UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on October 28, 2018, 06:46:27 PM
-
Interesting posts about Charlotte Pennington recently.
This needs investigation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.msg498728#msg498728
This post by G-unit reveals an inconsistency
"Take a certain Charlotte Pennington, for example. In September 2007 she told the Daily Mail;
“I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She was contradicting her official statement to the PJ;
She did not enter the residence in question;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
And her colleague's statement;
The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
“There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns’ friends.
Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
Interesting remark about the children, but it can't be taken seriously, can it?"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.msg498964#msg498964
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.msg498971#msg498971
-
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
-
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
You have no idea how accurate any of these, statements are...
-
All well within the bounds of irresponsible tabloid reporting.
-
You have no idea how accurate any of these, statements are...
I know they can't all be accurate. What I don't know is why this woman went public with her stories.
-
I know they can't all be accurate. What I don't know is why this woman went public with her stories.
Why shouldn't she... Nothing abnormal
-
"Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm"
To me these two statements are not contradictory.
You could still combine them "Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007 when she returned to her residence; before finally going to bed at 4am."
It is still a workable sequence.
-
"Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm"
To me these two statements are not contradictory.
You could still combine them "Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007 when she returned to her residence; before finally going to bed at 4am."
It is still a workable sequence.
Maybe. What time did she start work on the 3rd? Had she been on the go since before 9am that day?
-
"Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm"
To me these two statements are not contradictory.
You could still combine them "Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007 when she returned to her residence; before finally going to bed at 4am."
It is still a workable sequence.
Only if you want it to be.
-
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_382.jpg)
Does anyone recognise what type of photo identity device this is? It doesn't seem to be an Irish Passport.
The language in the text on the right is odd. Is it Icelandic? If this is a passport it is strange that the text on the left hand side is hand written.
(I now think it is a series of notes on how to fill in the left hand side part. It is in multiple languages.)
-
Maybe. What time did she start work on the 3rd? Had she been on the go since before 9am that day?
And what about the next day? She had to be ready at 9.00 next day the creche had to be opened up.
-
Only if you want it to be.
Well how do you see it?
-
Another interview with Charlotte mentioned here. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
Article by" DAN NEWLING
Last updated at 16:41pm on 25th September 2007"
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm is a very good gathering of the reports from Charlotte Pennington.
There is also an attempt to understand how Charlotte says what she did.
I would like to copy parts of it here to save the transcripts in particular.
"
Pennington speaks on the Dispatches documentary, 18 October 2007
Charlotte Pennington is shown in three separate clips talking about the events of 03 May 2007:
Transcription 1:
'They were a very social group and they seemed all to be really respectful, nice, loving parents. Madeleine, I found out to be quite bright... errm, quite shy... errm, very sweet, very beautiful girl.
On May the third, it was just Madeleine I was reading a story to. I later saw them around lunchtime. That's the last time I saw them together as a family.'
Transcription 2:
'I was working that night at something called 'Drop-in Creche'. We had one child left and... errm, the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned 'Hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who's run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner, but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.'
Transcription 3:
'I went straight to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told 'No, no. She's not here, she's not here'.
Kate McCann was outside and she was very distressed. She was saying things like 'They've taken her' and 'She's gone' and, you know, 'Where is she? Where is she?'
She was crying and there were tears down her face and it was absolutely heartbreaking to see.'" End Quote.
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm#17
The next bit is from a article but the link is now broken but it was attributed to "Sunday Mirror 22 January 2008"
Quote -"A closer look at Charlotte Pennington
Nigel Moore
31 January 2008
Charlotte Pennington, who was employed as a nanny at the Mark Warner Ocean Club at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, would appear to be blessed with an uncanny knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Although, from Kate and Gerry McCanns' perspective, it could be said that the opposite is true. As if by magic, Pennington appears with a 'sighting' at just the right time to support the McCanns' theories on what happened that fateful night of May 3rd.
The fact that she claims to have worked as a fairy since the age of 14 may go some way to explaining her remarkable abilities.
So, what did she see?
She says was there with Madeleine at the kid's club on 03 May 2007, the day of Maddie's disappearance. Thus providing herself as an 'independent' witness to the fact that Madeleine was still alive on 03 May 2007.
She was there, inside the McCanns' apartment, within five minutes of the alarm being raised, and claims to have witnessed both Kate McCanns' emotional state and the words spoken. Thus supporting the belief that this was the time of the abduction and that Kate could not have acted that amount of grief.
She was there to see Robert Murat hanging around the Ocean Club. Thus supporting the McCanns', particularly Kate's, desire to imply that Murat was involved in some way. It was reported, on 27 January 2008, that they believe he may have acted as a 'look-out' for a gang of paedophiles.
She was there to see Robert Murat speaking with a suspicious looking man, the following day at the local supermarket, who now appears to match the description and artist's impression produced for Gail Cooper's 'Creepyman'. Thus further connecting Murat with an 'abduction'.
And, finally, she was there to see a suspicious man kicking something in a boat, 2 days after Madeleine's disappearance. Thus supporting one of the McCanns' theories that the abductor escaped by water - probably to Morocco.
But do Charlotte Pennington's crucial testimonies stand up to scrutiny? Unfortunately, like a great deal of this case, they are riddled with inconsistencies.
Pennington, who also works as a part-time actress - having briefly played the part of Libby Bailey in the New Zealand soap 'Shortland Street' - would be familiar with the need to arrive on cue.
But then, as we all know, sometimes actors get their lines wrong...
Time with Madeleine on 03 May 2007
The Daily Mail published details of an interview with Miss Pennington on 25 September 2007, in which she dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.
She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.
"It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."
However, speaking on the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary 'Searching For Madeleine', aired on 18 October 2007, she says:
"On May the third, it was just Madeleine I was reading a story to. I later saw them around lunchtime. That's the last time I saw them together as a family."
So, which is true? Did she last see Madeleine and the McCanns at 6.00pm or at lunchtime? And why the discrepancy?
The Daily Mail report of 14 October 2007, reporting on Madeleine's movements at the kid's club, only mentions nanny Catriona Baker being with her that day. The report states that Maddie was placed in a small group of children between the ages of 3 and 5 years with Miss Baker.
Charlotte Pennington was employed as a nanny in the Ocean Club resort's Baby Club, looking after children aged four to 12 months. So, why would she have been looking after Madeleine, who was not a member of her Baby Club, and reading her a story that particular day?
Pennington describes how she heard of Madeleine's disappearance from a woman who had come to collect her child from the evening creche, where she was working. The woman had recounted to her how she had just bumped into a man who had been shouting a name.
Pennington continues: "She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.
"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.''
Here Miss Pennington clearly states that Madeleine was 'one of the other nanny's charges', referring to Catriona Baker. Yet she says in her two previous statements that she was with Madeleine that day. If that was true, why didn't she automatically make the connection that this was 'Maddie', the girl she had read a story to that very day and had been with until 6.00pm when the McCanns arrived to collect her and the twins?
In the Dispatches documentary, Pennington says: ''They were a very social group and they seemed all to be really respectful, nice, loving parents. Madeleine, I found out to be, quite bright... errm, quite shy... errm, very sweet, very beautiful girl.''
The statement suggests an intimate knowledge of the McCanns and, more specifically, Madeleine. Yet, it appears, Pennington was unable to connect the names 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie' to herself and Madeleine.
This would seem to imply that Pennington never actually had charge of Madeleine on any day and, therefore, did not know her at all, apart from her name being connected to the charge of another nanny.
So where does her intimate knowledge of Madeleine's personality come from?
And why is she making strong implications that Madeleine was in her charge when she clearly wasn't?
The moments after Madeleine disappeared
Talking from her mother's home in Leatherhead, Surrey, she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone. When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'
"I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment's back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it. They have all given statements to the Portuguese police saying that."
In terms of the timeline, this is a very interesting quote. She says she was in the McCanns apartment ''less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone''.
She said previously that the woman who came to collect her child from the evening creche, from whom she first found out a child was missing, arrived just before 10.00pm.
So, by the time the woman reached the creche, according to Pennington's account, a chain of events had already taken place:
Kate had discovered Madeleine missing; she had searched the apartment herself; she had run to the tapas restaurant to raise the alarm with Gerry and their friends and she had returned to the apartment and waited for it to be thoroughly searched by Gerry and their friends.
There would then have been a passage of time before the man, presumably Gerry, had gone out into the streets shouting out Maddie's name (which incidentally, the McCanns have insisted they never called her - it was always 'Madeleine').
And then, finally, there would have been a pasage of time for the woman to arrive at the creche, collect her child and then tell the staff what she had heard outside.
That whole process would surely have taken longer than five minutes to complete, and finish, before 10.00pm. Pennington's statement suggests the alarm was actually raised sometime well before 10:00pm, but this would then have major repercussions on the McCanns stated timeline. Indeed, it would make the raising of the alarm at 9:30pm, as was stated in some early reports, seem much more likely.
Pennington's account of entering and leaving the apartment is also confusing in relation to her position and Kate's. She says at first that ''When we were coming out (of the apartment) we saw Kate and she was screaming 'They've taken her'.'' This seems odd because it appears to imply that Kate was outside the apartment - possibly just outside the patio doors. But why was Kate outside the apartment screaming 'They've taken her' when everyone else was inside?
Pennington continues: ''I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment's back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it.''
So where was Pennington when Kate was screaming? Was she just coming out of the apartment and presumably beside Kate or was she standing in the alleyway with three other members of the Mark Warner staff?
Pennington's account on the Dispatches documentary does not make it any clearer. She says: ''I went straight round to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told 'No, no, she's not here, she's not here'.
''Kate McCann was outside and she was very distressed. She was saying things like 'They've taken her' and 'She's gone' and 'Where is she? Where is she?'.''
One wonders, by this time, to whom Kate was talking, or screaming.
And for who's benefit.
But there is one more crucial sentence from Miss Pennington that poses a huge and shocking question mark over our understanding of the events of that evening.
She says: "There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.''
Remember, Pennington ''was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.''
So where were the twins?
By 10:50pm, we know the twins were back in their cots as the first local GNR police officers attending the scene remarked on how strange it was that the twins did not wake during all the commotion and screaming.
So, it begs the question: Why were the twins not there when Pennington arrived in the apartment?
If Pennington's statement is correct, then it leaves three possible scenarios:
1) The twins were moved out of the apartment, in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and then returned to their cots later. If so, why were they removed? And where did they go and who moved them?
2) The twins were moved prior to Kate's alarm call, perhaps because they wanted to clean the bedroom and were then returned to the McCanns' apartment before the GNR arrived? If this were true, where did they go and who moved them?
3) The twins were never put to bed in the McCanns' apartment that night. They either regularly slept elsewhere on the holiday or they slept elsewhere on that particular night and were transferred back before the GNR arrived. But why would they be sleeping elsewhere? And again, where did they go and who moved them?
If the twins were not in the apartment, this would certainly explain Kate's decision to run back to the tapas restaurant, apparently abandoning the twins alone in the unlocked apartment.
However, if Pennington's statement is correct, and we are to believe the twins were moved in this way, then it would now seem even more extraordinary that the twins did not wake.
And the implication of that appears to be obvious.
