Luz's Secret Service

1. Introduction

As we informed you last week, the content of this week's post was supposed to be part of “All the world’s a stage” which we published in 3 parts (Feb 24, Feb 27 and Mar 03).

We did it for 2 reasons.

The first, as the reader will be able to see, it’s quite long and we thought best to make it a post of its own.

The second, like we said at the end of the first third of the above mentioned post, “Carpenter is not only able to fail at these 3 tasks, as by losing himself in the script, he provides more information than he was supposed to. Even to the point of proving our blog right”.

In our opinion, Carpenter’s statement helps us prove what we have stated in our “Message to Newcomers” that is on the blog’s front page:

“We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL.”

Carpenter helps us prove that the nannies were there to do babysitting outside the night crèche, so that the parents could have adult fun.

At a certain point of his April 21 2008 rogatory statement, Carpenter, when justifying the reason they chose Praia da Luz to spend their 2007 holiday week there, says: 

“DC Ferguson: [you, Carpenter]  Continue to describe your previous holidays and you chose this one because you were told that the “babysitter” service was available.”

Note that it's ““babysitter service” and not crèche, kids club or night crèche.

“DC Ferguson: … we also used three nannies, Pauline, Emma and Leanne, Emma and Leanne took care of our children at night, they were all of British nationality and Mark Warner’s employees”

There continues to be no reference to night crèche.

According to Carpenter, Emma and Leanne took care of their children at night. Pauline, apparently during the day. Taking into account that the family stayed together and had dinner at the Millenium on Saturday and went to Tapas on Thursday we’re talking 2 nannies for 4 nights.

We do not have the Tapas Reservation Sheets for Saturday, April 28 nor for Monday, April 30, but the Carpenters don’t appear in those for Tuesday, May 01 or Wednesday, May 03.

So we can’t state that they used nannies for all the 4 nights in question but we can certainly make an educated guess that they did. After all, wasn't that the main reason they chose the holiday?


2. Name-remembrance, a Carpenter oddity

To remember the nannies names, Pauline, Emma and Leanne, so well seems to reveal that Carpenter suffers from some sort psychological disorder which only allows him to remember the name of those with who he has very brief contact with.

Neil Berry and Raj Balu, with who he says he spoke briefly with on May 03 in Tapas, he's able to remember their names but Philip Edmonds who he says his daughter plays with and gets into a conversation intimate enough to be told the other man would be leaving earlier the next day, he can only remembers him by “Tapas Guy”.

The only other interaction that Carpenter says he has with Berry and Balu, is what appears to have been a brief encounter with them during the searches, only long enough for them to tell him they had found suspicious “Greyhairman”, a 50 yr old man who apparently had bought all the apartments of Ocean Club's block 2.

The “Greyhairman” tale is of 2 men telling another about someone who they thought suspicious during a search for a missing girl.

Conversation between strangers while searching is not a personal one. For example, Cecília Pires, when invited to search (trespass) by a 50 yr old man, doesn’t get to know his name nor that of the elderly woman who the same man invites to join the trespassing. 

Searching is a collective effort with an objective. There's no “Hello, I’m Stephen Carpenter, would you like join me in the searching? What are your names?”

Unless, one does spend a long time with the same person in the same search. After a while the “I’m sorry, what can I call you? My name is Steve, what’s yours?” is inevitable.

Funny enough with Carpenter the opposite happens. The person he seems to spend the most time with searching is the one whose name slips away from him, starts as Dave the Englishman and then becomes the person who he no longer remembers the name of.

But he remembers John Hill’s name. Why?

Observe how is seems to be so familiar with who John Hill is, so certain of  his identity while trying to remember the name of the man he’s spent a lot of time with:

“Carpenter: … I can't remember the name of the individual, who I also met by chance, and who was doing a little of translator, what was his name again, who helped to open the doors.

DC Ferguson: Was it John HILL?

Carpenter: No, John Hill was a Mark Warner employee, I forgot his name, but he...humm also knew the local Estate Agent and different people who helped to get the keys of the owners or potential renters, some of whom were on holiday.”

Could it have been John Hill instead, asks SY, oh, no, no, no, I know very well who John Hill is and not talking about him, Carpenter answers. Does the reader get to know the name of the manager of the hotels the reader has been to? Or remember the name of the manager of the last hotel the reader has been to?

The only interaction we know having happened between Carpenter and John Hill is when Carpenter observes Hill being literally ordered by Murat to open the apartments and complying:

“DC Ferguson: After he [Murat]  left, he explained that Gerry was frustrated with the way in which the process was running and they went to talk to John Hill.

Carpenter: Yes.

DC Ferguson: In Mark Warner and he [Murat] demanded that he [John Hill] open up all the Mark Warner rooms so that he [Murat] could check them and he [John Hill] called the cleaning ladies etc. to help and open all the empty apartments that were not necessarily in the Mark Warner complex, but for which they could have the key. At this time you also met an English man called Dave who lived in the area and helped the Ocean Club give you [plural, so Murat and Carpenter] the authority to enter in all possible apartments, some of the apartments in Gerry's block belonged to local owners and Dave helped to get the key to these same apartments so that you could search them, and then and then began the search, searching all in general.”

John Hill is not referred to as the “manager” or the “the man from the Ocean Club” who had the keys to the apartments. He’s John Hill. As in first and last name memorised.

Meanwhile the man who “helped the Ocean Club give you [Murat and Carpenter] the authority to enter in all possible apartments” is just vague Dave, the Englishman.

Also the two of Gerry’s friends who he has quite a long walk with that morning and are the ones who tell him that the child missing is indeed Maddie, are remembered only as Gerry’s “surfing friends”.

So, to remember the nannies who took care of their children, Pauline, Emma and Leanne, is strange to say the least.


3. Childcare in the Ocean Club that particular week

If by “babysitting services” Carpenter means it's the night crèche, then the contact between him and the nanny in question would be of only two courtesy greetings, one when filling up the night crèche register sheet when dropping off the children and the other when signing them off when picking them up.

But, as we will see later, the night crèche worked with 3 nannies each night, so to say “Emma and Leanne” is to be precise as to who took care of their children and the 2 can’t have worked all the nights in question. What about the names of all others?

And to say they only used the night crèche once (justifying knowing the names of the 3 nannies) then why choose a holiday because it has “the “babysitter” service” available if one only intends to use it once?

So it isn't the night crèche the kind of childcare that Carpenter says he used.

Let's see what Pauline, Emma and Leanne have said.

Pauline McCann, on May 07 2007, says nothing about night crèche or being a babysitter in any apartment. In fact, all she tells us is that she worked “at the Baby Club which is destined for children of ages between four months to one year of age”.

Emma Wilding, on May 07 2007, like Pauline, says nothing about night crèche or being a babysitter in any apartment: “...she has worked at the Mini Club that is destined for children between 3-5 years of age since April 29 up to now”.

Leanne Wagstaff, on May 06 2007, says nothing about being a babysitter in any apartment but does speak about some sort evening childcare service:

“To be referred that the Club's schedule is from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30 and is closed on Sundays, working only the dinner service.

To question asked, states that in case guests desire it, they can request from the "Staff" services to take care of the children between 19.30 to 23.30, however, Madeleine's parents never did it, although this service was free.”

She refers to a “dinner service” (that continues to work on Sundays, a day that, according to Leanne all other childcare services are closed) and to a “19.30 to 23.30” free service.

Leanne doesn't specify whether this “19.30 to 23.30” free service is in the night crèche or in the guests' apartments.

Leanne says “she cannot think of anything that would be of use to the investigation” and we disagree- We think what she said would be very useful for the investigation.

Leanne surprises us with the allegation that the “19.30 to 23.30” service or “dinner service”, or what we are supposing to be the night crèche, was free of charge.

Haven’t we been led to believe all this time that the night crèche was an additional paid service? Could Leanne be confused?

