Friday, 22 January 2016

Doing a Kate McCann

Last week we saw how a Mark Warner nanny, Susan Owen, imagined things when finding herself in need of having to “find” a route that circumvented apartment 5A when she invented a road for the authorities that went from the beach to the Mirage bar that simply does not exist in Praia da Luz.

That told us she had something to hide about what she did on the night of the 3rd, and by hiding it she was just one more who obstructed justice in the Maddie case.

This week we will see how a nanny will state very, very clearly that either she’s not telling the truth or another nanny has lied to authorities.

And we are going to hear it directly from the first nanny’s mouth.

We’re talking about Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams. One blatantly contradicts the other.

As the reader knows we think neither are telling the truth. In our post “Luz’s secret service” we explained in detail why we think there was no “night-crèche” above the 24Hour reception of the Ocean Club during the week Maddie died so when both speak of it we obviously think they are both inventing things.

We are told from the statements of these 2 particular nannies, Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams, that they, together with Amy Tierney, were warned of the fact that Maddie had disappeared from a mystery woman.

In our “Luz’s Secret Service” post we showed very clearly how ONLY guest Dawn Bullen could have been the mystery woman referred to by both Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams who allegedly warned the 3 nannies that we are told were on duty that night in a “night-créche” it’s claimed to have existed.

This woman is identified by Charlotte Pennington on May 7:

“That on the past May 3 2007, at 22H15, being the deponent exercising her functions in the MiniClub, in the service called “Dinner period” (sic), together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, a woman she doesn’t know but indicates being a tourist lodged in the resort in question, went to those facilities, asking if it had been communicated a disappearance of a child, whose name she only referred to be "Maggie" or "Maddy".


Faced with what was happening, they informed the individual of the female gender that they hadn’t been communicated of any disappearance, being that, in virtue of the name indicated, they thought to be Madeleine, reason why Amy contacted by telephone her superior, with the name Lyndsay, who informed her that in fact Madeleine had disappeared.”

And this is how Jacqueline Williams on May 08 describes the same mystery woman:

“That on last May 3 2007, at 22.05, being the deponent performing her functions at the Mini Club, in the service called “dinner period" (sic), together with her colleagues Charlotte and Amy, an individual of the female gender whose name she cannot indicate, only that she was the mother of a child that was there (belonging to the Toddlers2 group), being a tourist lodged in the resort in question and who ended her stay last week, went to those facilities saying she had been informed that a child with the name “Maddie” had disappeared, so the parents of that child needed the help of the nannies in order to try and find her.”

As we said in that post, both know this woman is a guest lodged in the resort but both are unable to put a name to the woman.

Jacqueline Williams even knows the boy there being picked up is in Toddlers 2 club and that the mystery woman ended her stay the week before but still when it comes to her name “she cannot indicate”.

Then we noted how odd it was for someone to pick up a child without any sort of identification procedure between crèche, child and parent. If there had been one, then both Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams would have been able to identify very clearly who the person was who warned them that Maddie had gone.

But this post is not about Dawn Bullen, although as we have shown very clearly she is a character worth studying but who has been overlooked and that hardly comes as a surprise for us or our readers.

So this post is not about Dawn Bullen but about the nannies Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams and how one states clearly the other is a liar.

It’s about, to be more precise, whether the nannies did or didn’t abandon the alleged night crèche with children still there that night as we detailed in our post “Luz’s Secret Service”.

Amy Tierney is clear in saying that she left immediately for apartment 5A in her statement of May 06 2007:

“States that on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the room to check if the child was hiding. She saw that the shutters were raised and that the window was partially opened. It was then that she began looking in the closets to see if the child was hiding there.”

Jacqueline Williams, in her statement of May 08 2007 says she, like Amy Tierney, immediately leaves the alleged night crèche. However her statement helps us understand what Charlotte Pennington did as she is very specific and precise about the fact that Charlotte Pennington stayed with the remainder of the children:

“That after this situation, the “search procedure of missing child" was initiated, which consists of an organised search and broken up into different areas of the resort in question. Immediately the deponent helped and participated in such diligences, staying her colleague with the name Charlotte in the crèche, taking care of the remaining children who were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also participated in the mentioned procedure.”

Charlotte Pennington says on May 07 2007:

“That after this situation, the “search procedure of missing child” was initiated, which consists of an organised search and broken up into different areas of the resort in question.

In this way, the deponent states that she participated in such diligences, making a partnership with her colleague Amy, walking various areas of the resort “the ocean Club”. More refers that she even walked the area at the back of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, being that, in virtue of already there being various individuals inside, without being able to say if they were friends or workers of the resort, she didn’t go inside that residence.”

Charlotte Pennington partners up with Amy Tierney who left immediately. Jacqueline Williams also left immediately. This means that all 3 nannies abandoned the alleged night crèche.

It could be said, and no one did, that Charlotte Pennington only joins up with Amy Tierney after she handed the remainder of the children back to the parents and then, and only then headed for apartment 5A.

