Thursday, 14 May 2015

Vague nannies and contradictions........

In total there were 14 employees who worked for the child care department of the Ocean club resort during the time the McCanns went on holiday. Now I'm not being funny, but either some of these nannies were on LSD, or Madeleine had the ability to become invisible to some, whilst managing to be in plain sight of others. Kate and Gerry it would seem, possessed the rare gift of morphing from one parent into the next...........far out man!

Let's start with the 2nd of May, the day after Mrs Fenn heard crying for approximately 1hr 15 minutes, before immediately stopping when the parents returned from a night out:

Catriona Baker:

Before I go any further with the dubious Miss Baker, let me bring you up to speed on something rather odd. Before Baker's rogatory statement, which was a change from her original statements taken from those staggeringly laid back Leicestershire policemen, Baker was summoned to the McCanns pad for tea and biscuits. Bear in mind the McCanns were still arguidos at this stage, and so would have broken judicial secrecy laws had they discussed the case.

"I visited the family in their home at their invitation to see how they were getting along in November of 2007."

Personally I regularly invite people round to see how I'm "getting on". You can imagine the call

"Hi Cat, it's Kate McCann, we wondered if you'd like to pop round and see how we're getting on..........the fund, yes it's swelling nicely..........yes I'm sure we can arrange something............ok see you then, bye, bye, bye"

Unless of course they were just after a few tips on child care. They could sure use em.

Anyway, I best crack on or I'll be off on a thousand tangents, and I get told off for that.

Baker categorically states that she took Madeleine to the beach with 4 or 5 other children. Here we have our first discrepancy because if we look at Emma Wilding's statement, who was also a nanny at the beach that day.........

Emma Louise Wilding:

Discussing the same day as above May 2nd, 2007:

"When questioned, she states that on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine's group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not"

So out of 10 children she doesn't remember if Madeleine was at the beach or not. Okaaaaaay.

Let's look at the 3rd of May, and more from Emma Wilding, who has a bizarre recollection of Madeleine being dropped off:

"When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much."

"She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual."

NOTHING UNUSUAL APART FROM THE FACT SHE SAID HELLO TO GERRY, DESPITE NOT NOTICING HIM. IMPRESSIVE!

Moving on, are you still with me? I'm losing the will to live putting this in order.

After the clarity of Madeleine being dropped off  comes the rest of the day. Who saw Madeleine during the day of the 3rd?

Catriona Baker:

Ah the amazing Miss Baker again, she claims that she took Madeleine sailing, and that this event was witnessed by two others, Chris Unswork and Alice Standley, although this isn't backed up by either "witness" anywhere in the files. Interestingly in Bakers first statement (prior to her visit to Rothley) she states that:

".........until Thursday May 3rd, the little girl came every day."

My head hurts, so she wasn't with her on the 3rd after-all, well not until she miraculously remembered she was in a later statement. Hmmmm.

I'm not done with our confused friend Catriona yet, she goes on to make another calamitous cock up, this time in her rogatory (the statement she made AFTER visiting the McCanns in England):

"The next time I saw them (Kate and Gerry) was on Saturday at lunch time, as on Friday I spent part of the morning at the Portuguese police answering questions."

Oh Miss Baker, either you had too much sun and sangria, or your memory is so bad it deems your statements unreliable. You see Baker didn't make her first statement until Sunday the 6th of May, now why would she say she hadn't seen Kate and Gerry before making her statement, when clearly she had.

Charlotte Pennington:

States that she "she had direct contact with Madeleine McCann, telling her stories and speaking with her."

Although she also claims that "it was usual for Madeleine to be called "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself"

Pass the paracetamol! Kate said Madeleine hated being called Maddie, why would she introduce herself as such?


Emma Wilding:

"She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch."

"She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary."

"She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary."

So another vague recollection, we already know Miss Wilding gets rather confused about things. Wilding hardly comes across as a reliable witness.