To find out, nothing like going to see what Lyndsay Johnson, Childcare Manager and Leanne’s supervisor says:

“That she is in Portugal since last March 15, date from when she started to work in the tourist resort called the "Ocean Club", located in Praia da Luz (Algarve) where she performs the functions of supervisor of the infant educators ['educadores de infância' which literal translation would be kindergarten teachers, the term for nanny is ‘ama’, the first teaches, the latter is a carer] in the mentioned resort, as per working contract  previously signed in London (England).”

Lyndsay clearly assumes she’s the person responsible for the childcare services provided by the resort, as per Mark Warner’s personnel list, in which she's referred to as “Luz Ocean Club Childcare Manager”.

She describes quite well how the childcare was set up, namely for the group of children where Maddie spent her days while in Luz:

 “...she contacted various times a child with the name of Madeleine McCann, clarifying that in a formal way and during brief moments, referring that she belonged to the "MiniClub" group of children, clarifying that such definition is given to the group of children with ages between 3 (three) and 5 (five) years of age.

Questioned, further refers that the mentioned group of children, belonging to the "MiniClub", is supervised by one of her colleagues, with the name of Amy Thierry [we suppose to be Amy Tierney]. who, in turn, coordinates a group of nannies, with the names of Catriona Baker and Emma Wilding [who babysat at Carpenters], workers who were on duty to that group during the week in question, from April 29 to May 4 2007.

The deponent further clarifies that the MiniClub is then subdivided in two classes of children, being that Madeleine McCann's was at the care of Catriona Baker.”

Lyndsay then describes how things worked:

“That the "MiniClub" starts at 09H00, making a pause for the lunch period between 12H30 and 14H30, beginning the afternoon period that goes from this time until 17H30. Further refers that from 19H30 the crèche of the resort  provides a complementary [as in additional] service "of dinner" (sic) which ends at 23H30, being that it has an additional cost, still the parents can request another service of "babysitting" that doesn't have a fixed schedule, being agreed between the parents and the deponent.”

Leanne was wrong, the “19.30 to 23.30” service or “dinner service” wasn’t free, according to her supervisor, Lyndsay, “it has an additional cost”.

So there were 2 different night childcare services offered that week in the Ocean Club:

One the “a complementary service "of dinner"” (between 19:30 and 23:30), NOT free of charge, and the other a “service of "babysitting" that doesn't have a fixed schedule, being agreed between the parents and the deponent”.


4. In-apartment babysitting in Luz?

Could Lyndsay be saying that the “service of "babysitting"” she speaks of was simply an extension after 23:30 of the “service "of dinner"”? If requested, on case-by-case, the nannies on duty at the night crèche would work extra-hours there? That the “babysitting” was a complementary service to the complementary “service "of dinner"” (19:30 – 23:30)?

We would think that if Lyndsay had meant to say this then she would have used the expression “after this time there was still another service of "babysitting" that doesn't have a fixed schedule, being agreed between the parents and the deponent.”. She doesn't.

But we have someone that clarifies that for us and that person is Catriona Baker, under whose care Maddie was that week, in her statement of May 06 2007:

“The working hours of these four (04) posts/services are from 09H00 to 12H30, in the morning period, and in the afternoon period from 14H30 to 17H30.

Instigated, responds that there exists still another service aimed at taking care of the children during dinner time called "Dining out Service", located also above to the "Ocean Club's" main reception, being that it works in the period of time from 19H30 to 23H30.

There is, additionally, a "Babysitting" service, which schedule is from 19H30 to 01H00 and is done in the apartments of the individuals that request it.”

So, the babysitting was done in the guests' apartments.

However, the same Catriona Baker, strangely or then maybe not, forgets to mention anything about both the “Dining out Service” and the in-apartment babysitting service in her rogatory statement of April 14 2008, except when rectifying something in her May 06 2007 statement.

We can't understand what exactly she is trying to have corrected but here is what she said: ““dining out service” that I mentioned being available to the adults, being that the children would be given to the care of a responsible one during dinner time”.

But Stacey Portz, Head of Juniors, on May 06 2007, confirms the existence of both services:

“The deponent  refers that there is another service destined to take care of the children during dinner time, called “Dining out Service”, located above the main reception of the “Ocean Club” and that works with the schedule between 19H30 to 23H30. There still exists a service of “Babysitting”, which schedule is from 19H30 to 01H00 which is done in the apartment of the people who request it”

No question about it. 2 childcare services. Three childcare personnel mention both of them clearly, Lyndsay (Childcare Manager), Catriona (Nanny) and Stacey (Head of Juniors).

One service closely linked with the parents’ dinner that was between 19.30 and 23.30, taking place directly in the floor above the resort’s main reception (which we presume to be what is presently designated as the night crèche) and the other, a babysitting service in the guests' apartments.

And why is there no mention of this babysitting service by any of the T9? Didn't they know about it? Was it because they missed that Saturday crèche meeting that Carpenter speaks of?

5. Night crèche, was it free, or was it paid?

But the question remains, the service directly linked to guests’ dinners, the one we're supposing to be night crèche, was it for free or did the guests have to pay for it?

Leanne says it’s free,

Lyndsay says it’s paid,

Catriona and Stacey say nothing about it. We’re tied at this point. Let’s see what others have to say about it:

Amy Tierney, on May 06 2007, confirms it’s free: “To question asked, states that in case guests desire it, they can request from the "Staff" services to take care of the children between 19.30 to 23.30, however, Madeleine's parents never did it, although this service was free.”. Leanne’s exact words by the way.

Shinead Vine, on May 07 2007, also confirms said service was free: “Adds that Madeleine McCann’s parents could have used, free of charge the dinner time service, or could have requested a babysitter (paid service), questioned answers she cannot see any reason for not having done so.”

Jacqueline Williams, on May 08 2007, not only confirms that it was free as well but also confirms the existence of the second paid babysitting service: “Questioned, the deponent clarifies that the crèche of the resort in questions, also offers free of charge the possibility for the parents of leaving their children at the care of infant educators during the dinner period, between 19H15 and 23H00…”

If democracy was truth, then the childcare service linked to parents’ dinner was free. If there was a poll, only 1 vote said it was paid (Lyndsay Johnson) while 4 votes said it was free (Leanne Wagstaff, Amy Tierney, Shinead Vine and Jacqueline Williams).

However, 9 of the 14 childcare personnel wouldn't have voted in that poll. Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Emma Wilding, Kirsty Maryan, Pauline McCann, Rhiannon Fretter, Sarah Williamson, Stacey Portz and Susan Owen simply provide no opinion about it.

But majority doesn't necessarily mean truth. Our blog, in it's lonesome fight in our corner of the internet is quite the proof of the opposite.

This question needs further clarification.

6. A secret that was never a secret but only a well maintained secret

So why all the secrecy about this babysitting service when it comes to the Maddie case? For all we know, the McCanns had only the option of night crèche and that was it.

Maybe it was made a “secret” because if outed would help explain why no child was left unattended that week in the Ocean Club while their parents were out doing what they thought of doing.

But the in-apartment babysitting service which has been “hidden” from  all of us interested in this case was never a secret: The MW's website announced it quite clearly:

First note, shouldn't something like “Mark Warner do ask that if you require this service that you book at least 24 hours in advance. Due to high demand this service is subject to availability and unfortunately cannot be guaranteed”, which is said about the Babysitting service, be also said somewhere else in the site about the Tapas restaurant and its extraordinary high demand for reservations to dine there?

The wording seems pretty apt for what is said to have been happening with the unusual high demand the Tapas restaurant dinners are said to have. Who can forget the queues to get a reservation? We're sure that all those who were in them, won't ever.

Second note, the “Babysitting” service is “for an additional cost” but no extra costs referred to the “Evening crèche service” so it was for free. Question settled.

So Jacqueline, Leanne and Shinead, the nannies, were right and Lyndsay, the supervisor, is wrong!

What we find very strange is that having there been 2 night childcare services available to guests, “Babysitting” and “Evening crèche service”, 6 out of 14 childcare personnel mention neither.

It's the cases of Emma Wilding, Kirsty Maryan, Pauline McCann, Rhiannon Fretter, Sarah Williamson and Susan Owen. Even stranger when one of them, according to Carpenter, had been a babysitters that week Emma Wilding.

