The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers -


Matt Oldfield - Jane Tanner - Russell O'Brien


All for one, one for all,

                            and  ALL for Gerry and Kate McCann?


And as their story goes the McCanns, like the other parents in the group, had abandoned their children every night, save the first night of that holiday – all of the children in the group destined to spend their nights alone in the various apartments.


The ‘checking system’ which they ALL declared they had put in place -supposedly copying a system which was in operation in some other country where they had holidayed years before, and which they argued was, not as good as their system - somehow malfunctioned! 


Unlike the system in whichever country they referred they managed, with their ‘more advanced system’ to lose one child. 


That’s not supposed to happen!  And not when such a high calibre system of checking, according to the McCanns was in place.


I have always wondered why the McCanns considered their checking system superior to those in place at other resorts, in other countries, as 'listening systems' require that the children are in locked bedrooms.


The McCanns?   Well they left their children in an apartment OPEN to the world, and announced to others, outwith their party, strangers in effect, that they had done so?  Hardly a superior system!  And not 'child friendly' that's for sure - A gift to an intruder/burglar an open door.  A dream job for a paedophile - an open door and THREE kiddies alone inside!


So that cannot be the reason for believing what they were doing was better.


And they didn't do visual checks they only 'listened' or so they claimed in the many interviews they gave, Oprah being one example where they stressed, they 'listened only'  So that too was not a reason to consider their system to be superior. 


Oprah:  Because this was, you all had done this every night for FIVE nights straight, is what I read.  So you'd done it every night and never thought err we are ENDANGERING OUR CHILDREN, or maybe WE SHOULDN'T DO IT? 

Gerry: I think NO, we felt safe and, and in quite a lot of resorts in Europe there is a baby listening service and we were, we were doing that ourselves within the group in actually going in to the apartments.


Well unlike the man from Del Monte, Gerry the man from Glasgow, he say NO!

Wow, never did they think they shouldn't have been doing this to their children!  

And of course, Gerry and Kate felt safe, they weren't the ones spending the night in a dark apartment, they were tucked up in tapas bar!

This may come as a surprise to the tapas group, but all around Europe, the world, there are parents who actually stay at home and look after their children rather than pop in for a quick listen now and then to see how they're coping!


Clearly Gerry's checking system wasn't better, Madeleine lost, testament to that!


But perhaps more concerning of all, is that they KNEW the Ocean Club where they were staying did not provide a listening system, as it was not considered safe or practical, due to the layout of the resort, the apartments not all being in an enclosure, but spread out over a wide area.  

The McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell saying of the the McCann apartment:

"It was on a fairly remote corner of that particular resort" 

Frightening!


The Ocean Club did however provide babysitting service in the evenings,which the group declined.

More Frightening!

Why would they then not make use of the evening babysitting facilities, where their children would be cared for by the very same staff who they left their children with, during daytime, all day every day?

Kate McCann:

"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"

What is scary about this statement is that she states they didn't even consider leaving their children with the trained staff, the nannies at the Ocean Club. The nannies who had cared for her children all day every day, during daytime hours?

Her point, which she cannot even be bothered arguing, but wants to state, all the same with no 'come backs' is that she would NEVER when at home leave her children with people neither she nor they knew.   

So rather than do so, she preferred to leave them in the most horrifying dangerous situation, an unlocked apartment, where SOMEONE THEY DIDN'T KNOW could enter and harm them?

If this lady's (non) argument is that she didn't bother with babysitters of the type on offer at this resort (trained child care experts, their credentials vetted) as it was something she wouldn't do at home, then I have to ask - When at home would she leave her children alone, her home unsecured?

If her answer to this is also "No" then why did she choose to do so?

Of the two options - We all know what would have been the 'UNWISE' one!

Why then would she allow Oldfield to check on her children, tell him to go in through her patio door, when her children DID NOT KNOW THIS MAN?

Was that not unwise of her?

The children would have been very much more familiar with the Ocean Club Staff who they spent each day with than they would have with Matt Oldfield, who they didn't know from Adam!

Why would the McCanns prefer to leave their children 'at risk' when as adults, they were fully aware of the dangers of leaving young children, and fully aware that their system WAS NOT superior in any way to the 'listening systems' provided at resorts in other countries.

Properly regulated 'listening systems' have staff trained for the job. Regular checks are made, and recorded, carried out by persons NOT under the influence of alcohol.  They don't allow for persons, who just 'think it is a nice thing to do', to go checking on the children of clients.


More obviously - Why were they even comparing their so called checking system to something in place in another country, and IGNORING the reasons and advice they were given by the Ocean Club in PDL, Portugal, for there not being such a system in place there?


