Some of the holiday group seemed keen to demonstrate their knowledge of Mark Warner Holidays and the nature of their 'listening service' which they say they copied. Did any of them have first hand experience of the service? Fiona Payne seemed confused;So what? She’d been on a number of holidays, staying in a Mark Warner and similar resorts in Greece, how very suspicious.
We'd all been on MARK WARNER holidays, erm, in Greece, erm, I don't think anyone had been anywhere else in Europe, but all those MARK WARNER holidays had, were very much the same, erm, different resorts but the same sort of layout, the same hypothesis of, you know, having kid time and adult time.
Erm, I'd been on holiday with Dave, erm, and our children, with Matt and Rachael and their child, Grace, and Russ and Jane and their two children and we'd been to Greece for a week. Erm, it wasn't a MARK WARNER, it was, erm, I can't remember which company it was with, but it was a very small holiday, erm, environment, where you sort of had all the walled off area with a few villas and a shared pool and a restaurant, erm, and we had a great time and we've all got very young children and the kids had a great time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Rachael Oldfield claims she went to Greece in 2006, but not with Mark Warner;Consistent with Fiona’s statement - and?
Concerning the monitoring of the children every half hour, it was inspired by the system that "Mark Warner" has and which is known as "baby listening" and she had used this service in 2006 when they stayed at a holiday resort in Greece.
we'd all, we'd all done Mark WARNER holidays before sort of separately, that was the Portuguese holiday was the fourth Mark WARNER holiday that Matt and I had done and we did a couple before Grace was born and then we did one with her, erm and then our September holiday in Greece in two thousand and six, you know was just so good because of all the kids and had a great time, it wasn't Mark WARNER,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
So no acknowledgement that you were wrong to accuse Fiona Payne of seeming “confused” (a favourite euphemism).
She may have been to Mark Warner but she knew little about the 'listening service';So what? Did she ever claim to be an expert on the subject? Are you not trying to make something of nothing?
Reply "I mean in, at the other resorts that we've been to err I believe they do it every thirty minutes err you know as I say we actually haven't used that service when we've been but you know the friends who have they've, they've said it's around thirty minutes.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
I would think a resort with a listening service would be safer than one without it. Having someone patrolling and moving about on the lookout for strangers.
Listening services are usually offered on private property, so the only people around should be guests and staff.Why would it not be considered a safe option in a resort like the OC then?
Listening services are usually offered on private property, so the only people around should be guests and staff.Do you agree with me then? My theory "I think a resort with a listening service would be safer than one without it. Having someone patrolling and moving about on the lookout for strangers" is an advantage.
Do you agree with me then? My theory "I think a resort with a listening service would be safer than one without it. Having someone patrolling and moving about on the lookout for strangers".
Why would it not be considered a safe option in a resort like the OC then?
I don't see it as a safe option full stop, but it's safer in a private area than a public one for obvious reasons.What are the obvious reasons? Ingress by members of the public you mean? Surely not!
What are the obvious reasons? Ingress by members of the public you mean? Surely not!
The public can see that it's enclosed so are discouraged from entering. If a child should wake and wander it's reasonable to assume they're still within the boundary. If there's a gatehouse there's a pair of eyes seeing if anyone leaves with a child.So at the OC would you consider ingress by members of the public to be a threat to the safety of sleeping children or not? No need to reply, rhetorical question.
So at the OC would you consider ingress by members of the public to be a threat to the safety of sleeping children or not? No need to reply, rhetorical question.
It's not what I think, its what they thought. So far it seems they weren't all that familiar with the Mark Warner listening service. The only people who actually claim to have used it were Jane and Russell. According to Jane the nannies were actually patrolling the block, not the streets. No doubt they would be paying close attention to those rooms/apartments on their list.Who is "they"? Do you mean the OC considered there was a threat of ingress from members of the public to children sleeping in their accommodation?
Who is "they"? Do you mean the OC considered there was a threat of ingress from members of the public to children sleeping in their accommodation?
I meant the holiday group who told us they copied (and improved on) the Mark Warner listening service offered at their other resorts. Copying implies reproducing. In order to reproduce something the first consideration is the surroundings. Are they the same? No. One is a private space, the other is a public space.They must have considered sleeping children left alone in their beds in a "public" space vulnerable to predators then, wouldn't you agree? Presumably you don't because from what i can gather from your previous posts you seem to think the likelihood of Madeleine being the victim of such a predator to be virtually impossible. Not asking for your opinion btw, just voicing mine.
They must have considered sleeping children left alone in their beds in a "public" space vulnerable to predators then, wouldn't you agree? Presumably you don't because from what i can gather from your previous posts you seem to think the likelihood of Madeleine being the victim of such a predator to be virtually impossible. Not asking for your opinion btw, just voicing mine.I like your point. The likelihood of Madeleine being the victim of a predator is NOT going to be virtually impossible.
Anyone who excuses hotel baby listening services on the basis that they are private places as opposed to "public" places, is unwittingly admitting that strangers pose a threat to the safety of sleeping children left alone.
I like your point. The likelihood of Madeleine being the victim of a predator is NOT going to be virtually impossible.
The management at the Ocean Club must have been aware of this IMO. This was shown by Silvia Batista admitting in an interview that she had personally contacted the McCanns that day offering babysitting services.
Anyone who suggests that there's no difference between baby listening on private property and in public places is ignoring the likelihood that a woke and wandered child will be quicker to find on private property.Do you consider the home you live in a public place, out of interest? And are you now saying that the only reason some hotels offer listening services is because they think if the child leaves the room of its own volition they’ll easily be able to find it again, so no harm done? No obligation to reply.
Do you consider the home you live in a public place, out of interest? And are you now saying that the only reason some hotels offer listening services is because they think if the child leaves the room of its own volition they’ll easily be able to find it again, so no harm done? No obligation to reply.
Listening services are connected to premises owned and controlled by the provider.So that’s the reason why there was no listening service at the OC, nothing to do with it being a “public” place then?
So that’s the reason why there was no listening service at the OC, nothing to do with it being a “public” place then?
You to have missed the fact that premises owned and controlled by an entity is by default not public.You seem to have missed the word seem but never mind. I don’t quite inderstand you point -was Apartment 5a public or private in your view? G-Unit seems to be suggesting that it was a public place, do you agree?
So that’s the reason why there was no listening service at the OC, nothing to do with it being a “public” place then?It has been said but I don't know who by but the Ocean Club Luz was too spread out to have an effective listening service.
You seem to have missed the word seem bit never mind. I don’t quite inderstand you point -was Apartment 5a public or private in your view? G-Unit seems to be suggesting that it was a public place, do you agree?It was bordered by 3 public roads and a fence on the 4th side. It was situated within a public place.
It was bordered by 3 public roads and a fence on the 4th side. It was situated within a public place.As are many private residences but I wouldn’t describe them as public places.
Strange that Silvia Batista didn't mention that in any of the interviews she gave to the Policia Judicairia.IMO it could be, but that could be incriminating therefore doesn't need mentioning during witness interviews.
It was bordered by 3 public roads and a fence on the 4th side. It was situated within a public place.
IMO it could be, but that could be incriminating therefore doesn't need mentioning during witness interviews.
I just read another on-line book on the McCann case "Madeleine Beth McCann - A mystery Story" by Albert Moisiu (which does not seem to be referenced on this forum before), brought home to me once again the pivotal role Silvia Batista has over this case in particular her control over the areas searched by the cadaver dogs, she controlled the keys hence the access.
As are many private residences but I wouldn’t describe them as public places.Each property would be private but if a person was on the public road is there an issue or not? The resort was too spread out to be covered by a listening service. Is that just an excuse? Who knows but I know I have seen it written before. OK maybe it needed more people to man up a listening service. Who is paying for the extra staff?
Some of the incriminating misunderstandings used against the McCanns were lifted directly from her statements.I take that to mean from Silvia's statements. They seem to be allowed to make suggestions about other people but not about themselves.
I wonder what the McCann family knew about this resort. For example did they know that their lodging was in private ownership and was managed by the holiday company not owned by them.Several make the point that to get from one private part to the other part the people had to use the public road for a short section. What worried me more was the access back to the Tapas area was controlled by an access door that could not be guaranteed to be open at all times.
It certainly was not obvious that the part of the village where the apartments were was anything other than practically self contained because all the apartment blocks were so similar.
Some of the incriminating misunderstandings used against the McCanns were lifted directly from her statements.
Several make the point that to get from one private part to the other part the people had to use the public road for a short section. What worried me more was the access back to the Tapas area was controlled by an access door that could not be guaranteed to be open at all times.The access door was open all the time that we ate there .... and no-one from OC was in attendence
The access door was open all the time that we ate there .... and no-one from OC was in attendenceYes that could be true but what would have needed to be done to close the door? Was it just clipped open?
I wonder what the McCann family knew about this resort. For example did they know that their lodging was in private ownership and was managed by the holiday company not owned by them.
It certainly was not obvious that the part of the village where the apartments were was anything other than practically self contained because all the apartment blocks were so similar.
Russell knew that the blocks contained both private and holiday accommodation;
MARK WARNER didn’t own every, every apartment in every block, they had a, sort of a splattering of apartments across the Ocean Club.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
By the time of the rogatory interviews I imagine there was little about the village and and the Mark Warner set up within it that Russell et al weren't aware of.
The pertinent question was how aware were they all prior to the holiday taking place that the 'MW' apartment blocks were not exclusive to the holiday company?
Did David Payne who organised the short stay make prior mention of the fact? Did anyone?
It was certainly clear that there was no enclosed complex separate from local life;Snip
The unusual setting of the Ocean Club is just one of the reasons why this Mark Warner destination is so unique. A series of private areas, surrounded by individual villa-style accommodations dotted throughout an independently working village gives a sense of space and personality whilst having the exclusive Mark Warner holiday facilities that make a holiday with us so different.
