A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

SteveT wrote:Gerry would have made a great MP!

A Good Chancellor of the Exchequer Steve T he would have got the Economy on it's feet in no time, cutting back on everything.

Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

widowan wrote:Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

Widowan, they ere talking B****hit, they could have had a Babysitter actually staying in 5a , but they didn't want to pay for that or have to be back in the Apartment by a certain time. Apparently they were in a bar, I can't remember the name , not near the Apartment until 1am one night. The Barman at the OC said he was supposed to finish at I think, 11.30pm and they wanted another drink and kept him there until 12 midnight, on another night.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

Widowan, they ere talking B****hit, they could have had a Babysitter actually staying in 5a , but they didn't want to pay for that or have to be back in the Apartment by a certain time. Apparently they were in a bar, I can't remember the name ,  not near the Apartment until 1am one night. The Barman at the OC said he was supposed to finish at I think, 11.30pm and they wanted another drink and kept him there until 12 midnight, on another night.

I would like to see that statement.

One of Kate's points in the book about why it was so safe feeling is that she KNEW for a certainty that her kids if they woke up at all did so "in the small hours" ie 1-2-3 AM which of course by then they'd be home. Just on the face of this it's complete garbage, as it relies on them waking ON THEIR OWN, not because, as so often can happen, they heard a noise that woke them - which they'd never know, from the tapas bar with all ITS noise and the distance from that to the apts.

Plus MM had alerted them that this happened the night before when they were not home ie between 830 and 10 or whenever they actually got home, presumably before the wee hours.

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

Widowan, they ere talking B****hit, they could have had a Babysitter actually staying in 5a , but they didn't want to pay for that or have to be back in the Apartment by a certain time. Apparently they were in a bar, I can't remember the name ,  not near the Apartment until 1am one night. The Barman at the OC said he was supposed to finish at I think, 11.30pm and they wanted another drink and kept him there until 12 midnight, on another night.

I would like to see that statement.

One of Kate's points in the book about why it was so safe feeling is that she KNEW for a certainty that her kids if they woke up at all did so  "in the small hours" ie 1-2-3 AM which of course by then they'd be home. Just on the face of this it's complete garbage, as it relies on them waking ON THEIR OWN, not because, as so often can happen, they heard a noise that woke them - which they'd never know, from the tapas bar with all ITS noise and the distance from that to the apts.

Plus MM had alerted them that this happened the night before when they were not home ie between 830 and 10 or whenever they actually got home, presumably before the wee hours.

The statement from the OC Barman must be in the mccannfiles, but I'm not very good at finding stuff Widowan. The thing that has kept the McCanns afloat has been the unprecedented support of 3 Prime Ministers and a PR spokesman who was instrumental in keeping their names in the Press. Plus their Profession gave them help from rich Businessmen.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

Widowan, they ere talking B****hit, they could have had a Babysitter actually staying in 5a , but they didn't want to pay for that or have to be back in the Apartment by a certain time. Apparently they were in a bar, I can't remember the name ,  not near the Apartment until 1am one night. The Barman at the OC said he was supposed to finish at I think, 11.30pm and they wanted another drink and kept him there until 12 midnight, on another night.

I would like to see that statement.

One of Kate's points in the book about why it was so safe feeling is that she KNEW for a certainty that her kids if they woke up at all did so  "in the small hours" ie 1-2-3 AM which of course by then they'd be home. Just on the face of this it's complete garbage, as it relies on them waking ON THEIR OWN, not because, as so often can happen, they heard a noise that woke them - which they'd never know, from the tapas bar with all ITS noise and the distance from that to the apts.

Plus MM had alerted them that this happened the night before when they were not home ie between 830 and 10 or whenever they actually got home, presumably before the wee hours.

The statement from the OC Barman must be in the mccannfiles, but I'm not very good at finding stuff Widowan. The thing that has kept the McCanns afloat has been the unprecedented support of 3 Prime Ministers and a PR spokesman who was instrumental  in keeping their names in the Press. Plus their Profession gave them help from rich Businessmen.