It quite beggars belief!


But as we all know it was just one in many of the pathetic attempts to take the heat from them, to try and justify the wrong they had done, much the same as their declaration that hundred, nay thousands of parents wrote to them to let them know that they would have done EXACTLY as they had!   Don't think so!


Madeleine disappeared without trace.  She tragically lost her life, the life she had known.  The life ahead which she never got the opportunity to live, so cruelly taken from her, due to the appalling, neglectful conduct, the utter selfishness of her parents and their travelling buddies – due to their "system failure!"

Gerry McCann can make as many ‘like dining in our back garden’ type excuses for him and his wife Kate as he cares to – but what happened to Madeleine, Amelie and Sean, their three young children, was AVOIDABLE!  It should never have happened.  


Never should these children have been placed in such a dangerous situation whereby anyone, anyone at all had freedom of access to them, to do, to these children whatever they pleased.


Granny Healy knows this!  Granny McCann knows this!


Never should these children have been exposed in this way.  If we are to believe Madeleine was abducted, taken from her bed by a stranger, then that stranger was in the bedroom with ALL THREE of the McCann children.  That sends a cold shiver…yet I have never once heard either Kate or Gerry McCann express any horror at the thought that someone had been in the apartment, alone with Sean and Amelie?  Never heard them, speak of their fear that the abductor this paedophile may have harmed them.  That Kate ran out and left them alone, not knowing if the alleged intruder was still lurking is ‘telling!’


She cannot claim that it was instinctive, that she didn't give it any thought - as, as we know SHE KNEW RIGHT AWAY MADELEINE HAD BEEN TAKEN, so she claimed.

She had given this thought.    She wasn't expecting to find Madeleine wandering outside.  She wasn't even considering this possibility.   Knowing there had been an abductor in the apartment, albeit in her mind alone, who had taken Madeleine - she LEFT her twin children to whatever would be their fate!


Why is it that every action by Kate McCann, every statement she makes, leaves us cold, leaves us thinking - this is not what a mum would do?


I have often considered that she may have been a mum 'struggling' with three young children.  A mum, not coping.  If this was the case, that is such a shame, as perhaps in some respects it would have been more difficult for her, as a GP to admit to this, admit that she needed help.  Who knows?


But then we are left cold again, when we hear her say, that they were so wrapped up in themselves, what they as adults wanted to do on that holiday the children were pretty much an after-thought!  The McCann parents were having such a good time with their friends interacting with them, Kate McCann, – states in this regard - “You’re into each other!” 


She continued – 


“If it had just been me and Gerry and the kids, you know, you’d probably spend a bit more time looking around, you know.”


Probably spend a bit more time looking around for WHAT – abductors?


Kate McCann by her statement is telling us that she and Gerry put interaction with their friend BEFORE the safety of their children. 


Of course if they had holidayed on their own they would not have  ‘spent a bit more time looking around for abductors or any other dangers' that is too ridiculous for words, what she implies by saying ‘spend a bit more time looking around’ simply nonsense.  


Would they have spent any more time with their children if they had not holidayed with the other families?


Would they still have put their children in the crèche every waking moment of every day, and not spent their time jogging, playing tennis, or would they have done what families do on holiday – spend time together, especially when they had such young children, doing activities with them in daytime that at home due to busy lifestyles families don’t always otherwise get the opportunity to?


And would they have acted more responsibly towards their children in the evenings, and NOT left their young children alone each night to fend for themselves?


Kate McCann seems to be telling us that had they not holidayed with the people in this group they would have behaved differently towards their children, taken much better care of them. 


But why would parents be less protective, less caring, behave less responsibly towards their children simply because they were part of a group? 


Kate McCann hit the nail on the head, they the group were so ‘into each other’ that as parents, she and Gerry switched off, something which after we are blessed with the ‘patter of tiny feet’ we absolutely cannot afford to do.  Unless of course we provide our children with proper adult supervision in our absence, switching off, is not an option!  We should not, not ever, do so, but they did!  And did so every day of that holiday!


Daytime activities for her and Gerry did not involve their children, and as sure as night follows day, the kids were not to be included either in whatever plans their parents had for spending an evening out.  Their pattern of adult only time, continued!


A family holiday?   Not by any stretch of the imagination!

‘In to each other?’


They certainly were and are.  So much so, that they have told untruths for each other.  And for this reason, they face a lifetime ahead of being ‘into each other' 
The alternative, not a place they want to go, not in their worst nightmares.


The entire group left their children alone, unattended. The Payne’s, the only family not to have an apartment on ground level, and the only couple to rely always on a child monitor, to keep track of their children, so never leaving the bar to go check. 


