was it right that the mcanns left the children alone?

i always wonder why kate and gerry said everybody did it? i have never heard of what they did on that holiday? regards to childcare or lack of it

The Payne's had already booked when Fiona read the brochure and realised there was no listening service at the Ocean Club. This caused alarm, but they came up with the idea of doing it themselves and David Payne set out to make it possible by having them all housed close to each other.

Other people seem to have said they leave their kids home alone too, but I don't know anyone in the real world who does it.

it was only after booking that I specifically went through and said 'Well it doesn't actually mention the baby listening service on this one' and I rang up to check, because that was a big part, you know, we, we wanted to be able to have the social aspect of, of a holiday going away in a group and, plus, at that point, they couldn't, erm, they, they said 'Oh it's a bit more spread out and we can't put you all together in the same block' and that again was a bit annoying if they didn't have the baby listening service, so I'd rung up specifically to find out about this and was actually a bit annoyed when they said 'Well actually this doesn't operate a baby listening service', because I don't think we would have booked it had we known that'.
Fiona Payne's Rog.

That fact had made some of the couples - and himself in particular - reluctant to come to Portugal because all the families have minor children.

As far as he [MO] is concerned, he wishes at this time to add that, in conversation with DP on a date he does not recall with certainty but likely to have been on 7 or 8 May, he [DP] confided in him that that, at that time, KH had been particularly reluctant about coming to Portugal because she had had a bad feeling [presentiment] about the children of the group and the non-existence of the 'baby sitting' service.
That fact had made some of the couples - and himself in particular - reluctant to come to Portugal because all the families have minor children.
MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY

they had discussed this problem resolving to make the trip since the operator had assured them accommodation sufficiently close together that, collectively, they had managed to assure the checking and supervision of their respective progeny.

Consequently, David had taken charge of negotiations with the operator to have all lodgings as close to each other as possible.
MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY

Apparently I'm not allowed to post the actual links at the moment.

hi g unit welcome the forum will be tweaked once the amazon forum has gone

Interesting that despite this alleged reluctance, none of them proved willing to modify their personal arrangements to take adequate care of their children.
They still considered it important to get together as a group in a restaurant EVERY night, without the children, rather than maybe once or twice during the holiday

exactly travers they didnt think of their children only themselves

Matthew is the only one who really talks about it. Perhaps because he was given a harder time by the PJ in his 10th May interview;

Gerry had heard him shouting and crying. [madeleine]

Mostly the group try to suggest that it was a decision they made after arriving, almost by accident.

“As the restaurant was so near, we collectively decided to do our own child-checking service. This decision, one that we all made…” [Madeleine]

So the decision was made by all nine of them together - a collective decision has to mean an exchange of views, if only to say yes or no.  OK. So who said what and when? Nobody said anything: according to the Seven.  It was sort of…well…instinctive. In other words either KM's statement is untrue and deliberately misleading or the Seven are lying.

KM and the rest of the Nine are covering their arses and are going to be caught doing so. If you read the KM sentences  carefully, as the lawyers would and did, “collectively” doesn’t necessarily mean “taken collectively” but could be made to mean “applying to all of us” and the next sentence,  “we all did it”, could be forced to mean  “we all made the decision individually without discussing it.”  

Clever, eh?

Yes, if you run away from Portugal before you can be questioned in detail, no, ten years later when it’s the Yard asking and they want answers that are consistent.  Because this apparently trivial  line of questioning takes the Nine into very deep water indeed.

Not because it makes them guilty of  doing anything to the child. That’s why the lawyers allowed KM to write it in Madeleine. Clearly the defence against such an accusation is that “we were scared about being found (wrongly) negligent and losing our children to the amateurish PJ or the Nazi English social services so we all agreed to avoid the whole question”.

But that comes right back at them, with the deadly: “How did you decide to do that? What was said and when?” and the equally deadly conclusion, “So you are admitting that there were aspects of what happened in Praia da Luz that week that you agreed not to discuss with anyone,” and the even more deadly, “what other ones were there?” – and we’re off. The door to collusion is open a crack nd it will now open wider.

LP, 2008: “Was there an actual discussion between the group of you as to the sort of fifteen minute checks or ten minute checks or whatever…?”

MO: “No. 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…” [ties himself in knots, bluffs, bullshits until ending with the sublime] …I can’t remember why I started talking about that?”

LP, 2008: [deadpan] “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”.

MO: “Right”.

They’re f****d.

They certainly are if we have an honest investigation.

Travers wrote:They certainly are if we have an honest investigation.

Yes, always given that. The lawyers whose fingers are all over the critical pages of the book seem to be taking that possibility pretty seriously.

Had Kate McCann combed the PJ Files as she said she did, she would have seen how Matthew Oldfield alleges that it was all decided before they left the UK. That, says Matthew, is why they insisted on being housed close together. What he doesn't say is that to really make it work they also had to be close to one of the restaurants.

Grom wrote:Had Kate McCann combed the PJ Files as she said she did, she would have seen how Matthew Oldfield alleges that it was all decided before they left the UK. That, says Matthew, is why they insisted on being housed close together. What he doesn't say is that to really make it work they also had to be close to one of the restaurants.

Hi. You may be right but it's a very shadowy issue. Oldfield kind of suggests this but in the completely incoherent bluster preceding the quote I gave, where he ties himself up so much that he has to admit that he's forgotten what he started saying. His inquisitor certainly hadn't.

Moved to more appropriate thread.

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:Had Kate McCann combed the PJ Files as she said she did, she would have seen how Matthew Oldfield alleges that it was all decided before they left the UK. That, says Matthew, is why they insisted on being housed close together. What he doesn't say is that to really make it work they also had to be close to one of the restaurants.