Here's the statements from the Ocean club staff

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8298-mark-warner-ocean-club-staff-statements

Heres a bit of the rog' statement of barman Jeronimo Salcedas.

"Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00. I remember this detail because I was supposed to finish work at 00H00 and I wanted to go home. They always left on good terms and always wished the staff good night."

Interesting to read the rest as it has information on the wine consumption


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

Kate's book says very little about the nights prior to that night I will have to go see what she says about where they were - supposedly at the Tapas bar every night and winding things up fairly early because they had kids who were going to wake them at 7 30 AM. 1230 or 1 is getting dangerously close to the small hours when the children were prone to awaken - forget what time Mrs Fenn said she heard the crying going on until but it was close to midnight I think.

I just re read the bit where Kate states that bundleman and smithman were one and the same, they were so similar, it made great sense to her that they should be the same person and not, as the PJ thought, invented in the first case and Gerry in the second case. Why were they not focusing more on this? Man who resembled Gerry = dark non tourist seen by Jane. ?

Her reason as to why someone would wander the streets for 45 minutes with an abducted child is because, he abducted her, so nothing else he would do would make sense either, a person who would do such a thing makes no sense. ?


Well that makes no sense to me, people who steal children are evil and may have something wrong with their mind as well as character but there IS a reason, to sell them or use them in some way horrible as that is; it doesn't mean they're disorganized feeble minded men. There is a reason to steal a child ( although as Pat Brown says why go to that risk when you can get them more easily). Wandering around carrying a child hither and yon in the street would just be crazy. The presence of Gerry standing outside would not prevent this person's original plan unless it was to walk right past the gate and down past the entrance knowing these people trotted back and forth between the apts and Tapas bar like on a cricket pitch. No sense.

they have very firm beliefs and are convinced of the rightness of their thinking, all the while prattling on about how could people responsible for MM let her down, without seeming to see the irony in that. Also no mention of the fact that her friends put Murat in the frame or helped to do so but she blames that on the PJ, SHE could see there was NO hard evidence against him in the files. More irony.

There's a bit about the men seen acting suspicious or just being around 5A, which is I think the new evidence SY has found. Not new and not likely to be hanging around PDL these days. They looked like tourists in a tourist resort and nothing like the 4 men Kate has in the book as possible suspects.

Panda wrote:

SteveT wrote:Gerry would have made a great MP!

A Good Chancellor of the Exchequer  Steve T he would have got the Economy on it's feet in no time, cutting back on everything.

Whilst he himself drives around in a new 4x4, lives in a big house, gets rides in a private jet and stays in 5* hotels. Using other peoples' donations.

Somebody said this somewhere can't remember where but I hadn't thought of it before and thought it was a good point. Talking about the man the Smith's saw. Now if he was just taking a child back from a night creche or home from somewhere else then he wouldn't be seen again later on without the child. I wonder if any witnesses saw this person later on but without a child.

Now don't get me wrong, but I have thought long and hard about the babysitting situation the McCann family were faced with on holiday. I think they made one of the biggest mistakes of their life's in the choices they made.
However, when I holidayed with my children, it would have been difficult to get a crèche babysitter because they were running the night crèche. Not that I considered that option either, after all it was our family holiday.
In room babysitters although advertised by holiday companies are difficult, if not impossible to arrange. Possibly an unfair advertising stunt by holiday companies. If you can get one evening covered by this service in a week, you are very lucky. Just think how many crèche nannies would be needed to cover all those individual appartments each evening. Far more than employed on a daily crèche basis, and if extras were employed the children would not know them.
I also have 3 children of similar age differences to the McCann children, I would not have had a relaxing evening either, if my children had attended night crèche and I had to collect and resettle. We family/friend camped, the children played and collapsed and were put to bed. We chilled inside/outside the tent depending on weather.
My gut feeling tells me that the McCann's were forced into making child care arrangements that they were not terribly comfortable with. The lack of readily available,reliable, known babysitters hard to get. Night crèche not easy to manage. I think they may have made a bad choice and now they need to accept it, and recognise there are consequences.