Sighting of Robert Murat
Miss Pennington's Daily Mail interview confirms reports from the McCanns' friends that Murat was at the scene. "He was outside the lobby just before we started on our big search," she said.
"He was adamant that he wasn't there. But he was. He was there in the road, he was just looking. It was about 10.30. He was just watching.
"I didn't know his name then. But the next day he was our interpreter and I met him then. He didn't take part in the searches, but he was there."
It is difficult to understand how Pennington can so clearly identify Robert Murat - a man she admits she did not know previously - in a chaotic scene where, by all accounts, there were people all over the place. A 'big search' implies there were lots of people there and this was night time, under street lamps that do not appear to be very powerful.
Can she really be sure this was Murat and not David Payne? The Payne's reportedly left their two children in the kid's club, with Madeleine and the twins, under the charge of Catriona Baker. So, it is quite likely that Pennington had never met David Payne previously either.
The Sun further confuses the account when it reports: 'Charlotte said she saw him (Murat) near the McCanns’ holiday flat at around midnight. Yesterday it was claimed police used Murat as a translator — giving him access to the crime scene — as he was a long-time informant.'
This account, which does not come with a direct quote, does, however, appear to be sourced directly from Miss Pennington. Yet, it clearly contradicts her previous statement that she saw Murat at 10:30pm, in the street outside the lobby, just before they were about to launch their 'big search'.
So, where did Pennington see Murat? Outside the McCanns apartment at midnight or outside the lobby at 10:30pm?
The two diverse accounts surely cast a major doubt over Pennington's testimony.
Murat, the suspicious looking man and 'Creepyman'
A few days after Madeleine's disappearance, Charlotte Pennington reported seeing Robert Murat chatting to a man outside the Baptista supermarket in Praia da Luz.
Initially, the sighting was used to further imply that Robert Murat was involved in some way. It was suggested that this man fitted the description given by Jane Tanner of a man she allegedly saw walking 'urgently' away from the McCanns' apartment on the night of 03 May 2007.
On 20 January 2007, the McCanns' released an artist's impression of a man Gail Cooper allegedly saw acting in a 'creepy' way during the weeks before the McCanns arrived in Praia da Luz. Suddenly, Pennington's 'sighting' was dug up, brushed off and represented to the public as a crucial piece of crucial, long-lost information.
In the space of 24 hours, the man who Murat was chatting to had suddenly been transformed from Jane Tanner's 'abductor' into Gail Cooper's 'Creepyman'.
Firstly, the Daily Mail reports that: 'Charlotte Pennington, a nanny at the Ocean Club holiday complex where the McCanns were staying, told police last May she saw Murat chatting to "a man aged around 27 to 35, average height, very dark eyes and of Portuguese or Spanish appearance".
She told detectives she saw expat Murat, who lives with his mother near to holiday complex, talking to the man outside the Baptista supermarket in Praia da Luz.'
The following day, the Daily Mail makes a stronger connection when it reports that: 'Nanny Charlotte Pennington's description of a person she saw with Mr Murat also matches the man shown in the artist's impression.'
Later, The Sun, appearing to run a direct quote from Pennington, pushes the connection further, when it reports: 'And Charlotte Pennington, a nanny at the McCanns' holiday complex, says a suspicious man she saw in Praia da Luz was "similar" to the drawing.'
So, in what way is Pennington's sighting ''similar'' to the description and artist's impression of Gail Cooper's 'Creepyman'?
Pennington describes a man ''between 27 and 35, with medium build, very dark eyes and a Portuguese or Spanish look''.
Cooper, in describing 'Creepyman', says: "This man was very unpleasant and creepy. I'd put his age at 38 to 45. He was very scruffy and had a 70s-style black Mexican moustache. He wasn't Portuguese—I think he was North African, either Tunisian or Moroccan."
So, in what possible way could these two men possibly be described as ''similar''?
From the two descriptions, they have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever.
Yet newspapers, or perhaps more pertinently Metodo 3, seem intent on connecting the two. Newspapers will run with it because it's a good angle and will sell papers, Metodo 3 because that is what they are being paid by the McCanns to do. They have an agenda.
And that agenda is to propagate the abduction theory to the exclusion of all others.
The sighting of the boatman
Two days after Madeleine's disappearance, Miss Pennington claims to have seen a mystery boatman kicking at something in the middle of the night.
Pennington said she spotted the man in a small dinghy, just off the Praia da Luz seafront, kicking at an object stored in the boat's hull.
The Daily Mail continues: 'When she moved closer to investigate, the man - whose name she has given to Portuguese and British police - stooped out of sight then hurriedly rowed away. Miss Pennington said the man was wearing a reflective yellow jacket with a hood but she could not make out his face.'
So, what are the concerns here?
Firstly, the report says Pennington spotted the man in a 'small dinghy'. However, the very next sentence describes a 'boat' which was apparently big enough to store a reasonable size object in its hull.
Secondly, one wonders why a person, who it is implied may have had Madeleine stored alive, or dead, in a box in his dinghy/boat, would choose to wear a bright yellow, reflective fisherman's jacket.
Thirdly, the sighting took place 'in the middle of the night' when the seafront is pitch black. Those people searching for Madeleine, on the night of 03 May 2007, have described how they could only see as far as their torches shone and it was actually quite a frightening experience.
So, how could Pennington see anything, let alone a man apparently some distance away that she had to move closer to try and see.
And what was Pennington doing in the middle of the night, in the pitch black on the seafront? Did she have a torch?
Fourthly, Pennington admits she did not see the man's face and that he stooped down and quickly rowed away. So, how could she possibly know who he was, in order to give his name to the police?
The first published reports of the sighting claimed that Pennington was shocked to see the man again the next day, still wearing his bright yellow, reflective fisherman's jacket. She claims that she recognised the man as someone 'whom she had come to know over the preceding week'. But how? How can she recognise and name a man just from a jacket, seen from distance, in the pitch dark?
It should be remembered that Praia da Luz is a small fishing village and the sight of a fisherman's jacket, in such a setting, would surely not be unusual. In fact, it would be a surprise if it wasn't commonplace." End Quote.
The above section does not read like a Newspaper article so maybe it is Nigel Moore's analysis on the 31 January 2008.
So how much of what Nigel says here can I agree with?
-
Is Pennington the one who visited the MCanns at home, or is that one of the other nannies ?
-
"Charlotte Pennington, who was employed as a nanny at the Mark Warner Ocean Club at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, would appear to be blessed with an uncanny knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
No - I take it the right place at right time.
"Although, from Kate and Gerry McCanns' perspective, it could be said that the opposite is true. As if by magic, Pennington appears with a 'sighting' at just the right time to support the McCanns' theories on what happened that fateful night of May 3rd."
What does Charlotte say to support this view? We will have to find out.
"The fact that she claims to have worked as a fairy since the age of 14 may go some way to explaining her remarkable abilities.
So, what did she see?"
OK I must have missed that "Fairy" bit.
"She says was there with Madeleine at the kid's club on 03 May 2007, the day of Maddie's disappearance. Thus providing herself as an 'independent' witness to the fact that Madeleine was still alive on 03 May 2007."
Well was Madeleine with Kate and Gerry when they dropped the twins off at Kid's Club? Quite possible.
"She was there, inside the McCanns' apartment, within five minutes of the alarm being raised, and claims to have witnessed both Kate McCanns' emotional state and the words spoken. Thus supporting the belief that this was the time of the abduction and that Kate could not have acted that amount of grief."
Well is Nigel adding words to Charlotte's testimony, does Charlotte say "abduction" or "acted that amount of grief"?
"She was there to see Robert Murat hanging around the Ocean Club. Thus supporting the McCanns', particularly Kate's, desire to imply that Murat was involved in some way. It was reported, on 27 January 2008, that they believe he may have acted as a 'look-out' for a gang of paedophiles.
She was there to see Robert Murat speaking with a suspicious looking man, the following day at the local supermarket, who now appears to match the description and artist's impression produced for Gail Cooper's 'Creepyman'. Thus further connecting Murat with an 'abduction'."
Talk about spreading rumour! All I read was that CP saw a man that looked like Murat. She had not identified him.
"And, finally, she was there to see a suspicious man kicking something in a boat, 2 days after Madeleine's disappearance. Thus supporting one of the McCanns' theories that the abductor escaped by water - probably to Morocco."
Well things happen.
-
Is Pennington the one who visited the MCanns at home, or is that one of the other nannies ?
She may have but you are thinking of Cat Baker http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm
-
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_382.jpg)
Does anyone recognise what type of photo identity device this is? It doesn't seem to be an Irish Passport.
The language in the text on the right is odd. Is it Icelandic? If this is a passport it is strange that the text on the left hand side is hand written.
(I now think it is a series of notes on how to fill in the left hand side part. It is in multiple languages.)
No but it could be a Certificate of Registration, required if one is staying longer than 90 days. It could even be something required by her employer.
Or just a device used by her to provide photograhic ID. Why worry ?
-
No but it could be a Certificate of Registration, required if one is staying longer than 90 days. It could even be something required by her employer.
Or just a device used by her to provide photograhic ID. Why worry ?
Just being thorough.
-
I'm struggling to accept that this is the Charlotte Pennington I know from PdL.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/O/Charlotte.jpg)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/O/Charlotte.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CP-.jpg)
The shape of the smile lines are different, eye colour is different.
The layout of the teeth are different.
-
"Time with Madeleine on 03 May 2007
The Daily Mail published details of an interview with Miss Pennington on 25 September 2007, in which she dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.
She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.
"It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."
However, speaking on the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary 'Searching For Madeleine', aired on 18 October 2007, she says:
"On May the third, it was just Madeleine I was reading a story to. I later saw them around lunchtime. That's the last time I saw them together as a family.""
I wonder if tea time High tea and lunch time can all be one and the same?
There is a meal eaten in Portugal called "lanches" which is eaten around 5 PM.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunch#Europe
"The Portuguese word lanches derives from the English word "lunch", but it refers to a lighter meal or snack taken during the afternoon (around 5 pm) due to the fact that, traditionally, Portuguese dinner is served at a later hour than in English-speaking countries."
Could Charlotte have said lanches rather than lunch time?
-
I'm struggling to accept that this is the Charlotte Pennington I know from PdL.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/O/Charlotte.jpg)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/O/Charlotte.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CP-.jpg)
The shape of the smile lines are different, eye colour is different.
The layout of the teeth are different.
It's not a very good b/w photo but I would say teeth.. Jaw the same... Eyebrows same.... May be a, few pounds lighter in second but looks like the same person
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm#17
"Pennington describes how she heard of Madeleine's disappearance from a woman who had come to collect her child from the evening creche, where she was working. The woman had recounted to her how she had just bumped into a man who had been shouting a name.
Pennington continues: "She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.
"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.''"
I would say the "head of department" Charlotte is talking about was Amy Tierney.
-
"The moments after Madeleine disappeared
Talking from her mother's home in Leatherhead, Surrey, she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone. When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'
"I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment's back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it. They have all given statements to the Portuguese police saying that."
In terms of the timeline, this is a very interesting quote. She says she was in the McCanns apartment ''less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone''.
She said previously that the woman who came to collect her child from the evening creche, from whom she first found out a child was missing, arrived just before 10.00pm.