Set on a gentle hillside, Praia Da Luz is home to a small but thriving community set amongst a surprising number of small bars, restaurants, cafes, boutiques and shops where you’re just as likely to pass a local as a fellow tourist. Travelling with Mark Warner will gain you access to three private club areas, each with their own pool and bar, café or restaurant facilities. Their locations encourage you to explore the whole village, whether it be heading for breakfast, a cooling dip or an afternoon on the sandy beach.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070215095143/http://www.markwarner.co.uk:80/summer_holidays/portugal/ocean_club
Snip
All inclusive holidays > Summer > Portugal > Ocean Club > Resort Details
Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort
Accommodation
Accommodation is arranged in the villa-style apartments which are available in one or two bedrooms. Layouts are sensibly arranged – a one-bedroom apartment will accommodate a family of four, two bedrooms up to six, and all have their own balcony or patio. All apartments have washing machines and direct dial telephones in addition to the kitchens with utilities that come as standard.
Food & Drink
At the Ocean Club, your half-board package includes breakfast served at the Millennium Restaurant, where you help yourself to a cooked, continental or healthier start to the day, and either lunch or dinner, (carte de table or buffet selection) in one of the two family friendly village restaurants. House wine is included with dinner.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070224210231/http://www.markwarner.co.uk:80/summer_holidays/portugal/ocean_club/resort_details
I don't see anything there which would have led me as a visitor circa 2007 to expect anything other than accommodation dedicated to the ownership of MW.
The accommodation occupied by the McCanns was not sitting cheek by jowl with picturesque fisher cottages; in my opinion it gave every appearance of being the exclusive property of the holiday company.
Particularly as it was billed as "A series of private areas" which to all intent and purposes most certainly resembled Block 5 and the blocks in near proximity which surrounded it.
I don't understand why it's significant who owned the blocks or the apartments come to that. The significance lies in the lack of an enclosed complex imo.
Pity they didn't know the number for the police. If they had direct dial telephones they wouldn't have needed to run up and down to reception.
Anyway ~ if one cares to apply the "duck test" ~ it seems that there was a bit of ignorance about the accommodation included in the Mark Warner and Thomas Cook holidays at the resort in Luz.
Snip
The Ocean Club is a purpose built, village style holiday resort situated near the attractive, sandy beach of Praia da Luz.
Dotted around the Ocean Club, and set amongst attractive, well-maintained gardens, there are several, large, inviting outdoor pools, including separate ones for children, families and a very well secluded pool area for adults only.
________________________________________________________________________________
The Ocean Club village itself is set amongst cobbled streets and most appartments are quite private with either a terrace or balcony, surrounded by attractively planted gardens, full of exotic flowers. The apartment we stayed in had a large, raised terrace from which we had a view of the sea.
The final downside, was the extra beds. Four of us stayed in a one bed apartment, which was in itself, like a small flat, with its own kitchen, dining table and chairs, living area, good bathroom with bath and shower, a large raised terrace with sea views and a seperate bedroom. The twin beds in the seperate bedroom were comfortable enough, however, the sofa bed and camper bed we were provided with, were atrocious! They might be suitable for small children, but to expect a fully grown adult to sleep on those things, was appalling. In short, if you have back problems, make sure you sleep on the beds in the bedroom and do not go anywhere near the camper or sofa beds!
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or190-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
Our visit to Ocean Club Apartments was in mid-November, which meant that we got extremely good off-peak rates. A spacious, comfortable three bedroom apartment for 96 Euros per night. It certainly felt like we got good value for money!
The bedroom and lounge had lovely sea views and we could enjoy the sunrise and sunset. In warmer months, the large balcony would provide extra living space, although we made little use of it in the autumn temperatures. However, the Ocean Club apartments are spread throughout Praia de Luz and so you need to make sure that you know which location you are getting.
We travelled with our 18 month old son, and the apartment was well suited to families. It had two full bathrooms and a good sized, well equiped kitchen (although no microwave, which would have been useful). The outside temperature at night was cool, but fortunately there was an electric heater in one bedroom and the gas fire in the lounge kept the apartment warm. The bed was comfortable but small (double rather than King).
A point to note is that the apartment was cleaned about three times per week, not every day. That meant that we had to put some effort into keeping the kitchen clean and tidy, in particular. No dishwasher either, so we had to wash up by hand when we cooked.
Although the Ocean Club has many facilities (swimming pools, tennis courts, bars, restaurants), very little is open in the off peak season. In fact the whole town was very quiet, and we liked it that way.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or190-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
The Ocean Club comprises a variety of apartments and villas of varying quality. Initially we stayed in an apartment at the top of the resort which was clean, modern and well laid out. However, the bedroom was very damp and the twin beds were especially damp and uncomfortable. After we became infested with ants we moved to a town house which was nicely finished, although others we saw were far less attractively furnished. All appeared to suffer to a greater or lesser extent with damp. This may have been due to the unusually wet weather during October this year but I would not be too sure. In general the Ocean club facilities were quite good - although the outdoor pool was too cold to use out of the peak season and the indoor pool was rather small. We travelled with Thomas Cook –
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or185-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
We booked the Ocean Club on a last minute deal through Mark Warner and were very impressed. We took our 9 month old son on his first trip abroad and were a little nervous but we couldn't really have asked for a better resort and accommodation. We stayed at the back of the resort and it was a little walk to the beach but we spent most of the time around the pool. The accommodation was very clean and well equipped with microwave, washing machine and fully fitted kitchen.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or185-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
Stayed at the apartment King Palm 1 which was absoluteley fantastic. In a fantastic location for our party of four. Close to reception and the adult pool . ( my parents may not have been able to cope if we had been given one of the apartments at the top of the resort as it is a bit of a walk back up the hill from the beach) but as we were allocated the King Palm 1 that did not effect us. We were all very impressed with the apartment Very nicely furnished and spotlessly clean with everything you would need for a self catering holiday and the most gorgeous view from every single window. We had opted for the Half Board option and dined in the Millenium Club.
We spent most of our time in the adult pool which was very peaceful, They have a system which we had never come across before which was to ring the door bell to enter hte poolside area, where we had to hand our passes in to staff' On our first day it took us a while to realise that we were supposed to ring the bell! so made a bit of a noise trying to get in!
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or185-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
Spent 4 weeks in the resort September/October 2007 after booking direct with the owner - yes you can book direct with the owners of the apartments as they are all privately owned.
Would I go back - you bet I would - I am hoping to go for a 6 week break this next January/February - again booking direct with the owner of the property (much cheaper than booking through Mark Warner, Thomas Cook or direct with Ocean Club).
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g776012-d229314-Reviews-or170-Luz_Ocean_Club-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve.html
If it looks like a duck etc ... ... ...
The majority of reviewers appear neither to have known of or cared that Mark Warner and Thomas Cook didn't own the properties included in their holidays in the resort or that (in the case with access to the pool) certain unfamiliar protocols were in place because of the nature of the resort.
Therefore did the nature of the layout of the apartments cause the McCann party to assume they were all owned by the holiday company and not just factored from their owners?
Why would that be of any relevance?
Incidentally the duck test is irrelevant too; the law looks at it differently which in this instance will roughly be looking at terms which are "necessary and obvious...to give business efficacy" rather than terms being implied merely because they appear "desirable and reasonable". That can work both ways so one needs to be on ones guard.
Are you suggesting,anyway,that the Mark Warner advertising blurb constitited an offer that could be accepted?
Sorry, haven't a clue what you are on about ... I don't think that the question I asked was all that complicated; what I should have remembered was that I was posting on the Madeleine board where absolutely nothing is simple or uncomplicated.
It had not passed unnoticed which is a reflection on me rather than you. I apologise for using language outside your understanding.It came a problem for the PJ to inspect neighbouring apartments to the McCanns because OC did not have access to the keys.
OK then keep it simple.
Why do you think ownership of apartments has any relevance in this instance?
It came a problem for the PJ to inspect neighbouring apartments to the McCanns because OC did not have access to the keys.
It had not passed unnoticed which is a reflection on me rather than you. I apologise for using language outside your understanding.
OK then keep it simple.
Why do you think ownership of apartments has any relevance in this instance?
It had not passed unnoticed which is a reflection on me rather than you. I apologise for using language outside your understanding.
OK then keep it simple.
Why do you think ownership of apartments has any relevance in this instance?
The ownership of the apartments is irrelevant to the group's decision to perform their own listening service. What is relevant is that they claimed to have copied the Mark Warner listening service. That was only offered on sites where MW were in control of the area, however. Sites which were separate from any local villages or towns. The Ocean Club wasn't like that, so the T9 listening service is different on that point.What do you mean by “in the vicinity of the apartments”?
The second difference was that the nannies who did the listening service did nothing else. They were in the vicinity of the apartments all the time. If anything unusual happened they were likely to see or hear it. They would also act as a deterrent if such a thing was needed.
A problem after the event rather than before.In your opinion.
In your opinion.
It came a problem for the PJ to inspect neighbouring apartments to the McCanns because OC did not have access to the keys.
Did they know who were in the apartments not under their control? That is a problem.
In what way do you think it was a problem before the event ?
What do you mean by “in the vicinity of the apartments”?
In the vicinity of means nearby.If they were on a 15 minute period the nannies could be quite a distance from any one particular apartment. We would have to know how frequent the listening was done and the spread of the apartments to be sure.
Did they know who were in the apartments not under their control? That is a problem.
In the vicinity of means nearby.Like the Tapas group were in the vicinity then.
If they were on a 15 minute period the nannies could be quite a distance from any one particular apartment. We would have to know how frequent the listening was done and the spread of the apartments to be sure.