Hi. You may be right but it's a very shadowy issue. Oldfield kind of suggests this but in the completely incoherent bluster preceding the quote I gave, where he ties himself up so much that he has to admit that he's forgotten what he started saying. His inquisitor certainly hadn't.

Evening AJS
This is verbatim from David Payne's rogatory interview

David Payne wrote: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.

Interesting how this became virtually a supporter's mantra. Also interesting that he implies this was decided before they got there.

This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing. That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

I see where you are coming from,but just what is it that prevents SY from advancing it,6 yrs and counting.

enyam wrote:

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

I see where you are coming from,but just what is it that prevents SY from advancing it,6 yrs and counting.

It’s like taking a low resolution digital photo and trying to get more detail by magnifying it.

Should the nine not be considered, more realistically, as seven plus two ?
Consider their potential thought processes right after the event. It is too easy to attribute malice aforethought to random events especially sometime after those events have taken place. It is not beyond the realms of possibility the T7 were innocent dupes, possibly of their own device, as it is easy to spot two potential but unrelated driving forces present [not persons you understand]. Were this the case it would be interesting to know if and when the brains caught up.

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

The problem is that so far the police appear to have no intention of cross-examining anyone. Even if they did the group can use the fear of being charged with neglect as an excuse for being less than truthful.

Grom wrote:

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

The problem is that so far the police appear to have no intention of cross-examining anyone. Even if they did the group can use the fear of being charged with neglect as an   excuse for being less than truthful.

That may have held truth in the immediate aftermath, but any danger of that is long in the past
I accept that they, or at least most, may not know exactly what happened, but they most certainly know what didn't happen.
To my mind they have deliberately withheld information, probably in an attempt to 'help' their friends. Their whole statement are riddled with uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction, which for reasons unknown has been ignored by the investigating authorities.

Travers wrote:

Grom wrote:

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

The problem is that so far the police appear to have no intention of cross-examining anyone. Even if they did the group can use the fear of being charged with neglect as an   excuse for being less than truthful.

That may have held truth in the immediate aftermath, but any danger of that is long in the past
I accept that they, or at least most, may not know exactly what happened, but they most certainly know what didn't happen.
To my mind they have deliberately withheld  information, probably in an attempt to 'help' their friends. Their whole statement are riddled with uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction, which for reasons unknown has been ignored by the investigating authorities.

They may of course believe their friends...

The only one who has been seen in public with Kate is Fiona.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Travers wrote:

Grom wrote:

AJS wrote:

Grom wrote:This is what Jane Tanner said;

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.”
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 or, but then when we found where we were and the proximity to the restaurant we just sort of thought if we are checking and doing the baby listening as is done in other Mark Warner resorts we should be okay,
JANE_TANNER_ROGATORY

Hi. I am not disagreeing with you but I long ago gave up any  chance of getting near the truth of these claims because they are so obviously conflicting and self-interested. As you know, KM claimed that she came to PDL believing it was perfectly safe and Oldfield is incoherent on the subject. I no longer bother to stay with the documents on a daily basis since our side won - life is short - but in The Cracked Mirror I dealt with the various claims in some detail.  

The burden of my post is that there is lying involved on this subject so the truth is not accessible by passive reading but only by cross examination or interviewing.  That is where my emphasis differs from some others on this subject: those others whose emphasis is on child protection may wish to wrestle further with the conflicts. I see it merely as an opening through which police questioners can enter.

The Nine have always steadfastly denied that they covered-up or made agreements not to talk  about anything during that week; KM's statement in Madeleine makes that denial unsustainable: either she or the others are lying about one aspect of what happened in PDL. That, of course, invalidates all claims of abduction immediately, since they are the witnesses claiming it. It could have been doughnuts that they were fibbing about for all I care: what matters is the open door to examining what else they were not being frank about.  

The problem is that so far the police appear to have no intention of cross-examining anyone. Even if they did the group can use the fear of being charged with neglect as an   excuse for being less than truthful.

That may have held truth in the immediate aftermath, but any danger of that is long in the past
I accept that they, or at least most, may not know exactly what happened, but they most certainly know what didn't happen.
To my mind they have deliberately withheld  information, probably in an attempt to 'help' their friends. Their whole statement are riddled with uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction, which for reasons unknown has been ignored by the investigating authorities.

They may of course believe their friends...

No, I don't think so, not entirely. They know they've been less than honest on various occasions but are not prepared to expose them. This may be related to being doctors, and as we know doctors stick together and never admit being wrong.

Grom wrote:The only one who has been seen in public with Kate is Fiona.

Fiona seems to be using Webster rather than Payne now.

"The problem is that so far the police appear to have no intention of cross-examining anyone. Even if they did the group can use the fear of being charged with neglect as an   excuse for being less than truthful."

Hello. Two points, the latter first. I discussed that alibi in my first post earlier, which perhaps you missed, pointing out that the lawyers' agreement to those words of KM's in Madeleine  appears to signal precisely that prospective line of defence.

But I also pointed out that it doesn't work: any of the Seven claiming that they fibbed or withheld because they might be charged with neglect does not free them from the fact that they lied about an aspect of that week, but confirms it which is what I have described as the then opening door to the question: "you have admitted lying about this after denying any lying for ten years - so what else have you lied about that week?"

Otherwise I'm largely with Travers about them not having been questioned. Look, even now if they all stick together and say nothing to police questions they may well get away with doing so, if there is no supporting forensic evidence. I simply don't know. As for Yard unwillingness to ask them, I repeat what I've said before: anyone who accuses the Yard of holding back any prosecution because of improper pressure in the UK, then has to explain  how this pressure has also worked in Portugal, since the PJ have been re-investigating just as long as Grange has. If they cannot explain that properly then the idea remains an unsupported  suspicion, not a working theory.