So, by the time the woman reached the creche, according to Pennington's account, a chain of events had already taken place:
Kate had discovered Madeleine missing; she had searched the apartment herself; she had run to the tapas restaurant to raise the alarm with Gerry and their friends and she had returned to the apartment and waited for it to be thoroughly searched by Gerry and their friends.
There would then have been a passage of time before the man, presumably Gerry, had gone out into the streets shouting out Maddie's name (which incidentally, the McCanns have insisted they never called her - it was always 'Madeleine').
And then, finally, there would have been a pasage of time for the woman to arrive at the creche, collect her child and then tell the staff what she had heard outside.
That whole process would surely have taken longer than five minutes to complete, and finish, before 10.00pm. Pennington's statement suggests the alarm was actually raised sometime well before 10:00pm, but this would then have major repercussions on the McCanns stated timeline. Indeed, it would make the raising of the alarm at 9:30pm, as was stated in some early reports, seem much more likely."
That actually makes it more difficult to be at the apartment in less than five minutes after the alarm is raised.
-
There were three staff at the night creche and they all mention going to the apartment soon after 22.00.
Amy Tierney- "She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
Charlotte Pennington - as discussed above CP was there within 5 mins of Kate's alarm
Jacqueline Williams. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
"That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her."
-
"The moments after Madeleine disappeared
Talking from her mother's home in Leatherhead, Surrey, she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone. When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'
"I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment's back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it. They have all given statements to the Portuguese police saying that."
In terms of the timeline, this is a very interesting quote. She says she was in the McCanns apartment ''less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone''.
She said previously that the woman who came to collect her child from the evening creche, from whom she first found out a child was missing, arrived just before 10.00pm.
So, by the time the woman reached the creche, according to Pennington's account, a chain of events had already taken place:
Kate had discovered Madeleine missing; she had searched the apartment herself; she had run to the tapas restaurant to raise the alarm with Gerry and their friends and she had returned to the apartment and waited for it to be thoroughly searched by Gerry and their friends.
There would then have been a passage of time before the man, presumably Gerry, had gone out into the streets shouting out Maddie's name (which incidentally, the McCanns have insisted they never called her - it was always 'Madeleine').
And then, finally, there would have been a pasage of time for the woman to arrive at the creche, collect her child and then tell the staff what she had heard outside.
That whole process would surely have taken longer than five minutes to complete, and finish, before 10.00pm. Pennington's statement suggests the alarm was actually raised sometime well before 10:00pm, but this would then have major repercussions on the McCanns stated timeline. Indeed, it would make the raising of the alarm at 9:30pm, as was stated in some early reports, seem much more likely."
That actually makes it more difficult to be at the apartment in less than five minutes after the alarm is raised.
It's about 240 metres from Mini Club to 5A via the alleyways. A top athlete can run 200 metres in 21.78 sec. Let's round that up to 30 seconds to allow for the extra 40 m. So a top flight Athlete could run that in 30 seconds
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/18/elaine-thompson-confirmed-as-the-worlds-fastest-woman-with-200m-gold
However,
The nannies are young, but not athletes, so lets add another 10 seconds = 40 seconds
Plus,
..... generally running up hill, another 10 seconds? =50 seconds
And, the route is not straight, so another 10 seconds = 60 seconds = 1 minute
I am not saying that they could * all * do that but if fit they could, imo, manage that.
Charlotte said before 10pm, Jacqueline says 10.05.
The tapas group think Kate went about 10pm; they probably gave a consensus time from memories and different watches (if looked at). People do not go by exact times when on holiday. Peoples watches probably are not syncronised to an odd minute either.
Kate could do her return trip in well less than 2 minutes. It was about 75 metres each way. She probably jogged up and raced back, yelling them as soon as she entered the Tapas Garden and could see Gerry.
If Jacquelines time and Kates time were correct, then everything could have been done in just about five minutes IMO. The chances are that neither is correct to the odd minute
TBH Rob, I think that you are being a bit over suspicious here, because I have made generous allowances it could all have been done in about 5 minutes. IMO based upon fact
-
Did you get that distance from Google Earth Sadie? I thought it was much further than 240 meters.
-
It's about 240 metres from Mini Club to 5A via the alleyways. A top athlete can run 200 metres in 21.78 sec. Let's round that up to 30 seconds to allow for the extra 40 m. So a top flight Athlete could run that in 30 seconds
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/18/elaine-thompson-confirmed-as-the-worlds-fastest-woman-with-200m-gold
However,
The nannies are young, but not athletes, so lets add another 10 seconds = 40 seconds
Plus,
..... generally running up hill, another 10 seconds? =50 seconds
And, the route is not straight, so another 10 seconds = 60 seconds = 1 minute
I am not saying that they could * all * do that but if fit they could, imo, manage that.
Charlotte said before 10pm, Jacqueline says 10.05.
The tapas group think Kate went about 10pm; they probably gave a consensus time from memories and different watches (if looked at). People do not go by exact times when on holiday. Peoples watches probably are not syncronised to an odd minute either.
Kate could do her return trip in well less than 2 minutes. It was about 75 metres each way. She probably jogged up and raced back, yelling them as soon as she entered the Tapas Garden and could see Gerry.
If Jacquelines time and Kates time were correct, then everything could have been done in just about five minutes IMO. The chances are that neither is correct to the odd minute
TBH Rob, I think that you are being a bit over suspicious here, because I have made generous allowances it could all have been done in about 5 minutes. IMO based upon fact
You may see it that way. I don't. Did Kate "jog" to the apartment, we don't know but she could have walked. She would then have to stop and open the bottom gate then the top gate. Then stop and open the sliding doors and close them. Then wait at the door of the bedroom till she saw the curtains whoosh. Quick run around the apartment to search then back to the tapas. How many minutes are you allowing for all that to happen Sadie?
Then the tapas diners were made aware of Madeleine's disappearance they all rushed back to the apartment, searched again then started looking and presumably shouting "Maddie". The mother from the creche heard the shouting as she walked to the creche - how long did that take? She then told Charlotte etc what she had heard. Did Charlotte run straight to the apartment or discuss it first? We don't know and therefore your timeline can not be clarified IMO.
-
You may see it that way. I don't. Did Kate "jog" to the apartment, we don't know but she could have walked. She would then have to stop and open the bottom gate then the top gate. Then stop and open the sliding doors and close them. Then wait at the door of the bedroom till she saw the curtains whoosh. Quick run around the apartment to search then back to the tapas. How many minutes are you allowing for all that to happen Sadie?
Then the tapas diners were made aware of Madeleine's disappearance they all rushed back to the apartment, searched again then started looking and presumably shouting "Maddie". The mother from the creche heard the shouting as she walked to the creche - how long did that take? She then told Charlotte etc what she had heard. Did Charlotte run straight to the apartment or discuss it first? We don't know and therefore your timeline can not be clarified IMO.
I agree with all that and Jackie said Charlotte was left behind at the creche and just she and Amy searched initially.
The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
-
Just thinking that the topic is a good one - WHAT IS THE TRUTH?.
-
Just thinking that the topic is a good one - WHAT IS THE TRUTH?.
A question that often arises in this case. I think there's been some exaggeration here in order to appear more interesting.
-
A question that often arises in this case. I think there's been some exaggeration here in order to appear more interesting.
Why I said that was because just for a moment I had the idea that the 3 nannies could have dashed off to the McCann's apartment, had a quick look in there and then Charlotte rushed back to the creche to finish off her tasks there, before joining in the search for Madeleine.
Just the idea that the nannies would leave the creche unattended for a moment prompted the thought "what is the truth?".
Could they have asked the mother picking up her child to "hold the fort for a minute" while the three of them went to investigate what was happening to Maddie, Abby or Gabby.
Charlotte being the one who later comes back and finishes of the shift on her own while the other two start organising the missing child procedure.
-
Why I said that was because just for a moment I had the idea that the 3 nannies could have dashed off to the McCann's apartment, had a quick look in there and then Charlotte rushed back to the creche to finish off her tasks there, before joining in the search for Madeleine.
Just the idea that the nannies would leave the creche unattended for a moment prompted the thought "what is the truth?".
Could they have asked the mother picking up her child to "hold the fort for a minute" while the three of them went to investigate what was happening to Maddie, Abby or Gabby.
Charlotte being the one who later comes back and finishes of the shift on her own while the other two start organising the missing child procedure.
Not according to Jackie. Leaving a client to run a service offered by a Tour Operator would be totally unprofessional and would be likely to lead to dismissal in my opinion.
-
Why I said that was because just for a moment I had the idea that the 3 nannies could have dashed off to the McCann's apartment, had a quick look in there and then Charlotte rushed back to the creche to finish off her tasks there, before joining in the search for Madeleine.
Just the idea that the nannies would leave the creche unattended for a moment prompted the thought "what is the truth?".
Could they have asked the mother picking up her child to "hold the fort for a minute" while the three of them went to investigate what was happening to Maddie, Abby or Gabby.
Charlotte being the one who later comes back and finishes of the shift on her own while the other two start organising the missing child procedure.
Why go mob handed when one person could have done the task?
-
Not according to Jackie. Leaving a client to run a service offered by a Tour Operator would be totally unprofessional and would be likely to lead to dismissal in my opinion.
OK no one admits to it, but it occurred to me as a solution to how all three can go to 5A and still allow Charlotte to dispense the last children before starting her searching.
Just because it might be frowned upon doesn't mean it would not occur in a situation of a missing child. They needed to think of a way of getting quickly down to 5A. That is more important st the time. Did Charlotte have a car at hand?
I think in times of emergency to ask a parent to assist for a few minutes would not really be that bad.
It is only a possibility.
-
Why go mob handed when one person could have done the task?
I don't know if you have ever looked for someone. I have and I quickly got to realise just how large the landscape becomes. The area to search goes up by the square of the distance.
You need numbers if you are going to look for someone, and the quicker you get there the better.
-
G-unit That quote you found that says
""There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends."
Is not impossible to explain either, for we well know the twins were asleep in their cots and were not removed until after the PJ arrived.
To think there were no twins there implies to me Charlotte did not go into the kids bedroom as Amy seems to have done so.
So the answer is that she was mistaken in her impression the twins had been removed at that stage too.
Source of quote "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
-
Did you get that distance from Google Earth Sadie? I thought it was much further than 240 meters.
Yep, measured using the path facility on G Earth. I cut corners as someone in a hurry would do and took what appeared to be the shortest route via the alleys.
-
You may see it that way. I don't. Did Kate "jog" to the apartment, we don't know but she could have walked. She would then have to stop and open the bottom gate then the top gate. Then stop and open the sliding doors and close them. Then wait at the door of the bedroom till she saw the curtains whoosh. Quick run around the apartment to search then back to the tapas. How many minutes are you allowing for all that to happen Sadie?
Then the tapas diners were made aware of Madeleine's disappearance they all rushed back to the apartment, searched again then started looking and presumably shouting "Maddie". The mother from the creche heard the shouting as she walked to the creche - how long did that take? She then told Charlotte etc what she had heard. Did Charlotte run straight to the apartment or discuss it first? We don't know and therefore your timeline can not be clarified IMO.