It seems the evidence SY is going on is stuff McCanns private eyes (former MI5) turned over to them, to mcCanns, in 2008. Can't recall who those guys were but I remember Clarence saying something terse about how they were former CIA MI5 top notch etc - I thought he was referring to Halligen. Can't recall that long ago if there was another group but if so, I wonder why they did not use the info provided to have their investigators chase that information? They were sending them to Spain and Germany etc I wonder what made them think this lead was not worth following?
Why did they not hand it over to SY then or to CEOPS or whoever does the internet kiddie porn trafficking? It would be horrible if they did and SY answer was this is not our case - or even Leicester police...

Lioned wrote:Heres a bit of the rog' statement of barman Jeronimo Salcedas.

"Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00. I remember this detail because I was supposed to finish work at 00H00 and I wanted to go home. They always left on good terms and always wished the staff good night."

Interesting to read the rest as it has information on the wine consumption


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

Thanks Lioned......SO, they were staying out til midnight every night ...how did the McCanns not get charged with neglect?

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Supposedly it wasn't about money it was the inadvisability of leaving them with the same strangers that watched them all day.

I guess people in a group are less likely to interfere with or harm your child, sure enough, but that wasn't what they were on about, it was that it didn't seem wise to leave them with strangers vs have their own parents check them.

I shudder to think what this lot would do if in government. I think that's safely ruled out however.

Widowan, they ere talking B****hit, they could have had a Babysitter actually staying in 5a , but they didn't want to pay for that or have to be back in the Apartment by a certain time. Apparently they were in a bar, I can't remember the name ,  not near the Apartment until 1am one night. The Barman at the OC said he was supposed to finish at I think, 11.30pm and they wanted another drink and kept him there until 12 midnight, on another night.

I would like to see that statement.

One of Kate's points in the book about why it was so safe feeling is that she KNEW for a certainty that her kids if they woke up at all did so  "in the small hours" ie 1-2-3 AM which of course by then they'd be home. Just on the face of this it's complete garbage, as it relies on them waking ON THEIR OWN, not because, as so often can happen, they heard a noise that woke them - which they'd never know, from the tapas bar with all ITS noise and the distance from that to the apts.

Plus MM had alerted them that this happened the night before when they were not home ie between 830 and 10 or whenever they actually got home, presumably before the wee hours.

The statement from the OC Barman must be in the mccannfiles, but I'm not very good at finding stuff Widowan. The thing that has kept the McCanns afloat has been the unprecedented support of 3 Prime Ministers and a PR spokesman who was instrumental  in keeping their names in the Press. Plus their Profession gave them help from rich Businessmen.

Here's the statements from the Ocean club staff

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8298-mark-warner-ocean-club-staff-statements

Thanks kitti, who is that Info Poster???   I started to look and got bogged down but Lioned found the post and it is quite enlightening.

gilly4 wrote:Now don't get me wrong, but I have thought long and hard about the babysitting situation the McCann family were faced with on holiday. I think they made one of the biggest mistakes of their life's in the choices they made.
However, when I holidayed with my children, it would have been difficult to get a crèche babysitter because they were running the night crèche. Not that I considered that option either, after all it was our family holiday.
In room babysitters although advertised by holiday companies are difficult, if not impossible to arrange. Possibly an unfair advertising stunt by holiday companies. If you can get one evening covered by this service in a week, you are very lucky. Just think how many crèche nannies would be needed to cover all those individual appartments each evening. Far more than employed on a daily crèche basis, and if extras were employed the children would not know them.
I also have 3 children of similar age differences to the McCann children, I would not have had a relaxing evening either, if my children had attended night crèche and I had to collect and resettle. We family/friend camped, the children played and collapsed and were put to bed. We chilled inside/outside the tent depending on weather.
My gut feeling tells me that the McCann's were forced into making child care arrangements that they were not terribly comfortable with. The lack of readily available,reliable, known babysitters hard to get. Night crèche not easy to manage. I think they may have made a bad choice and now they need to accept it, and recognise there are consequences.