If they were on a 15 minute checking period then that's twice as frequent as the McCann's chosen frequency, so that's another difference. I assume the nannies had charge of different areas so it's the size of those areas which matters, not the spread of the apartments as a whole. Also the nannies were around. They weren't in a bar or restaurant between checks, they were outside walking the paths and able to see and hear anything suspicious. Here's an account suggesting 15 minute intervals with the MW system, along with a normal parent's misgivings about the system;Given a choice between relying on strangers doing checks and myself and my friends doing checks I know which option I would choose.
We went to Sardinia with Mark Warner last year and children were unwelcome at dinner. You were supposed to use the baby listening service, which consisted of leaving the child alone in the room and every 15 minutes a nanny would physically go and stand outside the door to listen. If the child was crying she'd walk over to the restaurant to fetch you. A lot of parents used this but I thought it was unsafe and mean to let a child cry in a strange hotel room all alone. Also, my son could climb out of the cot and knew how to open the door to the balcony, so I thought he could easily have met with accident in 15 minutes. Why don't you ring up the hotel and ask exactly what they offer and then you can decide if it would suit your child?
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/general_advice_tips/2633-baby-listening
Did they know who were in the apartments not under their control? That is a problem.
If they were on a 15 minute checking period then that's twice as frequent as the McCann's chosen frequency, so that's another difference. I assume the nannies had charge of different areas so it's the size of those areas which matters, not the spread of the apartments as a whole. Also the nannies were around. They weren't in a bar or restaurant between checks, they were outside walking the paths and able to see and hear anything suspicious. Here's an account suggesting 15 minute intervals with the MW system, along with a normal parent's misgivings about the system;Another difference is nannies stand outside doors listening, parents enter the room to check all is well. Which is better?
We went to Sardinia with Mark Warner last year and children were unwelcome at dinner. You were supposed to use the baby listening service, which consisted of leaving the child alone in the room and every 15 minutes a nanny would physically go and stand outside the door to listen. If the child was crying she'd walk over to the restaurant to fetch you. A lot of parents used this but I thought it was unsafe and mean to let a child cry in a strange hotel room all alone. Also, my son could climb out of the cot and knew how to open the door to the balcony, so I thought he could easily have met with accident in 15 minutes. Why don't you ring up the hotel and ask exactly what they offer and then you can decide if it would suit your child?
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/general_advice_tips/2633-baby-listening
Given a choice between relying on strangers doing checks and myself and my friends doing checks I know which option I would choose.
Another difference is nannies stand outside doors listening, parents enter the room to check all is well. Which is better?
You differ from this group then. Given the chance they would happily have handed the responsibility to strangers.I personally wouldn't be happy let my young kids spend the day taking part in chaperoned activities such as swimming and sailing either, but millions of parents do apparently. I don't judge them, it's entirely up to them what decisions they make for their kids, provided it's legal.
Neither is ideal in my opinion. As the mumsnet poster observed there are potential problems with leaving children alone to cry in a strange place, not to mention the potential for mobile children to have an accident.Both parents DID enter the apartment and the bedroom, if one of them hadn't then and it had been a nanny listening outside then it could have been a further two hours before Madeleine's disappearance was discovered. How is that better, in your view?
Neither of the McCann parents had any intention of entering the children's bedroom either. Their intention was to listen inside the apartment every 30 minutes. Therefore listening outside the apartment every 15 minutes is slightly better. Both methods ignore the fact that noise isn't the only sign that something is wrong.
Both parents DID enter the apartment and the bedroom, if one of them hadn't then and it had been a nanny listening outside then it could have been a further two hours before Madeleine's disappearance was discovered. How is that better, in your view?
They had no intention of entering the bedroom. They only did so, apparently, because of a mysteriously moving door. If the Mark Warner listening service had been operating the apartment would have been in an enclosed area and the nannies would have been nearby. Anyone entering an apartment and leaving with a child would have been far more likely to have been seen.Do you have a cite for "they had no intention of entering the bedroom"? In any case, it doesn't matter because by entering the apartment they were able to SEE that something wasn't quite as they expected it to be, so they were able to cast aside their intentions and enter the bedroom, something nannies listening at the door would not have been able to do. You still haven't explained what "nearby" means - how near is nearby? How many apartments per nanny watch? How far would the furthest point be that a nanny's watch would extend? Do you have any idea?
You differ from this group then. Given the chance they would happily have handed the responsibility to strangers.
Do you have a cite for "they had no intention of entering the bedroom"? In any case, it doesn't matter because by entering the apartment they were able to SEE that something wasn't quite as they expected it to be, so they were able to cast aside their intentions and enter the bedroom, something nannies listening at the door would not have been able to do. You still haven't explained what "nearby" means - how near is nearby? How many apartments per nanny watch? How far would the furthest point be that a nanny's watch would extend? Do you have any idea?
Why?If a child goes missing were the people in neighbouring properties trustworthy?
If a child goes missing were the people in neighbouring properties trustworthy?
Yes I do. In Kaye's case she was all set to return the door to it's correct location and go. She only looked into the bedroom because, she said, the door slammed as she went to pull it to.
Whichever way you twist it, they weren't copying the MW listening service and they weren't providing an improvement either.
The roads were open to the public, which Mark Warner complexes weren't.
The gaps between checks were twice as long as the MW checks.
They were unavailable between checks while MW staff were still out and about in the vicinity.
If a child goes missing were the people in neighbouring properties trustworthy?
Yes I do. In Kate's case she was all set to return the door to it's correct location and go. She only looked into the bedroom because, she said, the door slammed as she went to pull it to.You are being unfairly pedantic IMO They were copying the MW listening service - ie: regular checks on their kids by visiting the apartments in which their children lay sleeping, though perhaps in order to copy it exactly as per your expectations they should have gone on a training course and had it explained to them the difference between THIS MW resort and others. How many minutes between 9pm and 10pm was a member of the Tapas group in close proximity to Apartment 5a, given that the walls were so thin that a child crying would be clearly audible even as you approached the apartment, allegedly?
Whichever way you twist it, they weren't copying the MW listening service and they weren't providing an improvement either.
The roads were open to the public, which Mark Warner complexes weren't.
The gaps between checks were twice as long as the MW checks.
They were unavailable between checks while MW staff were still out and about in the vicinity.
If a child goes missing were the people in neighbouring properties trustworthy?
As Jassi has pointed out at least twice, that is after the event.
What measures do you suggest should be put in place to ensure the people who buy the properties or even rent them are trustworthy?
What persons or organisations will be the arbiter of "trustworthy" and what checks will they perform necessary to determine this "trustworthiness".
If they were on a 15 minute checking period then that's twice as frequent as the McCann's chosen frequency, so that's another difference. I assume the nannies had charge of different areas so it's the size of those areas which matters, not the spread of the apartments as a whole. Also the nannies were around. They weren't in a bar or restaurant between checks, they were outside walking the paths and able to see and hear anything suspicious. Here's an account suggesting 15 minute intervals with the MW system, along with a normal parent's misgivings about the system;
We went to Sardinia with Mark Warner last year and children were unwelcome at dinner. You were supposed to use the baby listening service, which consisted of leaving the child alone in the room and every 15 minutes a nanny would physically go and stand outside the door to listen. If the child was crying she'd walk over to the restaurant to fetch you. A lot of parents used this but I thought it was unsafe and mean to let a child cry in a strange hotel room all alone. Also, my son could climb out of the cot and knew how to open the door to the balcony, so I thought he could easily have met with accident in 15 minutes. Why don't you ring up the hotel and ask exactly what they offer and then you can decide if it would suit your child?
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/general_advice_tips/2633-baby-listening
As Jassi has pointed out at least twice, that is after the event.The PJ at least need to know how to contact these people and have access to their apartments.
What measures do you suggest should be put in place to ensure the people who buy the properties or even rent them are trustworthy?
What persons or organisations will be the arbiter of "trustworthy" and what checks will they perform necessary to determine this "trustworthiness".
The PJ at least need to know how to contact these people and have access to their apartments.
The PJ at least need to know how to contact these people and have access to their apartments.
You are being unfairly pedantic IMO They were copying the MW listening service - ie: regular checks on their kids by visiting the apartments in which their children lay sleeping, though perhaps in order to copy it exactly as per your expectations they should have gone on a training course and had it explained to them the difference between THIS MW resort and others. How many minutes between 9pm and 10pm was a member of the Tapas group in close proximity to Apartment 5a, given that the walls were so thin that a child crying would be clearly audible even as you approached the apartment, allegedly?
It was they who carefully explained that they had all been on MW holidays (not really) so they decided to not just copy the MW listening system but improve on it (or so they claimed). Why then shouldn't their story be examined for similarities or differences.Do what you like if it pleases you to do so, it matters not what you think. All IMO.
It seems that the service used by thousands of other happy parents (allegedly) is not what the group used. They used their own version of it.
Do what you like if it pleases you to do so, it matters not what you think. All IMO.
The group's decision to leave their children home alone with sporadic checks has been defended by some for years. They have compared it to the services offered by hotels and holiday complexes. It wasn't the same though. The location, timing and listeners were all different.It wasn’t identical but it was similar - regular checks throughout the night in a family friendly holiday resort.
It wasn’t identical but it was similar - regular checks throughout the night in a family friendly holiday resort.
No I'm meaning at anytime a property owner needs to be contactable so a search of the property can be done.
Are you suggesting the PJ should vet everyone who wishes to buy an apartment? What country does that in the EU?
Every country has nasty people, some get caught and some don't!
How do you vet a criminal who has never been convicted?
They can find out who owns a property as they may have to register at a form of local government department?
