Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

I'd just like to say having read this thread start to finish over the last few days this is the most interesting thread I've ever read on boards. Never took anything more than a passive interest in this case but now I'm quite intruiged by it all.

FFS I wish it wasn't Turbridy interviewing them.

danmoz wrote: »

you are cherry picking your results.

Everyone cherry picks to suit their own agenda though, don't they?

You cited the case of The Abrahams and I cited the case of The Chamberlains. Two similar stories on opposite sides of the argument.

The only thing that's certain, is that no one knows the truth for sure except Madeleine and whoever is responsible for her disappearance.

ISDW wrote: »

You're not reading things, for whatever reason, so out of all the points you've just made, yes, I am going to cherry pick and answer just one of them, because its pointless answering the others, you won't bother reading them.

baffled.

so thats a no then. :rolleyes:

The information about JK Rowling was not on the news 4 years ago, it was on the news this week - as the book wasn't written 4 years ago, I would have thought this was obvious.

i never mentioned JK Rowling. again selective answering (which in fairness, you admitted)

The reason I've answered that one point is because it shows exactly how much you are NOT reading what I write, but rather, you are seeing what you want to see.

oh i am reading, and disbelieving.

ETA: Sorry, you did reply to the 50kph question, and I honestly can't believe that you think its acceptable to speed through an area where children are playing.

i never said it was acceptable, you never asked if anyone thought it was acceptable, you asked had anyone done it?

I have done it, in built up 50kph area's, when i was young,ignorant and foolish.

I wonder how their parents would view that? You haven't killed anybody - yet. If you hit a child at that speed the chances are you will kill them, hit them below the speed limit, they have a better chance of survival. So you are taking a risk with children's lives, just as the McCanns did with leaving their children alone in the apartment. That was my point, as you well know.

answered. to compare the two is disingenuous,and an insult. tbh.

you know this.

ISDW wrote: »

The last time I'm going to reply to you, I mentioned JK Rowling, thats what I was replying to when I said it was a wrong assumption again, thats what you quoted. Do you not even actually read what you write, let alone other people.

i know you mentioned JK, hence why i asked, i know i didn't.

It is not disingenuous at all,

it is.

and I'm glad you take it as an insult,

not an insult to me.

because I think anyone who does that and puts other peoples lives at risk is a complete idiot,

so you believe the mccanns are complete idiots. at least we agree on this.

no matter how much they try to justify it by saying they were young, ignorant and foolish. If you had hit someone, it wouldn't have mattered to them how old you were.

age matters, of course it does age,experience and responsibility are all linked, but of course you know this.

Oh, but wait, are you saying that you were mistaken and you shouldn't have done it? What, like the McCanns made a mistake and shouldn't have done it?

i did do it, i shouldn't have. I won't try and justify it, but your portrait implies speeding like a maniac, i drove above the speed limit, illegal yes,immoral yes. The consequences of hitting a child @ 49kph and 52 kph are negligible in that the damage/consequence is the same-but one is not illegal, doesn't seem to matter to you once its 'legal'
my driving,awareness,and moral compass have changed considerebly since.

oh-and btw- the McCanns afaik have never admitted responsibility for their actions,but have profited from it.

To take you incredulous analogy further if i were to speed @ 100kph,kill a child and then sully that childs memory by refusing to cooperate with police,leave the country,and get influential political friends involved to distract,and help me benefit from my shocking actions- THAT would be analagous to what you're saying.

ffs ISDW give it a rest, you're extremely good @ misdirection and going off on tangents yourself.
not that it matters,as your previous reply was your last.

You got away with it, they didn't.

its not same, not in the same league, not even the same sport (to paraphrase pulp fiction)

good evening.

Oh man, there has been so many pages since my last post, I think I have managed to get through most of them, but apologies if I post anything that someone might have already explained.