Those, with ground level apartments, the Oldfield’s the McCanns and Jane Tanner, and her partner Russell O’Brien.


These three couples bobbed back and forth they say, checking their children.

The front doors of these three apartments all at the same location. They would all follow the same route to reach their front doors.

The Oldfield’s and O’Brien/Tanner, stated they always locked their patio doors from inside, then left by the front door, always locking it from outside, so that their young children could not get out.


When checking their children they always went inside and did visual checks.


Of this they are absolutely certain.  This is perhaps the one thing they did not hesitate over when being questioned by police.  They were clear as to how they secured their apartments.


The McCanns on the other hand, stated, they did likewise for the first however many nights, then changed routine to NOT bothering to lock the patio door and NOT bothering to lock the front door after exiting the apartment.


Unlike the other two couples on the ground floor, they did not (until the night Madeleine vanished) do visual checks of their children.  Their visual checks on this evening we are led to believe, prompted by seeing the door of the bedroom where their children slept lying more open than they had left it.


But why would the McCanns, who had relatively no further distance to walk to their front door than the others couples, decide rather than do so, they would place their children in greater danger?


McCanns were the ONLY parents to NOT lock the patio doors of their apartment.

The ONLY parents to NOT lock the front door.

The ONLY parents to NOT do visual checks of their children.

The ONLY parents to NOT recall through which door they exited their apartment and by which door they entered when checking their children. 

The McCanns therefore pretty much found themselves in hot water when they discovered whatever it was they did about Madeleine. It was not going to look good for them, two medics who didn’t bother to take even the very basic of steps to ensure their children were safe, in fact, behaving recklessly when it came to the lives of their children.


The others well, they had at least carried out visual checks of their children and had made sure the doors were locked so that no one could get in, and their children could not get out.


Logically, though they too had behaved despicably, they did demonstrate they had given some thought however little, to their children, their safety.  The McCanns, not so!


As Oldfield said, they considered what would happen if their child woke up, decided that if she cried for her mummy and daddy, it wouldn't need to be for too long as they were checking regularly, her distress would be short lived!  Wow!


But by all accounts, it was the McCann couple who were in deepest trouble, it was their children who had come to harm.  It was their three children who were subjected to whatever happened when, the  alleged abductor, was in the room alone with them.  It was one of their children who vanished without trace.


It was their apartment they claim which was left unsecured.


What were they to do?


In rides our Three Musketeers, Jane Tanner, Matt Oldfield and Russell O’Brien - to the rescue!


The three in the group, who did not know the McCann couple particularly well, who in fact did not particularly care for them, or at least they did not care for Gerry McCann.  Tanner uncomfortable in his company, not the type she would normally befriend. Oldfield too, steering clear of him at the dinner table as he got the vibe McCann didn't want him near him. (Maybe McCann wasn't too pleased, Oldfield had, not run off exactly with his wife, but gone running with Kate, or rather he was at the 'starting line' I imagine more he toddled and puffed along, miles behind her as he wasn't exactly fit enough to take on Kate, she'd have been out of the trap like a shot, while Matt, hardly Marathon Man, was still thinking about tying the laces on his trainers!   He sure must have had a thing for Kate McCann (and a very understanding wife, or maybe not)to put himself through that type of torture - an 8 mile hike, and a wife waiting to nag him at the end of it, for abandoning her when unwell.  For a guy who doesn't enjoy running, unless there is sand between his toes, a flotation device strapped across his chest, and Pamela Anderson, bouncing along beside him - regular little lifeguard is Oldfield- he was real keen on running with Kate!


What an unlikely running partnership - but hey ho, on they did go!  But to where we don't know!

Wonder what they spoke about, nothing probably as Matt wouldn't have the breath to speak and run, so wouldn't really have been able to get to know this woman, Kate who before this holiday, he'd met but once briefly!  But still, for Kate, a nice change being out running with a new man!  A man like Matt who does things just to be nice.  How did she refer to the other husbands in the group, when comparing them to Gerry? - "new men, attentive touchy-feely new men" as opposed to?  Grunting Cave Man McCann who dragged her along by the hair, never bought her flowers or cards? 

Not keen on McCann but hey, he only said he was tired and went home to bed!  Did he deserve that comment?

Poor old Gerry, I see him standing, singing along to Bruno Mars - 'When I was your Man', as he waves Kate and Matt off to run round town....

Who knows what she meant by that remark, but Gerry he say ouch!