We’re playing Devil’s advocate here, as Charlotte Pennington does say the procedure was initiated and that she participates in such diligences but it’s a fact she doesn’t put an exact timing to that.

Jacqueline Williams even comes to her defense by saying “after which [handing the kids to the last parents] she [Charlotte Pennington] also participated in the mentioned procedure”.

But if that was the case, we would obviously expect to see in Charlotte Pennington’s statement a recognition of staying behind to take care of the remainder children waiting to hand them over to their parents.

And if it was after that she joins Amy Tierney we would equally expect that she would detail that fact, say something like “after I handed over the last child, I closed the facilities and headed for apartment 5A where I joined my colleague Amy Tierney”.

It is Charlotte Pennington herself who tells us that she also left immediately, as per her own words in Dan Newling’s article in the Daily Mail of 25 September 2007 “Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness”.

“Talking from her mother’s home in Leatherhead, Surrey, yesterday she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.

"When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'

"I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment’s back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it.

"I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it. They have all given statements to the Portuguese police saying that."”

So if she’s in Apartment 5A 5 minutes after Maddie was taken then that means she left the alleged crèche as immediately as Amy Tierney and Jacqueline Williams, confirming the children were simply abandoned.

In fact, if she arrived when she says she does as quoted in the article, it means she arrived there before Amy Tierney and even before Dawn Bullen the woman who allegedly warned her and her colleagues that Maddie had disappeared!

Fortunately for us, Charlotte Pennington has done a Kate McCann. To do a Kate McCann is for one to be registered on video saying what one shouldn’t have ever said.

Kate McCann did it in the 2009 Mockumentary with her door that “was open much further than we had left it” and so saying that neither Matthew Oldfield nor her husband had touched that door between when she allegedly went to Tapas for dinner and that moment, like we showed in our post “Kate confesses, finally”.

Charlotte Pennington does a Kate McCann when she decides to refer one very important detail which she leaves out in her statement that is in the PJ Files and that is mention that the mystery woman, Dawn Bullen, picked up the LAST child from the night-crèche.

This is what she says in the documentary “Dispatches: Searching for Madeleine” - Channel 4 - 18 October 2007 from 03:07 to 03:28:

“I was working that night at something called “Drop-in Creche”. We had one child left and... the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned “hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who’s run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.”

And from 03:33 to 03:55:

“I went straight to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told “no, no, she’s not here, she’s not here.”

Kate McCann was outside and she was very distressed. She was saying things like “they've taken her” and “she’s gone” and, you know, “where is she? where is she?”

She was crying and there were tears down her face and it was absolutely heartbreaking to see.”

So we are to believe that a woman who brings shocking news and just happens to pick up the LAST child from the alleged crèche cannot be identified by any of the 3 nannies?

Plus, now Dawn Bullen, who is supposed to have dinner with another 3 adults in Tapas, crosses with a man, who we haven’t the faintest idea who he may be because we have no report of any male T9 running in the street shouting a child’s name.

And if that had happened, then why doesn’t Dawn Bullen make contact with this guest (supposedly she had dined in the same place as all the men of the T9 and so could have said “a man I saw dining at Tapas”) and offer her immediate help instead of continuing her trip to the alleged crèche.

Also we can’t understand from where Jacqueline Williams gets the idea that “so the parents of that child needed the help of the nannies in order to try and find her.”

Also note that in the statements the alleged night crèche is called a “dinner period” service and now Charlotte Pennington refers to it as a “drop-in-crèche”. In October 2007 it wasn’t yet “night crèche”.

And isn’t this “I went straight to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told “no, no, she’s not here, she’s not here” a blatant contradiction to what she told the authorities in May: “in virtue of already there being various individuals inside, without being able to say if they were friends or workers of the resort, she didn’t go inside that residence”?

But what we really want to highlight is that with the above Charlotte Pennington is calling Jacqueline Williams a liar.

Jacqueline Williams says “staying her colleague with the name Charlotte in the crèche, taking care of the remaining children who were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents.”

If the woman who warned them was there to pick up the last child then what “remaining children” is Jacqueline Williams talking about? Please note the plural – CHILDREN.

And Charlotte Pennington does say that the woman was there to pick up the last child. What she said in the Dispatches video is only repeating what she is quoted as saying in the already mentioned Daily Mail article:

“Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.”

Very clearly confirming that it was the last child.

So which is it Jacqueline Williams and Charlotte Pennington?

Charlotte Pennington continues in the same Daily Mail article: “We knew that one of the other nanny’s charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.”

The head of the department is said to be Lyndsay Johnson, which is questionable as on May 4 Donna Louise Rafferty-Hill says she is. But let’s pretend that it’s Lyndsay Johnson.

Lyndsay Johnson says she is in her apartment and says she’s informed by phone by Amy Tierney at 22:20 so very unlikely to have been her who “took us straight to apartment”.

Is Charlotte Pennington speaking of Amy Tierney when she says “head of department”? Amy Tierney is supposedly the Head of Minis but we wouldn’t call that heading a department. But let us let it be a department, it won’t be because of us that Minis isn’t one within the Mark Warner Childcare service.