A Few Inconsistencies:
I haven't had a chance to read all the remaining testimonies yet, I have just started reading David Payne's. His Story so far also does not match his wives story. His wife said that David told her he went to visit Kate and the children before he went to tennis which by her version would have been just after 6pm and she was watching him play tennis at about 6:10pm.
[Infact beach bar camera shows them only leaving at about 6:15pm.]
Matthew says that they were running much later and that it was 6:45pm before they arrived at the tennis court. His time seems most accurate judging by the bar camera of when they left.
David says that he went to the tennis court first without his gear for some reason?.
He says he went to the tennis courts to "err just to see Gerry to see what was happening, and then decided he would come back play some tennis"
Both his wife and Matthew Oldfield say that the tennis game was booked for 6pm, and that they had actually asked the instructors to bring their session forward to 6pm as it was meant to have been later -which is why his wife Fiona was urging them to hurry up, as it would be rude to be late after already changing the times.
He spoke to Gerry, and says Gerry asked him to check in on Kate.
He says he doesn't really remember the exact reason Gerry asked to check on Kate.
He says he then went back, to get his gear and to call in on Kate. [Remember he was supposed to have been at tennis at 6pm].
He says that he only spoke with kate for "2-5 minutes", then went back to play tennis with Gerry and told Gerry that everything was great with Kate etc.

I have read reports that Kate says David was there "30 seconds", and that Gerry McCann says David was with Kate for "30 minutes".
I still have to read Gerry and Kate's testimonies to confirm this.

I know I'm sort of dwelling on this visit that David gave to Kate, but something just does not sit right about it.
Nobody's timelines seem to be matching so far regarding this visit, and I feel that as this visit would make David the last person aside from the McCanns to see Madeline, that it makes recollection of this visit important.
I also find the visit itself odd anyways. Why would Gerry have bothered asking David to check on Kate, when Gerry left very shortly afterwards anyways? Why did David show up to the tennis court without getting changed/sorting his gear, when he was already so late?
I just don't see what the point of that visit was which may of lasted 30 seconds, 2 minutes, or half an hour depending on who's times are correct.

I think somebody asked earlier how the Gaspars know the McCanns.
[The Gaspars are the people who made the allegations regarding David Payne's inappropriate gestures and comments in relation to Madeline and his daughter.]

They seem to be fairly good friends.
Mr. Gaspar knows Kate since 1987. They went to college together.
I believe his wife met the McCanns for the first time at the McCann's wedding in 97/98.
In their statement it is said that the last time they saw they Payne's was in December 2005. The last time they saw the McCann's was in March 2007 just before Madeline went missing in May. The McCanns were attending the birthday party of one of the Gaspar children.
There is more detail here: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/david-payne-may-hold-key-to-maddies.html
They may have been in contact with the McCanns/Payne's since theses testimonies were given a few years ago. I do not know.

In that link I've just posted I've just noticed there is a file addressed to the Portuguese Police, from Leicester policeman Mike Marshall.
It is referring to what must be an earlier testimony [2007] with David Payne that Mike has reviewed.
Again the stories are very different. In those first testimonies David says he visited the McCanns at 5:00pm, and that Gerry was also there. He does not remember how long he stayed.He says the last time he ever saw Madeline was 5pm.
In Fiona's earlier statements she says that she went to Kate's apartment at around 7pm and that the? husband turned up about 10 mins later.

Ok, I can understand a few slips in memory, and it would be understandable that a few people would have somewhat different memory of timelines, maybe out by 15 or 20 mins. But these are more than just lapses of timeline, they are completely different stories compared to their later testimonies!

In the early testimony David says the last time he ever saw Madeline it was 5pm, and that both Gerry and Kate were there.[creche records show Madeline only signed out at 5:30pm that day]
In later testimonies he says the last time he ever saw Madeline was between 6:30 - 7pm, and that Gerry was at the tennis.
In Fiona's testimony David was with her and the others at the beach at 5pm, and did not leave the beach until about 6pm[cameras say 6:15pm]
In Fiona's later testimony she makes no mention of going to see Kate at 7pm or seeing any husband at Kate's.
She says that she was watching her husband play tennis until about 7pm, then went back home with the kids and bathed them, that David arrived shortly after, and that she went for her run at 7:30pm.

Right I'll stop blathering on about those inconsistencies, I am going to be looking for more though that might seem important.