Do you think they could not find out?it wasn't done though was it! If Silvia didn't have a key the apartment wasn't examined. Half done job IMO.
But as you so rightly say, none of it mattersOf course it matters. I think someone was aware that what they were doing was not good enough in their opinion.
It was they who carefully explained that they had all been on MW holidays (not really) so they decided to not just copy the MW listening system but improve on it (or so they claimed). Why then shouldn't their story be examined for similarities or differences.
It seems that the service used by thousands of other happy parents (allegedly) is not what the group used. They used their own version of it.
It wasn’t identical but it was similar - regular checks throughout the night in a family friendly holiday resort.
The holiday provider was family-friendly. The resort has been accused of harbouring burglars, conmen and other shady characters.That would require a cite. "The resort has been accused of harbouring burglars, conmen and other shady characters." Cite please.
That woulds require a cite. "The resort has been accused of harbouring burglars, conmen and other shady characters." Cite please.
In my opinion.So in your opinion "the resort has been accused of harbouring burglars, conmen and other shady characters".
it wasn't done though was it! If Silvia didn't have a key the apartment wasn't examined. Half done job IMO.
The holiday provider was family-friendly. The resort has been accused of harbouring burglars, conmen and other shady characters.That would probably explain why Madeleine disappeared then.
No I'm meaning at anytime a property owner needs to be contactable so a search of the property can be done.
I cant speak for Portugal or NZ but in UK if it's urgent they would not bother finding the owner, who may not be the occupant anyway. You would be surprised at who has legitimate access including right of break in.Well that could have been an option, but was there any sign of the PJ making a serious search of the area?
It wasn’t identical but it was similar - regular checks throughout the night in a family friendly holiday resort.
I'm not sure what you mean by this post. their similar version as you claim didn't seem to work as well as the MW... just going by the stats. No other child was reported stolen from their resort in PDLMy post means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less.
'Family friendly' does not mean free from any kind of accident or crime by patrons or strangers, earthquake, tsunamis and the like... It certainly does not mean safe to leave your kids alone at night and do your own checking...
My post means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less.
ah Ok got it.... means nothing.Thanks again for your kind words.
Thanks again for your kind words.
I think we are falling in love - do you feel it too? 8(0(*Oh sure, you are really quite adorable.
Oh sure, you are really quite adorable.Get a room at a Mark Warner resort!
Get a room at a Mark Warner resort!What, and risk Miss Taken being...well, taken? Not on your nelly!
What, and risk Miss Taken being...well, taken? Not on your nelly!$6(&
What, and risk Miss Taken being...well, taken? Not on your nelly!(&^&
(&^&
Clever! 8**8:/: he knows I am keeper. 8(0(*
I would feel very safe at the resort as I always risk assess any building for fire escapes etc.
As G unit has explained a walled and or 'gated community' can be a deterrent for lose vagrants,child snatchers. I believe it was their arrogance which made them say 'it felt safe'. what a ridiculous idea!
What does 'feeling safe' even mean? Both Dianne and Rachael found it somewhat spooky when they ventured out alone at night. The McCanns locked their apartment in daylight hours. Kate was worried about leaving her children while she went to fetch their ice-creams on their family outing. She wasn't sure about leaving the patio door unlocked at night. None of that suggests 'feeling safe' in Luz.would you describe where you live as "feeling safe"? Assuming the answer is "yes" would you lock your house when leaving it? Would you ever feel vulnerable walking alone at night near where you lived? Would you leave your kids unattended in your neighbourhood to go fetch ice creams?
would you describe where you live as "feeling safe"? Assuming the answer is "yes" would you lock your house when leaving it? Would you ever feel vulnerable walking alone at night near where you lived? Would you leave your kids unattended in your neighbourhood to go fetch ice creams?
All rhetorical questions, please feel under no duress to reply.
It's not about how I feel, is it? It's about how these holidaymakers described Luz.Relatively safe IMO.
Relatively safe IMO.
It's not about how I feel, is it? It's about how these holidaymakers described Luz.I’m simply pointing out that you can feel safe in an environment yet still cautious about certain aspects. It’s a nuanced viewpoint rather than the simplistic BLACK or WHITE viewpoint some prefer to express.
Not relatively safe enough for the McCanns to lock the doors during the day to safe guard valuables.The implication being if you lock your doors either when at home or when on holiday you don’t feel safe. Assuming you always lock your doors does that mean you are in a constant state of feeling unsafe?
So the 'it felt safe' statement doesn't quite match up with their behaviour. ^*&&
The implication being if you lock your doors either when at home or when on holiday you don’t feel safe. Assuming you always lock your doors does that mean you are in a constant state of feeling unsafe?
I’m simply pointing out that you can feel safe in an environment yet still cautious about certain aspects. It’s a nuanced viewpoint rather than the simplistic BLACK or WHITE viewpoint some prefer to express.
Perhaps you can explain why someone feels unsafe enough to lock their premises in daylight but not at night?Because they were in the near vicinity, going back and forth between the apartment regularly and not off down the beach or on the tennis courts, I assume.
No. It is about being careful with your valuables to try protect them from being stolen. Risk Assessment!No it doesn't - their behaviour seems totally normal. They felt safe, but like you or I would, they locked their apartment when leaving the immediate vicinity.
They left a door unlocked at night and their daughter was allegedly 'stolen', where as, they locked it during the day to protect their valuables. THEY claimed it felt safe. Their behaviour says different.
There really is no argument here, defending this is futile, and smacks of attention seeking.
No it doesn't - their behaviour seems totally normal. They felt safe, but like you or I would, they locked their apartment when leaving the immediate vicinity.
The tennis courts, where by all accounts they seemed to spend much of their time, is in the same vicinity as the Tapas bar, so why lock their doors ?Perhaps because they weren’t sat on the tennis courts facing their apartments and returning to them on a regular basis? Dunno, best ask them, eh?
Perhaps because they weren’t sat on the tennis courts facing their apartments and returning to them on a regular basis? Dunno, best ask them, eh?
Good Idea - got an address I can use ?Easily found using google, or if you're a member of a forum that is dedicated solely to "researching" the McCanns.
I seem to remember something about just addressing an envelope to 'Kate & Gerry, Rothley' and it would get there, though perhaps that only worked if it was stuffed with money. 8(0(*Well best add a tenner just to make sure they get it then.
Well best add a tenner just to make sure they get it then.
I could certainly include a few pound coins from about 2000 that I found down the back of the sofa.Men's trouser pockets are poorly designed.
Men's trouser pockets are poorly designed.
Not relatively safe enough for the McCanns to lock the doors during the day to safe guard valuables.They locked the doors when they went away from Ocean Club as everyone does IMO.
So the 'it felt safe' statement doesn't quite match up with their behaviour. ^*&&
Perhaps you can explain why someone feels unsafe enough to lock their premises in daylight but not at night?Simples.
The tennis courts, where by all accounts they seemed to spend much of their time, is in the same vicinity as the Tapas bar, so why lock their doors ?Did they lock their back door when playing tennis?
Did they lock their back door when playing tennis?The McCanns describe locking it, from the inside and then one leaving by the front door.
The McCanns describe locking it, from the inside and then one leaving by the front door.
Yes, BUT was that when they played tennis and swam etc. ... or was it when they went further a field?
Actually, weighing it all up,
.... the apartment was out of sight from about 99% of the tennis courts, so it makes sense that they might lock it when they played tennis. When they were playing tennis, sightwise it was like being away from Ocean Club; no view of the apartment.
I bet they left the patio door open when relaxing by the pool though. Anyone able to prove the exact position ?
Sadie I see you like cites so why not respond to my request for one over on the calpol thread.
I agree Sadie we don't want myths flying around so with this in mind pleases could you provide a cite where the group would be able to see the door from the restaurant. I have had a brief look and see how they could see the actual door only part of the outside of 5a. Otherwise why not amend your post as I did.
By the way thanks again for putting me right regarding Cat.
It was over here.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9310.msg473829#msg473829
Also I can't recall any instances of the couple swimming. As far as I can recall there was a visit to the pool on the first day and the last day if different please could you provide a cite for this?
Perhaps Sadie will provide a cite to prove we are wrong G-Unit.What are you claiming in the first place?
What are you claiming in the first place?
I don't agree tha the group had a good view of the McCann patio or that it was illuminated.They were there, you weren’t.
They were there, you weren’t.I thought the general consensus was that the view would not be that great as they had to look through a plastic curtain.
I thought the general consensus was that the view would not be that great as they had to look through a plastic curtain.Really? Who decided that?
Sadie I see you like cites so why not respond to my request for one over on the calpol thread.
I agree Sadie we don't want myths flying around so with this in mind pleases could you provide a cite where the group would be able to see the door from the restaurant. I have had a brief look and see how they could see the actual door only part of the outside of 5a. Otherwise why not amend your post as I did.
By the way thanks again for putting me right regarding Cat.
It was over here.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9310.msg473829#msg473829
Also I can't recall any instances of the couple swimming. As far as I can recall there was a visit to the pool on the first day and the last day if different please could you provide a cite for this?
The group didn't have a good view of the patio door from the table, and even if they did, there's no way their eyes were glued to it. They were busy chatting and eating, not staring at the McCann's apartment.
1578 'And from where you were sat, what was your view like of the apartments''
Reply 'Erm well yeah I could see, I mean I could see the patio doors of ours and Gerry and Kates'.
1578 'How much of the patio doors''
Reply 'Erm well kind of the top half really'.
1578 'Okay'.
Reply "Yeah you know, I didn't get a full you know, you couldn't get a full view sort of right in, cos there were bushes, there were bushes and stuff there, erm'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
They were there, you weren’t.
I provided a cite from a member of the group who was sitting facing the apartments. Perhaps you can find one from a group member which contradicts what Rachael said?