Sunny, you have a point but I have taken the likely shortest period. If she was enjoying the company and wanted to get back quickly, she would have fast jogged. No problem for someone as fit as Kate. I personally think that the period I specified is ample for all including the little extras you have mentioned. Kate was a busy working mother would have learned to be very quick in everything she did, imo
I have also made a point of surmising that few people actually clock watch when on holiday and some peoples watches are not accurately set. Is Luz on the same band as British Grenwich Mean Time in early May?
I haven't checked the answer to that, but if they had all changed their watches to Portuguese time? Would they bother to even 3-4 minutes accuracy, when on that type of holiday? Personally I am very laid back about times on holiday: So long as I have an indication of the time when needed, I am happy. Hubby, however, is precise when he resets his watch
And, I just think this precise 5 minute thingy is unrealistic TBH with everyones recollections being different and variations probably in the times on the watches, I think the 5 minutes could vanish to zero minutes or stretch to 10 minutes
-
Why I said that was because just for a moment I had the idea that the 3 nannies could have dashed off to the McCann's apartment, had a quick look in there and then Charlotte rushed back to the creche to finish off her tasks there, before joining in the search for Madeleine.
Just the idea that the nannies would leave the creche unattended for a moment prompted the thought "what is the truth?".
Could they have asked the mother picking up her child to "hold the fort for a minute" while the three of them went to investigate what was happening to Maddie, Abby or Gabby.
Charlotte being the one who later comes back and finishes of the shift on her own while the other two start organising the missing child procedure.
Dunno if I am right on this but I thought that the night crech closed at 10pm ? If so, there would be no children there to be looked after, just tidying up to be done.
Anyone know what time the night (dinner) crech closed in early 2007?
-
Why go mob handed when one person could have done the task?
Not a question of mob handed Alice, imo. Just a wish to be in the thick of all the action, and help, I think
-
OK no one admits to it, but it occurred to me as a solution to how all three can go to 5A and still allow Charlotte to dispense the last children before starting her searching.
Just because it might be frowned upon doesn't mean it would not occur in a situation of a missing child. They needed to think of a way of getting quickly down to 5A. That is more important st the time. Did Charlotte have a car at hand?
I think in times of emergency to ask a parent to assist for a few minutes would not really be that bad.
It is only a possibility.
Check this with SIL Rob, but I think it would take longer by car than running there.
There is a large one way system that I seem to remember one had to use when driving. First travelling east for quite a distance, then north and then west, south, then west again. Just over 900 meters to 5A rear steps. That is nearly a kilometer
-
Sunny, you have a point but I have taken the likely shortest period. If she was enjoying the company and wanted to get back quickly, she would have fast jogged. No problem for someone as fit as Kate. I personally think that the period I specified is ample for all including the little extras you have mentioned. Kate was a busy working mother would have learned to be very quick in everything she did, imo
I have also made a point of surmising that few people actually clock watch when on holiday and some peoples watches are not accurately set. Is Luz on the same band as British Grenwich Mean Time in early May?
I haven't checked the answer to that, but if they had all changed their watches to Portuguese time? Would they bother to even 3-4 minutes accuracy, when on that type of holiday? Personally I am very laid back about times on holiday: So long as I have an indication of the time when needed, I am happy. Hubby, however, is precise when he resets his watch
And, I just think this precise 5 minute thingy is unrealistic TBH with everyones recollections being different and variations probably in the times on the watches, I think the 5 minutes could vanish to zero minutes or stretch to 10 minutes
A good get out attempt sadie. The staff at the creche wouldn't know whether a child was really missing or not from what the mother said IMO, there could simply be a child playing hide and seek with the parents, who wanted them to come back now, so they could go home.
They wouldn't have gone at the run to 5a. For a start they would have to check which apartment the McCanns were in, that is assuming they were instantly 100% certain that it was "Maddie" that the woman had heard and were working on that assumption straight away.
-
G-unit That quote you found that says
""There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends."
Is not impossible to explain either, for we well know the twins were asleep in their cots and were not removed until after the PJ arrived.
To think there were no twins there implies to me Charlotte did not go into the kids bedroom as Amy seems to have done so.
So the answer is that she was mistaken in her impression the twins had been removed at that stage too.
Source of quote "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
She was enjoying the attention and embellishing her involvement in the events of May 3rd in my opinion. If you prefer to believe her nonsense you can't pick and choose. Either she arrived at the apartment at or before 10 pm and found no children in there or she didn't.
-
Dunno if I am right on this but I thought that the night crech closed at 10pm ? If so, there would be no children there to be looked after, just tidying up to be done.
Anyone know what time the night (dinner) crech closed in early 2007?
It closed at 11pm sadie.
On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
- The witness also clarified that the crêche in the complex also offers complementary services allowing parents to leave their children with baby sitters during dinner-time, between the hours of 19H15 and 23H00;
And she says she found out after Lyndsay did
She advised the aforementioned individual that no one had told them of the disappearance, who she believed by the name given, was Madeleine, also for the reason that Amy contacted via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;
And of course she was clear that she didn't enter 5a
The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
Lyndsay says she was informed by Amy Tierney at 10.20pm She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure. This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child. To that effect, the informant explains that, around 10.25pm, the date indicated, the said procedure was begun, dividing the whole site into three distinct areas, namely the north zone, the central zone (including the area of the company) and all the roads surrounding the company and which go as far as the beach. Five of the company's employees were mobilised to coordinate the searches, helped by various people ( other employees, tourists and residents)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNSAY-JAYNE.htm
So we have Lyndsay Johnston saying Amy Tierney informed her of Madeleine's disapperance and Charlotte Pennington saying she and Amy Tierney were informed by Lyndsay Johnston. Amy Tierney doesn't mention the telephone call.
However, Amy Tierney says evening creche was until 11.30pm
When questioned, she says that if the guests wish so they can request services from the "Staff" who would look after the children from 19.30 to 23.30, however Madeleine's parents never did this although the service is free.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Jacqueline Williams who was also working at the creche puts the mother collecting the child at about 10.05pm
That on 3rd May at about 22.05 she was working at the Mini Club, at the "dinner time period" together with colleagues Charlotte and Amy, when a female individual arrived, whose name she does not know, just that she was the mother of a child there (belonging to Toddlers 2), being a guest who was staying at the resort and who left at the end of the week, who told her that a girl called "Maddie" has disappeared, and that the girl's parents needed help in looking for her.
She then states
Whilst this was happening, her colleague tried to find out and confirmed that a child by the name of Madeleine McCann had disappeared and that they were about to begin the "missing child procedure".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Would this last section be concerning Amy phoning Lyndsay for information, or something else?
-
She was enjoying the attention and embellishing her involvement in the events of May 3rd in my opinion. If you prefer to believe her nonsense you can't pick and choose. Either she arrived at the apartment at or before 10 pm and found no children in there or she didn't.
Those are my thoughts too. I have read she was an aspiring actress. Perhaps she thought the publicity might help her career.
-
She was enjoying the attention and embellishing her involvement in the events of May 3rd in my opinion. If you prefer to believe her nonsense you can't pick and choose. Either she arrived at the apartment at or before 10 pm and found no children in there or she didn't.
Sounds plausible.
-
She was enjoying the attention and embellishing her involvement in the events of May 3rd in my opinion. If you prefer to believe her nonsense you can't pick and choose. Either she arrived at the apartment at or before 10 pm and found no children in there or she didn't.
Charlotte doesn't say she went into the kids bedroom. Look if the kids were never taken out of the apartment until after the PJ arrived any suggestion the twins were not there is obviously a misconception.
She didn't notice any kids there only because she didn't look properly.
We know they never woke up. so Charlotte wouldn't be able to hear them. It sounds like Charlotte approached the apartment from the patio side so the the kids bedroom is the furthermost away.
-
Charlotte doesn't say she went into the kids bedroom. Look if the kids were never taken out of the apartment until after the PJ arrived any suggestion the twins were not there is obviously a misconception.
She didn't notice any kids there only because she didn't look properly.
We know they never woke up. so Charlotte wouldn't be able to hear them. It sounds like Charlotte approached the apartment from the patio side so the the kids bedroom is the furthermost away.
And yet she says (from an earlier link)
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
-
AS G said earlier, you either believe everything she said or nothing - unless there is specific 3rd party evidence to support her statements.
-
And yet she says (from an earlier link)
"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
If she was there 'less than five minutes after they found Madeleine gone" and no children were there then they were brought into the apartment after she left it. Interesting but in my opinion her claim is wrong.
-
AS G said earlier, you either believe everything she said or nothing - unless there is specific 3rd party evidence to support her statements.
There are no rules like that.
-
There are no rules like that.
What rules are you referring to?
was suggesting that you can't cherry pick what to believe in a persons's statement, unless it is corroborated by a 3rd person.
-
What rules are you referring to?
was suggesting that you can't cherry pick what to believe in a persons's statement, unless it is corroborated by a 3rd person.
I would agree, particularly when they alter what they say they did in their statements at a later date.
-
I would agree, particularly when they alter what they say they did in their statements at a later date.
We don't know the accuracy of the Portuguese statements... We don't know the accuracy of the newspaper reports... Does any of this really matter... I would say no
-
We don't know the accuracy of the Portuguese statements... We don't know the accuracy of the newspaper reports... Does any of this really matter... I would say no
In your opinion of course Davel but then I wonder why you are here discussing this, if that is your feelings.
Her story changed so greatly that I believe it was her choice to change it and not any inaccuracies in the initial translations during statements made in May 2007.
-
We don't know the accuracy of the Portuguese statements... We don't know the accuracy of the newspaper reports... Does any of this really matter... I would say no
...why stop there, surely all of human endeavour is ultimately futile?
-
I don't know if you have ever looked for someone. I have and I quickly got to realise just how large the landscape becomes. The area to search goes up by the square of the distance.
You need numbers if you are going to look for someone, and the quicker you get there the better.
That was not the issue to which I responded.
By your logic absolutely everything becomes subservient to a search simply because you need bodies but you don't have the full SP?
My question was in essence, if you followed the thread, "why do you need all three nannies to go to find out the full SP?". The sensible thing to do in my opinion is that Senior Nanny delegates minding the creche to one of the other nannies and her mate, then SN goes as a singleton to find out the SP then returns making a judgement as necessary. The idea of abandoning post on the flimsiest of info is a bit suspect imo
-
...why stop there, surely all of human endeavour is ultimately futile?
Of course grasshopper
-
In your opinion of course Davel but then I wonder why you are here discussing this, if that is your feelings.
Her story changed so greatly that I believe it was her choice to change it and not any inaccuracies in the initial translations during statements made in May 2007.
That's your opinion... My opinion is... We can't trust the translation by Murat as, being accurate and we can't trust the papers ad being accurate..
So what would be her motive in deliberately changing her accounts or is this just a pointer that discrepancies can be totally innocent
-
That's your opinion... My opinion is... We can't trust the translation by Murat as, being accurate and we can't trust the papers ad being accurate..
So what would be her motive in deliberately changing her accounts or is this just a pointer that discrepancies can be totally innocent
Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers. Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?
I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.
-
Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers. Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?
I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.
The translations are non verbatim and amateur.. I think it's far more likely that the statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate
-
The translations are non verbatim and amateur.. I think it's far more likely that the statements cannot be relied upon to be accurate
There is every chance a certain window wasn't open then.
-
There is every chance a certain window wasn't open then.
No. Not every chance.