But then why the need to tell Amy Tierney if she was there right next to them?

Let’s play Devil’s advocate once again and stretch our imagination supposing that only Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams speak to the mystery woman and they go tell Amy Tierney who just happened to be in some back room at the moment for some reason.

What matters is that whoever is supposed to have taken them straight to the apartment, takes THEM. Plural: “took us straight to apartment”.

Wouldn’t that mean that during the walk from the 24H reception to apartment 5A Jacqueline Williams wouldn’t have realised that Charlotte Pennington was right there next to her and that she didn’t stay behind in the crèche?

Again we ask, Jacqueline Williams and Charlotte Pennington, which is it?

Whoever wrote your scripts didn’t realise the implications of speaking to the press and TV companies and didn’t dream that the PJ files would be released.


  1. Spot on as usual ladies!

  2. Thanks Textusa. For the purpose of the 'Coverup' the truth has been shattered into tiny little pieces. The nannies have blatantly lied in their statements to the PJ investigation. Have they also maintained these lies within the SY investigation? Or worse, have SY OG chosen not to examine them...
    You have now demonstrated even more the extent of the cover up and how some guests, nannies and others have chosen to assist in covering up activities that week by lying to the police.

    1. A thesis, as Gerry would say is fine to comment on?
      If we take the Nannies statements as facts,"Two children left at night creche,could these be the twins,taken back to 5a after the alarm has been raised by Dawn Bullen, before GNR arrive to the apartment" in the cover up of what happened to Madeleine McCann?
      The GNR stated the motionless bodies and not being awake, when the "parents" had an emotional moment(babies sedated)?
      Russell O'Brian is suposed to be looking after his sick child of whom JT checked on at 21.25pm,after seeing GM and JW outside 5a with a buggy and his child inside it on a cold night and had "seen the Abductor"!?
      Which leaves two Males Absent or unaccountable for when the alarm was raised at 22.00pm, as the barman stated he did not remember seeing GM and RO was in his apartment at this time?

    2. Anonymous 23 Jan 2016, 14:03:00,

      Current one, "Luz's Secret Service" and "Imagining things" are posts that show very clearly that the nannies statements CANNOT be taken minimally as fact.

  3. They all lied because they were told they had their backs covered by government. How old were these nannies? Over 18? Old enough to be charged.

  4. The Tapas lot had been drinking a fair bit of wine. Would any one of them really remember just how far a door was left open? I do not believe that Gerry McCann "sensed" anything, especially as he was bursting for a pee.

    1. highmyope1955

      There were no Tapas dinners.

      Please revisit our "Cinderella of Luz" post and all the links provided in its Post Scriptum.

      Besides, it's Kate McCann who does a Kate McCann and not Gerry.

    2. The handwriting for wine was completely different to other writing on sheets.
      It was written at the bottom of the page. It wasn't attributed to a table number. It isn't the way wine would be billed.
      If it was free, and that was amount for all the diners that night, it wasn't much per head.

  5. So a quick basic synopsis:

    1, Accidental death
    2, T9 threaten to expose swinging
    3, MW agree to help cover it up

    Is that basically it?

    I still find it difficult to believe that 200+ people including minimum wage nannies and bar/restaurant staff would keep silent for so long over something at worse embarrassing (swinging) to cover the death and disposal of a 3 year old.

    No matter who was doing the threatening, IMO.

    1. 1. Correct.

      2. TOTALLY WRONG. That's the myth the 300+ (not 200+) and connections have, must we say, with somewhat success, propagated: the almighty powerful T9. They are powerless and obedient. They, like your minimum wage nannies, do what they are told. The reward is a fallacy, and to enjoy that money one must enjoy spending it and there's not a single corner in the world such a person could enjoy that mythical reward (we have asked, with the demise of the NOTW is anyone paying the reward?). And go tell who? Operation Grange? The ones who were on their knees in Luz knowing perfectly well they were playing a very sick act?

      3. Partially correct. The Ocean Club and many residents in Praia da Luz and surrounding area also agreed to cover-up. Revisit, as an example, our post "Sagresman".

    2. You have totally lost me with the reply to 2!?

      Who is telling all these people what to do and why?

    3. Anonymous 22 Jan 2016, 17:35:00,

      If you're talking about the pathetic show the Met put up in Luz, you have to ask that police force directly.

      About the others, we don't know who wrote the script but it had to be a group of people with enough influence to convince and really be convincing.

      Obviously the silence from stakeholders doesn't count. No one has convinced them to be silent.

    An old article (Dec07) but shows nannies enjoy their fun

  7. Thought this might interest you:
    Ruth says - Michael Walker - you're Insane

    1. No - she says ''you're insane''
      You've changed it to a capital letter

  8. Where did you score the picture of Charlotte Pennington from? It looks like a still from a film.

    1. Anonymous 28 Jan 2016, 10:05:00

      From the video we have posted in post:


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.