MadeleineMcCann Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
MadeleineMcCann > ARCHIVED FORUMS & INFO > HiDeHo Posts Go to subcategory:
Author Content
TinLizzy
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:01 PMCopy HTML

Post subject: MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15 pm




As you may be aware, I believe the dogs and the files and that Madeleine died earlier in the week.

Therefore, as I trawl through the statements, I am vigilantly seeking, not only discrepancies, but also avoidance of committing to specific timing and comments, recognising that the overly involved and descriptive portions flag the issues that need to be hidden....

There are, of course, problems with memory, which any of us would find difficult, but upon reading Matthew Oldfield's statement I realised he was going out of his way to 'explain' when no question had been asked!

This told me he was attempting (while discussing about babysitting) to maintain his credibility as a caring father (which I believe he is) whilst continuing to promote the 'checking' scenario.

I believe in the possibility that someone was looking after the children every night and in his statement I can see (IMO) he is trying to relay that by confirming about himself being at home with their child on Sunday and Rachael being there on Wednesday (maybe Tuesday?).

I found a few comments that stood out to me.....Am I reading them wrong or is he admitting to sharing the babysitting at night?

Maybe he wants to tell the truth but has been sworn to the 'pact' and that involves the 'checking' system or there could be no abduction?

Matthew Oldfield
4078 “Okay. Do you remember the Monday evening, it probably would have been your first trip to the Tapas Bar, I would imagine?”
Reply “Erm, I remember it only in terms of it then became the same as it was every, every evening. So after the first night they ate they said, you know, it was all, you know, it was nice. Erm, because the options for eating in the evening, because Rachael actually booked the restaurant for the rest of the week after the first time on the Sunday night when they ate and it was all very successful. And because, the whole point of going to MARK WARNER, apart from, you know, the sort of the sport and things, is this issue of child care, which of course has changed for us completely now, but when you go to (inaudible) or you go to the other ones, they tend to be sort of a compound, I mean, they’re not sealed from people from the outside, but they’re sort of self-enclosed, erm, there’s a warden sort of at the gate house, but you can walk in and out pretty freely, and they do a baby listening service, erm, so they have a number of the Nannies who are on rota who will sit at the bottom of the, Lemnos was sort of like lots of little cottages, not cottages, little sort of flats, apartments going up on two hillsides, and so they would walk round, erm, you know, round and went past all the, erm, apartments and have a listen at the door to see whether anybody was crying or upset and at the start of the evening, as you went past, you’d give them your room number and where you were going to be and then if they heard anybody crying you’d then be taken back up the, erm, you know, they’d find you in the restaurant and you’d go up to the door and see what was going on. And that was the sort of thing that we were looking for when we booked the MARK WARNER because, it kind of seems funny when you look at it from this perspective, but at the time, it was just about having a safe environment where, you know, the kids, because all the time and all through this, the thing you ever worry about is, if I leave them alone and they’re, you think that they’re safe because they’re all locked, you’re not really thinking that anything horrible would happen, you think, what happens if they wake up and they’re crying and you’re not there and, you know, they’re going to be upset and you think, well, you know, if they’ve got this then it’s going to be ten minutes at the most, erm, and it’s going to be awful and you’ll feel bad about it if it happens, but G***e is a really good sleeper and, you know, we’ve got that sort of safety net, so we were looking for that for Praia da Luz. And it was one of the things that made us think, maybe we shouldn’t go, because when we were trying to book, you know, it said it’s a village, it’s not enclosed, it’s sort of apartments throughout the village and, erm, there isn’t a baby listening service and we can’t guarantee that you’ll be together, you know, because I think there were three centres, there’s one up by the Millennium, there’s one Ocean Club and then there was the one near the main entrance, and so we were concerned that if one member of the group, we were all going, oh perhaps we’ll be the Billy no mates, the really unpopular ones will get stuck at the Millennium and, you know, we won’t be able to, we won’t be able to go out and visit our friends because we’re not going to leave, you know, we’re not going to leave to, erm, to go and see them and we won’t be able to share child care and so it would be fairly difficult and it was a big issue because they couldn’t guarantee, the couldn’t allocate the rooms, erm, for us and they said it’ll have to wait until you get in the resort, erm, but in the end it was sort of quite quiet and so they sort of could stick us really close together. I can’t remember why I started talking about that?”00.33.03 4078 “It is because we talked about your first night at the Tapas Bar and then you came on to say the routine would have been the same as every night”.
Reply “Right”.
00.33.07 4078 “So you were just going to cover the arrangements that had been put in place for checking on the children?”