Of the remaining 11 nannies; Jacqueline Mary Williams, Kirsty Louise Maryan, Leanne Danielle Wagstaff, Lyndsay Jane Johnson, Amy Tierney, Lynne Rhiannon Fretter, Pauline Frances McCann, Sarah Elizabeth Williamson, Sarah Elizabeth Williamson, Stacey Portz and Susan Bernadette Owen, not one of them places Madeleine at the Ocean Club on either the 2nd or the 3rd, although many of them state they knew who she was.

So when people state as fact that Madeleine was seen by several nannies on the 2nd and 3rd, it's not anywhere near an accurate statement to be making, far from it.

I'm not even going to get started on David Payne saying he saw her as well, Kate already blew that ridiculous claim clean out the water.

Mary Poppins sang of the importance of a spoonful of sugar, in the case of these statements it's more like a rather large pinch of salt.



All statements can be viewed here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm

18 comments:

  1. Brilliant I'm reading every blog and loving them thank you

    ReplyDelete
  2. Baker did not see Maddie on the Sunday morning either - it's in one if the statements, I think the first.
    Too late to change I suppose.

    The McCanns took care of her hotel when she visited Rothley, at least, they let it be known that they were protecting that information.
    Not only did CB get tea (at some time the McCs said they wanted to inow how the nannies were getting on - it seems mutual) there was also a lovely photo opportunity of CB and the family on their way to church. Swinging the twins around, happy reunion image.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you. I think you'll need more than paracetamol at the end of this Pantomime. It gets more ridiculous each day that passes, I'm surprised how some people are still taken in by them. I remember the "Harold Shipman" case, the Doctor from Manchester who did away with his patient's, some of them just couldn't believe he was capable of what he was accused of. Jerry McCann in particular has the same cold/cocky attitude and is arrogant beyond belief, I just hope the truth does come out soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Tigger, yes yet another contradiction. In much the same way as Jane Tanner's memory improved the more statements she made, so did Cat Bakers, handy eh. As you say, in her first statement dated 6th May 2007, she states that she was:

    "unable to specify if she (Madeleine) was present on the Sunday morning."

    However in her rogatory statement. 18th April 2008, taken after she visited the McCann's, she suddenly remembers the children being present on the Sunday:

    "I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker."

    I'll try and find the photo you mentioned later, and add it to the blog. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think freemasonry is at the root of all this (the secret society) It's about time they were investigated!! then we might get some truth. It seems you can get away with anything, and be protected just by belonging to this organization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also think some freemasons are at the root of this huge farce. Unfortunately they are giving the other freemasons, who do good solid work for a lot of people, a really bad name, so I think that if they got together and ousted the McCann followers we should see some results. They are big and powerful enough to put this to bed and the money grabbing McCanns and followers, and the McCs be made to pay back every pence and cent they have made from their daughters disappearance.

      Delete
    2. What a great idea if it was as easy as that!!! No way is anyone inside this "secret society" going to out anyone. They all stick together, and close ranks if one of theirs does something wrong. It's a bit like Hospitals/Police all protecting each other.A lot of professional people belong the Freemasons all bring to it their own expertise, which can come in very handy when needed if you understand what I'm getting at! They can destroy businesses, people's livelihoods, all round the world, not just here in England. There's good and bad in any organization, some more than others, and they know there's nothing you can do about it, they're practically bullet proof.

      Delete
  6. As an aside, Amy Ellen Tierney at the time 'head of the baby and mini club', said in her witness statement of 6th May 2007:

    "The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service."

    You would think as head of the club she would know the days when it was operational?

    I believe this name was suspected by the late Brenda Leyland to be a prolific McCann supporter on twitter. Could be something could be nothing, whichever her statement adds to the list of contradictions.

    Photographs mentioned by tigger

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mccannscatbaker.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Saturdays there is no creche and by great coincidence it is also the 'family' day mentioned in the blog when the McCs used to have photo opportunities for the press.