A bit more about the Dogs:

Regarding the blood and cadaver scents: Kate says maybe a grazed knee, or nosebleed that was never mentioned before the sniffer dogs findings, she says that the cadaver scent on Cuddlecat could be because she supposedly regularly brought her child's toy to work with her and had it in contact with corpses? - I already mentioned these things in my first post.
To the people who explain away the blood dog's findings, because" sure all kids fall and bump themselves, blood could have come from this", I would have been inclined to maybe think or go along with that myself, until I looked closer at the dog results:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmccannexposure.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2F12%2Fmccann-sniffer-dogs-videos-and-evidences-a-timely-reminder%2F&ei=vl_MTcfbHMSwhAfE79DsBQ&usg=AFQjCNHbhajG4vy4dbZC2xFjcmvRa1fj2Q

From this link I learned that the dogs did not just search the apartment and car. The dogs searched:
. 2 beaches including the cliffs as far as the dog could "negotiate the incline" - no alert from any dog at either beach.
. 4 surrounding areas [5 if you include a dirt road that was searched] of the apartment. These surrounding area searches took about 2 hours -no alert from either dog in any of these areas.
. Robert Murat's house and his garden -no alert from either dog.
. All the apartments of the remaining group of friends. -No alert in any of these apartments.

The only places there was alerts was :
. In various places inside the McCann's 5a apartment -both Blood and Cadaver alerts
. The veranda outside Kate and Gerry's bedroom. - Cadaver alert
. The garden area directly under Kate & Gerry's veranda.- Cadaver alert
. Madeline's soft toy in the McCann's new accommodation- Cadaver dog alert
. The McCann's rented car- Cadaver alert [10 other cars were searched by the dogs with no reaction, and the trainer was not told which was the McCann's car, so did not unintentionally "lead" the dogs to a reaction at their car.]
. On the clothing marked "living Room" belonging to the McCann's. -cadaver dog alert. [The whole area was screened by the dogs first for 10 minutes, before the clothes were brought in. This was to make sure there were no other scents or false alerts in the area that the dogs might be responding to. They had no reaction in those 10 mins, they only reacted when the McCann clothing was put down]

So yes all children fall and cut themselves at times, and adults can injure themselves too causing bleeding, but none of the other searched apartments had traces of blood.
The McCann's friends had children too, but they musn't have had any accidents because no alerts there, or else there may have been minor cuts that were cleaned up.
Hundreds of children and adults must have stayed in all of these apartments before the McCanns and their friends, so it could be very likely that there have been small amounts of blood from cuts or minor accidents in them at some stage, but they must have been such small amounts of blood that were easily cleaned up, as there is now no trace of any blood in them, all except for the McCann's apartment.
Does this mean that there was at some stage a large amount of blood in the McCanns that was not so easily cleaned up as the other apartments?
This is a link to the crime scene photograph, after the blood and cadaver dog alerts. It shows the areas where samples were found to be tested. You can also see the tiles that were lifted to be tested.
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/SJjRkkQRlII/AAAAAAAAKhQ/Q8WAzUszZ5g/s400/blood_spatter_patern.jpg&imgrefurl=http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2008/08/photograph-of-blood-spatter-in-mccann.html&usg=__cFTlb62VJ4MtzSB441aRjDkqg28=&h=261&w=400&sz=21&hl=en&start=1&zoom=0&tbnid=mL6NSWh3aSsVqM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=124&ei=DXHMTevEDYexhAek4amUBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmccann%2Bapartment%2Bblood%2Bsplatter%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D785%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1

So was this blood definitely proven to be Madeline's?
I know that some of the samples have been proven to be an 80% DNA match to Madeline, but is that the samples from the car, or from both the car and apartment?
Is there any record of a very bloody accident in that apartment previous to the McCann's? Hotel/police have never said so anyways, but maybe there could have been?
They have said though, that there is no record whatsoever of a dead body ever being in that apartment, so I don't know how the cadaver alerts can be explained.
I suppose as Kate says, the "death scent" could be because some of her clothes had been in contact with corpses two weeks previously, but it doesn't really explain the death scent being found behind the couches, on the windowsill, on the veranda, in the garden under the McCann's veranda, or in their rental car.
Were none of the other group of doctors in contact with corpses too? -because no cadaver scent was found in their apartments.
The dog also searched the bins, and came across waste meat products including pork, but did not give a false alert.