Really? Who decided that?People that actually went to the Tapas Bar and looked back toward the apartments.
People that actually went to the Tapas Bar and looked back toward the apartments.So the Tapas group were sat behind a plastic curtain were they? That's news to me I must say.
So the Tapas group were sat behind a plastic curtain were they? That's news to me I must say.I believe that is correct.
I believe that is correct.
Here they have the table off to the side a bit (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/parismatchtapasrestauraxe3.jpg)
But the image clearly shows the plastic curtain.
I believe that is correct.
Here they have the table off to the side a bit (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/parismatchtapasrestauraxe3.jpg)
But the image clearly shows the plastic curtain.
top of the patio doors clearly visible.
Indeed. You can clearly see a fly on the ground in the patio if you look closely! ^*&&
So, they had a great view of the top arch of an opening..
This means if jack had his beanstalk in full flower, and was the abductor, they would have caught him red handed!! wow ...
top of the patio doors clearly visible.
So is the roof so what? The patio doors are heavy and have curtains. they were sat so close they would have heard them open according to...
Were they all staring at the door or eating,drinking and chatting? seem they were not paying attention to the top of the door.
So, anyone claiming they were unable to see the apartment door is talking bollocks.
So is the roof so what? The patio doors are heavy and have curtains. they were sat so close they would have heard them open according to...
Were they all staring at the door or eating,drinking and chatting? seem they were not paying attention to the top of the door.
So, anyone claiming they were unable to see the apartment door is talking bollocks.
Anyone claiming they were looking is too.No one is claiming they were sat there with their eyes glued to the patio doors.
No one is claiming they were sat there with their eyes glued to the patio doors.
Can you see the patio door here Vertical Swirl? I can'tTo be perfectly frank - yes, in the first photo, the second one is too blurry when enlarged.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/oceanclubDM3012_800x596.jpg)
Or here
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/view_of_appartment_from_Tappas_bar.jpg)
No one is claiming they were sat there with their eyes glued to the patio doors.
I think some are trying to give the impression that they could see and hear and were so close that had they seen or heard anything they would have sprung into action and been in 5A in seconds.
I think some are trying to give the impression that they could see and hear and were so close that had they seen or heard anything they would have sprung into action and been in 5A in seconds.I’m not, but then I’m also not claiming that they abandoned their kids all night long for their own selfish gratification either.
I’m not, but then I’m also not claiming that they abandoned their kids all night long for their own selfish gratification either.
So, anyone claiming they were unable to see the apartment door is talking bollocks.Do you think you could tell if the door was open or closed?
Do you think you could tell if the door was open or closed?
Do you think you could tell if the door was open or closed?
But that is exactly what they did do! They refused to have dinner /supper with their children even- after leaving them in a kids club all day- they left them alone at night unattended so they could wine and dine ...It would be really great if you could drop the facetious and childish comments. Any chane of this ever happening?
You don't think this is selfish? No Problem. BUt others are allowed to believe it to be so.
Oh mibeeez I missed something. .. The children insisted the parents go and have fun as they need their sleep? OR Bandits came and forced them at gun point at leave the kids and go eat -drink be merry...?
It would be really great if you could drop the facetious and childish comments. Any chane of this ever happening?
I’m not, but then I’m also not claiming that they abandoned their kids all night long for their own selfish gratification either.
deleted
In my opinion the compromise wasn't worth it. Going out without your kids, but having to keep going and checking on them. Dining with your friends but having to wear loads of layers because it's freezing cold.Your opinion is completely irrelevant in this matter. Was it freezing cold though? As in zero degrees celsius? Who knew?
8**8:/:I would attempt to give my take on it, in a way which allows for complexity and nuance of thought but you would simply mock and deride so there really is no point.
Back to the very serious conversation.... can you please reply with your thoughts on the question.
"So you would much prefer to add your own reasons for the parents leaving their children alone,while they went to wine and dine and explain with eloquence and error free this is was not a selfish act".
I will check with John that my contract to allow me to post things you do not like is valid and up to date... 8(0(*
Your opinion is completely irrelevant in this matter. Was it freezing cold though? As in zero degrees celsius? Who knew?"Freezing cold" is clearly an exaggeration.
"Freezing cold" is clearly an exaggeration.
Of course it is, but nothing beats ped[ censored word]m ?{)(**pedandtry I believe is the he word you’re looking for :-)
pedandtry I believe is the he word you’re looking for :-)
Only a pedant would say that @)(++(*What is the origin of that word?
Only a pedant would say that @)(++(*Of course, I thought you’d like it 8)--))
Can you see the patio door here Vertical Swirl? I can't
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/oceanclubDM3012_800x596.jpg)
Or here
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/view_of_appartment_from_Tappas_bar.jpg)
I don't agree tha the group had a good view of the McCann patio or that it was illuminated.ORLY ?
ORLY ?Well I tend to agree. The principle of their checks was going over to the apartment and not just looking at it.
Have you been and seen?
Well I tend to agree. The principle of their checks was going over to the apartment and not just looking at it.
I thought the general consensus was that the view would not be that great as they had to look through a plastic curtain.I am beginning to wonder if the plastic curtain wall was not in place during their stay.
Well I tend to agree. The principle of their checks was going over to the apartment and not just looking at it.Which failed miserably,having no one check on Madeleine for circa 45 minutes.
I am beginning to wonder if the plastic curtain wall was not in place during their stay.
Jane stated that she was very cold so she wore Russells Fleece.
When we were there, I wasn't aware that the plastic curtain wall could and was removed at times, but recently saw an image showing the restaurant completely open to the elements apart from the roof.
*%6^
No Sadie the plastic curtain was there.
Witness Statement
Nuno Goncalo Marques Vincente Dos Ramos Bernardo
Date: 2007/05/06
Occupation: Waiter
Place of Work: Ocean Club
When asked he said that he only saw Madeleine's parents on the news the following day. He does not remember them inside the restaurant or having served them, but he thinks that is possible given the number of people in the restaurant and the fact that they were mainly British. But he does remember that almost every night there was a reservation of a table for nine people in the restaurant for dinner. This table was situated opposite the bar and facing the apartments but there was plastic wind shield which did not enable a clear view outside.
Gerry
Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
----- They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, that was situated in the middle between other tables under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He relates that they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door of his apartment through which they left and entered and which gave access to the lounge.
Now I cannot agree with Gerry on this "they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door".
I would attempt to give my take on it, in a way which allows for complexity and nuance of thought but you would simply mock and deride so there really is no point.
I am beginning to wonder if the plastic curtain wall was not in place during their stay.
Jane stated that she was very cold so she wore Russells Fleece.
When we were there, I wasn't aware that the plastic curtain wall could and was removed at times, but recently saw an image showing the restaurant completely open to the elements apart from the roof.
*%6^
Oh now don't be coy.... afraid of a little challenge of your posts, from a gurl really? Ah, I think it is because you can't!
You went there one time for a visit. Not during the time-scale as the McCanns, NOT when MBM was reported as disappeared in fact NOT there at all when this whole situation was being played out. You are as much in the dark as anyone else.
If you look on gerrymccannblogs you will see my photographs from the first time I visited Luz after Madeleine’s disappearance. Since she is so interested in the case surely Sadie has photographs to share too ?
No Sadie the plastic curtain was there.From tht, it seems that the plastic curtains were in place, so that is one point more or less established. Thank you Sunny.
Witness Statement
Nuno Goncalo Marques Vincente Dos Ramos Bernardo
Date: 2007/05/06
Occupation: Waiter
Place of Work: Ocean Club
When asked he said that he only saw Madeleine's parents on the news the following day. He does not remember them inside the restaurant or having served them, but he thinks that is possible given the number of people in the restaurant and the fact that they were mainly British. But he does remember that almost every night there was a reservation of a table for nine people in the restaurant for dinner. This table was situated opposite the bar and facing the apartments but there was plastic wind shield which did not enable a clear view outside.
Gerry
Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
----- They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, that was situated in the middle between other tables under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He relates that they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door of his apartment through which they left and entered and which gave access to the lounge.
Now I cannot agree with Gerry on this "they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door".
From tht, it seems that the plastic curtains were in place, so that is one point more or less established. Thank you Sunny..
Also Gerry establishes that the group was, more or less, in the centre of the restaurant. This means that they were only about a metre or so from where we sat and would have had a similar very good view
.He appears to be at a passageway between the restaurant and the bar, indicating the north-west corner of the restaurant.
Here is Gerry demonstrating where they sat. (8.01) Their sight of the apartment is also shown;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
Can anyone identify the spot where he is standing on this pic?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/tapasbar.jpg)
.
-snip-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/tapasbar.jpg)
Thankyou Gunit, the picture that I was looking for !That photo is with the plastic curtains up. Were they down on the night?
If that was the position that they sat then it was very close to where we sat and the view would be very like ours.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
Here is Gerry demonstrating where they sat. (8.01) Their sight of the apartment is also shown;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
Can anyone identify the spot where he is standing on this pic?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/tapasbar.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtBWNCFt7U
If Gerry is correct about where they sat in the video, then they sat at the tapas bar end of the restaurant, but within the restaurant ... and if the photo is taken from the same spot, then the view was much less good.
However, we know that Gerry is not much good at remembering places where he chatted with people. Remember how badly he got it wrong about where he and Jez stood talking IMO?
And as posted in the last couple of days on here, according to her statement, *** "she" said that from the dining table, "she" could see the patio doors to both their apartment and the Mccanns apartment, so imo, they must have sat near where I sat, rather than where Gerry rememmbers. More or less in the middle of the restaurant, but near the plastic wall.
*** Having skim read all Fionas statements, I think that "she" is Rachael. I haven't the energy to read all Rachaels statements, but it has featured on here in the last couple of days anyway ... and most people will have seen it.