Of the rest of the 8 childcare personnel, 4 mention the “dinner service” but say nothing about babysitting: Amy Tierney, Charlotte Pennington, Leanne Wagstaff and Shinead Vine. Why mention one and not mention the other?

Leanne Wagstaff mentions the “dinner service” but says nothing about babysitting even though, according to Carpenter, she had been one that week.

Only 4 out of the 14, do speak about ALL the childcare services available to guests that week: Catriona Baker, Jacqueline Williams, Lyndsay Johnson and Stacey Portz

One of them, the supervisor Lyndsay Johnson, gets wrong the fact that the “dinner service” was free by saying it had an additional cost. If anyone was to know that wasn't the case, it would be her, so why make this incomprehensible mistake?

To make us believe the T9 didn't use the night crèche because it was paid for?

All this time we thought that the T9 were just a group of misers who didn't want to let go of a few quid and use the night crèche. Now we find out they're just lazy. The childcare “dinner service” was free. Zilch. Nothing. Niente.

This slothful group preferred to set up a tiring child checking system rather than drop and pick up their children from crèche, which they did twice a day anyway.

One of them, David Payne, even brought along a listening monitor. As Jane Tanner says she also does in her rogatory statement. Are Payne and Tanner saying they had planned all along to leave the kids on their own, even before they realised the Mill was too far to walk?

But this “miser” perception is just a myth. As far as we know, no financial reasons have been given for the T9, allegedly, not using the childcare “dinner service”.

Gerry McCann says it’s because the brochure said “the resort did not provide a “"baby listening" service”:

“He adds that the only stipulation by the group was that the apartments had to be close to one another because, contrary to the tour brochure, the resort did not provide a "baby listening" service, that is, a service in which a group of employees would ?listen? to hear if children were asleep in their apartments while the parents were away. He doesn't know exactly how it works in practice, he never having used it, but he knows that other MARK WARNER resorts use this form of checking, some of his group members having had access to it on previous holidays, though he does not know exactly who. He relates that, for this reason DP decided to use the listening devices (personal intercoms) to monitor his children, though he had not used them on other holidays that they had spent together”.

In fact, he’s right. Ocean Club didn’t provide a baby listening service, only a much safer and personalised babysitting one, done by professionals. Or a night crèche, with the same professional people, for no additional cost.

Kate McCann, on May 09 2011, says to the Daily Mail that she really didn’t even think about it but if she had it would have been unwise to leave the kids with “someone neither we nor they knew”:

“Leaving Madeleine with a babysitter who none of them knew would have been 'unwise', Kate McCann declares in her book.

Explaining why they did not make use of the babysitting service offered by the Ocean Club, she said the couple never even thought about it.

She said: 'I could argue that leaving my children alone with someone neither we nor they knew would have been unwise, and it's certainly not something we'd do at home, but we didn't even consider it.”

Thank goodness she didn’t find it unwise to leave them with people neither they, Gerry or Kate, nor Maddie and the twins knew during the day otherwise the children would have spent their holiday, with the exception of one beach trip, holed up in the apartment. Certainly the McCanns would have interrupted their tennis and jogging so they could check on them every half an hour.

Leaving the children with professional childcare carers during the day, wise, leaving the children with professional childcare carers during dinner, unwise. Go figure.

So we agree with Shinead Vine that the McCanns “could have used, free of charge the dinner time service, or could have requested a babysitter (paid service), questioned answers she cannot see any reason for not having done so.”

Why there’s a general perception that there wasn’t any in-apartment babysitting service available that week in Luz and that there was a night crèche available for an added fee which the T9 were unwilling to pay, we can only congratulate those who have strived all these years to create misinformation about the case on a job well done.

Gleefully supported by those who claim to have read the files thoroughly.

Why? Because it makes the McCanns (and the T7) look bad and anything that makes the McCanns (and the T7) look bad is very easy to pass on and have assimilated as fact.

As the wise Mark Twain said, “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”. We won't stop trying.

7. Babysitting? WOT Babysitting?

Yes, the service was offered and Carpenter says he has used it, but was there really in-apartment babysitting in the guests' apartments?

To find out let's see how each childcare worker describes how they got to know Maddie had disappeared.

Amy Tierney, Head of Minis, 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, Nanny, May 08 2007 – “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 Charlotte and Amy…”

Charlotte Pennington, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “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…”

Lyndsay Johnson, Childcare Manager, May 06 2007 – “Questioned the deponent clarifies that when [at 22:20 by her colleague Amy] she was informed of Madeleine McCanns disappearance she was alone in her residence, having immediately gone out and initiated the procedure above described”.

Catriona Baker, Nanny, April 14 2008 – “At the end of the work day that day, I headed home. Some of my colleagues were going out but I was too tired to accompany them. I stayed in the apartment with my friend Rhiannon Fretter and we ended up falling asleep. Two colleagues, returned later and asked me where I had been, because Madeleine had disappeared. I was confused and did not understand was happening. They eventually explained to me what had happened around 22h30-22h35. Emma Wilding told me that Madeleine was reported missing. Leanne Wagstaff also was present”.

Rhiannon Fretter, Nanny, May 07 2007  - “That on the past May 3 2007, at 23H30, while she was in her apartment where she resides, accompanied by Cat [Catriona Baker] , who equally resides there, she was told by Leanne that Maddie had disappeared and no one could find her. Quickly, the deponent got dressed and went outside where she integrated a group composed by staff elements, who did searches in the tourist resort and all over Praia da Luz without effect.” Catriona Baker says she’s warned around 22:30 by Emma Wilding in the same apartment.

Emma Wilding, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “That night around  22.00 she took knowledge that Madeleine had disappeared and together with another colleague helped in searching for her”. Emma doesn’t specify exactly where she is but Catriona Baker says she’s in the apartment when around 22:30 she’s warned by Emma Wilding, with Leanne Wagstaff present. However, as will be seen, Susan Owen places her in the ‘Mirage’ bar at 22:45.

Leanne Wagstaff, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “…on the night in question, wasn’t on duty and had gone to a bar with two colleagues” and “when she was heading from home to the bar, around 22H30, she saw her colleague Amy in the garden, with a torch looking for something. [She] Immediately questioned her [Amy] about what was happening, having she [Amy] said that a child has disappeared. At the beginning she thought it was a prank, but after believed and began equally to search”. However Catriona Baker places her in apartment at 22:30 and Rhiannon says she’s there but an hour later, at 23:30.

Kirsty Maryan, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “That on the past May 3 2007, at 22H30, after having gone out of the apartment where she lives, near the mentioned resort, together with two other colleagues of her, with the names Leanne and Sarah, she found her colleague Amy. That during such contact she was informed by her colleague Amy that Madeleine McCann had disappeared, and so they were looking for her. For this reason, the deponent, together with the mentioned colleagues, initiated also the search for Madeleine McCann”.

Sarah Williamson, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “That in the past May 3 2007, at 22:30, after having gone out of the apartment where she lives, near the mentioned resort, together with two other colleagues of her, with the names Leanne and Kirsty, she found her colleague Amy. That during such contact she was informed by her colleague Amy that Madeleine McCann had disappeared, and so they were looking for her. For this reason, the deponent, together with the mentioned colleagues, initiated also the search for Madeleine McCann”

Susan Owen, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “That on the past May 3 2007, around 22H45, being in the bar called “Mirage”, together with her colleagues, whose names she only knows to be Emma, Shinead, Najoua [Najoua Chekaya - Aerobics Instructor], Hayley [Hayley Aldridge - Head of Viva Sports and Massage Therapy] and Stacy, which is near the delimitation of the area of the mentioned resort, after returning from the washroom, was informed by her colleague Hailey that a child with about 3 (three) years of age who  was lodged in “the Ocean Club”, had disappeared.”