Something that interests me in this link is a reference to their friend Russell O' Brien. Russell is Jane Tanner's boyfriend. He is the man who decided to stay at the apartment with his sick child Evie on the night that Madeline disappeared. He was gone for about half an hour from the dinner, before his girlfriend Jane [who allegedly spotted the man carrying child] swapped with him, and she was then gone from the table, until Kate discovered Madeline missing at 10pm.
Russell is alleged to have requested new bedding as he said his child had vomited [which is his reason for leaving the group], the hotel/housekeeping say no such call was made.
Anyways this is the bit that interested me:

RUSSELL O’BRIEN

To the coordinator of the criminal investigation.

In the context of the investigation, we have collected information concerning a vehicle used by RUSSELL O’BRIEN, friend and member of the group who spent their holiday with the McCann family in the Algarve .
At the time of the request for vehicles considered important to the procedures that follow, we were not aware of the identification details of this vehicle. Meantime, our investigation has led us to establish that it may be a vehicle of the “Opel” range, a “Corsa” model, registration….AG – 62. At the present time, we do not have a mandate to search for and seize the vehicle to allow us to add the vehicle to the planned inspections. As a consequence, we request such a legal mandate in order to be able to realize the planned inspections.

What information was collected to make them want to search his vehicle? Did they ever get this mandate to seize and search this vehicle?
I hadn't heard about this before.

I will bear in mind though, that even the trainer himself says that, "no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.", by corroborating evidence I presume he means unless a body was found, then you cannot prove anything for sure.

A link to the odd phone records/deleting of records etc:
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/more-on-the-deleted-call-records-%E2%80%93-where-was-kate-mccann/


A few more puzzling [possibly newspaper ****e?] things I've come across:
Ok first of all, this links makes Clarence Mitchell sound like an absolute idiot. Some of his slips of tongue, are amazingly dumb!:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.madeleinefoundation.org.uk%2Fclarence-mitchell%255B1%255D.html&ei=k4HMTcfAEMiYhQfR3tXZBQ&usg=AFQjCNHlGoBjbIwB6AxrTT5YRI03xVODmw

I want to draw attention though to point 12 from that link where he says referring to Kate on the night of Madeline's disappearance: "so what if she changed her clothes?"
Em, so what? Well if true, it would seriously fcuk up the story they have told so far. Kate is not meant to have left the dinner table at all, apart from when she found Madeline missing.
A man named Duarte Levy [a french journalist] was said to have photographs from the Tapas Bar that night, that proved that Kate McCann changed her clothes during the course of the dinner.
He also says that he had photos of the group until as late as 10:15pm, which would make Kate raising the alarm at 10pm incorrect.
The english paper "the People" claim that he tried to sell them the photos for 50,000 pounds but that they refused. "The People" newpaper informed Clarence Mitchell the McCann's spokesperson, and Duartes got heavily criticized as a money seeker in their paper.
Duartes denys attempting to sell the photos to the newspaper, as he says he is not the actual owner of the photos.
He says they actually belong to a Spanish tourist, and the tourist contacted the British papers trying to sell them, but that the person would only sell them on the condition that "the images first be shown to the Portuguese Police."
Duarte says that the tourist sent the photos to the British Center for the Protection of Children.
The tourist was then contacted by a legal office in the UK, who offered him 600,000 euros for the photos on the condition that he did not speak about the contents of the images, and on the condition that he would not send them to Portugal authoritys.
Apparently the tourist refused their offer because, yes he wants lots of money for them but he also wants the condition to be that the Portuguese police get to see them first, which papers will not agree to.
Just scroll down abit in this link to find the story titled "mysterious photos":
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id156.html


This could just be an attention seeking/fame hungry journalist though, as I have not heard anything more about this mysterious tourist since.
I also think that if it was the true, I'm sure the police could force Duarte Levy to tell them the name of the tourist who has these photos.