In this case Gerry has independent verification;No, that doesn't actually verify anything about the Tapas groups position; it just says that Arlindo saw the table as he walked back and no-one was there, but some of their clothing was.
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
No, that doesn't actually verify anything about the Tapas groups position; it just says that Arlindo saw the table as he walked back and no-one was there, but some of their clothing was.
I must admit that to begin with, I momentarily thought the same as you Gunit, but on thinking about it, I realised that I was wrong.
It just doesn't specify their position at all
I think it's quite clear. The table was not inside the restaurant because he left the restaurant before seeing it.No, you are wrong. You are misreading it
In this case Gerry has independent verification;
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
No, you are wrong. You are misreading it
Nowhere does he give any indication where exactly they were sitting, altho it seems fairly safe to assume that as they caught his eye and so clearly, they must have been positioned near the esplanade (ie. near the plastic window) rather than back in the depth of the restaurant.
You are reading it wrongly Gunit and finding meanings that are not there. Soz.
I think you are correct Sadie in fact Gerry draws a circle in the air on the video showing where the table was and as I recall it was under the other building with the plastic screen not the restaurant itself. I saw it earlier this morning but sorry can't provide a cite at this time.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/tapasbar.jpg)
I think you are correct Sadie in fact Gerry draws a circle in the air on the video showing where the table was and as I recall it was under the other building with the plastic screen not the restaurant itself. I saw it earlier this morning but sorry can't provide a cite at this time.
Thank you Sunny
Having been there, I can assure you that the circle that Gerry drew was inside the actual restaurant altho maybe he got the positionn wrong. He isn't very good at remembering positions (Jez Wilkins spot)!
what is confusing, Sunny, is that in that video, the plastic wall has been removed ... and it seems that when the Tapas group were there it was in place. Altho that is questionable, imo
Where was the wall, Sadie? I've been looking fir a wall.Curtain, curtain-side or wall.
Thank you Sunny
Having been there, I can assure you that the circle that Gerry drew was inside the actual restaurant altho maybe he got the positionn wrong. He isn't very good at remembering positions (Jez Wilkins spot)!
what is confusing, Sunny, is that in that video, the plastic wall has been removed ... and it seems that when the Tapas group were there it was in place. Altho that is questionable, imo
There is no question about it, Mistaken
There is no question about it.
Gerald McCann 10 May 2007
----- They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, that was situated in the middle between other tables under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He relates that they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door of his apartment through which they left and entered and which gave access to the lounge.
Ofcourse this could be one of Gerrys alledged 'selective amnesia' days, which coincides with someone claiming they could clearly see the full patio doors. They did not have a clear view of the doors due to the bushes and the awning.
Fact: they did not have a clear view of the patio or the full length doors, they had a view of the top of the patio doors, and this wasn't a clear sharp view. In other words- If an abductor was using this as an entrance /exit they would not have been able to see them.
According to Rachel she was facing the apartments. According to Kate Rachel was seated almost directly opposite Gerry. Perhaps he was seated with his back to the table?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/07/article-1042099-022FCA3500000578-590_468x324.jpg)
BRILLIANT.
Thank you Gunit ... once again you have helped solve something that was worrying me about the case.
There were nine people in the Tapas group, so when they were sitting around the 360* table, they were placed at 40* intervals [360*/9 = 40*]. Fiona had her back to the plastic curtain wall. Gerry was at 40* to it. .
When talking to Fiona, Gerry was virtually looking at the patio of 5A, because it was almost directly behind her.
A photo of the petite dark haired Rachael below standing immediately behind Kate and Gerry. It shows how much shorter she was than Gerry.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/2-4-11/10472805.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/2-4-11/10472805.jpg)
Fiona was shorter than Rachael as you can see from this photo [This is beginning to sound like a Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker sketch ] @)(++(*
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/RachelOldfield-FionaPayne-RussellOBs.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/RachelOldfield-FionaPayne-RussellOBs.jpg)
From these two photos, you can see just how much taller Gerry is than the petite Fiona sitting next to him
With Fiona being so petite and Gerry being so tall, he could see the illuminated patio area, even over her head. When talking to Kate, he could see the illuminated patio to her left. And he was well positioned at the slightest turn of his head to see 5A patio at any time. Who knows how often, as a very obviously devoted father, he checked 5A visually?
Gerry sat at one of the best positions to keep an eye on 5A, I am thinking
Thanks to you, Gunit, another bit of the jigsaw almost certainly solved. Well done. 8((()*/ Methinks we make a good team, keep em coming. ?{)(**
I agree he would have to either stand up and look or turn his head away from the centre of the table while seated.
It was not claimed by anyone sitting at the table that they never took their eyes off the McCann patio doors between checks. In my opinion all relied on getting up from the table and walking to their own apartments to check on their own children ... not one of them contemplated or envisaged anyone entering their apartment or the existence of an abductor.
It was not claimed by anyone sitting at the table that they never took their eyes off the McCann patio doors between checks. In my opinion all relied on getting up from the table and walking to their own apartments to check on their own children ... not one of them contemplated or envisaged anyone entering their apartment or the existence of an abductor.
It was not claimed by anyone sitting at the table that they never took their eyes off the McCann patio doors between checks. In my opinion all relied on getting up from the table and walking to their own apartments to check on their own children ... not one of them contemplated or envisaged anyone entering their apartment or the existence of an abductor.
Only they didn't,no one checked on Madeleine, for in the region of 45 minutes.
Cite please
That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping.
Alleged abductor.
Gerry at 9:05 ish,kate at 10 ish,Matt never saw madeleine at 9:30 ish,tis all in the files.
MO.
Matt said he did enter 5A . Do you doubt his word ?Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Doubting their word is expressing an opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Doubting their word is expressing an opinion.
Did Matt enter the McCann apartment?
Did Matt assume all was well within?
Do you think Kate and Gerry doubted that?
Which is all that Amaral did when writing his book.The ECHR hasn't expressed a definitive opinion on the libelling of the McCanns yet ... might be as well to wait for what is yet to come if come it does.
Merely "in your opinion". In my opinion which is worth only as much as is yours, but which appears to be in accordance with the opinion which really matters, that of the current investigators from the PJ and SY there is one.
If not can you explain why there has been an inordinate amount of time and money spent by them looking for an abductor?
The ECHR hasn't expressed a definitive opinion on the libelling of the McCanns yet ... might be as well to wait for what is yet to come if come it does.
In the interim if Murat is considered 'cleared' ... logic dictates etcetera, etcetera ...
Couldn't care less,you asked for a cite of my claim,I provided one,what you do with the info doesn't interest me in the slightest.
The longer it goes on the less likely it'll be that an alleged abductor is apprehended, then the inordinate monies will have to be explained not least by the numpties at the MET.Judging by the latest news from SY and its anti corruption unit being corrupt I don't hold out much hope.
GOOGLE defines a rhetorical question as follows:
"A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect."
Didn't you know that?
My question is not rhetorical and simply has a yes/no option.
The fact that your are reluctant to give an answer is entirely understandable
You're quite correct. In my opinion it was only after the event that attempts were made to convince people that they could see what they, in my opinion, clearly couldn't see. Not that they were looking anyway.
TOPIC Please
Yes Indeed G! this seems to go with many things in this case. After thoughts etc. They are trying to tie in their claim that they could see all comings and goings as they were so near, but fail to answer if they were so near why did they not hear the children crying? or Kate having to run and tell the group Maddie was missing in stead of saying a bit louder. not having to shout- them being so close an all.
We are duly informed by supporters that on occasions when real answers to challenges cannot be forthcoming, the explanation offered would be: interpretations, stress of tapas Team, stress related amnesia, forgetfulness OR it was someone else to blame for what ever is being discussed.
Having made these claims they continue to rubbish any independent witness who says it as they saw it without all the burden of :interpretations, stress of tapas Team, stress related amnesia, forgetfulness!
Therefore, can we really believe that the checking was every 30 minutes, and can we believe Gerry saying he had a 'proud dad moment' seeing his daughter? I am going with the supporters on this one and suggest he may have got mixed up with his nights... was confused due to stress... hell why not.
It seems they agreed to implement their own listening service in Luz. They claimed to have improved on the Mark Warner version, but they didn't in my opinion. Those who misread the brochure made their own arrangements and didn't participate in the agreed scheme. Some might have seen this as a bit of a betrayal, but not this group of firm friends. The others happily ran up and down the road to check on their children while those who contributed to the situation sat on their behinds and watched. Or did they?
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I find it interesting that, as far as we know, nobody else used such a disastrous system of childcare during their stay at OC.I find it interesting that you are able to deduce this - how did you arrive at this conclusion? As far as we know hundreds of people may have used this system of childcare prior to the disappearance of MM.
You can think something, but it doesn't make it a fact.
I find it interesting that, as far as we know, nobody else used such a disastrous system of childcare during their stay at OC.
I find it interesting that you are able to deduce this - how did you arrive at this conclusion? As far as we know hundreds of people may have used this system of childcare prior to the disappearance of MM.
Yes and also, why was it just MBM who went missing? no other children did. A paedo gang would have taken all three children without a doubt! OR the younger girl. We can look at the woke and wandering scenario and it tells us that MBM had means and knowledge to leave the apartment(UNLOCKED DOOR)- it also tells us the the twins didn't!IN YOUR OPINION. MAKE THAT CLEAR IN FUTURE.
IN YOUR OPINION.
Read the words -'as far as we know'
IN YOUR OPINION. MAKE THAT CLEAR IN FUTURE.