-
What rules are you referring to?
was suggesting that you can't cherry pick what to believe in a persons's statement, unless it is corroborated by a 3rd person.
Is that what you have done too. You don't say the McCanns or the Tapas 7 did anything other than what you can find in the file?
That is what I am doing. To make all Charlotte's statements true she has to go to the apartment then return to work until all the kids are sent home IMO. Was the lady picking up the child the last child? If so she didn't abandon any other kids?
What does she say about how many kids had to be picked up in the Dispatches documentary?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499392#msg499392
"Transcription 2:
'I was working that night at something called 'Drop-in Creche'. We had one child left and... errm, the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned 'Hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who's run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner, but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.'"
So if that is correct and they all went together they weren't abandoning any other kids, so what did she have to stay back for?
It is hard to understand what Charlotte and her friends were saying as it is written but then again I can't accept it is all incorrect.
If it was the last child Charlotte might not be that far behind the other two.
-
I would agree, particularly when they alter what they say they did in their statements at a later date.
They are not the only staff members who have changed their statements. Mario the laundry man added to his statement and I think a cleaner with a first name Manuela is on a YouTube giving a different version.
Another staff member Silvia Batista gave a talk that was reported in the media where she makes claims of personally offering the McCanns free babysitting on the day Madeleine went missing. With the way information on the internet changes, the original article can't be found any more, but re-quotes of what she said are still there.
-
In your opinion of course Davel but then I wonder why you are here discussing this, if that is your feelings.
Her story changed so greatly that I believe it was her choice to change it and not any inaccuracies in the initial translations during statements made in May 2007.
That is what happens if the initial statements were not absolutely comprehensive. Once we have two versions we ask ourselves which one is true. Once she is no longer working for OC/MW she is no longer under their instructions.
-
Is that what you have done too. You don't say the McCanns or the Tapas 7 did anything other than what you can find in the file?
That is what I am doing. To make all Charlotte true she has to go to the apartment then return to work until all the kids are sent home. Was the lady picking up the child the last child, so she didn't abandon ant other kids?
What does she say about how many kids had to be picked up in the Dispatches documentary?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499392#msg499392
"Transcription 2:
'I was working that night at something called 'Drop-in Creche'. We had one child left and... errm, the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned 'Hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who's run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner, but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.'"
So if the is correct and they all went together they weren't abandoning any other kids, so what did she have to stay back for?
It is hard to understand what Charlotte and her friends were saying as it is written but then again I can't accept it is all incorrect.
if it was the last child Charlotte might not be that far behind the other two.
Jackie said it wasn't the lasr child and that Charlotte stayed behind.
-
They are not the only staff members who have changed their statements. Mario the laundry man added to his statement and I think a cleaner with a first name Manuela is on a YouTube giving a different version.
Another staff member Silvia Batista gave a talk that was reported in the media where she makes claims of personally offering the McCanns free babysitting on the day Madeleine went missing. With the way information on the internet changes, the original article can't be found any more, but re-quotes of what she said are still there.
The statement about Free Babysitting is simply not true.
-
Or perhaps she changed her story to get herself in the newspapers. Are you saying that Robert Murat deliberately falisified statements as they were being made, or is this a general "lost in translation" issue in your opinion?
I ask as you seem to pick his translated statements out as being untrustworthy.
What I notice about the statements translated by Robert Murat is the lack of fluency that appears in the reverse translation.
Robert took the English and wrote it down in Portuguese, now later those Portuguese statements were re-translated but to English, but in all reality none of them read as like you'd expect the witness to talk in real life. He was OK but not the best translator IMO.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARLOTTE-PENNINGTON.htm
"Witness statement
Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 14H30
Childcare Worker
Irish Citizen
Translator Robert Murat"
Here is an example, do you think Charlotte said this following statement?
"- The witness further clarifies that the Baby Club group was divided in three sub-groups, with each group composed of two babies, so that each group had a different infant educator allocated to it;"
It is a description of the truth but it doesn't seem to tell us what is happening clearly on re-translation IMO.
-
Jackie said it wasn't the lasr child and that Charlotte stayed behind.
They both can't be absolutely correct or can they?
-
The statement about Free Babysitting is simply not true.
The night creche service was free. Was that all Silvia was offering?
-
The night creche service was free. Was that all Silvia was offering?
This Myth stemmed from The McCanns being dragged back from Chaplin's because the children were crying. That never happened either.
-
This Myth stemmed from The McCanns being dragged back from Chaplin's because the children were crying. That never happened either.
I don't know if that is the origin, but what I did notice there were several references to this interview with Silvia Batista saying various things but no matter how much I looked for it I couldn't find the original article originating from Portugal.
But it is just one of several incidences of inconsistencies in people's statements and subsequent reports in the media.
The Tapas 9 and Jeremy Wilkins get repeated interviews, and their statements are presented in the file, whereas others are interviewed more than once yet only their most recent interview is released.
So for one group we have multiple statements to compare and from that some will claim inconsistencies but there is nothing to really compare that to. What is the normal rate of inconsistencies in statements?
-
The statement about Free Babysitting is simply not true.
The question made, she affirms that guests can request "Staff" services where children are watched between 19H30 and 23H30. Madeleine McCanns parents never requested this service even though it was free;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SHINEAD-VINE.htm
Further still is the "Babysitting" service between 19h30 and 01h00 carried out in the apartments of the persons using it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STACY-POTZ.htm
When questioned she said that the crèche also offered a free service permitting parents to leave their children in the care of the crèche workers during dinner between 19.15 and 23.00, seeing as the above mentioned situation occurred during this time and that she was on duty for that service on that night.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Relative to the establishment in question, the deponent clarifies that the same offers free child-care services to families who are guests;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBIN_CROSSLAND-1.htm
Regarding the question as to the availability of the baby sitting service between 19.30 and 23.30, she confirms that the service exists and that it is free of charge.
When questioned, she says that she does not understand, as the service is free, why the parents of Madeleine McCann did not use it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
-
This Myth stemmed from The McCanns being dragged back from Chaplin's because the children were crying. That never happened either.
From what I have read the night service was free but individual babysitting in your apartment was not. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary of course.
-
A good get out attempt sadie. The staff at the creche wouldn't know whether a child was really missing or not from what the mother said IMO, there could simply be a child playing hide and seek with the parents, who wanted them to come back now, so they could go home.
They wouldn't have gone at the run to 5a. For a start they would have to check which apartment the McCanns were in, that is assuming they were instantly 100% certain that it was "Maddie" that the woman had heard and were working on that assumption straight away.
A good get out attempt ? I find tht insulting Sunny.
I have bent over backwards in my posts on this subject to be more than fair to you. Everything I say is trully possible and I am pretty sure that you must know it.
As for your reason 1, think again.
Would it have been ok for them to not respond in case she was playing Hide and seek?
When a child goes missing their correct response was to drop everything possible and join the search. As nannies, they would have been well versed in safety procedure. That was likely to be the first thing they were taught at their induction session.
The nannies were at tea with the little ones in the Tapas area. From there, each day, they would see where the mccanns stayed. .... furthermore each time, every day, they entered the Tapas Reception they passed 5A. It was the joint closest property to the Tapas reception of any properties at OC.
They almost certainly would have done. At least I would have run and all my friends would have run too. Natural instinct with some people to help instantly; of course, others 'walk on the other side of the road'
-
In my opinion the 'free' child care came into the same category as the 'free' meals and the 'free' wine with the meals, which as part of the holiday package ... was included in the price of the holiday.
Neither was it just as simple an option as it might at first appear ... I think the McCann party weighed up the options and based on proximity enabling checking the sleeping children at regular intervals made a choice which turned out to be a disastrously wrong one as far as Madeleine was concerned ... and one which they have to live with for every day of their lives since.
Snip
In the evenings, babysitting at the resort was a dilemma. "Sit-in" babysitters were available but were expensive and in demand, and Mark Warner blurb advised us to book well in advance. The other option was the babysitting service at the kiddie club, which was a 10-minute walk from the apartment.
The children would watch a cartoon together and then be put to bed.
You would then wake them, carry them back and put them to bed again in the apartment.
After taking our children to dinner a couple of times, we decided on the Wednesday night to try the service at the club.
We had booked a table for two at Tapas and were placed next to the Doctors' regular table.
One by one, they started to arrive.
Snip
My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up.
I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant.
He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
==========================================================
Snip
This is an area you would not associate with crime, let alone the abduction of a child.
Snip
The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring.
I can imagine the McCanns’ dilemma.
The ‘dining out club’ was more than a five-minute walk from where the McCanns stayed along cobbled streets or a winding pedestrian path through the apartments.
It’s not far - it worked brilliantly for us on most nights - but it would have felt much further if you had to ferry thee children there and back (and hope they were still asleep after doing so).
Plus parents were required to wait until children under two, which includes the McCanns’ twins, were asleep.
We talked to parents who said this was enough to put them off the option.
The McCanns opted instead to eat 40-50m from their apartment, not much more than a pool’s width away.
https://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2007/05/my_experience_o.html
-
From what I have read the night service was free but individual babysitting in your apartment was not. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary of course.
There was no free babysitting offered in the appartment, to The McCanns or anyone else. And no one has ever said it was.
-
From what I have read the night service was free but individual babysitting in your apartment was not. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary of course.
OC/MW are able to offer any service for free if they so desired. You can't say it is impossible that even the individual babysitting was offered to the McCanns "free", so not to have Pamela Fenn ringing her up again.
-
There was no free babysitting offered in the appartment, to The McCanns or anyone else. And no one has ever said it was.
That is what I dispute - It was reportedly offered to the McCanns.
-
OC/MW are able to offer any service for free if they so desired. You can't say it is impossible that even the individual babysitting was offered to the McCanns "free", so not to have Pamela Fenn ringing her up again.
You need a Cite for Pamela Fenn phoning her. And a Cite for The McCanns being offered free, in apartment baby sitting. Neither of which appear to exist.
-
That is what I dispute - It was reportedly offered to the McCanns.
Where is your Cite, Rob? A load of convoluted words won't do.
-
You need a Cite for Pamela Fenn phoning her. And a Cite for The McCanns being offered free, in apartment baby sitting. Neither of which appear to exist.
There was a babysitting service,was this in the apartment or away from it.
"A spokesman for Mark Warner said the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, knew before they booked to go to Praia da Luz that no listening service was available. However, the company did have on offer an evening creche and baby sitting facilities".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1900122/We-did-not-get-nanny-service-for-Madeleine-says-Kate-McCann.html
-
You need a Cite for Pamela Fenn phoning her. And a Cite for The McCanns being offered free, in apartment baby sitting. Neither of which appear to exist.
I'm exploring a hypothetical situation.
If Silvia offered the McCanns free baby sitting, tell me how did she get to know the McCanns needed it? Hypothetically Mrs Fenn could have reported the incident to OC management.
-
Where is your Cite, Rob? A load of convoluted words won't do.
Surely you are aware of the quotes. As I said only parts of the actual original quote are still available on the internet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7864.msg373004#msg373004
"Do you accept that she made the statements recorded in this article? http://www.infobae.com/2007/08/15/331952-crecen-las-sospechas-contra-los-padres-madeleine/
In particular:
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
2. "According to the director of the housing, " every month have theft records in place, so a nanny service are advised " but even knowing this, Maddie's parents did not accept it "
3. "We were not to blame for the disappearance of the child, I could not say whose fault it was, but it was not ours," said the director, noting that "the parents of the girl that night were very careless", and that is why they didn't ask for the babysitting service."