      Brenda believed that @basilandmanuel was AT. No longer tweets under that name afaik but also thought I was Sweepyface.

      Delete
  7. I wonder what's in it for the nannies? Why would they want to protect a couple of irresponsible parent's? Most nannies I've met during my working life have been caring individuals, who's first concern is for the welfare of the children put into their care. I remember reading something about Kate frantically trying to contact one of the nannies shortly after Madeleine's disappearance. I can't remember her name, it just seemed a bit odd at the time that Kate pursuing this nanny, was so important!! If the nanny did know what happened to Maddy and is keeping quiet to protect the McCann's, it's probably through fear, fear of what I'm not sure.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How about Charlotte Pennington, she's an interesting specimen. Could be an out and out fantasist or could be something else, I understand she arrived at the Ocean Club on the same day as the McCann group. In fact Jane Tanner said during her rogatory interview that Pennington and another nanny were sitting behind her on the transport bus, an indication that she was most likely on the same flight from the UK.

    It's worth having a look (or another look) at the invaluable Nigel Moore's information about Pennington, in particular his own observations (scroll almost half way down the page):

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id70.html

    Somewhere she said that in the UK she worked for a number of child care agencies, if that is true it's not beyond the realms of possibility that she has worked as a nanny for the McCanns or one of their friends. Only supposition and no doubt a load of nonsense but so are many other stories about this that have surfaced over the years. I've come to the conclusion that almost anything is possible where this case is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a chance one of the child minders employed by Warners was 'unofficially' baby sitting for the group of friends in one location - minus Madeleine. This could explain the need to give false testimony and subsequent bonding with Baker, or even connected to prior acquaintance with Pennington.

    It might even explain the extraordinary level of attention shown to the group by Warners after Madeleine disappeared. Not suggesting that they were all 'in on it' but it would be extremely bad form for a holiday company with an exemplary reputation for child care at their various resorts, to lose a young child as a result of staffing malpractice.

    JVC

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just say, the nannies working for Warner's were insured whilst working for them, but decided they'd do a bit of child minding on the side, to top up their wages....who'd be responsible then if the child had an accident while being looked after in the apartment unofficially, just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it certainly wouldn't be the parents so I can't see any reason why, if that had happened, Gerry and Kate McCann would be so anxious to hide the truth and instead create a fictitious scenario built on the pretense of abduction.

      Although the accidental death of a child is horrendous in itself, I can't see any reason for covering it up. The McCanns and their group of friends were only tourists, up to the alleged time of Madeleine's disappearance, they were only at the resort for a clear 5 days. Not imo time enough to be known or even recognized by the staff, if they had left the children unattended they had no reason to admit it, they could easily have created a different story to cover their tracks, who would know any different?

      I've heard it said many times that their actions were contrived to protect the future but as I say, they could easily have invented some other theory to free themselves of guilt, like for example, Madeleine had a fatal accident when in the apartment with her parents? It just doesn't make any sense.

      Am I making myself clear?

      JVC

      Delete
  11. Great blog! To add- just a thought that occurred to me: the McCs definitely wanted to know how the nannies were getting on and iirc this was oct/nov 07. Now that is very good spin. It implies that there was some responsibility on the part of the nannies, it puts them in the same situation as the neglectful parents. In other words, they 'owned' the nannies. Baker and Pennington.
    Brilliant psychology, imo PR was in overdrive the end of 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "owned' the nannies" That's a bit vague, would you clarify what you mean? to keep tabs on them like they did, there must be a reason. Maybe they witnessed the accident and was told to keep quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A pinch of salt? Rather a contract with Saxa.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe the mccanns knew the nannies noticed Mad wasnt going to creche from mid week. That is why they were maybe bribing them to keep quiet, in my opinion. But making out to the nannies, oh no we didnt harm her, but the police dont believe anything we say" mm

    ReplyDelete