Hi Gilly, The Paynes took a baby Monitor and apparently had stayed at an OC Resort before. The Mcanns made no provision at all for the children's safety , not even a Monitor....they would have heard Madeleine's crying that night.

MaryB wrote:Somebody said this somewhere can't remember where but I hadn't thought of it before and thought it was a good point.  Talking about the man the Smith's saw.  Now if he was just taking a child back from a night creche or home from somewhere else then he wouldn't be seen again later on without the child.  I wonder if any witnesses saw this person later on but without a child.

Hi MaryB, How would another person know it was the same man the Smiths saw? I think the Smiths made a rough statement before their return to Ireland, we know there were 11 children in the creche that night, how many Husbands carried their children and how many Wives we don't know with all the commotion going on no one thought of taking photos of the Men carrying their children that night.

Panda wrote:This is another extract from the EBook

" The decision by Clarence Mitchell to give to the Press -after the Rothley Meeting - a version of events which details increasing the vigilance or frequency of the checks seems spectacularly to have backfired on the McCsnns.

It not only draws attention to the paucity of any checks made during the week , but also draws attention to the contents of the statements in which it is clear that even if the McCanns had visitied the apartment was not to look at the children at all.

It seems that only an alleged change in the esoteric detail of the exact angle of the bedroom door caused them, individually, to do so.

It is important to remember that what is apparently to be referred to as "spin" like this was given regulalrly to the press long before either he or the McCanns knew that the original statements woud one day be released for scrutiny by the entire world.

What precisely we are expected to believe is somewhat unclear."

Hi Panda,

Which eBook is it that you are talking about? Is it Pat Brown's book? I am sorry if I missed it in previous posts. I find the quotes that you have been posting to be very interesting to say the least.

Gerry claims to have only went into the children's bedroom because the door was opened more than he had left it. He thought that Madeline may have gotten up and went to their room, so he only went in the room to make sure that she was there, even though that was not his original intention.

Kate also claims to have had no intention to visually check on the children. As she was closing the door back to 5 degrees (before walking inside), the door allegedly slammed shut. It was only then that she decided to go check in the room, but only after checking the patio doors and her own bedroom first.

So, the McCanns, clearly had no intentions to conduct a single visual check that evening, but apprently expected Oldfied to visually check on their children. This makes no sense. Not only would it be much eaisier for Oldfiled to conduct a listening check from outside the window, but why risk the possibility of frightening the children?

I see what you mean Panda about not knowing if it was the same man. But there can't have been that many people walking around PDL wearing beige trousers and carrying four year old girls wearing pyjamas. If this was a whitewash the Smith sighting would have stayed buried in the files.

MaryB wrote:I see what you mean Panda about not knowing if it was the same man.  But there can't have been that many people walking around PDL wearing beige trousers and carrying four year old girls wearing pyjamas.  If this was a whitewash the Smith sighting would have stayed buried in the files.

Wake up MaryB....the beige trousers guy conjured up by Jane has been whoosh clunked by SY. Her testimony has been discounted so now we have from 9pm to 10pm without any checks by the McCanns . We also know that the Tapas 9 were in the Bar drinking most nights until 11.30-12oo
every night.!!!

I just read that \mrs Fenn said a couple she knew who were renting there went in to comfort whoever was crying, one night. Funny that though they had access to all the statements they never brought that one up or followed it up., Guess it was more important to keep the information that Madeleine was waking up early and screaming unattended for over an hour on previous nights and the parents were out late - I wonder though if that is true.

widowan wrote:I just read that \mrs Fenn said a couple she knew who were renting there went in to comfort whoever was crying, one night. Funny that though they had access to all the statements they never brought that one up or followed it up., Guess it was more important to keep the information that Madeleine was waking up early and screaming unattended for over an hour on previous nights and the parents were out late - I wonder though if that is true.