In 3 there are clear hints of a conflict of interest. She is basically declaring that she and the OC are not guilty, like responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Then she goes on to say something like it wouldn't have happened had the parents not refused the babysitting service.
Is Silvia involved in providing the nanny service? If she personally offered it earlier that day it sounds like she had some involvement in providing the service.
These issues are not raised in her statement yet seem very important to the case. Why were they not raised with the PJ in her statement?"
-
There was a babysitting service,was this in the apartment or away from it.
"A spokesman for Mark Warner said the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, knew before they booked to go to Praia da Luz that no listening service was available. However, the company did have on offer an evening creche and baby sitting facilities".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1900122/We-did-not-get-nanny-service-for-Madeleine-says-Kate-McCann.html
There was a Free Night Creche. In Appartment Baby Sitting had to be paid for. There was No Listening Service offered.
-
A good get out attempt ? I find tht insulting Sunny.
I have bent over backwards in my posts on this subject to be more than fair to you. Everything I say is trully possible and I am pretty sure that you must know it.
As for your reason 1, think again.
Would it have been ok for them to not respond in case she was playing Hide and seek?
When a child goes missing their correct response was to drop everything possible and join the search. As nannies, they would have been well versed in safety procedure. That was likely to be the first thing they were taught at their induction session.
The nannies were at tea with the little ones in the Tapas area. From there, each day, they would see where the mccanns stayed. .... furthermore each time, every day, they entered the Tapas Reception they passed 5A. It was the joint closest property to the Tapas reception of any properties at OC.
They almost certainly would have done. At least I would have run and all my friends would have run too. Natural instinct with some people to help instantly; of course, others 'walk on the other side of the road'
So you think that the nannies would have watched the McCanns as they walked back to their apartment. I doubt that to be honest. It would probably be clear which apartment a child had gone missing from because all the lights were on within it and people were milling around outside.
I would say I am not one who "walks on the other side of the road" but I do not run in (literally) until I know what has actually happened.
All of this, and my above reasoning would mean it would take more than 5 minutes following the alert for any of the night creche nannies to reach 5a. Not least because some of the nannies say the lady didn't arrive at the night creche to collect the child until 5 minutes after 10pm.
Sadie I wasn't intending to be disrespectful but you must recall your "another one bites the dust" attempts on the curtain thread. Which I may say, at the time I found disrespectful.
-
I'm exploring a hypothetical situation.
If Silvia offered the McCanns free baby sitting, tell me how did she get to know the McCanns needed it? Hypothetically Mrs Fenn could have reported the incident to OC management.
All Hypothetical, Rob.
There was a lot of Libellous Twaddled talked by one person in particuliar at the time, who said The McCanns were at Chaplin's and had to be dragged out because the children were crying.
This was entirely untrue.
The rest of it spun off it from that.
-
Surely you are aware of the quotes. As I said only parts of the actual original quote are still available on the internet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7864.msg373004#msg373004
"Do you accept that she made the statements recorded in this article? http://www.infobae.com/2007/08/15/331952-crecen-las-sospechas-contra-los-padres-madeleine/
In particular:
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
2. "According to the director of the housing, " every month have theft records in place, so a nanny service are advised " but even knowing this, Maddie's parents did not accept it "
3. "We were not to blame for the disappearance of the child, I could not say whose fault it was, but it was not ours," said the director, noting that "the parents of the girl that night were very careless", and that is why they didn't ask for the babysitting service."
In 3 there are clear hints of a conflict of interest. She is basically declaring that she and the OC are not guilty, like responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Then she goes on to say something like it wouldn't have happened had the parents not refused the babysitting service.
Is Silvia involved in providing the nanny service? If she personally offered it earlier that day it sounds like she had some involvement in providing the service.
These issues are not raised in her statement yet seem very important to the case. Why were they not raised with the PJ in her statement?"
The McCanns chose not to use the Free Night Creche. It's quite simple. The McCanns knew about it but didn't use it.
Understandable when you consider moving three small. sleeping children.
Hindsight is a great thing.
-
The McCanns chose not to use the Free Night Creche. It's quite simple. The McCanns knew about it but didn't use it.
Understandable when you consider moving three small. sleeping children.
Hindsight is a great thing.
Most parents develop foresight. "Don't run you'll fall" "Don't touch that it's hot" and the very well-known and basic; "I can't come out I don't have a babysitter".
-
Most parents develop foresight. "Don't run you'll fall" "Don't touch that it's hot" and the very well-known and basic; "I can't come out I don't have a babysitter".
Most parents don't expect their child to be abducted from her bed. Other dangers can be avoided with a bit of common sense.
-
Surely you are aware of the quotes. As I said only parts of the actual original quote are still available on the internet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7864.msg373004#msg373004
"Do you accept that she made the statements recorded in this article? http://www.infobae.com/2007/08/15/331952-crecen-las-sospechas-contra-los-padres-madeleine/
In particular:
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
2. "According to the director of the housing, " every month have theft records in place, so a nanny service are advised " but even knowing this, Maddie's parents did not accept it "
3. "We were not to blame for the disappearance of the child, I could not say whose fault it was, but it was not ours," said the director, noting that "the parents of the girl that night were very careless", and that is why they didn't ask for the babysitting service."
In 3 there are clear hints of a conflict of interest. She is basically declaring that she and the OC are not guilty, like responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Then she goes on to say something like it wouldn't have happened had the parents not refused the babysitting service.
Is Silvia involved in providing the nanny service? If she personally offered it earlier that day it sounds like she had some involvement in providing the service.
These issues are not raised in her statement yet seem very important to the case. Why were they not raised with the PJ in her statement?"
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
I have googled that and have not received a hit from any of silvia Batista's PJ statements or of any worthwhile provenance. I have found it mentioned in blogs inimically hostile to the McCann family.
In my opinion it is a falsehood and just one of many put about at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and since and as such is not worthy of mention on a forum such as this.
Am I wrong in thinking this?
-
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
I have googled that and have not received a hit from any of silvia Batista's PJ statements or of any worthwhile provenance. I have found it mentioned in blogs inimically hostile to the McCann family.
In my opinion it is a falsehood and just one of many put about at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and since and as such is not worthy of mention on a forum such as this.
Am I wrong in thinking this?
The newspaper article says that this is what she said. Why would the paper or the manager make it up?
-
Most parents don't expect their child to be abducted from her bed. Other dangers can be avoided with a bit of common sense.
Most parents don't leave their kids home alone in an unlocked apartment and it's got nothing to do with the fear or the likelihood of abduction imo.
-
The newspaper article says that this is what she said. Why would the paper or the manager make it up?
we could say the same raeson they make so much else up....or it could be because they are not too fussy about the sources of information, I seem to remember the sun making direct quotes from sil that he said he didnt make
-
The newspaper article says that this is what she said. Why would the paper or the manager make it up?
Is this joke? Why would the paper or manager make it up? They did, frequently.
-
The newspaper article says that this is what she said. Why would the paper or the manager make it up?
I think if there is perhaps one thing where the majority of members have consensus it is the perfidy of the press, of which there are far too many examples to enumerate.
Why would you suppose they had any scruples about printing lies in this or any other instance. What newspaper article are you referring to anyway?
On googling the phrase ... I only saw it mentioned in internet blogs of the most questionable type and neither Portuguese or any other MSM.
-
I think if there is perhaps one thing where the majority of members have consensus it is the perfidy of the press, of which there are far too many examples to enumerate.
Why would you suppose they had any scruples about printing lies in this or any other instance. What newspaper article are you referring to anyway?
On googling the phrase ... I only saw it mentioned in internet blogs of the most questionable type and neither Portuguese or any other MSM.
If the press is so perfidious ( btw I agree ) why do you cut and paste great swathes of their reportage quite so often ?
-
Is this joke? Why would the paper or manager make it up? They did, frequently.
Suggesting the manager made it up is libel.
-
Suggesting the manager made it up is libel.
Do you have an actual cite for the manager saying anything of the kind, please?
I did ask you ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499764#msg499764 but you appear to have missed my post.
-
"because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients"
Would someone care to explain how the OC pick up that liablity for those in accommodation without the OC ?
While you are at it explain the contractual relationships that cause this liability to be picked up?
"She must know what she is talking about" does not cut it I am afraid.
-
Suggesting the manager made it up is libel.
Not Libel. They did.
-
1. "The technical director of the Ocean Club resort, Silvia Batista, stated that the same night that Madeleine disappeared, she personally offered the childcare service "because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients, but they Rejected ".
I have googled that and have not received a hit from any of silvia Batista's PJ statements or of any worthwhile provenance. I have found it mentioned in blogs inimically hostile to the McCann family.
In my opinion it is a falsehood and just one of many put about at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and since and as such is not worthy of mention on a forum such as this.
Am I wrong in thinking this?
There would be many occasions where an article appears in a paper, it is then quoted, but the newspaper company folds so all references from the main source are lost.
The articles on the McCann case produced by the "News of the World" would be one good example.
-
Is this joke? Why would the paper or manager make it up? They did, frequently.
The thing as I see it there were multiple quotes of the source and no denial. I tend to think it did happen (in that it was said, I wouldn't have a clue as to whether the event happened). It would be equal to Lord Bell's pronouncement that the McCanns paid him half a million ponds to keep them in the news. It was a verbal statement, that can be reported and quoted but you won't find an article written by Lord Bell himself saying the same thing IMO AFAIK.
-
"because the hotel is responsible for the children of the clients"
Would someone care to explain how the OC pick up that liablity for those in accommodation without the OC ?
While you are at it explain the contractual relationships that cause this liability to be picked up?
"She must know what she is talking about" does not cut it I am afraid.
It would always be possible for anyone to say the wrong thing at times.
-
Do you have an actual cite for the manager saying anything of the kind, please?
I did ask you ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499764#msg499764 but you appear to have missed my post.
It is what was quoted in Rob’s cite...
-
Not Libel. They did.
Sorry can you explain what that means...?
-
The thing as I see it there were multiple quotes of the source and no denial. I tend to think it did happen (in that it was said, I wouldn't have a clue as to whether the event happened). It would be equal to Lord Bell's pronouncement that the McCanns paid him half a million ponds to keep them in the news. It was a verbal statement, that can be reported and quoted but you won't find an article written by Lord Bell himself saying the same thing IMO AFAIK.
I give in. This is getting ridiculous again.
-
Sorry can you explain what that means...?
No.
-
No.
Why?
-
Why?
Read my Posts.
-
It is what was quoted in Rob’s cite...
https://www.infobae.com/2007/08/15/331952-crecen-las-sospechas-contra-los-padres-madeleine/ is in Spanish from an Argentinian paper but it quotes another source yet again "Batista said in an interview given to the Globo.com portal that the hotel is working with the police from the beginning to find the girl.
I'm not sure what they mean by "Globo.com portal" but I doubt it was some blog.
-
The newspaper article says that this is what she said. Why would the paper or the manager make it up?
@)(++(*
-
Suggesting the manager made it up is libel.