Another slightly strange thing is how much involvement millionaire Brian Kennedy has in the case, regarding contacting witnesses and meeting with the police himself:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjillhavern.forumotion.net%2Ft1485-brian-kennedy-is-hands-on-says-clarence-mitchell-but-not-when-it-comes-to-supervising-kevin-kalligen&ei=k4HMTcfAEMiYhQfR3tXZBQ&usg=AFQjCNFty544P45muESFVr0mzdcKUnqB9A

My hands are tired from typing!:pac:

So I just want to finish up with having another look at the innocent possibility.
Despite the mounting evidence I am finding that there is some very, VERY strange things about this case. I am still open to the possibility of innocence of the McCanns.

I am completely against the way that they chose to leave their kids alone, especially as they were so young, and Madeline had a history of wking up and coming into their room. David Payne does try to give an explanation of the “checking system” that they had set up. He says that in other Mark Warner resorts there is a service called a “listening service” for children. This involves a “listener” who goes around to the rooms of all the children, knocks lightly on the door and just listens for any crying.The listener only goes around every 40-45 mins. This may be a common service in some countries.
He says that the group felt that because they would be checking every 30 minutes, and actually going into the apartments to check on the children, that there method was even safer than the accepted method in some resorts.
There was a drop in crèche service for children there at night, that ran from 7:30 -11:30pm I think, but he says that this drop in crèche was a good distance from the apartments, and would be very awkward as the children slept during these hours so they didn’t want to be waking them up and moving them about the place. They felt their system was adequate and safe as it was. I completely disagree with him, but it does give a small explanation behind their reasoning for what they did.

Some of the testimonies I have have read so far also suggest that it was actually the friends, and not the McCann’s who rang the media first.
Fiona Payne says that she thinks Rachel rang Sky.
Matthew Oldfield says that some of them knew and were friendly with a bbc worker and his wife, and that they rang the bbc too.
I will have to reread over these to confirm the details of this.
I have still to read the rest of the people’s testimonies.
I am interested though in the fact that there seems to be a 2 hour gap from when Madeline went missing, and to when the police got called. That is fcuked up if true, I’ll read abit more about it.

I don’t place too much importance on their lack of public emotion in early interviews. Kate says she was told by the police not to show too much emotion, as an abductor could get some sort of kick out of it, or because it might not be to Madeline’s benefit.
I didn’t cry properly when my dad died, until the actual day of his funeral where I broke down. Some people are just very controlled with public emotion.

Regarding the sedation theory, a poster earlier made some very good points about that. Such as, if the kids were heard crying on a previous night then they were probably not sedated, to which I would agree.
The poster also said that why would Kate have said that if Madeline woke up, would it be better to have the doors unlocked so that Madeline could wander down and find them? This is also a good point, as you wouldn't expect a sedated child to be waking and wandering about.
It could be said though that because of the previous crying, and fear of children waking up again, that this lead to the children being sedated on the night of Madeline's disappearance. The McCann's and their friends seem to think it possible too due to the twins not waking, but they say that maybe an abductor sedated the children. Yet they still did not get the twins tested until months later.

Another good point was made by a poster who asked if CuddleCat was so important, then why was it not bagged by police, why was Kate carrying it around for days? I do not know the answer to this as it does not make sense. It is a very good question. The toy should have been kept for evidence.

I mentioned in my first post that if the timeline and accounts by the group are correct and true, that it leaves an hour where Madeline could have wandered out and been kidnapped [if not sedated], or abducted from the apartment whilst sedated [by the McCanns], and that is why nobody heard her cry or scream, and the twins did not wake either.

Another poster made a good point that maybe a hotel/bar worker was had been monitoring the McCanns movements each night, and knew that they would have plenty of time to abduct a child.
This is also very possible, and I would like to know what workers have been questioned, or if anything unusual arose from this questioning?
David Payne when asked about anything suspicious/or anything he wanted to speak about said that they had noticed gardeners in the resort that they had never seen before. He also said that the McCanns had workmen in their apartment at one stage fixing blinds, and that the group were anxious that these people be questioned too.

Again, I don't know how or where a body could be stored and moved without anybody getting caught, I also don't know how the parents [who I believe do love Madeline], could cover this up for so many years.