Shinead Vine, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “States that on the night of the disappearance, she wasn’t on-duty, so she had gone to a bar with some colleagues. States that around 22h45, a group of people entered the bar, already looking for the child, it was when she had knowledge that she had disappeared. It was then that she equally started to search for the girl”.

Stacey Portz, Head of Juniors, May 07 2007 – Doesn’t mention where she was but Susan Owen says she was at the ‘Mirage’ bar with her and other colleagues Emma, Shinead, and Stacey

Summing up:

- 3 on duty at the “Evening crèche service” – Amy Tierney, Jacqueline Williams and Charlotte Pennington.

- 3 in their residences: Lyndsay Johnson, Catriona Baker and Rhiannon Fretter

- 3 at the ‘Mirage bar’: Susan Owen, Shinead Vine and Stacey Portz

- 2 having gone out of apartment, we suppose on the way to the ‘Mirage bar’: Kirsty Maryan and Sarah Williamson

- 2 unclear: Leanne Wagstaff and Emma Wilding. Leanne says she’s going to the bar with Kirsty and Sarah but at same time Catriona baker places her inside apartment; and Emma who is placed by Catriona Baker inside the apartment at 22:30 already knowing about the disappearance and by Susan Owen at the ‘Mirage’ bar at 22:45 ignorant of what had happened.

All accounted for, except one, Pauline McCann who only says “in what concerns the disappearance in itself, refers that she was shocked as this was the first time such has ever happened to her”

None refer having done any babysitting that night.

Not a single one.

Was the Carpenter family the only one that used the Babysitting service that week? It seems to be the case.

By the way, we find it strange that the Carpenters use this paid service because they chose a modest 1 bedroom apartment having 2 children and then prefer a paid service to a free one that takes place in the same building in which they are lodged in. Except, by coincidence, on Thursday, May 03 2007, the night Maddie disappears.

But who are we to judge? They preferred to save on the apartment fee and rather spend it on a personalised babysitting service. It was their choice to make and we respect that.

But it seems that on the night they decide to dine as a family, May 03 2007, no else in the entire resort uses the Babysitting service. Fascinating!

The only one who could be babysitting would be Pauline McCann. She doesn’t even hint at that.

We would like to point out a detail that we think important about her not being “included” in the other groups: age difference.

From the eldest to the youngest on May 03 2007: Pauline McCann (41,4 yrs),Stacey Portz (27,0 yrs), Lyndsay Johnson (24,5 yrs), Rhiannon Fretter (22,6 yrs), Emma Wilding (22,1 yrs), Shinead Vine (22,0 yrs), Susan Owen (22,0 yrs), Amy Tierney (21,7 yrs), Jacqueline Williams (21,0 yrs), Sarah Williamson (20,3 yrs), Charlotte Pennington (20,2 yrs), Catriona Baker (19,7 yrs), Leanne Wagstaff (19,0 yrs) and Kirsty Maryan (18,9 yrs).

Clearly an age difference between Pauline and the rest which might explain why her statement differs from all others. She, in our opinion, possesses the wisdom of saying as little as possible that comes with age to certain people.

Fortunately for us seeking the truth, not all.

But even if Pauline was a babysitter that night, she would have been the only one so why the heads-up “Mark Warner do ask that if you require this service that you book at least 24 hours in advance. Due to high demand this service is subject to availability and unfortunately cannot be guaranteed” that MW had up on their website about this service?

A service with no demand gets a warning about scarce availability while another, with a VERY high demand, the dining at Tapas bar, gets none. Fascinating.

That’s a sure way of getting unhappy customers. Look at what happened to Neil Berry and Raj Balu who had to resign themselves to a take-away dinner in the apartment just because Berry couldn’t get a reservation for one of Tapas bar scrumptious and mouth-watering dinners.

A take-away meal so bad that the only thing Neil Berry remembers about it was that it had red cabbage.

8. Night Crèche? WOT Night Crèche?

Taking into account that the night crèche was for no additional pay, as we have seen it was, shouldn’t there be a warning about availability about this service as well?

Pauline McCann, on May 07 2007, in answer to a question says that “there are parents who leave their respective children all day and during all days of the vacations in the respective clubs and such is normal within the English culture”.

It’s a fact that dinner time in Latin countries is much later than it is in the UK. In Portugal to dine before 20H00 is to have an early dinner, and if one is dining out, then 22:00 is not an uncommon hour to start.

So, we think that if there would be an occasion for British parents to have a time of their own in Luz, would be at dinner time.

Kids would have their meals at normal UK-time would then be dropped off at this free of charge service allowing parents to enjoy an evening, on their own, eating in a restaurant downtown, or even renting a car go to Lagos.

Children taken care of responsibly means heads clear to enjoy a pleasant evening in each other’s company.

And if one didn't use the daytime childcare, it would be a family holiday during the day and a romantic one in the evenings and night. Quite an idyllic set-up, we would say. 

As we saw, there were only 3 nannies on for night crèche duty. That means, surely, the service had a limited capacity and as we have just explained, we think it would be a service with a high demand.

So, we repeat, such an offer should have come with a warning about its limitations. So instead of putting “Mark Warner do ask that if you require this service that you book at least 24 hours in advance. Due to high demand this service is subject to availability and unfortunately cannot be guaranteed” associated with the “Evening crèche service” but it doesn’t:

Two services provided that need the warning, Tapas dinners and “Evening crèche service” don't get it. The one that doesn't, Babysitting, does.

According to Andy Redwood, on May 03 2007, 8 families used the “Evening crèche service” while, as we have just shown, no one used the Babysitting one.

Apparently the Ocean Club prefers to let its clients have a “Berry experience” which is to find out at the last minutes they have their immediate plans ruined and so have to opt for something else at the last minute.

By the way, has anyone seen anything referred to anywhere about this possible limitation in terms of number of children that the “Evening crèche service” could take in?

We haven’t but it seems obvious to us if the childcare service meant to keep their ratio of  children-per-nanny they were providing during the day intact then with only 3 nannies on-duty it couldn't possibly risk having all the kids that were there during the day be left there in the evening, now could it?

After all, there’s only so many children 3 nannies can take care of, right?

But what strikes us as really, really strange is how 14 childcare workers differently name the exact same service for which 13 of them are put on a rota for.

As shown, MW’s website calls it “Evening crèche service”. Note, it has the word “crèche” in it.

Let’s see what the childcare personnel call it:

Lyndsay Johnson, Childcare Manager, May 06 2007 – “a complementary service "of dinner"”

Stacey Portz, Head of Juniors, May 06 2007 – “Dining out Service”

Amy Tierney, Head of Minis, May 06 2007  – “the dinner time service” and ““Staff” services who take care of the children between 19h30 and 23h30”

Catriona Baker, Nanny, May 06 2007 and April 14 2008 – “Dining out Service”

Jacqueline Williams, Nanny, May 08 2007 – “service called “Dinner period””

Charlotte Pennington, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “service called “Dinner period””

Leanne Wagstaff, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “19.30 to 23.30” service” and “dinner service”

Shinead Vine, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “Dinner time service”

“Service "of dinner"”, “Dining out Service”, “the dinner time service”, “Dinner period”, “dinner service” and “19.30 to 23.30 service”, are all about dinner. Nothing, absolutely nothing about crèche or even evening.

Plus, 6 nannies, Rhiannon Fretter, Kirsty Maryan, Susan Owen, Emma Wilding, Pauline McCann and Sarah Williamson, do NOT even refer to a service which they are on a rota for and have done it many times since they arrived in Luz.

If one is to divide 13 nannies required to be on duty by 3 then that results in an average of doing this particular service every 4th night. The rota for 3 nannies on duty out of 13 nannies refreshes itself every 14th rota day:

How is it possible for them to forget to mention it? Was it available or was it not?

Did we say 13 nannies?

Well, even there, it seems there is some confusion:

Amy Tierney, Head of Minis, May 06 2007 – “Adds that the staff dedicated to the children has a total of eleven workers, who work in shifts in what concerns the 19h30 to 23h30 schedule.”

Leanne Wagstaff, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “Adds that the staff dedicated to the children has a total of eleven workers, who work in shifts in what concerns the 19h30 to 23h30 schedule.”

