put the blame onto the parents and the friends in an act of desperation.
It is hard to see how they are culpable in any way.
The Role of British Tour Operators in The MM Case..
Is this difficult to understand?
I will be deleting Off Topic Posts from now on.
This is 100% on-topic, so I would be grateful if it is allowed to remain.SiL you have asked some very on-topic questions but personally I'd have no idea how we could ever answer them. There is a detailed time line of calls made to and from Gerry on the web. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
Does anyone know
1 The time at which Gerry allegedly made his 'paedophile' phone call on the night of 3 - 4 May?
2 Who Gerry had been in contact with prior to that? I am particularly interested in the British Embassy in Portugal or the British Consulate in the Algarve, but this info may have popped into Gerry's head via a different route.
Roughly speaking, how did Gerry switch from 'it was OK to leave the patio door unlocked' to 'Portugal is rife with paedophile rings'?
And the topic connection is - what, if anything, did MW/TC/OC know about this subject?
That is certainly the view the OC management want to maintain. But there has been an incident and no one wants to take responsibility for it. Goncalo and the PJ could tell that the Tapas 7 statements didn't ring true so he could start thinking they are part of it. Now whether SY feels the same I'm not sure, maybe they prefer an abductor and to treat the McCanns and Tapas 7 as victims. But the opportunity for an abductor is very slim, and this should have allowed for the friend's statements to be very coherent but they are not, so Goncalo ruled out abductors and put the blame onto the parents and the friends in an act of desperation.
All the statements start with a warning statement as follows "This statement (consisting of xx pages and signed by vv) is the truth and in accordance with my understanding. I offer this evidence with the knowledge that, if proven to the contrary, I may be subject to litigation if having voluntarily witnessed something which is false or does not correspond to the truth." So what I'm asking is not without justification.
This is 100% on-topic, so I would be grateful if it is allowed to remain.
Does anyone know
1 The time at which Gerry allegedly made his 'paedophile' phone call on the night of 3 - 4 May?
2 Who Gerry had been in contact with prior to that? I am particularly interested in the British Embassy in Portugal or the British Consulate in the Algarve, but this info may have popped into Gerry's head via a different route.
Roughly speaking, how did Gerry switch from 'it was OK to leave the patio door unlocked' to 'Portugal is rife with paedophile rings'?
And the topic connection is - what, if anything, did MW/TC/OC know about this subject?
They tell everyone that. You're not the only one who sends them theories, you know.I was saying that ("This whole aspect is to be investigated by SY to see if my research is correct.") in a prophetic sense only.
Many thanks for taking the time to contact the Operation Grange mailbox.No one has ever been in touch yet.
Your email will be read by one of the officers on the enquiry team. You will appreciate that we receive a large volume of emails as part of this enquiry and as a result you may not necessarily receive any further contact from us. If, however we need to contact you further, an officer will be in touch in due course.
I would be most interested in the grounds for your complaint against the British tour operators and your reasons for thinking SY might be interested? People seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the police need or welcome help from random strangers. Usually they appeal if they need help from the general public and they specify what it is that they want to know.I did an extensive search on the topic of "Sylvia Batista" Ocean club and it become clear lots of people have questioned the veracity of what she said at times. Scotland Yard has apparently re-interviewed her, but as usual you don't hear anything more than that.
While bearing in mind that those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance bear the greatest guilt, it is worth mentioning that the holiday company was aware of a spate of break ins to the properties they managed and did nothing to alert their guests to that fact.May I ask what constitutes a 'spate'? How many OC apartments were broken in to?
They did not appear to have security patrols in what wasn't a gated resort ... there certainly are no statements from security officers in the files.
Their owners may have had warning notices on the windows ... but not to stress the importance of ensuring they were locked because the shutters were not security shutters.(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/lg/public/2014/06/02/mccann.jpg)The window of the apartment where British toddler McCann disappeared in 2007 is seen at Ocean Club tourist resort in Praia da Luz. Photo: Reuters
http://www.ibtimes.com/madeleine-mccann-missing-update-new-search-area-sealed-near-resort-portugal-1593052
The side gate to the apartment was also replaced with a security gate.
While probably not sufficient to keep a determined intruder out ... a deterrent ... but sufficient to keep a wandering child in.
A similar initial risk assessment to that obviously taken after Madeleine's disappearance probably would not have factored in abduction. There seems to be little doubt that changed.
May I ask what constitutes a 'spate'? How many OC apartments were broken in to?
18?"Summers said: "Our source told us that after stumbling across 18 burglaries last year, they have now discovered a total of 28 in the area of Praia da Luz in the years around 2007 when Madeleine disappeared."
That would seem enough to constitute a 'spate' to me
http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-police-probe-more-break-ins-10361159
May I ask what constitutes a 'spate'? How many OC apartments were broken in to?
"Summers said: "Our source told us that after stumbling across 18 burglaries last year, they have now discovered a total of 28 in the area of Praia da Luz in the years around 2007 when Madeleine disappeared."
Let's see. 'After stumbling across' (2 May 2015). How did this stumbling occur? PJ records? Crimewatch records? OC records?