Where is that statment? I have only seen Mrs. Fenn's official police statement and there is no mention of a couple going into the McCann's apartment.

jinvta wrote:

widowan wrote:I just read that \mrs Fenn said a couple she knew who were renting there went in to comfort whoever was crying, one night. Funny that though they had access to all the statements they never brought that one up or followed it up., Guess it was more important to keep the information that Madeleine was waking up early and screaming unattended for over an hour on previous nights and the parents were out late - I wonder though if that is true.

Where is that statment? I have only seen Mrs. Fenn's official police statement and there is no mention of a couple going into the McCann's apartment.

I just read it somewhere from a link posted here... that she said she knew a couple who went in to comfort the child via unlocked door... may be not true, but she does not seem to have been out and about in the evenings though, so she'd have been there for all the comings and goings, and would have been a good person to check with about who might be "lurking" - she seemed a noticing kind of woman...

Sheer coincidence that tanners man and smiths man were wearing the exact same clothes....


Did they show smith man on SY recon?


What was he wearing?

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:

widowan wrote:I just read that \mrs Fenn said a couple she knew who were renting there went in to comfort whoever was crying, one night. Funny that though they had access to all the statements they never brought that one up or followed it up., Guess it was more important to keep the information that Madeleine was waking up early and screaming unattended for over an hour on previous nights and the parents were out late - I wonder though if that is true.

Where is that statment? I have only seen Mrs. Fenn's official police statement and there is no mention of a couple going into the McCann's apartment.

I just read it somewhere from a link posted here... that she said she knew a couple who went in to comfort the child via unlocked door... may be not true, but she does not seem to have been out and about in the evenings though, so she'd have been there for all the comings and goings, and would have been a good person to check with about who might be "lurking" - she seemed a noticing kind of woman...

 
 
I think this is another one of those forum myths. Had Mrs. Smith known about a couple who had gone into the McCanns apartment while they were out, then surely she would have stated so in her official statement to the PJ. Sadly, Mrs. Fenn is not still with us to answer any further questions.

jinvta wrote:

Panda wrote:This is another extract from the EBook

" The decision by Clarence Mitchell to give to the Press -after the Rothley Meeting - a version of events which details increasing the vigilance or frequency of the checks seems spectacularly to have backfired on the McCsnns.

It not only draws attention to the paucity of any checks made during the week , but also draws attention to the contents of the statements in which it is clear that even if the McCanns had visitied the apartment was not to look at the children at all.

It seems that only an alleged change in the esoteric detail of the exact angle of the bedroom door caused them, individually, to do so.

It is important to remember that what is apparently to be referred to as "spin" like this was given regulalrly to the press long before either he or the McCanns knew that the original statements woud one day be released for scrutiny by the entire world.

What precisely we are expected to believe is somewhat unclear."

Hi Panda,

Which eBook is it that you are talking about? Is it Pat Brown's book? I am sorry if I missed it in previous posts. I find the quotes that you have been posting to be very interesting to say the least.

Gerry claims to have only went into the children's bedroom because the door was opened more than he had left it. He thought that Madeline may have gotten up and went to their room, so he only went in the room to make sure that she was there, even though that was not his original intention.

Kate also claims to have had no intention to visually check on the children. As she was closing the door back to 5 degrees (before walking inside), the door allegedly slammed shut. It was only then that she decided to go check in the room, but only after checking the patio doors and her own bedroom first.

So, the McCanns, clearly had no intentions to conduct a single visual check that evening, but apprently expected Oldfied to visually check on their children. This makes no sense.  Not only would it be much eaisier for Oldfiled to conduct a listening check from outside the window, but why risk the possibility of frightening the children?

Hi jinvta

The book is an EBook , free download , but I opted to print it and cherrypick the interesting bits.  It's 112 pages, but some are all references , but as you say it is very very interesting and the guy had obviously done his homework, this is the link

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/free-e-book-detailing-facts-of.html