Shinead Vine, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “Adds that the staff dedicated to the children has a total of 15 workers, who work in shifts in what concerns the 19h30 to 23h30 schedule.”

Honestly, we cannot come to the 11 or 15 nannies.

The closest we could was to take out of that service's rota Lyndsay Johnson (Childcare Manager), Stacey Portz (Head of Juniors) and Amy Tierney (Head of Minis) and end-up with Amy’s and Leanne’s 11. The only problem is that we know that Amy was on-duty on May 03, so her name is on the rota.

No idea where Shinead got her 15 nannies from.

Another question that assaults us is this, why, of the 8 childcare personnel, who mention the “whatever-dinner-whatever” service  do 2 get its schedule wrong?

Lyndsay Johnson (supervisor), Amy Tierney, Catriona Baker, Leanne Wagstaff, Shinead Vine and Susan Owen say it is from 19:30 to 23:30 but Charlotte Pennington and Jacqueline Williams, by coincidence on-duty at that service on May 03 2007, says it's from 19:15 to 23:00. Why this discrepancy?

Then there’s Catriona Baker, on April 14 2008, describing, in detail the childcare procedures about what is done when a child is dropped at and collected from the childcare facilities:

“Mark Warner had as a standard procedure, the signature on a page whenever the parents left the child to the care of the club, which they sign again with the name and time the child was collected. There is a separate page for the morning shift and another for the afternoon one. The page has spaces for the name of the child, the time and signature of parent. Only the parents are authorised to take the children, except when there is done in time another sort of agreement.”

Quite detailed indeed, only fails to mention that the page also has location of parent and room number.

Constructive criticism, we think that rather than parent’s location it would be better have there the parents' contact information.

In fact the parents' location seems quite a useless piece of information. If a parent at 09:00 writes down that s/he’s at the pool, does that mean s/he can’t go to the beach? Or any other place s/he decides to go? Does s/he first have to pass by the crèche and change it?

But the question that has to be asked is, why when Catriona speaks of “there is a separate page for the morning shift and another for the afternoon one” she doesn’t speak about the one for the dinner/evening/night shift?

There had to be one, right? If it didn't, why didn't it?

She doesn’t mention it, does she? Why? Maybe because there wasn't one?

And by the way, the group in which Catriona works, the Lobsters, couldn’t care less about procedures and rules. The Lobsters’ pages have the mornings and the afternoons sessions on the same page:

Catriona speaks of rules she’s the first to break.

9. Seasonal products are seasonable products

The suspicion that childcare shown to be provided in the Ocean Club that week was not exactly the one that was really available is further confirmed when we're told that a service provided by a tourist resort has a “day-off”.

In hotels, all services that involve direct contact with guests work 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Some, like the reception, work 24/7/365. People have the days off (they’re rightfully entitled to them) but services don’t.

In Luz, we have already seen and found very strange, that the Tapas restaurant is said to close on Saturdays.

As on Tripadvisor customer reviews the Tapas is hardly referred to and we only have the word of people we don’t grant any reliability and documentation which we know to be false to prove that it was so, we will maintain our disbelief in that weekly closure..

Now, we have the childcare services closing a day a week. Two nannies say it was on Sunday:

Amy Tierney, May 06 2007 – “To refer that the schedule of the Club is from 9h00 to 12h30 and from 14h30 to 17h30, and that is closed on Sundays, working only the dinner time service”.

Leanne Wagstaff, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “To refer that the schedule of the Club is from 9h00 to 12h30 and from 14h30 to 17h30, and that is closed on Sundays, working only the dinner time service”.

But unlike with the Tapas, with the childcare service we have proof that someone is not telling the truth and that proof comes from the nannies themselves:

Stacey Portz, Head of Juniors, May 06 2007 – “That since Sunday, April 29 to Thursday, May 3, she was with those two children [McCann twins] every day”.

Catriona Baker, Nanny, May 06 2007 – “More answers that from that day [Sunday, April 29], until Thursday, May 3 2007, she was with the child [Maddie] every day, however not being able to specify if she attended on Sunday morning”

Charlotte Pennington, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “So the deponent clarifies that on 2 distinct days, to know on Sunday (April 29 2007) and on Thursday (May 3 2007) the deponent contacted Madeleine McCann personally, telling her stories and talking to her”

Both Amy and Leanne are mistaken or Stacey, Catriona and Charlotte are. No way around it.

We would say Amy and Leanne are, otherwise this Jellyfish page for “29th April 2007” page makes no sense at all:

Are both Amy and Leanne confused? Could it be the day-off is Saturday, like Jacqueline says it is?

Jacqueline Williams, Nanny, May 08 2007 – “Questioned clarifies that the resort’s crèche offered to the guests of “The Ocean Club” works every day of the week, except on Saturdays, day off of all infant educators who work in the mentioned tourist resort, working only a support service for any eventuality that involves only two educators on a rota for it”.

If so, then what meeting did the Carpenters attend on Saturday?

And a day-off is not something one gets confused about. If the company where one works at has a set weekly day-off then all those who work for it, without exception, know on which day of the week that day-off is.

And why do only 3 of 14 childcare personnel speak about this day-off? Lapsus linguae or uncoordinated invention?

Also Catriona Baker, on April 14 2008 speaks clearly of continuity, of uninterrupted service between weeks: “The work in the clubs was rotational and the personnel is changed weekly. If a family stays lodged for a period longer than a week, I would stay in the same club to continue to take care of those children”. 

As can be easily seen, there’s something completely not right about the childcare that is said to have been provided that week in Luz. At least in the way it is described to have been by its various participants.

Are we implying that there was no childcare in Luz that week? No, we aren’t. We think there was and it was an appropriate and a professional one.

What we are saying is that we think is that the childcare services “normally” (as per high-season) offered by the resort were simply not in place yet. Nor, at that time, were meant to be in place.

Let us try to use another service as an example.

If, on that particular year of 2007 one decided to spend some days in that resort, say, in February, would one be able to use the resort's watersports facilities if one wanted to?

No, one couldn’t. Why? Because it wasn’t in-place yet.

The watersports personnel, according to the Mark Warner staff list, says they arrived in Luz mid to late March 2007. Before they arrived there was no Ocean Club watersports available.

So was the website lying when it advertised watersports then on their website? No, because any reasonable person knows that seasonable products are seasonable. The Ocean Club's watersports weren't, logically, YET in place. They would be when the right time came.

The childcare personnel also arrived at the same time. So in 2007, before March, we can assume that any guest who came found, just like with the watersports, that the childcare wasn’t in place yet for that year. The guest wouldn’t protest and understand it was seasonable.

We are supported in this reasoning by Kirsty Marian, on May 07 2007: “Clarifies that she started to work on this resort last year [in 2006] where she worked from July to October”.

That makes sense. High season starts in July, ends in September. Probably her 2006 contract ended early October.

What doesn’t make sense is being hired from March 21 to Nov 07. That’s 14.5 weeks before Jul 01, when “Summer Surge” begins. And even if one considers high-season beginning on Jun 01, that’s still 10 weeks too early!

What in our opinion, happened in Luz, was that between the arrival of the childcare personnel in March 2007, was the childcare provided was tailored to the kind of guests expected, mid-upper and upper class swingers.

During the day, that particular childcare, used the existing MiniClub (children below 5 yrs of age) facilities and for the night, various “night crèches” would be set up scattered all over the resort, one per building where these specific guests were lodged, in one of its unused apartment.

We’re not talking about trespassing.

In our opinion, that particular apartment per building would be rented just like all the others rented ones were. Only instead of being rented by a person it would be rented through some sort of arrangement between the resort and the swinging organising structure.

It wouldn’t be used by a “family” but during the evening and night would be used as mini-crèche by the children and respective childcare personnel performing their professional duties. The children would be taken care of waiting to be collected by the parents when they returned from their night out.

For the owner and the resort, it would be renting the apartment earlier than expected and for the swinging organising structure a way of guaranteeing proper childcare to their “clients” to meet their expectations that their children's safety was being well taken care of and to their full satisfaction.

