Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post Reply
honestbroker1
Posts: 7319
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:57 pm

Charlotte Pennington's statement:
Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 14H30
Childcare Worker
Irish Citizen
Translator Robert Murat

- Has been in Portugal since April 28th, the day upon which she began working for the Ocean Club tourist Complex in Luz, Lagos, and where she is employed as a child educator. Her work contract was completed in the U.K. with MarkWarner;
- The witness clarifies that between the 19th of April and the 04th of May 2007 she worked with a group of children staying in the aforementioned complex between the ages of 4 months and one year of age (the Baby Club);
- The witness further clarifies that the BabyClub group was divided in three sub-groups, with each group composed of two babies, so that each group had a different infant educator allocated to it;
- With relation to the facts of the investigation, the witness states that in the course of her work, she came across Madeleine McCann many times, explaining that, even though she [Madeleine] did not belong to her [Pennington's] group, this was normal, as the physical space where the children groups are located is contiguous;
- The witness clarifies that Madeleine was registered with the 'MiniClub', a group with children between 3 and 4 years of age. The principal space where the children from MiniClub and BabyClub are situated is in the same building as the Ocean Club complex reception and this is why the witness had personal contact with the identified child. However, she clarifies that it was normal during "siesta"-- understood to be between the hours of 09H00 and 10H30 and 14H30 and 15H00, at the exact time that children are brought into the crêche by their parents—when the children under her guard are asleep, that she would participate with the children and the activities in the MiniClub;
- Witness states that on two different days, Sunday, 29th of April 2007, and on Thursday, 03rd of May 2007, she had direct contact with Madeleine McCann, telling her stories and speaking with her.
- Witness states that as she was an intelligent child, timid at first contact, and who later felt more comfortable, was a child who conversed normally for her age, and was of a calm demeanour. She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness;
- On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";
- The witness also clarified that the crêche in the complex also offers complementary services allowing parents to leave their children with baby sitters during dinner-time, between the hours of 19H15 and 23H00;
- She advised the aforementioned individual that no one had told them of the disappearance, who she believed by the name given, was Madeleine, also for the reason that Amy contacted via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;
- After this situation, they began the "search procedure for a missing child" which consists of an organised search involving different areas of the complex in question;
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;
- She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;
- During the search, she noticed, together with her colleagues from the Ocean Club, that other people participated in the searches (tourists, and proprietors from the complex in question);
- She was not aware of the time but believes it was around midnight when she noticed that the local authorities (police) were present and assessing the situation;
- States that the searches carried out by the Ocean Club elements terminated at around 04H00 the next morning, 04 of May, 2007, with negative results;
- States that she did not maintain contact with the minor in question, Madeleine McCann, but only to the extent that she was a child educator, as she was located together where the missing child was being watched in the crêche. She is unaware of Madeleine's habits and that of her parents, not having perceived any odd situation related to the child or any other during her work period in Portugal;
- The witness also states that Madeleine was normally left by her parents around 09H15 in the crêche, as her parents left the twins beforehand in the Toddler Club;
- Is not aware of any situation that seemed odd/strange related, directly, or indirectly to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nothing more to declare.
THE TRANSLATION BELOW IS TRANSLATED FROM FRENCH
TRANSLATIONS BY ANNA
It is May 7th 2007. The interviewing of individual employees is continuing; employees of the Kids Club, the Tapas Bar and the Millennium. Today, Charlotte Pennington was interviewed. The interpreter who translated what she said was none other than Robert Murat.

On the matter at hand, it is said:

The informant was heard as a witness. The informant, being of English nationality, having no command of the Portuguese language either in written or in spoken form, the interview takes place in the presence of a translator: Robert Murat.

She arrived in Portugal on April 28th, the date from which she started working for the OCEAN CLUB as a nanny.

The informant states that in the period between April 29th and May 4th, her job entailed working with a group of children on holiday with the above mentioned company, in the age group of four months to one year. this group is called the "Baby Club". The "Baby Club" group is subdivided into three other groups of two babies and each sub-group is the responsibility of an individual nanny.

