25 reasons to take a much closer look at the creche set-up

@Verdi - what matters and what doesn't is purely subjective.   
 
I guess I didn't make my self clear enough above so how about if I put it this way:

For anyone interested in x-professional fairy/Shortland Street actress/beauty queen/nanny/in the thick of things Charlotte, here's the link to the main Charlotte Pennington thread:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12930p225-charlotte-pennington#371378

Maybe I didn't make myself clear so I'll put it this way..

@Verdi - I have several concerns re: Cat Baker's description of the walk to the beach.

Her seemingly blase attitude to the number of children she was accompanying has always niggled, and I've discussed it before. Set off with 6, keep your back on them all the way; arrive with 5 and it's, 'oops have I lost one on the way or not?'

I've worked with children from the ages of about 7 to 18 years - many times. One of the first thing you learn (apart from rarely lone working with groups outdoors, and I would have thought even more so with the age of the minis) is that you NEVER walk at the front of the group. Slowest and sensible at the front; idiots and hyperactives at the back - all in view.

With this in mind it occured to me to check the Portuguese original of the statement you've posted above to try and clarify the meaning of the statement:

'Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat. Three children sailed with her at one time';


If Alice walked with the group from the creche then presumably she would walk at the back, although Cat doesn't state this. It is noticable the sentence seems to be describing what was happening once the group have reached the beach rather than when they are en route.


The translation of: 'Alice acompanhou as criancas durante esse trajecto, efectuado nessa embarcação'



Is: 'Alice accompanied the children along the way, on that boat'.


For some reason the translator has slipped in 'and' rather than a simple 'comma', which makes a whole lot of difference to the overall meaning/assumption.



So, from the original Portuguese, Cat Baker tells us that she alone walks the group to the beach from the 'baby club' (why not the mini club?), and leads the 3-5 year olds from the front. Perhaps she walked backwards all the way.



Just another point in relation to this and the positive sitings of Madeleine during the week - Cat says that both David Payne and Jane Tanner were on the beach. Jane also states that she was there. The only reasonably clear photos released, apart from the few colour shots of Madeleine, are the greyscale Tanner/Payne images (mainly from the balcony of 5H - is there a reason for this?). Wouldn't you have thought that Jane would have had her camera out and taken some shots of Ella/Madeleine going sailing on the Thursday morning - particularly as dad Russell was also learning to sail from Matthew? Even in the very poor quality B/W beach shots of the Payne's/O'Briens? there is not a single shot of this (I have checked them all).

Cat says they went to the beach on Tuesday afternoon 3.30-4.30pm, on Wednesday afternoon 3.30-4.30pm and Thursday morning 10-11am.

But the Creche records show that on Tuesday they did indeed have "Build a City, Beach Play" on Tuesday 3.30-4.30pm.

On Wednesday at that time is "Olympics, Grass Time" so presumably not at the beach. On Wednesday they SHOULD have been at the beach for Mini Sail at 10.30-11.00am (not very long to get there, sail & get back ??) but this was then moved to the Thursday. Convenient ?

So what, if anything, replaced the Wednesday morning Mini Sail ? Or was the move to Thursday because the weather was better ?

polyenne wrote: Or was the move to Thursday because the weather was better ?

Yes, I think that the most likely explanation. 

Weather records for the period showed the Wednesday to be rainy.  It stands to reason that activities for any particular period of any particular day would be changed when weather conditions dictate.

I believe it's part of the childcare staffs job description to initiate varying daily activities for the children in their care.  I doubt very much if they stick to a fixed schedule.



One thing for sure and I think to be considered above all else, is the apparent absence of any proof, or even indication that Madeleine McCann participated in any of the daily activities during that week - I would expect to at least see photographs of Madeleine - and indeed the twins, having fun on their holiday.

"Mummy I've had the best day ever" !!!

I believe the creche nannies were very careless with the documentation, often forgetting to get the signatures from the parents. They were filling in the blank spots in a hurry after the McCanns did the big show about Maddie being taken. I do not think that these records can prove anything.

As for McCanns, you know they are lying when their lips are moving. I wouldn't be surprised if they lied about where they were eating which day.

Overall in this case it's hard to shift the truth from the crap.