With their satisfaction their return. With their return their funds. And any local economy welcomes mid-upper and upper class funding.

It was a win-win situation for all. Only a disaster could spoil this. But disasters do happen and they do come in many forms, sizes and shapes.

In this case it was not the unfortunate loss of a life of a little girl when two adults were together when “conventional behaviour” provided no reason for them to be together. The disaster was how all reacted to that loss of life, simplifying what couldn't be simplified and underestimating the consequences of their actions and the capabilities of the actions by others.

This would explain why the childcare personnel refer to a specific service on very vague terms, each one calling it what came to mind and none by what MW’s website calls it. Why because what was announced by the site wasn't yet in place, and what was in place was not announced in any site.

“Service "of dinner"”, “Dining out Service”, “the dinner time service”, “Dinner period”, “dinner service” and “19.30 to 23.30 service”, are simply terms used by people who are, in our opinion, speaking about a service they have never performed and want to hide the one they are indeed performing. The first has to have “conventional”written all over it while the second is completely unconventional.

Any service that is shared by a group of people that have to perform it every 4 days certainly has a shared name by that group. If they started performing this service on March 22, then on May 03, (43 days) then it would mean that all of them (except for one) would have performed it 10 times. No way would they not be totally familiar with it. With its name, its schedule, its procedures.

The varied terminology used to identify it denounces that is not the case.

And that’s why the term “night crèche” appears.

Note that in the Daily Mail article from which we quoted Kate, it’s referred to as “babysitting service offered by the Ocean Club”. Gerry speaks of a “babysitting listening service”. None of the T9 refer to it as night crèche. Almost a year later, Charlotte Pennington still doesn’t call it that.

The term “night crèche” only appears later, much later.

While the vague “whatever-dinner-whatever” terminology seems to indicate something that may only be sporadically used.

Calling it “night crèche” makes it seem to be much more of a permanent, fixed and structured service.

It reinforces the alleged neglect of the T9. The “night crèche” was there, it was visible (Carpenter even went to a meeting exclusively dedicated to it) and there’s absolutely no reasonable justification for them not to have use it so the fact they didn’t, aggravates their negligence even further.

10. Mystery woman? WOT mystery woman?

We have seen that on duty for the “Evening crèche service” were 3 nannies – Amy Tierney, Jacqueline Williams and Charlotte Pennington.

Let's see how they get involved in the Maddie case.

Let’s start with Charlotte Pennington, on May 07 2007:

“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 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.”

Jacqueline Williams, on May 08 2007, confirms it was a woman guest who informs those on duty at the “night crèche”:

“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.”

The other nanny on-duty, Amy Tierney, on May 06 2007, doesn’t describe how she got to know that Maddie had disappeared. Her statement reminds us of Kate McCann when describing the family trip to the beach where she starts the story with the family already the beach, as we showed in our post “Is Kate McCann a liar?”.

“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.”

Amy starts almost already in the apartment but is sufficiently clear “she was on duty” that she first is at the “night crèche”.

The Portuguese have 4 ways of describing time, from the most precise to the least: “às 20H00”, “pelas 20H00”, “cerca das 20H00” and “por volta das 20H00”.

The first two show certainty and would be translated as “at” and the other are much more generic and would be by “about” or “around”.

So when Charlotte says “pelas 22H15” and Jacqueline “pelas 22.05”, they are being quite precise in terms of the time the mysterious woman guest walked into the “night crèche” facilities and informed them that Maddie had disappeared. And that the parents needed the nannies' help.

But who is this woman guest, who between 22:05 and 22:15, is the one who initiates the involvement of Ocean Club's childcare personnel into the whole affair?

We're not told.

We know she’s a mother of a child belonging to the Toddlers 2 group, the one the McCann twins attended.

We know she has her child in the “night crèche” that night.

We know that, according to Jacqueline she “ended her stay last week”, which means she had reservations up until either May 04 (Friday) or May 05 (Saturday) as on May 03 she was there warning Maddie had disappeared.

How Jacqueline knows this last detail, amazes us. Whatever reason she has to know that mystery woman has ended her stay must necessarily mean she's able to recognise her and identify her. But for Jacqueline she's just “an individual of the female gender whose name she cannot indicate”.

We also know that she's not one the McCann’s women friends, Jane, Rachael or Fiona because by May 07/08 (4/5 days after the event) both Charlotte and Jacqueline would have identified the woman at least as “one of the couple’s friends”.

Besides, none of the T9, we have repeatedly been told, had any of their children in the “night crèche”.

Taking into account that Kate raised the alarm at 22:00, the only possibility for a guest to have known so early that Maddie had disappeared is for that guest to have been at Tapas on Thursday, May 03 2007:

Checking the Tapas reservation list for that night, we start by crossing out the Tapas group.

Also cross out Edmonds, because he has no woman accompanying him and his children are at Tapas.

Cox doesn't count as she's not, allegedly, there. She is with her partner Raj Balu having take-away dinner at Neil Berry's apartment, as we showed in our “Two men and a baby (cot)” post.

The Carpenters have a reservation only for “2” but we have been told that the entire family was there that night, so mystery woman cannot be Carolyn.

Neither the Irwins (O108) nor the Sperreys (FP05) had children at the “night crèche” as both are confirmed to be registered as childless couples in the Ocean Club’s check-in list:

The Manns have a reservation for “2 +1” confirming the presence of their 3 yr old son AM, as per Mark Warner's room property arrival lists, so no child at the “night crèche”:

Same thing with the Patels who have a reservation for “2 +2” confirming the presence of their 4 yr old daughter TP and their 11 month old son KP:

As a sidenote, one has to wonder why Carpenter’s 3.5 yr old daughter IC choses to play with the 6, 7 and 8 yr old Edmonds’ boys when she had a girl of her age, TP (Patels’ daughter) to play with and doesn't.

We’re left with the Bullens.

Their reservation shows “4ad”. We don’t know what the “ad” stands for but the “4” appears to be counting with another couple who we don't know who they are but apparently was with them. The “4” on the sheet means clearly their son is not with them at Tapas:

Looking at the arrival list, we can see that they are 3: the couple and their 2 yr old son OC and that they are returning on May 05 2007:

The Bullens stayed in apartment O302:

There is a boy named O*** registered for that apartment in Toddlers 2’s crèche sheets:
 

So, Dawn Bullen, is at Tapas restaurant, has a son who attended Toddler's 2 group during the day and is not with his parents at dinner, so can only be at “night crèche” and the Bullens return on May 05 2007.

There can be no doubt. The woman guest who, between 22:05 and 22:15 warns the “night crèche” can only be Dawn Bullen when she goes to pick up OC from the “night crèche”.

We have found the mystery woman: Dawn Bullen.

However there seems to be a slight problem of feasibility in terms of time for Dawn Bullen to be able to be at the “night crèche” at the time the nannies say she was.

Kate went to check at 22:00.

She would take a couple of minutes to get to apartment 5A. Has no reason to hurry. Then check the door and have the door slamming against her. After that she searches for Maddie. Checks the bed, checks the rest of the room, checks other room, check the bathroom, check the kitchen, return to rooms to check wardrobes and then probably outside front door and garden, even if only to check “abductor” hadn't dumped her outside, run back, tell them what's happened

Let’s say, 2/3 minutes there, 5/6 minutes searching, 1 minute back? And we think we’re being generous.

So, at 22:08/22:10 is when she's back at Tapas. All, except Dianne Webster, run back to 5A.

None of the other guests can possibly comprehend what was happening.

Dianne remained there and knew Maddie was missing and is the only source there present who can provide information about what is happening.

Presuming Dawn gets up from her table to ask Dianne about what was happening. Would say she would be unable to ask anything before 22:10/22:12.

Say the conversation would only take a couple of minutes, 22:12/22:14.