It seems they agreed to implement their own listening service in Luz. They claimed to have improved on the Mark Warner version, but they didn't in my opinion. Those who misread the brochure made their own arrangements and didn't participate in the agreed scheme. Some might have seen this as a bit of a betrayal, but not this group of firm friends. The others happily ran up and down the road to check on their children while those who contributed to the situation sat on their behinds and watched. Or did they?
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Read the words -'as far as we know'And as far as we know you are quite wrong.
With this and his claim that DP visited Kate on the 3rd, Gerry certainly seems hellbent on including him in the narrative even though none of his claims appear in DP’s first statement. Makes you wonder why ? Was DP threatening to go ‘off message’ ? Was he one of the friends who wanted to, allegedly, change his statement ?
With this and his claim that DP visited Kate on the 3rd, Gerry certainly seems hellbent on including him in the narrative even though none of his claims appear in DP’s first statement. Makes you wonder why ? Was DP threatening to go ‘off message’ ? Was he one of the friends who wanted to, allegedly, change his statement ?
Snip
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, denied that any of the friends had officially approached the Portuguese police through their lawyers but said that they were happy to be reinterviewed by police if it resolved any apparent inconsistencies and hastened the McCanns being cleared.
"Contrary to a report in the Spanish press, and after consultation amongst Gerry and Kate McCann's friends, I can deny that any approach has been made by their lawyers asking to amend or change the witness statement of any of them," he said.
"Kate and Gerry's friends, who were with them on May 3, have consistently told the truth and remain happy, indeed they are keen, to be reinterviewed by the police if necessary to clarify any inconsistencies in the statements that the police may think they have identified.
"The friends believe that if such interviews or reinterviews take place it can only lead to Gerry and Kate being eliminated from the inquiry swiftly."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568706/Madeleine-Tapas-Two-want-to-change-story.html
There was absolutely no inference from any of the McCann friends of a desire to change the statements. The proof of this is that no-one did so either prior to or after making rogatory statements to the police in England.
A perfect occasion to make any such alleged change, don't you think?
Apparently the Paynes and McCanns often visited each other, according to Gerry, but Fiona denies that
Asked, he stated that besides her own apartment MADELEINE only went to the apartment of DP and FP, since it was common that they frequented each others' apartments.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Erm, I'm trying to think if Kate and Gerry did and I can't recall. I mean, on the whole, we didn't see a lot of them until the evening, we didn't see a lot of the kids.......
to be honest I never went into Kate and Gerry's apartment before the night, erm, on Thursday'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Apparently the Paynes and McCanns often visited each other, according to Gerry, but Fiona denies that
Asked, he stated that besides her own apartment MADELEINE only went to the apartment of DP and FP, since it was common that they frequented each others' apartments.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Erm, I'm trying to think if Kate and Gerry did and I can't recall. I mean, on the whole, we didn't see a lot of them until the evening, we didn't see a lot of the kids.......
to be honest I never went into Kate and Gerry's apartment before the night, erm, on Thursday'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
To quote Mandy Rice-Davis, he would say that, wouldn’t he.
As to the fact that no one changed their statements perhaps they were persuaded at the Rothley Hotel meeting not to ?
Snip
She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.
After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine's family who were staying in 5 A.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm
And ?
Snip
She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.
After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine's family who were staying in 5 A.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm
Yes, Sunday lunchtime seems to be the only agreed visit. That hardly fulfills Gerry's testimony that it was 'common' for them to visit each other's apartments. One swallow
In my opinion ... neither do your opinionated assumptions regarding a few days holiday 'a summer make'.
But it’s not an assumption. G-Unit’s post is backed by the friends own statements.Is one person'd statement more valuable than another? You seem to be implying it is.
Sadie do you think "642" was Fiona Payne? I have my doubts.
Do you think the lady over the shoulder of Kate is Rachael?
642 wasn't obvious to me, so I didn't bother to check it Rob. It was erasier to use the photo with Russell and Rachael and compare to the photo with Gerry and Rachael and Fiona. But certainly using her height and physique, 642 could be Fiona.I was thinking 642 was not Fiona as her hair was parting on a different side.
I am positive that the lady over the shoulder of Kate is Rachael
Rachael was facing 5A, and therefore the plastic 'window'. She was pretty much opposite to Gerry, who had his back to 5A and the window. If he looked at Fiona and Kate he would see what was behind them which was the Tapas reception. Unless his peripheral vision is superhuman, he couldn't see 5A from his seat without turning round.
I was thinking 642 was not Fiona as her hair was parting on a different side.I wasn't sure, so I chose a photo that definitely identified Fiona.
BRILLIANT.The difference in view due to height difference would be incredibly small over a distance of over 50 meters.
Thank you Gunit ... once again you have helped solve something that was worrying me about the case.
There were nine people in the Tapas group, so when they were sitting around the 360* table, they were placed at 40* intervals [360*/9 = 40*]. Fiona had her back to the plastic curtain wall. Gerry was at 40* to it. .
When talking to Fiona, Gerry was virtually looking at the patio of 5A, because it was almost directly behind her.
A photo of the petite dark haired Rachael below standing immediately behind Kate and Gerry. It shows how much shorter she was than Gerry.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/2-4-11/10472805.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/2-4-11/10472805.jpg)
Fiona was shorter than Rachael as you can see from this photo [This is beginning to sound like a Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker sketch ] @)(++(*
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/RachelOldfield-FionaPayne-RussellOBs.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/RachelOldfield-FionaPayne-RussellOBs.jpg)
From these two photos, you can see just how much taller Gerry is than the petite Fiona sitting next to him
With Fiona being so petite and Gerry being so tall, he could see the illuminated patio area, even over her head. When talking to Kate, he could see the illuminated patio to her left. And he was well positioned at the slightest turn of his head to see 5A patio at any time. Who knows how often, as a very obviously devoted father, he checked 5A visually?
Gerry sat at one of the best positions to keep an eye on 5A, I am thinking
Thanks to you, Gunit, another bit of the jigsaw almost certainly solved. Well done. 8((()*/ Methinks we make a good team, keep em coming. ?{)(**
And of course in my opinion any difference in height of two people when sitting is completely different to when they are standing. For a start you need to take the length of a persons legs into account, or should I say you need to remove the length of a persons legs. Generally peoples torsos aren't as variable in length as legs are.
When I am sitting at a concert I can generally see over the people ahead of me but if I am standing behind a tall person no chance.
This is all IMO and on my observation only.
And of course in my opinion any difference in height of two people when sitting is completely different to when they are standing. For a start you need to take the length of a persons legs into account, or should I say you need to remove the length of a persons legs. Generally peoples torsos aren't as variable in length as legs are.
When I am sitting at a concert I can generally see over the people ahead of me but if I am standing behind a tall person no chance.
This is all IMO and on my observation only.
How lucky you are at concerts! I invariably get man or woman mountain sitting directly in front of me giving an exaggerated example of St Vitus's dance.
I did say "invariably" not always Brietta. 8((()*/from the dictionary:
from the dictionary:
"invariably
adverb
in every case or on every occasion; always."
Which is rather funny really as "invariably" means "always". 8)-)))
The difference in view due to height difference would be incredibly small over a distance of over 50 meters.
The person in the second photo is Russell O'Brien.
You said "From these two photos, you can see just how much taller Gerry is than the petite Fiona sitting next to him" Both are with people standing.
First is Kate and Gerry with Rachael behind Kate.
Second one is Rachael, Fiona with Russell.
So we don't have a photo here contrasting Fiona with Gerry.
The difference in view due to height difference would be incredibly small over a distance of over 50 meters.
The person in the second photo is Russell O'Brien.
You said "From these two photos, you can see just how much taller Gerry is than the petite Fiona sitting next to him" Both are with people standing.
First is Kate and Gerry with Rachael behind Kate.
Second one is Rachael, Fiona with Russell.
So we don't have a photo here contrasting Fiona with Gerry.
And of course in my opinion any difference in height of two people when sitting is completely different to when they are standing. For a start you need to take the length of a persons legs into account, or should I say you need to remove the length of a persons legs. Generally peoples torsos aren't as variable in length as legs are.
When I am sitting at a concert I can generally see over the people ahead of me but if I am standing behind a tall person no chance.
This is all IMO and on my observation only.
My previous post covers the first part of your comments here.I was not thinking about whether someone was in the way, but the ultimate view of 5A patio. Did it matter if one was 5 foot and the other 6 foot?
I would furthermore remind you that at concerts the seating is usually tiered. Gerry and Fiona were not in a tiered arrangement, but both sitting on level ground
Gery could see clearly over Fionas head .
That is a FACT worked out by observation and a little informal geometrty
I was actually thinking about school concerts, where we are all level in the school hall Sadie. Obviously seating in concerts are generally tiered although I have been to some where I was seated on the flat area too and generally, although I am not too tall, have had no problem seeing as height differences are generally ameliorated when sitting down.
I would furthermore remind you that at concerts the seating is usually tiered. Gerry and Fiona were not in a tiered arrangement, but both sitting on level ground
I was actually thinking about school concerts, where we are all level in the school hall Sadie. Obviously seating in concerts are generally tiered although I have been to some where I was seated on the flat area too and generally, although I am not too tall, have had no problem seeing as height differences are generally ameliorated when sitting down.Some very valid points raised here.
Whatever you say I will find it difficult to believe that Gerry had a good view of 5a because he was 50m+ away in the dark, looking through a plastic screen and as he was in a lit environment then the dark would appear accentuated. Have you ever looked outside your window from your house, when it was dark outside. You don't see a lot.
All IMO apart from my concert experiences of course. 8(*(
Some very valid points raised here.
And at the end of the day what does it all actually matter in relation to whatever it was that befell Madeleine McCann?
It matters when assessing the quality of the evidence given by those who were responsible for Madeleine's care.