What about suggesting Charlotte Pennington is an attention seeking clown who makes things up - is that libel too?
-
https://www.infobae.com/2007/08/15/331952-crecen-las-sospechas-contra-los-padres-madeleine/ is in Spanish from an Argentinian paper but it quotes another source yet again "Batista said in an interview given to the Globo.com portal that the hotel is working with the police from the beginning to find the girl.
I'm not sure what they mean by "Globo.com portal" but I doubt it was some blog.
I think Globo is based in Brazil, which, of course has extremely close historical connections with Portugal. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Globo
-
Read my Posts.
What you said was ambiguous, hence asking for clarification.
-
What about suggesting Charlotte Pennington is an attention seeking clown who makes things up - is that libel too?
Well?
-
If the press is so perfidious ( btw I agree ) why do you cut and paste great swathes of their reportage quite so often ?
To provide a cite as per forum rules, perhaps???
-
It is what was quoted in Rob’s cite...
At risk of appearing obtuse ... Rob makes quite a few posts ... would it be possible for you to indicate to which one you refer?
-
At risk of appearing obtuse ... Rob makes quite a few posts ... would it be possible for you to indicate to which one you refer?
I believe it was this one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499710#msg499710
-
I believe it was this one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10342.msg499710#msg499710
Thank you Rob.
-
In my study on the McCann case I have found I couldn't rule out the possibility that someone else was aware that Madeleine had wandered out of the apartment prior to Kate's check.
There was the reports from Stephen Carpenter that his wife had mentioned someone calling "Madeleine" and this seems to be prior to 22.00.
If this person began looking for Madeleine prior to Kate's check then the lady, picking up her child from the night creche spoke to a man who was a Mark Warner guest, could have been informed about Maddie , Abby or Gabby, prior to Kate's check also. This scenario allows the three night creche workers to start heading toward the McCann apartment possibly at a time while Kate is still doing her check.
This scenario allows Amy to be in the apartment early enough to see the window open and shutter up, and for Charlotte to say she was in the apartment within 5 minutes of Madeleine being found missing by Kate.
The concept that some other Mark Warner guest was aware of Madeleine going missing prior to Kate's check needs investigating.
-
In my study on the McCann case I have found I couldn't rule out the possibility that someone else was aware that Madeleine had wandered out of the apartment prior to Kate's check.
There was the reports from Stephen Carpenter that his wife had mentioned someone calling "Madeleine" and this seems to be prior to 22.00.
If this person began looking for Madeleine prior to Kate's check then the lady, picking up her child from the night creche spoke to a man who was a Mark Warner guest, could have been informed about Maddie , Abby or Gabby, prior to Kate's check also. This scenario allows the three night creche workers to start heading toward the McCann apartment possibly at a time while Kate is still doing her check.
This scenario allows Amy to be in the apartment early enough to see the window open and shutter up, and for Charlotte to say she was in the apartment within 5 minutes of Madeleine being found missing by Kate.
The concept that some other Mark Warner guest was aware of Madeleine going missing prior to Kate's check needs investigating.
As does the 10 pm checking time.
-
What about suggesting Charlotte Pennington is an attention seeking clown who makes things up - is that libel too?
What should one infer from the deafening silence greeting my post above?
-
What should one infer from the deafening silence greeting my post above?
Pass.
-
Pass.
LOL. I guess it’s ok then to libel Ms Pennington. As you were...
-
LOL. I guess it’s ok then to libel Ms Pennington. As you were...
Perhaps you should stop trying to goad others into making views on Charlotte Pennington, beyond those that have already been made VS.
-
Perhaps you should stop trying to goad others into making views on Charlotte Pennington, beyond those that have already been made VS.
My remark was tongue in cheek as I sure you know, and refers to comments already made on this thread which are IMO libellous but which have been allowed to remain, whilst anythhing remotely off colour said about St Amaral, St Grime or the Righteous Dogs, or in this case “the manager”, is given a rebuke for being libel. Do you have a problem with me exercising my freedom of speech in pointing this out?
-
My remark was tongue in cheek as I sure you know, and refers to comments already made on this thread which are IMO libellous but which have been allowed to remain, whilst anythhing remotely off colour said about St Amaral, St Grime or the Righteous Dogs, or in this case “the manager”, is given a rebuke for being libel. Do you have a problem with me exercising my freedom of speech in pointing this out?
Everyone else appears to be discussing discrepancies in statements which casts doubt on her evidence which isn’t libellous. As opposed to bald statements, sometimes unexplained, made with no supporting information which can be.
-
Everyone else appears to be discussing discrepancies in statements which casts doubt on her evidence which isn’t libellous. As opposed to bald statements, sometimes unexplained, made with no supporting information which can be.
Who set up posters on a discussion forum to be prosecution, judge and jury on "discrepancies in statements which casts doubt on her evidence"?
In my opinion "casting doubt" on statements made by a witness is tantamount to questioning their veracity and therefore the integrity of the person making the statements; if that is not defamation ... exactly what is?
-
Does any of this matter? Charlotte Pennington wasn't involved in the Abduction of Madeleine McCann.
Or does anyone think she was?
-
Does any of this matter? Charlotte Pennington wasn't involved in the Abduction of Madeleine McCann.
Or does anyone think she was?
Her testimony has to be rubbished, she’s on the McCanns side.
-
I didn't know Robi was a sceptic.
-
I didn't know Robi was a sceptic.
I don’t know what he is, but I do know much of the rubbishing has come from the Alpha Sceptic.
-
I don’t know what he is, but I do know much of the rubbishing has come from the Alpha Sceptic.
A) pointing out where statements, articles, videos contradict each other is part and parcel of this forum.
B) Alpha sceptic is goading so don’t use it, unless of course you want to get into Omega Supporters.
-
I didn't know Robi was a sceptic.
Rob is probably the best you are going to get.
-
Her testimony has to be rubbished, she’s on the McCanns side.
Not so much rubbished but questioned imo.
-
Her testimony has to be rubbished, she’s on the McCanns side.
Is she?
-
Not so much rubbished but questioned imo.
Why? This is utterly pathetic.
-
Why? This is utterly pathetic.
What is pathetic Eleanor? It appears that every little thing that Martin Grime said and did is open to scrutiny so why not all other witnesses in the McCann case?
-
Rob is probably the best you are going to get.
I know I'm trying very hard to be the best. It is quite an honour to be called that Eleanor. That doesn't mean I still don't upset other people at times.
Is it possible to be a sceptic and a supporter at the same time? I think that is why no one can categorise me into either camp.
-
Her testimony has to be rubbished, she’s on the McCanns side.
I want to look at the importance of what Charlotte says. I need to look at the statements again and take particular note of what the nannies say Kate was saying first thing.
-
I know I'm trying very hard to be the best. It is quite an honour to be called that Eleanor. That doesn't mean I still don't upset other people at times.
Is it possible to be a sceptic and a supporter at the same time? I think that is why no one can categorise me into either camp.
You are a rare beast, Rob. Don't knock it. You do very well.
-
A) pointing out where statements, articles, videos contradict each other is part and parcel of this forum.
B) Alpha sceptic is goading so don’t use it, unless of course you want to get into Omega Supporters.
a) pointing out contradictions and then using them to describe someone as a self promoting clown who makes stuff up is also part of this forum, unless those descriptions are used against Amaral, Grime or anyone on the Sceptic side of the debate
b) Alpha sceptic is a compliment, Omega to describe an individual’s standing in a community is not a term I have come across, but if you wish to use it then that’s fine by me.
-
Not so much rubbished but questioned imo.
Charlotte Pennington has been both questioned and rubbished on this forum over the last few days.
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm#13
In the quoted article "The first eyewitness account of the frantic moments after Madeleine McCann disappeared can be revealed today.
Nanny Charlotte Pennington confirms that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"
The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Maddie had been abducted.
Mrs McCann's family have countered this by insisting they recall her shouting: "Madeleine's gone."
Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases."
What else?
""When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'
Asked if it was the only thing she said, Miss Pennington answered: "It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. She also repeated Madeleine's name and said: 'She's gone, she's gone'."
"Asked why she thought Mrs McCann might have shouted "They've taken her", Miss Pennington said:
"I'm not really sure. But maybe she saw some people looking at Madeleine earlier that day, and she immediately thought that they must have taken her.""
In another spot "It also tallies with a second report today claiming new evidence proves that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from her bed.
Police have been told Kate McCann knew instantly her daughter had been snatched because the bedclothes were in exactly the same position, raised above the mattress as if they were still lying over the little girl.
Friends of the McCanns believe this prove she was taken and did not just wander off, which would have ruffled the bedclothes."
Now that does challenge my theory of woke and wandered!
Nigel questions "Pennington's account of entering and leaving the apartment is also confusing in relation to her position and Kate's. She says at first that ''When we were coming out (of the apartment) we saw Kate and she was screaming 'They've taken her'.'' This seems odd because it appears to imply that Kate was outside the apartment - possibly just outside the patio doors. But why was Kate outside the apartment screaming 'They've taken her' when everyone else was inside?"
-
OK even if Kate had said "they have taken her, they have taken her" we then can ask who are "they" Kate?
I'm thinking the early timeline written on the sticker book covers, was there any mention of "they" on there?
No mention of Gerry meeting Jez on there (https://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/18/62/71/98/tapas911.jpg)
I know the only home where the homeowners were specifically woken and questioned were the Wilkins/O'Donnell family.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm Yvonne records Kate saying a couple took her child.
Was "They" a couple then?
-
a) pointing out contradictions and then using them to describe someone as a self promoting clown who makes stuff up is also part of this forum, unless those descriptions are used against Amaral, Grime or anyone on the Sceptic side of the debate
b) Alpha sceptic is a compliment, Omega to describe an individual’s standing in a community is not a term I have come across, but if you wish to use it then that’s fine by me.
You appear to be the only one calling her a clown.
-
You appear to be the only one calling her a clown.
It...
There is a certain amount of stuff to be taken with a pinch of salt. That is why a live reconstruction would have been very helpful. who was where - when and what was said/claimed by everyone.
I do like this explanation:
"Police have been told Kate McCann knew instantly her daughter had been snatched because the bedclothes were in exactly the same position, raised above the mattress as if they were still lying over the little girl.
Friends of the McCanns believe this prove she was taken and did not just wander off, which would have ruffled the bedclothes."
Ahh ruffled bed clothes.. let us look at the story again.
When did Kate last see her daughter alive- under the bedclothes all snuggled up as it was cold
When did Gerry last see his daughter alive- under the bedclothes all snuggled up as it was cold On top of the bed clothes where he left her as it was hot..
Oh dear...
What about there being no marks what so ever on the bed next to the window... you know the one where the 'abductor' carried a sleeping child through that small space?
Oh Dear...
-
Only thing in Gerry's favour is that if she was lying on top of her bedding she could awake without disturbing her bedding much further.
-
Only thing in Gerry's favour is that if she was lying on top of her bedding she could awake without disturbing her bedding much further.
I love the idea they are so very observant about door opening measurements and bed clothes arrangements but stammer and stutter during questioning... I now have a better understanding as to why Kate didn't want to answer the questions about what she saw when she first went into the room...
-
You appear to be the only one calling her a clown.
Nope.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.75
-
Nope.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.75
Having a pop at me again? Well she made me laugh.