Reply “Right. And so the Tapas seemed to fit because, because you didn’t feel far away from the room, it felt so quiet and very safe and it was sort of a minutes walk, if that, you know, the actual distance seemed quite, you know, you were sort of falsely reassured, but obviously at this point you could see the back of your apartment, not hugely clearly, but you can sort of see the apartment block, erm, you know, you could see if the light came on, for instance, or you felt that you’d be able to see if the light came on and, you know, because we were sort of going what we thought was every sort of ten or fifteen minutes, basically between courses, then you could go. And rather than go and find another restaurant where not everybody would be able to go because somebody would need to be babysitting, it seemed most sensible just to, to stay put in the same place, erm, because the food was pretty reasonable and just trekking everywhere else was going to make it such a headache for the child care. And then this issue of, well you do just put the kids in with babysitters, because they were in a sort of a Nanny sort of a night drop-off service, but that kind of felt less safe, in that, one, they wouldn’t sleep or G***e wouldn’t, we’d be worried that she wouldn’t particularly sleep and she’d be worried and it’d be difficult to drop her off because she really didn’t like being dropped off at the Nursery, erm, which I always tried to avoid that chore, I did it on the Thursday, but she didn’t like it and she wouldn’t go to sleep particular well with sort of strangers in a room when people would be coming in and out to collect their children”.4078 “It would be unsettling for her”.
Reply “So it actually seemed a worse choice than just being close but not actually in the room (inaudible)”.
4078 “Was there an actual discussion between the group of you as to the sort of fifteen minute checks or ten minute checks or whatever or was it something that you as a couple had decided on and then the circumstances during the week meant that everyone had sort of taken it in turns to check?”
Reply “No, we pretty much checked our, well certainly we checked our own and it was only the last night that we offered to check for Gerry and Kate. It just, we are sort of fairly similar, our sort of views on sort of child care and that it was important, we’re sort of from the same background, we have sort of similar issues about sort of child rearing, which is why we sort of get on and there was nothing obvious that anybody would do anything particularly different. I mean, Russell and Jane sort of, erm, are sort of fairly relaxed and easy going, erm, and Dave and Fi are sort of a bit disorganised and a bit late and Gerry and Kate are much more organised and we sort of fit sort of between that end of between, between that end of the scale and Russell and Jane. So it was all sort of, it was just sort of natural, we didn’t decide, oh we’ll do this, it just sort of came at natural breaks, we’d come down and we’d go between sort of courses to sort of check, but we usually, we’d check our own and, as far as I know, that didn’t really change. Although, because it wouldn’t seem, certainly for Russell and Jane I’d be happy to check for their children because they know me and if, you know, they had been awake and I went in they wouldn’t be particularly, erm, you know, they wouldn’t be particularly shocked or surprised or not know who I was, but Gerry and Kate and their children I didn’t know them so well, so I wouldn’t and certainly at the beginning of the week have offered to check their children or assumed that that would be okay, it was only at the end of the week when we seemed to know each other better and our routines and everybody seemed to be doing the same thing that it seemed to be a nice thing to do to offer to save them a trip”.
00.36.24 4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “But, no, the, there was no sort of formal arrangement, as far as I know, for, for when we would go and check on the kids, we just went at sort of convenient times as we could”.
4078 “Okay. So I know you can’t specifically remember the Monday evening, but that began with the sort of weekly routine (inaudible)?”
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “Was there, had there been, also before the Thursday, had there been any problems with that routine?”
Reply “No, erm, anything out of the usual or out of the ordinary?”
00.36.58 4078 “Yeah, was there anything that sort of made you more anxious about G***e’s welfare?”
Reply “No”.
4078 “Had she woken up on any of those occasions?”
Reply “No, not that we know. I mean, she may have, I mean, she’s a good sleeper and we put her down about half seven, so we had about an hour to make sure that she settled well, but she was so tired from going to Nursery and being out and playing with all of the others that, erm, you know, she slept like a top. Erm, there was nothing unusual, we never sort of came in and had, had a sort of a worry about her not being happy or being well”.
4078 “So the overall effect of that, I am assuming, would be that you were really quite relaxed on that holiday, you were doing things that you enjoyed doing?”
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “G***e was occupied and happy?”
Reply “Yeah”.
4078 “And in the evening you had felt very sure that she was sufficiently tired for you to go and have your meal and you and Rachael would take it in turns to check on her?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah”.
4078 “Okay”.
Reply “I mean, we’d be, we’d be back by, there was only one time that we ever went out for a drink after the meal, so normally the meal would finish around sort of ten and we’d tootle off back. And I was ill on one night, Rachael was ill on the Wednesday night and so the Wednesday night was the only time that I stayed out any later than that. So it was, and we’d already (inaudible), so it was sort of like an hour and a half of time that we were away, maybe two hours”.
00.38.15 4078 “Was there anything different about the Tuesday that you can recall?”
Reply “Erm, no, I don’t remember anything specific about, about that day. I mean, Rachael became ill on the Tuesday night. G***e had, the thing that would have made it really horrible, when I became unwell, was for everybody then to go down with D and V, and we were sort of very worried that it would go first to G***e and then to the kids and then back up to everybody and completely ruin the entire trip for everybody, and G***e had loose nappies nearly every day, but until after Madeleine went, erm, disappeared, she was never sick and on a couple of occasions then she was sick, but she had sort of fairly loose nappies. Rachael became I think unwell over the Tuesday night and was, erm, mostly sort of pottering about the apartment on the Wednesday. But, apart from that, I don’t remember anything else about the Tuesday”.



TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re:MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:02 PMCopy HTML

The McCanns created a staged abduction on May 3rd.

This would not have been credible had they admitted to someone watching the children every night.

They (McCanns) NEEDED to have it known that children were left alone and they were all checking the children intermitently (for May 3rd)

To achieve credibility this would have needed to have happened all week.

What I believe is possible is that Madeleine died Monday/Tuesday and therefore the 'checking' was a lie and that ORIGINALLY (in this case MO) wanted all the apartments together so they could share babysitting...Which they may very well have done!

We only have their word that they left the children alone.

I am promoting the possibility that (MO) had something in place to share babysitting but was 'forced' by McCanns to go along with the 'checking' system or their simulated abduction would have not been credible and they would have been immediately charged with what they were really doing that night....
TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re:MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:03 PMCopy HTML

If the childcare arrangements that he mentioned they wanted in his statement were in place then the McCanns children may have been involved too.

Except....Something happened at a moment that Kate may have been with the children and the only way they could avoid responsibility was the 'staged abduction'.

I cannot think of any other way for them to 'lose' Madeleine and avoid an autopsy if her body would pinpoint the cause of death or prior abuse.

We don't know why the T7 seem to be lying and contradicting themselves but I suspect the cunning and intimidating personality of Gerry has something to do with it.

TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re:MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:04 PMCopy HTML

I can see how some may think that by recognising that they may have been 'looking after' their children at night is giving them undeserved credit...

What it ACTUALLY does..(IMO) is help PROVE that the McCanns faked the abduction as it couldn't have happened if, as MO states they managed to get apartments close to each other and therefore someone was nominated to watch their children!

Children responsibly watched means NO-ONE could have abducted Madeleine and therefore the McCanns lied and they are GUILTY of simulated abduction and hiding little Madeleine's body!
TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re:MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:04 PMCopy HTML

We all believe different things regarding this case....None of us know anything for sure.

I don't believe their statements about checking the children.

I have always believed the 'probability' of the McCanns doors being locked....I believe that they put something into place where one of them was watching the children..

I have never got angry about neglect because I have never believed it happened.

When I came across this comment by MO in his statement it validated what I had always believed...

That they had (and had planned) some kind of combined childcare.

Quote:
we won’t be able to go out and visit our friends because we’re not going to leave, you know, we’re not going to leave to, erm, to go and see them and we won’t be able to share child care


There was (nearly, we don't know about Monday) always someone missing from the table so its not an embellishment...it is certainly a possibility as far as I am concerned.

If, as MO suggested, they really DID watch the children every night then I think to PROVE that is a breakthrough!

If the children were not left alone (as MO suggested was the plan) then the McCanns are GUILTY because there could NOT have been an abduction!
TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:1787
  • Posts:1787
  • From:Canada
  • Register:11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re:MO admits to wanting apartments close to share childcare?Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:15

Date Posted:06/06/2010 8:12 PMCopy HTML

No matter what other discrepancies etc the police have, if they have (or could find) PROOF that they shared childcare and that the chiildren were not left alone then that should go a long way in proving their lies that there wasn't an abductor.