I am trying to present a balanced view of the case and look at all possibilities, and I realize that it might not seem that way due to all my links to suspicious things, but tbh that is only because there is much more evidence that is suspicious , than there is evidence that backs up their official story. If I find really good evidence that explains the suspicious things, then I will post them too, but at the minute there is far more that stacks against them as suspicious.

I would really like this case reopened. Amongst lots of other things, I would definitely like the rest of that group interviewed again, because their changing stories are very weird.

Sorry for really long post. It's just that it is a really interesting case once you start looking into it more, so I have ended up rambling on and on about it. Apologies for that. My head is warped at this stage, so g'nite for now :pac:

ISDW wrote: »

Littleacorn, thank you for your post (I won't quote it, its waaaaaay too long:))

It is very easy to see holes in the McCann's stories, and to be suspicious when you lay it all out like that. However, as you say yourself, in your very balanced post, there is lots that you don't know, such as the questioning of workers etc. This has always been my point, that we don't know all the facts and evidence that the police have seen, and have worked with, so I personally can't make a judgement on someone who's child is missing based on half the evidence.

An interesting thing from your post is the child listening service, is that the only babysitting service that was on offer at this resort do you know, apart from the creche?

Anyway, Scotland Yard have now become involved, so it will be interesting to see how the investigation goes on from here. Again, I can't believe that if the McCanns were involved in her disappearance that they would continue to ask for the case to be investigated as they have, surely they would have too much to lose?

Hi ISDW, the Portugal resort did not offer listening services.
The McCanns knew that before they got there.
The resort did offer a creche that ran from 7:30pm-11:30pm.
It seems quite good, they had cots for babys, and bed with sleeping bags for older kids. Parents were allowed settle their children if they wished to, and 4-5 year olds were offered a bed time film at 7:30pm if the parents wished.

They also offered a babysitting service that started from just 12 euro an hour. Babysitting is usually in very high demand, so you need to give their staff 24 hours notice. I believe that the babysitters are the same as the kids club staff.

This is a link to it and it also mentions some of the qualifications that most of their childcare staff have:
http://www.markwarner.co.uk/why-choose-us/sun/childrens-clubs

It seems David Payne actually said in part 1 of his testimony that the other resorts listening service was every 30 mins[not 40 mins], although he says in the part 2 of his testimony that the group were doing their checks more frequent than the resorts with listening services.
This is a quote from his testimony[he explained how the listening service worked in the first part of his testimony]:

1485
"As the person who organised this trip were you aware of the baby listening service? Well yes you were, but we discussed that a bit earlier didn’t we.”
Reply
"Yes.”
1485
"Was this available at night? Was it, could you remember what it…”
Reply
"Well the, the, the point, the, the service that they, they offered there which was different to the other Mark Warner’s was that they had a, a drop-in err centre for want of a better description err for the evening. So if you wanted to go out for a meal you would take your child down to err the, the reception, you know, there’s an area down there you know specific for that where they’d have the, the nannies who would keep an eye on your children. You could go and have something to eat and then you go and pick your child up err after. This, it comes back to pretty much, you know, we’d gone there you know with the same kind of, originally we were hoping that it would be someone knocking the door, listening at the door and everything’s quiet and then move, moving on and that’s what we’d gone with the, think it would be. I did know before I went on the holiday that that wasn’t what it was going to be but we’d gone on there adopting that that’s you know how we were gonna most likely do it, well that was one of the options anyway depending on where the apartments were and everything. Now where the, where the drop-in err crèche in the evening was, was you know it was a, you know a fair distance you know from where we were staying err you know so, you know it wasn’t certainly where you ate down there and our, our complex or our apartments was quite a bit away so it was nothing that we’d really entertain. Secondly, all the children are, are you know very young and wouldn’t, would be sleeping at that time so it wasn’t something that we wanted to use because of the children, you know we’d want them to be sleeping and we, you know they wouldn’t sleep particularly well down there and you know we thought what we were doing obviously was, you know…”
1485
"Yeah.”
01:15:14
Reply
"Was, was err reasonable. We were checking the children more often than, than Mark Warner would do, not only were they, it wasn’t just a listening outside the door, people were going in and checking the children so from that perspective we felt we were doing more than they normally would do. Err so from that point of view you know it, it was, you know, a bit of a, not say inconvenience isn’t the right word, but we were, you know we knew what we going, what, what it was going to be like when we got there and we thought what we were doing was, was more than adequate than a lot of the Mark Warner centres across Europe do.”
1485
"Yeah.”
Reply
"So err you know we were aware there was a crèche there but just for the reasons that I’ve just said that’s why we didn’t use it, so err you know and I know that’s something that’s been picked up in the press and obviously Mark Warner you know they want to put across that you know there, there is that option for people if they were to go to that Mark Warner resort.”
1485
"Yeah.”
Reply
"But, but you know.”
01:16:14
1485
"Were you aware by the way that during the course of the week that Gerry and Kate had changed their methods of entering their apartment?”
Reply
"Err I hadn’t at all, no.”