Who are you ~ me ~ or any internet voyeur to 'assess' the quality of anything on the internet ... apart from reading and assessing customer reviews of the performance of appliances.
The experts of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard who have access to ALL available information have carried out any assessment that matters and have acted and are acting as a result. Theirs is the only assessment worth bothering with in the search for Madeleine.
In my opinion ill informed speculation cannot hold a candle to that.
There is no problem in assessing the performance of Mark Warner holidays as a topic ... particularly as some may actually have first hand experience of such.
However it is my opinion that police investigations are best left to the police ... particularly active ones dealing with real lives and real people.
It matters when assessing the quality of the evidence given by those who were responsible for Madeleine's care.I wasn’t aware eye witness evidence was assessed on its quality.
Why voyeurs have been mentioned escapes me, although I have heard of a child sex voyeur taking an interest in the case.
Indeed ... and moderators take great pains when inappropriate comment of that type is posted here.
"voyeur
noun
a person who enjoys seeing the pain or distress of others."
Which definition is in my opinion admirably suited to describe many of those who keep up a keen interest in maintaining a stance of 'questioning' every nuance of the existence of people they actually know nothing about.
Who are you ~ me ~ or any internet voyeur to 'assess' the quality of anything on the internet ... apart from reading and assessing customer reviews of the performance of appliances.
The experts of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard who have access to ALL available information have carried out any assessment that matters and have acted and are acting as a result. Theirs is the only assessment worth bothering with in the search for Madeleine.
In my opinion ill informed speculation cannot hold a candle to that.
There is no problem in assessing the performance of Mark Warner holidays as a topic ... particularly as some may actually have first hand experience of such.
However it is my opinion that police investigations are best left to the police ... particularly active ones dealing with real lives and real people.
I may be completely wrong, but your attitude to certain professionals reminds me very much of the mid 20th century. Doctors, solicitors, teachers, clergy, MP's and the police were given a great deal of respect and were never questioned.Times have changed since then and they have been exposed as just as prone to making mistakes as everyone else.
Who are you ~ me ~ or any internet voyeur to 'assess' the quality of anything on the internet ... apart from reading and assessing customer reviews of the performance of appliances.If you really feel like that, then perhaps it is time to think about resigning from the forum.
The experts of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard who have access to ALL available information have carried out any assessment that matters and have acted and are acting as a result. Theirs is the only assessment worth bothering with in the search for Madeleine.
In my opinion ill informed speculation cannot hold a candle to that.
There is no problem in assessing the performance of Mark Warner holidays as a topic ... particularly as some may actually have first hand experience of such.
However it is my opinion that police investigations are best left to the police ... particularly active ones dealing with real lives and real people.
Allegedly.
If you really feel like that, then perhaps it is time to think about resigning from the forum.
NB I also consider the term voyeur to be beyond the pale.
Then one can only hope that eventually your command of the Portuguese language will surpass your understanding of the English one.So take your own advice and quit the forum. Leave it to the the PJ and OG.
Did you miss the part of my post which vaguely touched upon the topic of the thread?
Allow me to reiterate ... "There is no problem in assessing the performance of Mark Warner holidays as a topic ... particularly as some may actually have first hand experience of such.
However it is my opinion that police investigations are best left to the police ... particularly active ones dealing with real lives and real people."
In my opinion ~ it is becoming more and more apparent that it is considered by some to be no fun in actually adhering to the topic of a thread when there may be the opportunity of a bun fight in the offing.
Allegedly what?
I understood your post as saying that some people are interested in the McCann case purely because they wish to cause pain to her family for their own enjoyment.This is undoubtedly true IMO.
I understood your post as saying that some people are interested in the McCann case purely because they wish to cause pain to her family for their own enjoyment.
So take your own advice and quit the forum. Leave it to the the PJ and OG.
And I still find your description of forum members as voyeurs to be extreme.
I think some actually get pleasure from the suffering of the McCanns
The McCanns don’t look at the internet we are told. How could anyone posting a comment make them suffer ?The McCanns are well aware of the fact that there are hundreds of posts and tweets putting the boot into them on a daily basis. You don’t need to read any of them to be hurt by knowing that fact.
The McCanns are well aware of the fact that there are hundreds of posts and tweets putting the boot into them on a daily basis. You don’t need to read any of them to be hurt by knowing that fact.
The McCanns are well aware of the fact that there are hundreds of posts and tweets putting the boot into them on a daily basis. You don’t need to read any of them to be hurt by knowing that fact.
So who tells them?The media, the people who look out for their welfare and well-being, believe me if there were hundreds of people making criticsl and vile posts about you on the internet every day you would soon know about it, even if you didn’t read most of the posts being made.
The media, the people who look out for their welfare and well-being, believe me if there were hundreds of people making criticsl and vile posts about you on the internet every day you would soon know about it, even if you didn’t read most of the posts being made.
So the McCanns aren’t on Social Media yet some cruel and twisted person or persons tell them on a regular basis that people are posting nasty things about?
So the McCanns aren’t on Social Media yet some cruel and twisted person or persons tell them on a regular basis that people are posting nasty things about?
My children used to tell me about vile posts directed towards me and my wife....my children are not cruel and twisted...LOL
So the McCanns aren’t on Social Media yet some cruel and twisted person or persons tell them on a regular basis that people are posting nasty things about?I don’t know why I bother replying to you when you continually add and remove things to my posts, however IMO (got that in before you felt it necessaty to add it) the people who are twisted and cruel are those writing the twisted and cruel things in the first place. There is nothing twisted or cruel about letting people you love or care for know that there is an on-going hate campaign waging against you on the internet and to be cautious, in any case you may not be aware but the McCanns’ home address is well known and they have received tons of hate mail. Any sentient being would realise that if they were receiving hate mail through the post then there almost certainly would be 100 times the hate online. IMO.
Then one can only hope that eventually your command of the Portuguese language will surpass your understanding of the English one.
Did you miss the part of my post which vaguely touched upon the topic of the thread?
Allow me to reiterate ... "There is no problem in assessing the performance of Mark Warner holidays as a topic ... particularly as some may actually have first hand experience of such.
However it is my opinion that police investigations are best left to the police ... particularly active ones dealing with real lives and real people."
In my opinion ~ it is becoming more and more apparent that it is considered by some to be no fun in actually adhering to the topic of a thread when there may be the opportunity of a bun fight in the offing.
So who tells them?
Family friendly, child safe, Mark Warner holiday!
How can you be sure of that? What do we mean by Warners? Who was representing Warners at PdL? What staff members were employed by Warner's and who was with Ocean club? Were the Tapas restaurant employees separate?
Is there any thing to suggest their holidays aren't? ,the disappearance of Madeleine cannot be attributed to Warners.
How can you be sure of that? What do we mean by Warners? Who was representing Warners at PdL? What staff members were employed by Warner's and who was with Ocean club? Were the Tapas restaurant employees separate?
How can Warners be responsible. What did they do to facilitate and how could they protect the Tapas children?Put it this way, if a Mark Warner employee was involved in any way would that be Warner's problem? I don't know the answer. I see the PJ files are broken up into employer groups does that have some validity?
If a member of staff did act in a criminal way you can hardly blame warners. IT was the Tapas who facilitated the situation if you are going with the 'abductor from bed' story.
I do not believe MW would be involved with such behaviour- it caused their ruin in PDL.
Put it this way, if a Mark Warner employee was involved in any way would that be Warner's problem? I don't know the answer. I see the PJ files are broken up into employer groups does that have some validity?
"MARK WARNER OCEAN CLUB EMPLOYEES" so from that list we can't readily tell who their employer was.
I would tend to think if they were a Mark Warner employee they only had responsibility toward MW clients, but we can't be certain what their job description was like.
Well do you think they were told to "keep their client's children safe"? If they were doing an action complying with that sentiment would they be acting on the employers behalf?
Well, I doubt if their job description was abduct children? IF so, they were bloody useless at it cause they only got one!
MW company played no part in MBM disappearance!..
How can you be sure of that? What do we mean by Warners?
That part is obvious, but I was meaning how many of the staff in PdL were considered "Mark Warner" staff.
The company name.
That part is obvious, but I was meaning how many of the staff in PdL were considered "Mark Warner" staff.
Was it just John Hill and his wife Donna, and Emma Knight? Who were the nannies employed by? Were they exclusively for the Mark Warner clients?
You are right, I heard they interviewed these staff members. I don't know if a single interview would solve the issue, especially if they didn't have some sort of scenario to work.
I see where you want to go with this,but there is no sign of any involvement from those mentioned,OG had the PJ interview some back in 2014,which resulted in zilch.
You are right, I heard they interviewed these staff members. I don't know if a single interview would solve the issue, especially if they didn't have some sort of scenario to work.
You are right, I heard they interviewed these staff members. I don't know if a single interview would solve the issue, especially if they didn't have some sort of scenario to work.
Why did they interview the MW staff at that stage? What were they thinking? I have always wondered why Emma Knights was not questioned till 2008 when she was in the apartment on the night.
The other thing I find hard to understand is no one in the MW Ocean Club employees mention Emma Knight in their statements.
SY were clutching at straws imo,they did a bit of landscaping before interviewing the three alleged burgalars,maybe they wanted to know which of them sent them on a wild goose chase.That is a whole lot of guessing as far as I can see.
That is a whole lot of guessing as far as I can see.
Put it this way, if a Mark Warner employee was involved in any way would that be Warner's problem? I don't know the answer. I see the PJ files are broken up into employer groups does that have some validity?
"MARK WARNER OCEAN CLUB EMPLOYEES" so from that list we can't readily tell who their employer was.
I would tend to think if they were a Mark Warner employee they only had responsibility toward MW clients, but we can't be certain what their job description was like.
That about sums up SY. In my opinion.That doesn't seem likely.