Subsequently, there would also have to be proof about how Madeleine died and what they did with her body and how they managed to 'create' the staged abduction and THATS what I want to see the McCanns accountable for.

______________________________________________________________________________________

It starts to get confusing because the 'childcare' theory is only feasible while Madeleine was alive.

After that, it was about preparation for the staged 'abduction'.

Tuesday night, maybe Madeleine was already sick, Kate was in the apartment (twins being watched with the other kids (ROB?).

After reading the statements there is very little to show where Kate was in the last couple of days, and the quiz mistress did not remember seeing her on Tuesday night..also she did not arrive at the tapas with Gerry on Wednesday night.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Apparently Jane Tanner wanted to have the apartments close for the same reason...

Jane Tanner
I think we decided before we went, one of the
attractions of a Mark Warner holiday was the baby listening service that they
normally offer.”
4078 "Yeah.”
12.55 Reply "And we did know that they didn’t offer it, offer it there and we sort of thought, at
that point we thought we can either do it between ourselves and one night one couple you know stay back and then do the baby listening

With someone away from the table every? night then it was very possibly in place but they were 'required' to deny it so the faked abduction would be credible

____________________________________________________________________________________

If they were to admit to watching the children responsibly (which they may have been doing) then to account for Madeleine's disappearance one of them would have been targeted as being the person looking after the children when Madeleine was abducted.

We know she wasn't abducted and they would be wrongly accused of her disappearance while in their care.

Far easier to create a 'generic' checking system where no one person was responsible...because, after all, Madeleine died and wasn't abducted.

Who would allow one of their friends to be targeted as responsible for 'allowing' Madeleine's abduction when there wasn't one?

I think that is one of the reasons they are all lying.

To say they were taking it in turns to look after the children would mean the abduction could not have happened and therefore, all the questions would be directed at the McCanns..

Exactly where all the questions SHOULD be directed...

______________________________________________________________________________________

I don't want to let them off the hook for neglect, I just don't see any proof there WAS neglect.

Here is how I see the situation....It doesn't feed into the anger created by neglect but I find it very possible.

I apologise if sometimes my posts are rather convoluted and I fail to express myself simply.

(repost of mine from another forum)

The friends decided to go on holiday together.

They were hoping to have baby listener services but realised that was not available and so requested that the apartments were close together so one person per night would be nominated to be responsible to look after the children. (as suggested by Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner)

MO was 'sick' on Sunday, ROB was looking after his younger daughter on Tuesday, Rachael was 'sick' on Wednesday. (Monday is unknown)

At some point, probably unrelated to 'babysitting', Madeleine died. (my thoughts are still pointing to Tuesday night)

For some reason it was not possible to be truthful about the death, either because someone was responsible for her death or because to have an inquiry/autopsy would incriminate someone.

The 'choice' was made to create the 'abduction'.

To admit to having one of T9 watching the children each night (which they may have been doing) would mean that one person would be targeted as the person 'in charge' when Madeleine was abducted and so they, therefore, decided to create a generic circumstance where they would all be equally involved in 'checking'.

For example...

Sunday, Monday and Tuesday one of the T9 was watching the children while the others dined at the tapas....

Then....Madeleine died (or became sick and died later).

From that moment it was necessary to put the plan into place that there needed to be the opportunity for an 'abductor' to take Madeleine.

Gerry told Jez Wilkins (and maybe others) that the children were left alone.

They started the 'to-ing' and 'fro-ing' to give the 'checking' scenario credibility (the quiz mistress on Tuesday night said no-one left the table)

Gerry and Kate (and another/others) dealt with the situation, cleaning, hiding Madeleine's body. (in the Rogs the police were very intent on checking about the tennis bag that Kate an Gerry may have taken on holiday.)

Wednesday night they stayed later in the tapas (maybe after Dianne had left - I don't believe Dianne knew anything )

They, maybe, discussed the options and how they would 'enact' the faked abduction the following evening.

That evening Rachael was, maybe, looking after the children (as she was least involved?).

The following night, Thursday was not about them going for supper at the tapas, it was about creating the scenario for the abduction.

Many questions about who was there and who wasn't, but there always seemed to be someone missing from the table (keeping an eye on the remaining children?)

Ultimately, there was (for the first time that week) many of them responsible for 'checking' and therefore no one person that could be accused of being irresponsible but still allowing for the opportunity of an 'abduction'.

They were all involved in keeping the 'checking' system alive to avoid one person taking the brunt of the accusations for an abduction that didn't happen.