In the context of the current investigation, the informant advises that in the course of her job at the OCEAN CLUB, there were various times when she was with a child called MADELEINE MCCANN. Although not belonging to the group for which she is responsible, it is normal, given that the two groups are in adjacent rooms. Thus, Madeleine McCann belongs to the group called the "Mini Club" with children aged between 3 and 4 years and, she explains that the "Mini Club" group and the "Baby Club" are in the same building , close to the OCEAN CLUB's reception, the reason why the informant has been personally in contact with the missing minor.

The informant states that it was usual during "siesta time" which is approximately between 9am to 10.30am and between 2.30pm and 3pm, for the informant to get involved at the "reception" for children in her group but also for her colleagues, given that the children she was looking after were sleeping. She also went over to the "Mini Club" to participate more closely in some activities with the children there.

The informant states that on two definite days, those being Sunday April 29th and Thursday May 3rd, the informant was personally in contact with Madeleine McCann, reading stories to her and speaking with her.

And so, the informant describes Madeleine McCann as being an intelligent child, shy at first but once she gets to know the people she is with, she talks normally for her age and stays calm.

The informant adds that Madeleine was usually called "Maddie" given that it was under that name that Madeleine introduced herself to the informant, the shortened form of her first name.

On May 3rd, towards 10.15pm, while the informant was working for the Mini Club group in the Dinner time, service, together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, a woman she did not know, but who must have been a tourist, went to their building asking if they were aware of the disappearance of a child called Maggie or Maddie.

Questioned about dinner time the informant states that the companys childcare offers parents the free service of leaving their children in the care of creche leaders during dinnertime between 7.15pm and 11pm.

With the confirmation that a female child had disappeared and, on the basis of the name the woman had given them, they guessed that it must be Madeleine, for which reason Amy telephoned her boss, Lyndsay, who informed them of Madeleines disappearance. The procedure for searching for a lost child was put into action. It was an organised search in different areas of the company concerned.

Thus, the informant participated in that search in a team with her Colleague Amy and, they covered various areas of the company, which were assigned to them. In covering the area backing onto the residences where Madeleine, the twins and the parents were staying, she could see that, in the meantime, there were various people in the apartment without being able to say if they were friends or employees. She was involved with the searches until 1.30am (May 4th 2007) and she then went to her own place.

In the searched that she carried out together with her colleagues, other people participated (tourists, company employees). Later, without being able to say what time, she stated that the police were on the spot and that they set up the measures for this type of situation. The informant states that the search by members of the OCEAN CLUB ended at around 4.30am on May 4th 2007, without result.

To our question, the informant states that she had very little contact with Madeleine and only as a nanny present in the neighbouring room. She did not know the routines of the child or her parents and she did not notice any situation that she found strange concerning the missing child during the time she worked in Portugal.

The informant adds that Madeleine was usually dropped off at the creche at 9.15am and that the parents dropped the twins off afterwards.

To our question, the informant reports that she has no knowledge of any situation that she suspects could be linked in any way, directly or indirectly to Madeleine McCanns disappearance.

She has nothing more to add. After reading in the company of the translator who explains to her, she goes on and signs.

honestbroker1
Posts: 7319
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:22 pm

Now read this from the Daily Mail (a direct interview with Charlotte Pennington)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tness.html

From the 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.

"She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.
Corrupted in the files to Madeleine always insisted on being referred to as 'Maddie'.

I say 'corrupted in the files'.

But is that the official files also held by Kate and Gerry?

Or just what we read on-line?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19584
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Carana » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:47 pm

You're quoting a Daily Mail article, some of which doesn't seem accurate at all.

And it's not quite what she stated in her police statement.

She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness;

- On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";

- She advised the aforementioned individual that no one had told them of the disappearance, who she believed by the name given, was Madeleine, also for the reason that Amy contacted via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARL ... INGTON.htm

That seems a fair translation of the PT version to me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VO ... ge_379.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VO ... ge_380.jpg
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7319
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:56 pm

Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:47 pm
You're quoting a Daily Mail article, some of which doesn't seem accurate at all.

And it's not quite what she stated in her police statement.