That means she would have walked 240 metres – 1.7 rugby pitches, 2.3 soccer fields, 4.8 olympic-size swimming pools or 10.1 tennis courts – in 01 to 03 minutes:

That’s the distance between the Tapas restaurant and the “night crèche”. Going the shortest way there and not via Baptista Supermarket and then ending up there like Carpenter with the 2 surfing friends on the morning of Friday, May 04 2007.

The 22:05 time is simply impossible. To be there at 22:15 only as a result of urgency. Dawn Bullen would have to leave for the “night crèche” IMMEDIATELY after talking with Dianne. And we repeat, we are being very generous with time.

But our generosity has to be curtailed by realism.

What reason is there to have a sense of urgency? If Dianne remained seated and talked to Dawn, however briefly, she's conveying no urgency.

Please don't forget that this conversation is pure speculation on our part, as Dianne doesn't mention a conversation with a helpful diner and we know none of T9 knew Dawn because they couldn't name anyone there.

But as we have shown, “night crèche” mystery woman could only have come from Tapas and at that time in Tapas only Dianne knows Maddie was missing. So Dawn had to talk with Dianne. We see no other way but if anyone can come up with an alternative, we welcome it.

Dawn needs to get to know the child was a girl named “Maggy” or Maddy” and to get to know that “the parents of that child needed the help of the nannies in order to try and find her”. She needed to know these details before heading for the “night crèche” because this is the information she gives there.

Dianne knows that Maddie is missing but that's it. That Kate in a state of hysteria has said that Maddie was missing, turned her back and returned to the apartment.

Missing, at this point, means nothing urgent. Missing could mean she was just around the corner. Missing could mean the group could return any minute, relieved to have found Maddie wherever she could have been hiding and all would have returned to normality.

The others had gone to evaluate what missing really meant and until one of them returned confirming she could not be found would the sense of urgency enter the Tapas esplanade. So, for what reason would Dianne say the group needed any help from the nannies or for Dawn to assume that in any way?

This is not a conversation for a couple of minutes. Unless everything happen at the speed of light like the Tapas dinner for 9 in less than an hour, including reheating Russell’s dinner.

And wouldn’t Dawn's first reaction be to ask what she could do to help in case she sensed some urgency?

And what did the other 3 people who were with Dawn do meanwhile? Did they join the conversation? Did they ask questions and tried to grasp the situation themselves as would be expected they would?

Did they rush with Dawn towards the crèche too?

But is there any reason for Dawn, alone or with others to rush to the crèche? Is there any fear to have that her son disappears from a supervised facility where he was under the care of professional nannies?

Neither Charlotte nor Jacqueline say she came in out of breath or sensed any urgency. She arrived and asked if the nannies had been informed. She was not there to inform them. She was curious if they already knew.

The purpose of her being there was to pick up her son and not to warn the crèche. Charlotte doesn't even mention having said the parents needed the help from the nannies. Only Jacqueline hears her say that.

And where was her husband and the other couple people who dined with them during this? They remained at Tapas? Walked with her, slowing her down? Ran with her? Why would they? Maddie would only be news the next day, not when Kate gave the alarm.

And why would the parents need help from the nannies? Certainly they welcomed all the help they could get (if they were being truthful, which we know they weren't, but let's play along) but we see no reason to need, specifically, the help of the nannies. Maddie had not disappeared on their watch, so why call them with such urgency?

But the pièce de rèsistance about the “night crèche” mystery woman, or Dawn Bullen, is when Charlotte says “a woman she doesn’t know but indicates being a tourist lodged in the resort in question” and when Jacqueline says “an individual of the female gender whose name she cannot indicate, only that she was the mother of a child that was there [“night crèche”] (...) went to those facilities”.

First, we would like to know how Charlotte knows the woman is a tourist if she doesn't know her?

But, please sit down and brace yourselves...  how can a woman pick up a child from a crèche and her name not be known??

So there's no doubt about what Jacqueline has said, this is what is in the PJ File, in Portuguese: “deslocou-se aquelas instalações um indivíduo do sexo feminino cujo nome não sabe indicar, apenas que era mãe de uma criança que ali se encontrava”.

Isn't there a signing in and a signing out procedure? Didn't she have to identify herself and the child before being able to pick her son up? Or does any woman walk in, look at the available children and pointing to one just says “I'll take that one” and leave with the child?

Isn't that what mystery woman basically did? Picked up a child anonymously? What kind of crèche was “night crèche”? Oh, we forgot, it wasn't.

By May 08 2007 the Maddie case has exploded worldwide, it's its biggest and hottest issue. It's on every newspaper's front page. The whole world is looking for Maddie and, apparently, a nanny forgets to check up on her facts before going to be heard by the police about it. Not even to say “it was OB's mother”. 

Dawn Bullen at 22:15 that night at the “night crèche” is not realistic. Even pulling back a little the time Kate leaves the table. It requires an urgency and reasons that did not exist and an adult picking up a child without being identified.

It's pure nonsense.

But it was needed.

The ball has to start rolling somewhere sometime and they had a lot of people to fit in so little time. Explanations needed giving and they had to find explanations. Even if they didn’t make sense.

We think the intention was to have the following sequence of information flow: alarm raised – Tapas area alerted – guest from Tapas alerted – “night crèche” alerted – Childcare Manager alerted (missing person procedure in place) – Resort Manager alerted – Resort Owner alerted.

Only things didn’t work quite so well as the time was too short and everything got muddled up:

22:00 – Kate notices Maddie missing, raises the alarm

22:05 – Charlotte Pennington says Dawn Bullen is at crèche asking if they already know Maddie is missing.

22:15 - George Crosland receives call from John Hill informing him Maddie missing (Hill does not refer to this call)

22:15 – Jacqueline Williams says Dawn Bullen is at crèche saying she had been informed that Maddie was missing and that parents need nannies help.

22:20 – Lyndsay Johnson is informed by Amy Tierney, by phone that Maddie is missing (Amy doesn’t speak of this call, Charlotte Pennington is the one who says she sees her calling)

22:25 - George Crosland arrives at the scene. John Hill and Silvia Batista are already there (10 minutes to get out of the house, into the car and drive from Lagos to Luz is a feat not many are able to achieve)

22:25 – Lyndsay Johnson says “procedure to search for missing child is launched”. (we cannot understand how, as none of the nannies receive any call from her, and the only one who is said to have talked to her, Amy Tierney, heads towards the apartment and NOT to any pre-designated area or muster point)

22:28 – John Hill is informed by phone by Lyndsay Johnson  that Maddie is missing (13 minutes after he informed George Crosland of that fact and 3 minutes after he has been on the scene)

22:30 – Silvia Batista is informed by George Crosland, by phone that Maddie is missing (Crosland doesn’t mention this call and has already been in Luz for 5 minutes where he has seen… Silvia)

22:33 – John Hill says he arrives at the scene (13 minutes after he was seen there by George Crosland)

22:40 – Authorities are called.

11. Night Crèche? WOT Night Crèche? THAT Night Crèche?!? No, thank you!

The best thing about the fact that night crèche not being in place is that if it had been, we certainly wouldn’t recommend it.

The mystery woman/Dawn Bullen tale speaks for itself. Apparently, as long as they look like a tourist any anonymous person could just pick up a child and leave without questions being asked.

Why, one wonders, did “abductor” go to all the trouble to go to an apartment to abduct a child when all he had to do was walk up to “night crèche”? The answer is simple: the “abductor” was too ugly (he wore a surgical mask and bandages around his feet according to some literary intellectuals) to be taken for a tourist. The “night crèche” was off-limits for him.

But it is not because of the mystery woman episode that we wouldn't recommend the “night crèche”. It would be because of something much more serious.

Let's continue to hear what the 3 nannies who were on duty that night have to say.

Amy Tierney, Head of Minis, on 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.”

The first idea that occurred to her was that the child may had gone out by her own means, however, after checking that the window was open and the shutters raised, she questioned the parents if the girl’s shoes were there, to which they responded affirmatively, so these facts made the present deponent think that Madeleine McCann could have been taken by someone.

(…)

…when she arrived, there were already there the child’s parents and a [female] friend, whose name doesn’t know, so the [front] door was open.