@Khaleeshi

Your post has been moved here.

Mod.

Verdi:
 
‘I would expect to at least see photographs of Madeleine - and indeed the twins, having fun on their holiday.’
 
As well as plenty of art/craft work.
 
Just from the Lobsters schedule above, from Sunday to Wednesday there should be some lobster pictures, postcards, planets, spaceship collages, sand painting moon pictures, happy handprint stars, salt dough rockets, funky footprint aliens, but we have seen absolutely nothing.
 
   
Also 3.30 – 4.30 on Thursday should have been ‘Dive & find pool time, which Cat Baker refers to in her statement, so did they really get them all dry, traipse back to the club above main reception, clutching on to Sammy-snake, (in time for ROB to collect Ella at 4.30) for a half hours ‘mini-dance’, only to then traipse back to the pool area for high tea at 5.00?

Of course they didn't, it's all utter tripe.

I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry. The others had decided to feed their kids at the beachside restaurant, the Paraíso.   Madeleine was sitting on the Tapas terrace, eating. She looked so pale and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was all right. Had sh been OK at the club when Ella left to go to the beach? Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the five of us went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening.

Madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	TENNIS/ROOM* Gerry's mobile phone number	09:10	Gerry McCann	12:25	Kate McCann
PM	Kate's mobile phone number	14:50	Kate McCann	17:30	Kate McCann

Blatant & unadulterated lying, nothing more, nothing less

Khaleesi wrote:I believe the creche nannies were very careless with the documentation, often forgetting to get the signatures from the parents. They were filling in the blank spots in a hurry after the McCanns did the big show about Maddie being taken. I do not think that these records can prove anything.

As for McCanns, you know they are lying when their lips are moving. I wouldn't be surprised if they lied about where they were eating which day.

Overall in this case it's hard to shift the truth from the crap.


@Khaleeshi

Your post has been moved here.

Mod.

Agreed 100%.  It's no wonder the PJ were initially confounded by this web of intrigue - what chance did they have until the arrival of Eddie and Keela?

There is too much emphasis placed on the creche records.  This is down town Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, hiring seasonal staff to cater for demand - they are not high flying top professionals in the field of client satisfaction.  They are youngsters off the leash for a few months, there to enjoy the sun sea and ....  I've seen enough of them to convince me that is their only raison d'etre.

This is all about the McCanns and their group of friends, their failure to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  The rest is window dressing.

Verdi wrote:I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry. The others had decided to feed their kids at the beachside restaurant, the Paraíso.   Madeleine was sitting on the Tapas terrace, eating. She looked so pale and worn out, I went straight up to her and asked if she was all right. Had sh been OK at the club when Ella left to go to the beach? Yes, she said, but now she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later, the five of us went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening.

Madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	TENNIS/ROOM* Gerry's mobile phone number	09:10	Gerry McCann	12:25	Kate McCann
PM	Kate's mobile phone number	14:50	Kate McCann	17:30	Kate McCann

And yet she looked a picture of health only a couple of hours before in 'The Last Photo.'

sar wrote:"I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening."

wonder why

Maybe so people could recall having seen a poorly looking child being carried?

You're assuming Madeleine was around to be carried on the 3rd then ?

polyenne wrote:You're assuming Madeleine was around to be carried on the 3rd then ?

No I am not thinking that at all. I am believing that this was just another story to support the main story of abduction. To put into people's minds that a weary child was carried, very much as I believe that Jane Tanner description of a total melt down of her little girl was setting a story in place to cover for something else.

If we are to believe that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week then we have to follow that through for the rest of the week in that covers are required such that they had excuses for never being seen together again as a family of five.

The change of eating habits by the McCanns can be one such cover as can the use of different doors to 5A for entering/leaving. Similarly the lack of holiday photos, either by the McCanns, the T7 and seemingly all the other holidaymakers.

I'm hoping that more files are released by the PJ (or GA's 2nd book ?) as I believe they are withholding important information not yet in the public domain.

Nina wrote:

polyenne wrote:You're assuming Madeleine was around to be carried on the 3rd then ?

No I am not thinking that at all. I am believing that this was just another story to support the main story of abduction. To put into people's minds that a weary child was carried, very much as I believe that Jane Tanner description of a total melt down of her little girl was setting a story in place to cover for something else.