Mark Warner have since stopped their listening services at all their resorts.
They never had it in the Portugal resort, and everybody knew that.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1313752,00.html
That link is abit annoying when it says "kate had wanted to use it, but it was unavailable"
She knew that the service was not available there when booking. Her friends in the group were all of aware of this too from booking.


I'm pretty sure most of the workers have been interviewed.
I know that the aerobics instructor, the childcare workers, various restaurant workers, the hotel managers, and the housekeeping hotel staff have definitely given statements. I just still have to read them yet.

I think that the Tapas workers would have obviously given statements, but I haven't searched for those yet to see if they are available.
I have since seen a picture of a receipt type thingy of what I think is the worker's who fixed the blinds, As this picture is in evidence, and marked with the ocean club mark, I think that they too must have interviewed, and are probably the maintenance staff of the resort.
http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy69/HiDeHo1/blindrepaironthe1stofMay2007.jpg

I think pretty much most/if not all the case files are publicly available since the case was closed, I just have to do some more searching. If I find anything interesting about the workers, I will post it up.

There is another little thing that I have briefly read about.
It was something about how the McCanns had 4 professional looking photos of Madeline on the holiday ,already prepared for the police on the night Madeline went missing.
They were proven not to have been printed at the Ocean clubs facilities where the 100s of other a4 pics were being printed on paper.
They are supposed to have come from some nanny's boyfriends printer. This printer was never checked because the nanny says her boyfriend took it back to France.
Matthew did mention something though about Russell being good on computers and arranging some sort of photographs. I will have to reread it to see if he is referring to the a4 printouts, or the 4 professional looking photos.
I will read that full story in the link again.

so when are the McCanns on the LLS, tonight 13th or Fri 20th?

CK2010 wrote: »

maybe its a case of wishful thinking. that they're trying so hard to figure out what happened to her that they're minds are playing tricks and they're hoping so much that something significant stands out. things like that do happen in cases like this.

its similar to how the public will find the weirdest of explanations for insignificant things in the hope that it leads to finding her.people do silly things,sometimes without even realising, when they're trying to help someone they care about.

btw, im not on either 'side', and if i was to choose id probably be of the opinion that nothing adds up and the whole case is very suspicious but i just thought it was important to keep in mind.

In Tanner's case it looks like she changed her eye witness account to fit with what was turning up in the investigation.


When Kate was telling people she was sure that Murat took the child, Tanner's statement described a man matching how Murat looked. And was certain that who she was was a British man and white.


Then when Murat was not being charged she changed her eye witness account to that of having seen a woman carrying a child. A woman that matched the description of Murat's girlfriend who had been on tv a few times at that point.


Then when it was announced that Murat's girlfriend was not a suspect, Tanner suddenly remembered that what she saw was a man with dark skin with greasy hair and a long thin moustache and she was even able to remember his clothing and the details of the pajamas worn by the child at that point.


Some of the other people at the table also gave their earlier statements with bits that said they saw Murat or a man like him. But all changed their tune when asked to repeat their statements in front of lawyers at the station, as Murat got lawyered up at that point.


Not once has an apology been offered to Murat despite Kate being very quick to say that she knew he did it and despite her making a lot of comments about him and his guilt as she saw it.


The McCanns are very quick to demand apologies and money when they feel like they have been accused or insulted, but had no problem blackening the name of Murat and then saying nothing when he was cleared of being a suspect.