Their statements reflect the truth as far as they could, but they substituted different days to create confusion and to hide the 'day' when the 'nightmare' began.

Over the next day or two (if Madeleine's death on Tuesday) they made a point of 'seeing' Gerry an Kate in and around the OC. (From scrutinising the statements there are many discrepancies about Kate's whereabouts on the last couple days.)

Why Madeleine died and why it was necessary to not have it investigated is the big question.....


_______________________________________________________________________________-

I'm not so sure that there is a strong following.

Its impossible to consider what I believe as plausible if you believe in neglect, and the overwhelming majority believe in all of the T9 neglecting their children.

Its hard, once you have felt so much anger towards them, to suddenly look at the possibility that the neglect issues were a 'con' also, so they could get away with the abduction scenario.

I have never believed that they neglected and have never, therefore, felt that anger towards them, leaving me free to consider other possibilities.

I am frustrated about what they DID do (according to the dogs and the police files) and that is to hide the reason for Madeleine's death, hide her body, simulate the abduction and then proceed to 'control' the media to prevent being accountable.

They are despicable and I do not need to add any anger by way of 'neglect' (if it existed)

They are not worth the time of day and do not deserve the benefit of having anyone feel anything (anger or otherwise) towards them. I would never give them that control of manipulating my feelings towards them.

Madeleine disappeared and the two people most important people to her were the ones that didn't deserve her

The control they have over others to protect them is incredible.

__________________________________________________________________________________

.
I don't believe in premeditation and conspiracy.

My opinions rely on a very basic (what I consider) a believable scenario.

They go on holiday...watch the children (and protect their valuables)...an accident happens and the McCanns convince the other of not 'telling' about the accident and to help them cover it up with no individual becoming responsible because they pretended to do the 'checking' scenario to enable the window of opportunity for the abduction to take place.

I do not have confirmation of them looking after the children properly but logic tells me they probably did and it was certainly a consideration regarding Jane Tanner and Matthew Oldfield in their Rog interviews.

There was someone missing from the table for each of the nights...another indication that it was possible they were 'nominated' to watch the children.

What reason is there to think they were left alone in the apartments?

Any confirmation?

We have their word that this happened but I don't believe them for one second.

If a child was truly abducted they would be going out of their way to proclaim their innocence and that the children WERE being watched.

Their claim of leaving the children alone was probably a lie (unless someone has a credible reason to think otherwise) it was required to make the abduction possible.

They probably locked all the doors also, if nothing else, to protect their valuables.

This is a long way from being a popular view but the anger of neglect has got in the way of the basic logic and possibility.

The smokescreen to protect them from the accusations they deserve!

___________________________________________________________________________________-

There is another occasion where MO looks after ROB's youngest girl so it really is starting to appear that despite their statements saying they did their own thing they have slipped up acknowledging the care of other children.

To put the timeline in context.....

The time that Rachael was describing the bathtime was during the discrepancy time when Fiona was questioned and admitted to not knowing for sure where DP was between 6.00 and 7.00pm...saying that he returned at 7.10pm but his statement claims he played tennis until just before 8.00pm

It was shortly after DP was supposed to have visited Kate...(6.40pm)

It was after GM had returned to his apartment (next door to Rachael and MO) at 7.00pm

It was while DP, MO and ROB were supposed to be finishing the men's social tennis.

It was an hour before GM and KM left their apartment next door to go to the tapas restaurant

It was around the time that Fiona went for a run

___________________________________________________________________________

 have not been able to find a reason for one cot in the bedroom.

This would have been after the crying heard by Mrs Fenn when Kate describes one of the twins crying and Madeleine sleeping in their room (I think)

Could it have been that by this time Madeleine was dead and one of the twins was crying and instead of it being Madeleine in their room it was one of the twins sleeping there?

Regarding the two beds together on May 3rd photos.

Only one bed appears to be slept in, so probably Kate had slept in Madeleine's room Wednesday night as stated. (I continue to wonder whether it was because of Madeleine's body in the wardrobe though its hopefully not so)

Why one cot in their room after the crying incident though....

_______________________________________________________________________________

A lot of inflicted injuries may have been able to be passed off as something innocent also.

I do not like going 'there' with the possible autopsy results but its important to keep in mind that, whatever the reason Madeleine died, they hid everything and went through with the simulated abduction for a reason...a VERY BIG reason!

That scares me.

______________________________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.