Total melt-down of Jane Tanner's little girl because she couldn't understand what had happened to her little playmate - Madeleine?

I could never understand why there is no indication of the groups children having been questioned by the PJ.  The twins yes, because the group were very anxious to promote the drugged/sedated by predator storyline so there wouldn't have been any point but the other children - even the other children at the creche?  Little kids have a habit of asking very awkward questions and saying impromptu things at the wrong time, they have no wider agenda so who better to have an informal chat with about their little playmates.

Verdi wrote:

Nina wrote:

polyenne wrote:You're assuming Madeleine was around to be carried on the 3rd then ?

No I am not thinking that at all. I am believing that this was just another story to support the main story of abduction. To put into people's minds that a weary child was carried, very much as I believe that Jane Tanner description of a total melt down of her little girl was setting a story in place to cover for something else.

Total melt-down of Jane Tanner's little girl because she couldn't understand what had happened to her little playmate - Madeleine?

I could never understand why there is no indication of the groups children having been questioned by the PJ.  The twins yes, because the group were very anxious to promote the drugged/sedated by predator storyline so there wouldn't have been any point but the other children - even the other children at the creche?  Little kids have a habit of asking very awkward questions and saying impromptu things at the wrong time, they have no wider agenda so who better to have an informal chat with about their little playmates.

Like, Maddies jammies, where's Maddie? for instance.

I posted this over on another thread but it is more appropriate here (important to keep related info in one place for future reference purposes):

For anyone who doesn't subscribe to the creche records having been falsified, please can you answer me this one:

Why would blank creche record sheets printed out presumably from a pdf file (or Word for that matter) have blatant discrepancies unless they had been fiddled with?

Examples:
Lobsters 30 May - 'Date' reads 'bate'; 'parents' is missing from 'parents location';
Jellyfish 2 May: - 'markwarner' reads 'rnarkwarner' and 'Parents' is spelt 'Parente';
There are 2 different type faces randomly used for the word 'markwarner'.

Skyrocket : in order for the crèche records to be falsified to suit the May 3 "abduction", one has to consider when this was done.

To do this, one would need to understand the possible chronological order of events, working backwards from when the Portuguese police obtained the crèche records. In other words, how much time did someone have in order to backtrack possibly and falsify the records, if that is indeed what has been done.

This also might assume that, had something happened to Madeleine prior to the 3rd, then any such falsifications could have commenced soon after. This further assumes that others were in the know for the scam-machine to start working.

The first thing to note is that the Toddler 2 group seems to be headed both Jellyfish AND Starfish. In addition, the Toddler 2 group sheets are separate AM & PM pages whilst the Lobster group is all on 1 page. Now this may be down to the group leader as it certainly can't be a MW rule.        

We're told that, on Sunday 29 April, the kids were to be taken for registration only. For Toddler 2 (on this day called Jellyfish), in the afternoon, 12 children were signed in allocated to 3 nannies. Kate signs A&S in using room notation A5 (assume because just known - later uses 5A.......Gerry uses G5A) and leaving a contact number of 0790310 (this is neither Kate or Gerry's number ??)

30 April, group is Starfish. In the morning Gerry signs in/out leaving his mobile and "Tennis". In the afternoon Kate signs in/out using 0790310 number plus Gerry's in brackets.

01 May, group is Jellyfish. In the morning Gerry signs in leaving 0790310 mobile and "Tennis". Kate signs out. In the afternoon Kate signs in/out using 0790310 number.

02 May, group is Jellyfish. In the morning Gerry signs in leaving 0790310 mobile. Kate signs out. In the afternoon Kate signs in/out using 0790310 number and "Tennis".

03 May, group is Jellyfish. NO SHEET IN FILE FOR AM ?? In the afternoon Kate signs in/out using 0790310 number plus Gerry's too. BUT SHE USES G5A NOTATION - THIS IS GERRY'S NOT HERS !!

The children's names appear to be written even if they are not signed in/out leading one to believe they are logged prior (at the beginning of each day or for the whole week ??). This is further proven by the fact that the sign in/out times are not consecutive moving down the page.   