After having searched the apartment and checking that the child wasn’t there, they began searching the exterior.

The witness states that the child’s father went to the reception to call the police, as soon as he noticed her disappearance, and that about 20 minutes had passed. The GNR would have taken about thirty to thirty-five minutes to arrive at the scene.

(….)

Adds that the staff dedicated to the children has a total of eleven workers, who work in shifts in what concerns the 19h30 to 23h30 schedule.

The present deponent remembers that, when entering the room, at the time of the disappearance, she noticed that the bed the two babes were asleep, and noticed that the bed that was nest to the window was with bedclothes crumbled up, as if someone had been sitting there, and that Madeleine McCann’s bed, was with the bedclothes pulled back, and on top of it was a small blanket and a teddy bear.”

At 22:20, according to Lyndsay Johnson, Amy called her. So all of the above can only have happened after.

That means, even if she hurried straight away towards the McCann apartment, she wouldn’t have been there before 22:30. Let's give her 5 minutes to finish talking to Lyndsay and have the procedure in place (Lyndsay doesn't say she calls anyone else, so it was through Amy the said procedure had to be initiated) and 5 minutes to get to apartment.

At that time, George Crosland, John Hill and Silvia Batista would have been there, according to Crosland. Amy sees none of them. Amy sees ONLY  a couple and another woman, their friend. No one else.

But the question that has to be asked is how did Amy Tierney know where the apartment of the McCanns was? Maddie wasn’t under their care and no one mentions checking up on the register sheets to see in which apartment she would be staying.

Even if they checked what would they see? Only G5A.

Would someone who had only arrived in March and whose function was only childcare be familiar with the building terminology?

Would Amy, or any other childcare worker know the difference between G5A and 0008, 0024, 0027, 0108, 0206, 0207, 304, 0306, 307, 0408, 0409, 53A, 53B, 54B, 55A, 55B, 5ALI, 5CAT, 5CBA, 5FIL, 5IRL, 5MEI, B5, BA0, BA11, BA13, BA14, BA15, BA17, BA17, BA18, BA19, BA19, BA20, BA21, BA22, BP01, BP02, BP03, C11, C1C, C1H, C1J, C2D, C2E, C3B, C3E, C3F, C3H, C3J, C4A, C4C, C4E, C4F, C4H, C5C, C5D, C5E, C5F, C5G, C5K, CC1, CCF, CP01, CP02, CP03, CZH, DP01, DP03, EP01, FG2, FP01, FP02, FP03, FP04, FP05, FP06, FP08, FP09, FP10, FP11, G13A, G13B, G15, G16, G19, G1B, G1C, G1C, G1E, G1F, G1K, G1M, G1P, G20, G25, G30, G31, G41, G46, G4B, G4J, G4L, G4M, G4N, G4-O, G51, G52, G5B, G5D, G5H, G5K, G603, G604, G606, G607, G608, G608, G610, GM, GP01, GP02, GP03, GP04, GP05, GP06, Hole, KP01, M P, ML5B, O025, O031, O108, O109, O207, O212, O302, O303, O307, O309, O401, O402, O409, OO10, OO11, OO11, OO22, OO25, OO27, OOO8, QP01, S701, S701, S702, S703, S704, S705, S706, S707, S708, S709, V-SI, W11B, W11E, W13, W18, W1F, W1M, W21B, W21D, W21F, W21G, W22D, W23B, W23D, W24D, W2H, W3H, W4A, W4J and W9?

We don’t think so.

And why would a nanny need to know where a tourist child under her care was residing temporarily in a resort with lodging scattered all over town? The children were dropped off and picked up at the childcare facilities and not taken to their apartments.

Yet, Amy not only knows who “Maggie” or “Maddy” is but she also knows exactly where her family’s apartment is. And it can’t be because of a gathering because she sees only the parents and their woman friend. No one else as we have shown.

Then, she walks into a room and makes one fascinating conclusion: the shoes are there, so the girl must have been abducted.

Shouldn’t the reasoning be the exact opposite? Putting on a coat and putting shoes on is an “adult worry”, not a toddler’s. If she had wandered off, would she first have put her shoes on? Of course not.

She would have gotten up and walked out just as she was dressed. Outside, when realising the ground was hurting her feet, she would simply cry with the pain and not reason, like an adult, let me go back and put some shoes on.

The shoes being there does not rule out an abduction. It simply points to her wandering away.

But, what matters is the reader retains that Amy Tierney has left the “night crèche” to go look for Maddie.

Jacqueline Williams, Nanny, on May 08 2007:

“That after this situation, the “search procedure of missing child" (sic) 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.

This way, the deponent says she participated in such diligences, making a partnership with her colleague Joe (worker of the bar of the Tapas restaurant), walking in various areas of the resort “The Ocean Club”.

Questioned clarifies that she didn’t make any searches in the apartment where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, nor in the surrounding area.

That she participated in the searches until 04H0 of the following day (May 04 2007) when she returned to her residence.”

So she, like Amy has left the “night crèche” to go look for Maddie, paired up with a Joe from Tapas.

How does Jacqueline know Charlotte took part in the searches? From her words she searched areas far from the apartment.

Jacqueline only has to explain what Jacqueline has done and Charlotte what Charlotte has. Why does Jacqueline speak in Charlotte's name?

But Jacqueline says, very clearly, that Charlotte remained behind to take care of the children who were still at “night crèche”. According to Jacqueline, when she left there were children there.

Charlotte Pennington, Nanny, on May 07 2007:

“That after this situation, the “search procedure of missing child” (sic) 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.

That she participated in the searches until 01H30 of the following day (May 4 2007) when she returned to her residence.”

Saying “that after this situation, the “search procedure of missing child” (sic) was initiated, which consists of an organised search and broken up into different areas of the resort in question” and following it with “in this way, the deponent states that she participated in such diligences, making a partnership with her colleague Amy” shows clearly a continuity: initiation followed by participation.

Nowhere does she say “they went” or “I stayed until” which would imply that she stayed behind.

She pairs up with Amy. Amy goes into apartment, Charlotte remains outside.

Charlotte, like Amy and Jacqueline, the 3 nannies on duty at the “night crèche” have simply abandoned the children there. Even ugly “abductor” could gone and picked a child there and walked away..

Crèche Dad, the fictional character created by “Met Studios” who, according to SY had the fortune to go and pick up his child around 21:15 before s/he would have been abandoned by all the on-duty nannies at “night crèche”.

Even though no parent complained when they arrived at the “night crèche” and found no one to give them their child, we think this should be brought to the appropriate Childcare Manager.

Oh, you thought we were referring to Lyndsay Johnson?

No, we aren’t.

Lyndsay only “becomes” Childcare Manager on May 06 2007.

On May 04 2007 there was another Childcare Manager as is reported by PJ inspector Manuel Pinho:

“Through her [Silvia Batista], we contacted, Donna Louise Rafferty-Hill (contactable by mobile phone number 964...) responsible for the crèche workers, belonging [the crèche] to the "MARK WARNER" company, responsible [the crèche workers] for MADELIIVE (missing child) and the twins during some periods of the day, since their arrival in Portugal.

(…)

It is the deponent, responsible for the coordination, who [Donna Hill] distributes the children to the various girls, being that the choice of each of the children not of each one of them [nannies]”.

For some reason was Donna Hill called by SY in December 2014 and it wasn’t because she is married to John Hill.

The odd thing about this diligence made by inspector Manuel Pinho is that it starts with them “all [the 14 childcare people]  are available to speak to the elements of this police” but, after speaking with only 2, Catriona Baker and Stacey Parker, “it wasn’t possible to speak with the rest of the girls, namely the referred SHINEAD, in virtue that most of them was absent and because there were other diligences with higher priority”.

Most of them were away on May 04 2007, when the PJ was there to talk to them? Why?

We have received a message from an Alice asking “Textusa, is it possible for me to go back to Wonderland?”

Sorry Alice, no can do. You have to waddle through all this nonsense like the rest of us.