28 in the area of Praia da Luz? What is meant by that? Does that include or exclude Lagos? Portimão? The whole of the Algarve?
In the years around 2007. Presumably some of these years were before 2007 - how many? Presumably, since the chosen word is around and not before, some of these years were after 2007, so hardly something that could be known about in 2007.
So how many did the OC know about, thereby supposedly obliging them to tell holidaymakers to secure their possessions and property?
Was Luz such a crime infested location that the OC was duty bound to inform them what a dangerous dump they had just hired? And if so, why did the McCanns think Luz was so safe that it was OK to go out Sun-Thu leaving their patio door unlocked?
And why was MW dumb enough to buy the OC in the midst of this local crime wave?
While bearing in mind that those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance bear the greatest guilt, it is worth mentioning that the holiday company was aware of a spate of break ins to the properties they managed and did nothing to alert their guests to that fact.
They did not appear to have security patrols in what wasn't a gated resort ... there certainly are no statements from security officers in the files.
Their owners may have had warning notices on the windows ... but not to stress the importance of ensuring they were locked because the shutters were not security shutters.(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/lg/public/2014/06/02/mccann.jpg)The window of the apartment where British toddler McCann disappeared in 2007 is seen at Ocean Club tourist resort in Praia da Luz. Photo: Reuters
http://www.ibtimes.com/madeleine-mccann-missing-update-new-search-area-sealed-near-resort-portugal-1593052
The side gate to the apartment was also replaced with a security gate.
While probably not sufficient to keep a determined intruder out ... a deterrent ... but sufficient to keep a wandering child in.
A similar initial risk assessment to that obviously taken after Madeleine's disappearance probably would not have factored in abduction. There seems to be little doubt that changed.
Yes, people do seem to get carried away - visiting the place and playing at amateur sleuths.Watch what you say - you may upset the resident 'Ghouls Tours' organizer.
Yes, people do seem to get carried away - visiting the place and playing at amateur sleuths.
Watch what you say - you may upset the resident 'Ghouls Tours' organizer.The difference being that everything done is both legal and respectful of others, including any occupants of 5A. No one is testing shutters, hopping over the garden wall to check the balcony railing, or bunging a camera up at the kids' bedroom window for a flash photo.
I was saying that ("This whole aspect is to be investigated by SY to see if my research is correct.") in a prophetic sense only.
The following is the standard response you get from SY No one has ever been in touch yet.
That's standard, Rob.Strangely enough I think there is something happening (usually my paranoia setting in) but yesterday I was reviewing part of the case and photos of the two people I identified are no longer on the web. Like as if some of the information has been removed but not removed completely.
Only once did they come back to me ... and that was by phone.
However I always used to take my stuff in personally to Belgravia police station and the last twice I was promoted from D Constable to D Sargeant... and they gave me time. They listened.
Pls don't be put off by their apparent disinterest. I think they will read everything .... much of my stuff based on historical groups sounded bizarre, but from things that have happened I am pretty sure they read it .
Some of the detectives who read are more perceptive than others tho ... and prepared to look outside the box. Not everyone can think laterally.
Strangely enough I think there is something happening (usually my paranoia setting in) but yesterday I was reviewing part of the case and photos of the two people I identified are no longer on the web. Like as if some of the information has been removed but not removed completely.Raj Balu on the left. Someone else on the right.
I have this photo saved of the baldheaded man standing behind Madeleine. But for some reason it is distorted. So I tried to find the original again but I couldn't.
Both photos were taken on the same day.
Strangely enough I think there is something happening (usually my paranoia setting in) but yesterday I was reviewing part of the case and photos of the two people I identified are no longer on the web. Like as if some of the information has been removed but not removed completely.I feel exactly the same as you, Rob, when things keep being wiped out ... or changed.
I have this photo saved of the baldheaded man standing behind Madeleine. But for some reason it is distorted. So I tried to find the original again but I couldn't.
Both photos were taken on the same day.
I feel exactly the same as you, Rob, when things keep being wiped out ... or changed.Sometimes it is technique. The internet doesn't always behave in the same way.
I wonder what is being hidden and why?
When I search for Raj Balu I'm never convinced it is the same man as seen in this playground photo.Neither am I
Neither am IThat photo came from this page http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.nz/2010/03/madeleine-mccann-belliraj-bin-laden-and.html
Can anyone recognise the badge shown on the "Identity card" he is displaying?
At some point in the 1990s, Abdelkader Belliraj, a Moroccan-Belgian, went to work for the Belgian intelligence agency, the Sûreté de l'État. (Abdelkader Belliraj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)So the man holding the identity card may have nothing to do with the MM case.
The man flashing the identity card is not Raj Balu as he's about a foot shorter in height.And how did you work that out? Who is the tallest?
And how did you work that out?
The length of the forearms & torso as shown in the side by side photos you've posted. And Raj Balu is taller than Murat as shown in the attached photo.He does look a lot like the person standing behind Madeleine except the mystery man does look like he is carrying a lot more weight.
He does look a lot like the person standing behind Madeleine except the mystery man does look like he is carrying a lot more weight.