She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called "Maddy", as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness;

- On the 3rd of May 2007, around 22H15, the witness was working during "dinner hour", together with her colleagues Jackie and Amy, when an unknown woman came to them indicating that she was a tourist lodged at the complex and asked them if they had heard about a disappearance of a child, whose name she referred to as "Maggie" or "Maddy";

- She advised the aforementioned individual that no one had told them of the disappearance, who she believed by the name given, was Madeleine, also for the reason that Amy contacted via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CHARL ... INGTON.htm

That seems a fair translation of the PT version to me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VO ... ge_379.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VO ... ge_380.jpg

So what's not accurate?

What we read in the files?

Or the direct interview of Charlotte Pennington?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19584
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Carana » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:04 pm

I'd suggest taking the Daily Mail interview with a pinch of salt. ;)

According to the article
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5331A9LoM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What she said in her statement:
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

No other statement corroborates that she was actually in the flat at all.

For example.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7319
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:06 pm

Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:04 pm
I'd suggest taking the Daily Mail interview with a pinch of salt. ;)

According to the article
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5331A9LoM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What she said in her statement:
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

No other statement corroborates that she was actually in the flat at all.

For example.
Whose files?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19584
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Carana » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:19 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:06 pm
Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:04 pm
I'd suggest taking the Daily Mail interview with a pinch of salt. ;)

According to the article
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5331A9LoM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What she said in her statement:
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

No other statement corroborates that she was actually in the flat at all.

For example.
Whose files?
The PJ files with the "proibida" watermark. Whether the contents fully reflect what the witnesses actually said, or whether the questions asked enabled a full account, in the first place is a different matter.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7319
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by honestbroker1 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:21 pm

Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:19 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:06 pm
Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:04 pm
I'd suggest taking the Daily Mail interview with a pinch of salt. ;)

According to the article
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5331A9LoM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What she said in her statement:
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

No other statement corroborates that she was actually in the flat at all.

For example.
Whose files?
The PJ files with the "proibida" watermark. Whether the contents fully reflect what the witnesses actually said, or whether the questions asked enabled a full account, in the first place is a different matter.
So you think Kate was lying when she says in her book (I can't, for the moment, find the reference) that Madeleine, herself, objected to being called "Maddke"?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19584
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Carana » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:35 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:21 pm
Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:19 pm
honestbroker1 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:06 pm
Carana wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:04 pm
I'd suggest taking the Daily Mail interview with a pinch of salt. ;)

According to the article
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5331A9LoM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What she said in her statement:
- The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

No other statement corroborates that she was actually in the flat at all.

For example.
Whose files?
The PJ files with the "proibida" watermark. Whether the contents fully reflect what the witnesses actually said, or whether the questions asked enabled a full account, in the first place is a different matter.
So you think Kate was lying when she says in her book (I can't, for the moment, find the reference) that Madeleine, herself, objected to being called "Maddke"?
I don't have the book to hand, so I'll leave it to you to find it.

No, it's not a question of lying. Kids go through different phases. She may have preferred being called by her full name at one point, or with certain people, and not with others.

Kate did make a statement to that effect in an interview, but it could have been a knee-jerk reaction to Amaral's book that called her Maddie.

If Kate remembers her little girl as Madeleine, maybe that's her little cosy corner to retreat to when the press was blitzing about "Maddie" being dead.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Whiterose
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Whiterose » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:02 pm

I think children become more aware of their name when they start to learn how to write it. It could be that the McCann's were teaching Madeleine how to spell her name, as Kate said Madeleine was quite indignant that her name was Madeleine with three e's. Could be that she decided that she liked being called Madeleine, but knew people would shorten it to Maddy, and when they did she let them know her real name was Madeleine with three e's.
"The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests."

Epictetus

User avatar
Hael
Posts: 20804
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Is this yet more squalid manipulation of the 'official' files?

Post by Hael » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:29 pm

Whiterose wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:02 pm
I think children become more aware of their name when they start to learn how to write it. It could be that the McCann's were teaching Madeleine how to spell her name, as Kate said Madeleine was quite indignant that her name was Madeleine with three e's. Could be that she decided that she liked being called Madeleine, but knew people would shorten it to Maddy, and when they did she let them know her real name was Madeleine with three e's.
Whiterose you make a sensible and valid observation.
The trolls funding a shamed coppers right to lie about Kate and Gerry McCann are a new level of weirdo.[omitted] they may have destroyed all hope for good.Talking up conspiracy theories is one thing.Wrecking the search for an abducted child is another.-The Sun

Post Reply