-
Having a pop at me again? Well she made me laugh.
I was responding to the accusation that I was the only one calling her a clown, do you have a problem with me providing a cite to demonstrate that Slarti was mistaken?
-
I was responding to the accusation that I was the only one calling her a clown, do you have a problem with me providing a cite to demonstrate that Slarti was mistaken?
You're the only one to use the word on this thread. Repeatedly.
-
You're the only one to use the word on this thread. Repeatedly.
You were the first one to use the word to describe Pennington on a different thread, so what? Clearly it is acceptable by forum rules to refer to this woman as a clown and an attention seeker who makes things up, and is not considered libel, do you agree?
-
You were the first one to use the word to describe Pennington on a different thread, so what? Clearly it is acceptable by forum rules to refer to this woman as a clown and an attention seeker who makes things up, and is not considered libel, do you agree?
G-unit wasn’t the first to use clown on that thread.
-
G-unit wasn’t the first to use clown on that thread.
She was the first to use it to denigrate Charlotte Pennington.
-
G-unit wasn’t the first to use clown on that thread.
8(0(* That indeed might very well have been yours truly ... but it most certainly was not used in response to any witness statement recorded in the PJ files to which we have access.
-
Nope.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10333.75
I can't see anything derogatory there. Has the referred to post just been wiped .... oram I just not seeing it ?
-
8(0(* That indeed might very well have been yours truly ... but it most certainly was not used in response to any witness statement recorded in the PJ files to which we have access.
Seems that someone is trying to put the blame on Briettas shoulders.
Brietta did not ... I repeat, she did NOT ... make the derogatory remark about Charlotte being like a clown. Why is an effort being made to twist what she said ?
To hide the true identity of the person who was said it ? To roast Brietta and protect the one who libelled Charlotte ?
-
You were the first one to use the word to describe Pennington on a different thread, so what? Clearly it is acceptable by forum rules to refer to this woman as a clown and an attention seeker who makes things up, and is not considered libel, do you agree?
Brietta mentioned clowns being interviewed (I wonder who she meant) and I remembered being amused by Charlotte's tales. So what? Worse things have been said about others on here.
-
Enough said about clowns. I'm feeling that the thread is being derailed.
-
Enough said about clowns. I'm feeling that the thread is being derailed.
Same theme on every other thread, so why change now?
-
Enough said about clowns. I'm feeling that the thread is being derailed.
Unfortunately I highlighted inconsistencies in Charlotte Pennington's assertions to the media. Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. Therefore convoluted explanations must be found to 'explain' her unworkable claims. At the same time those who don't believe her must be attacked. All in my opinion.
-
Unfortunately I highlighted inconsistencies in Charlotte Pennington's assertions to the media. Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. Therefore convoluted explanations must be found to 'explain' her unworkable claims. At the same time those who don't believe her must be attacked. All in my opinion.
To be fair I was simply highlighting a double standard, where libel against one individual was permitted, but against another it was not. It’s important to have consistency because I am fairly certain that if I described Amaral as an attention seeking C word who makes things up I would be punished.
-
Unfortunately I highlighted inconsistencies in Charlotte Pennington's assertions to the media. Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. Therefore convoluted explanations must be found to 'explain' her unworkable claims. At the same time those who don't believe her must be attacked. All in my opinion.
What made you say Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent?
-
To be fair I was simply highlighting a double standard, where libel against one individual was permitted, but against another it was not. It’s important to have consistency because I am fairly certain that if I described Amaral as an attention seeking C word who makes things up I would be punished.
If the issue starts with a moderator, it becomes difficult to moderate.
-
What made you say Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent?
More to the point, why shouldn’t she? She is as entitled if not more so to an opinion regarding the events of that night.
-
More to the point, why shouldn’t she? She is as entitled if not more so to an opinion regarding the events of that night.
Charlotte is allowed an opinion but where does she express her opinion?
-
If the issue starts with a moderator, it becomes difficult to moderate.
Quite.
-
Unfortunately I highlighted inconsistencies in Charlotte Pennington's assertions to the media. Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. Therefore convoluted explanations must be found to 'explain' her unworkable claims. At the same time those who don't believe her must be attacked. All in my opinion.
Can opinion be libel? Does the forum feel that it is allowable to make libellous remarks disguised as opinion?
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent." Reads like a libellous statement to me.
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. All in my opinion." Does that cancel out the libel simply by asserting it was opinion, when it is impossible to show how one formed that opinion?
-
Can opinion be libel? Does the forum feel that it is allowable to make libellous remarks disguised as opinion?
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent." Reads like a libellous statement to me.
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. All in my opinion." Does that cancel out the libel simply by asserting it was opinion, when it is impossible to show how one formed that opinion?
Yes, it can. In my opinion.
-
Can opinion be libel? Does the forum feel that it is allowable to make libellous remarks disguised as opinion?
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent." Reads like a libellous statement to me.
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. All in my opinion." Does that cancel out the libel simply by asserting it was opinion, when it is impossible to show how one formed that opinion?
Really ? Is it in any way damaging to her reputation for someone to say that ?
-
Can opinion be libel? Does the forum feel that it is allowable to make libellous remarks disguised as opinion?
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent." Reads like a libellous statement to me.
"Charlotte Pennington believes the McCanns are innocent. All in my opinion." Does that cancel out the libel simply by asserting it was opinion, when it is impossible to show how one formed that opinion?
Neither is libellous as considering someone innocent cannot be seen as a negative thing.
-
Neither is libellous as considering someone innocent cannot be seen as a negative thing.
Until you get into holocaust denial territory. If you said Joe believes the Nazi’s were innocent, that could be defamatory.
-
Neither is libellous as considering someone innocent cannot be seen as a negative thing.
What if Charlotte has firm beliefs opposing that view? G-unit is not saying the McCanns are innocent.
-
Until you get into holocaust denial territory. If you said Joe believes the Nazi’s were innocent, that could be defamatory.
What about saying the Pope is not Catholic? I think a belief can only be determined by that person making a declaration. Unless it has been reported in some media what Charlotte believes one should NOT declare an opinion about it.
-
Until you get into holocaust denial territory. If you said Joe believes the Nazi’s were innocent, that could be defamatory.
Who would be defamed in that scenario?
-
If the issue starts with a moderator, it becomes difficult to moderate.
But it didn't start with a moderator, did it? It startede with someone calling Charlotte a clown ... and that someone wasn't Brietta.
-
But it didn't start with a moderator, did it? It started with someone calling Charlotte a clown ... and that someone wasn't Brietta.
I didn't imply that. I was meaning that if a moderator says something I feel restricted as to what I can do about it.
-
Another story which doesn't appear in the official files;
A mystery boatman was seen kicking at something in the middle of the night two days after Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Former Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington said she spotted the man in a small dinghy just off the Praia da Luz seafront at 11.30pm. She claims he was kicking at an object stored in the boat's hull.
When she moved closer to investigate, the man - whose name she has given to Portuguese and British police - stooped out of sight then hurriedly rowed away.
Portuguese police are taking the sightings seriously
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-boatman-spotted-kicking-something-in-the-middle-of-the-night-7296757.html
-
Another story which doesn't appear in the official files;
A mystery boatman was seen kicking at something in the middle of the night two days after Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Former Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington said she spotted the man in a small dinghy just off the Praia da Luz seafront at 11.30pm. She claims he was kicking at an object stored in the boat's hull.
When she moved closer to investigate, the man - whose name she has given to Portuguese and British police - stooped out of sight then hurriedly rowed away.
Portuguese police are taking the sightings seriously
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-boatman-spotted-kicking-something-in-the-middle-of-the-night-7296757.html
Have you managed to ascertain whether the official files as released to the general public are complete and include everything or not?
-
Have you managed to ascertain whether the official files as released to the general public are complete and include everything or not?
I know there's one statement by Charlotte Pennington which is different to the various stories she gave to the media. I can think of no reason why anything else she said to the PJ should be missing.
-
I know there's one statement by Charlotte Pennington which is different to the various stories she gave to the media. I can think of no reason why anything else she said to the PJ should be missing.
You have no idea of any stories she gave to the media.... You only have what they reported
-
Have you managed to ascertain whether the official files as released to the general public are complete and include everything or not?
You have made a gross asssumption there. I am sure you can spot what it is.
The official files are in Portimao Court.
There is only one way to find out whether what was released is the entire content of the official files.
That entails going to Portimao to compare what is on that tinternet with what is in the court archive with what was on the original discs released. Given always that what remains on the net is what was actually released to the public in its entirety.
Like I said there's only one way to find that out. From posts on here I gather several supporters must have done it so there is no need to be coy about it.
Faites vos jeux.
-
You have no idea of any stories she gave to the media.... You only have what they reported
You have no idea if the McCanns have applied to the ECHR. You only have what the media have reported.
-
You have no idea if the McCanns have applied to the ECHR. You only have what the media have reported.
No I haven't... I have more than that which you should realise
-
No I haven't... I have more than that which you should realise
What then?
-
What then?
Thanks Rob, I didn't dare ask!
-
What then?
I'm teasing... Are you not, aware that there is more than is in the press... There is a refernve to it outside press reports
-
I'm teasing... Are you not, aware that there is more than is in the press... There is a refernve to it outside press reports
Obviously we're not aware of this reference or we wouldn't ask. Where is it?
-
Obviously we're not aware of this reference or we wouldn't ask. Where is it?
In the last filed, accounts... Page, 5 I believe.... I'm surprised you aren't aware
-
In the last filed, accounts... Page, 5 I believe.... I'm surprised you aren't aware
Quite so, I'd forgotten about that. I wonder if they got their information from the same source as the newspapers did?
-
You have made a gross asssumption there. I am sure you can spot what it is.
The official files are in Portimao Court.
There is only one way to find out whether what was released is the entire content of the official files.
That entails going to Portimao to compare what is on that tinternet with what is in the court archive with what was on the original discs released. Given always that what remains on the net is what was actually released to the public in its entirety.
Like I said there's only one way to find that out. From posts on here I gather several supporters must have done it so there is no need to be coy about it.
Faites vos jeux.
I've literally made not one single assumption and asked a fairly innocuous question. thanks for the ad hom as always though, always a pleasure.
-
So where is the ad hom ?
Your gross assumption appears to be:
That which is on that tinternet was put there by someone in an official capacity, you having referred to official files.
Like I said to view the official files you need to visit the court archive not the internet. A bitter pill to swallow maybe for those of the class of 2008 but the tructh none the less.
I’m surprised you needed Rob and Davel to point out the ad hom, thanks to them for doing so and saving me the bother, as for the rest I didn’t say that the files put on the internet were put there in an official capacity, they were put there be some bloated dodgy journo IIRC. So no assumption made by me, unless you are saying that the material on the internet isn’t from the official files at all?
-
I was asking you how you know that it is ?
You seem reluctant to accept that the official files are in a court archive rather than on the internet.
Who put it on the internet in your opinion and why is that your opinion?
How that I know it is what? From the official files? Well if those hundreds of pages of Portugese text on PJ paper with signatures and that are not official or some sort of forgery then some of us have been wasting an awful lot of time translating them and poring over their every word. As to who put it in the internet, that was some corpulent foreign journalist wasn’t it, and why? To make himself feel important maybe, who knows.