07903 numbers are EE numbers.

on 2 May PM, as Skyrocket has pointed out, the markwarner (rnarkwarner) script is different as is the typo "parente". On this day Gerry's mobile is off all day until about 15.50.and he has 11 voice-mail messages. Gerry collects twins but this is not "normal". Is it because Kate was playing tennis ? But she was booked from 15.30 to 16.30 so had time to get twins by 17.30 ??

This takes us to Lobsters. There is a Registration Form with no date with AM & PM attendance. Is this the 29/4 sheet ? I thought that 29/4 was for initial registration only ?

Anyway, Madeleine is signed in by Kate (note : using K McCann not K Healy) using the room notation 5A (as for the twins) and the 0790310 number. Gerry signs out AM and back in PM using his mobile and his usual G5A notation.

30 April, AM Gerry in, his mobile and "Tennis". Kate signs out. PM, Kate signs I out with 5A and 0790310 number.

1 May, AM Gerry signs in with no mobile but "Tennis". Gerry also signs out. PM, Gerry signs in with 0790310 number and "Tennis". This is the day Madeleine is not signed out ??      

2 May, AM Gerry signs in using his and 0790310 numbers (there is something written before numbers but I can't decipher - looks like PEXA ??). Cat signs out ??  PM, Kate signs in using 0790310 number BUT SIGNS OUT AS K HEALY for one & only time !! Why did Cat sign out Madeleine, Totman & Patel that lunchtime ?

3 May, Gerry signs in with his mobile and "Tennis/Run" and Kate signs out. PM, Kate signs in using 0790310 number but, once again uses Gerry's G5A notation.    
 
For Lobsters, I believe the names were written as the children arrived (ie different to the Toddlers group). This is evidenced by the consecutive time of arrivals. The only discrepancies to this are Elizabeth Naylor on the afternoon of 1 May where she's a 2.30pm between and 2.40 and a 2.50 and the morning of 2 May when both Madeleine and Elizabeth are signed in at 9.20 (BY THE SAME PERSON ??) after the previous 9.30 arrivals.

There may be no great mystery to the 'missing ' crèche sheets. It's possible that the twins'  names did not appear on the 'missing' ones ..............they weren't there....................and therefore  the PJ didn't think it necessary to photocopy them.
Incidentally Cat Baker specifically states that TWO crèche  sheets were used to record attendances. One for the morning and one for the afternoon. Since she didn't follow that procedure herself you'd have thought that she would have added the rider,'' but I didn't do that because there weren't many children  in the group.''

I seem to remember a suggestion that when the alarm was raised on that Thursday evening, Madeleine's nanny Cat Baker realised that her creche sheets had parent signatures missing, so in a panic, she filled 'em in.
But, if the onus was on the parents to sign the sheets, and they hadn't, why would this be of any concern to Cat Baker.
Why not simply say, if asked, some parents write their child's name in, but forget to sign for them, I was too busy to notice at the time.

Madeleine's name appears on the creche sheets, so therefore they suggest Madeleine was alive and well up to Thursday evening. And to me, that's the only purpose they serve.

Now, for some speculation. 
If Madeleine wasn't alive after Sunday, then anyone involved would be aware that the police would need to know where Madeleine was for the duration of the holiday. Somebody knew that if Madeleine's name was on the creche sheets every day, the police would believe she was there.

As part of her job, Cat Baker was responsible for the creche sheets which state Madeleine was alive, she also states Madeleine was at high tea on Thursday.
Now, you can make a case that she was duped by the McCann's daily routine of dropping one child off but signing in two, but then, can you answer this question, who was playing the role of Madeleine at high tea?
Or these questions.
Who was playing Madeleine when Cat Baker took them to the beach in a Sammy Snake line?
Who was playing Madeleine when Cat Baker states her parents accompanied her and Madeleine on organised events?

While we analyse the creche sheet signatures and their in/out times, which is important by the way, I'm not saying that it isn't the case, but we miss a huge point.
If Madeleine wasn't attending the creche because something happened to her earlier in the week, then did Nanny know?

Did the McCann's simply turn up at the creche to convince other holiday makers and staff that Madeleine was there?
Did Cat Baker know Madeleine wasn't attending creche?

When did the G&K accompany Madeleine on an organized event ?