I suspect it is in there, in the book to cover for something else.  She did manage to include in her 'cave man story' - 'my peaceful slumbering babies' and that is always a crucial element to a McCann story, that their children were asleep!  How also, sleeping in their room was preferable to sleeping with her soul mate Gerry the husband she had never once before this night argued with, but who on this night had deeply offended her by saying he was off to bed? She'd lived with the guy for years never a cross word, but on this night, him saying he was off to bed, and she loses the plot, and goes to sleep in the children's bedroom?  But did she?   Bruno's words ringing in Gerry's ears -  'Same bed but it feels just a little bit bigger now.' Hey don't we just secretly love it when our mate leaves the bed and we can spread out?  

Conveniently, Kate doesn't remember who got up first next morning, her, Gerry the kids. Doesn't remember at what time, and doesn't know if Gerry even was aware that she had not slept with him!

All in good time people...all in good time... to hear the real reason behind this story!

She claimed on Turbridy Show that as a couple they never argue.  Another "first" in PDL - must have been something in the water - Kate flipped, they argued! Because hubby was sleepy and wanted to hit the sack? Sounds like a lady with a short fuse! Wouldn't chance sneaking a potato chip off her plate at dinner!

Such drama they had on this short trip especially from the Wednesday into the Thursday, tempers flying, kids crying, Kate miffed, offended, sleeping in kids room, sounds all very fraught...

Was Gerry still in the dog house Thursday morning, I wonder - most probably!

Was Kate still fuming Thursday evening, hence reason the children were not taken to play area?

Or had they kissed and made up sometime between Madeleine telling them over breakfast that she and her brother had been crying the previous evening, and Kate asking Madeleine over tea at the creche, was she upset at not being invited to the beach with the other kids?   That must have ruined Madeleine's 'best day ever!'

But of course the child was invited, so say the others in the tapas group, but Kate and Gerry had other plans - to play tennis, and run and jog, and run and jog, and play more tennis, and jog and run, and run...so they declined the invitation!


Why would her mum say this to the child?  


Back to McCann - He most certainly was not their D’Artagnan!


Begs the question - How and why did our Musketeers suddenly become:

The checkers of the McCann children?  
The defenders of the McCann duo?
Their saviours?


And they certainly at least tried to be that.   They most definitely put their necks on the line for Gerry and Kate McCann fabricating stories of checking the McCann children, as we can see from the police witness statements.  Stories for people they barely knew, mere acquaintances, people, they did not particularly care for? 


They took ‘all for one, and one for all’ to a new level – All for Gerry and Kate McCann it would seem!


The Musketeers were not in the mire over Madeleine's disappearance.


The McCanns however were in it, up to their necks, they had some explaining to do when questioned by police, as to how their daughter had vanished, they were in danger of drowning in the murk and mire, if it were not for Musketeer Matt their very own little lifeguard diving in and saving them!  I suppose for Matt it seemed like a nice thing to do!


Oh me oh my, just standing close to Matt, this good Samaritan must give others a warm glow!  Just to know him... 


But WAS it ALL for Gerry and Kate McCann or was there some other common interest, common aim behind the Musketeers' gesture?  


Being untruthful with police, not something, I imagine one does unless they feel it is necessary for them to do so, for whatever their cause, a way of perhaps helping themselves out of a situation also!  Or just plain duped by another to doing so?   Such serious trouble this could land one, if the police 'suspect' a witness is lying.


Let us remind ourselves what the Portuguese Police had to say of the police witness statements given by the tapas group:

Portuguese Police:


If these witness statement do not totally exclude the possibility of an abduction, they make the theory LESS credible.  As a result, the answer must lie elsewhere.  Notably WITH THE GROUP OF FRIENDS (parents included.)

Carlos Anjos

Association of Police Investigators:


“They said that every half an hour they would go and look in on the children, and all of them, we found in EVERYBODY’S statement some questions that suggest that actually they DIDN’T go and see the children.”


The Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police speaking of Kate and Gerry McCann:

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”


The group as we know had the opportunity to return to Portugal to clear up any misunderstandings in the statements they gave to both Portuguese Police and UK Police with regard their timeline/checking of the children.  A reconstruction of events to establish this, they refused to take part in.

As we know also – they ALL refused to do so!


A visitor to the site contacted me in this very regard – the checking of the children, and why Tanner, O’Brien and Oldfield went out on a limb with their tales and timeline, which clearly the police ‘saw through’ immediately as not being honest accounts of events.  Some very interesting points and observations were made a theory put forward which I will, with the persons permission continue with in Musketeers – 2.


We may never discover the truth of what became of young Madeleine McCann, but what we do know with absolute certainty, is that the Portuguese Police, and the Leicestershire Police are not convinced of the honesty of this group of people, their accounts of the night Madeleine vanished.


Will the Metropolitan Police make this a hat trick?


Will the Met be Madeleine's Musketeers?


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com

April 2013