The role of The British tour operators in the MM case.

[Robittybob1]

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.
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.

[John]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

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.]

[Angelo222]

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.]

What evidence??

[misty]

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.

The alleged loss of OC keys to the apartments of Block 5 in the week preceding Madeleine's disappearance was not revealed for several years. If there is any credibility in the revelation, who at OC management was responsible for that cover-up, bearing in mind new keys would have had to have been cut or locks changed? None of the guests were warned.

[G-Unit]

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.

[John]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

That goes for every other resort too, naturally they don't want to promote their dirty washing in public.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

I can't see why MW would have been aware of it when MBM disappeared.

[G-Unit]

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.

Was it reported to anyone before 20th August when the victim's statement was given? As the apartment in question wasn't one leased by the resort management why would they be made aware of it anyway?

[Alice Purjorick]

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?