Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by MayMuse Fri May 27, 2016 12:20 am

"Lies can easily flourish - if their tellers are more vocal and more passionate than the guardians of the truth"

Reminder of Catriona Bakers statements

Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker
Childcare Worker
Time/Date: 18H36 2007/05/06
British Citizen
Translated by Robert Murat

The informant is heard as a witness. Being of British nationality, she has no command of the Portuguese language in spoken or written form, because of which and because he is present, the person named: ROBERT MURAT residing at Casa Liliana, Ramalhete Road in Praia da Luz, 8600 Lagos, contactable via telephone no: 913…., offered to translate the interview.

In answer to our questions, she responds that she has been in Portugal since March 21st of this year and that this is her first visit to the country. Next, she says that she came to Portugal to work as aplay leader, having obtained a contract of employment with the “Mark Warner” company. She states that her contract started on March 21st and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country. She points out that the company in question, in its turn, has a contract with the “OCEAN CLUB” tourist village to provide a child care service for parents who are clients of the village. She adds that in the tourist village, this type of child care takes place in four different places according to the ages of the children.

For children aged four months to one year it is the “Baby Club” which is close to the OCEAN CLUB’s main reception. For children aged one to two years, it is the “Toddler” which is next to the “Tapas” restaurant. For children aged three to five years, it is the “Mini Club” which is also close to the Ocean Club’s main reception. And finally, for children aged six to nine years and from ten to thirteen years, it is the “Junior Club” which is close to the “Millenium” restaurant.

Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.

* Mornings: 9am-12.30pm
* Afternoons: 2.30-5.30pm
* Dining Out Service 7.30pm-11.30pm

(children are watched in a room above the main Ocean Club 24hour reception; there is no extra charge for this service but parents must take and fetch their own children)

* “Baby sitting Service”: 7.30pm-1am

(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)

The informant mentions that the work of the play leaders is the same in all areas specified above and that all colleagues have similar training. Rotations are scheduled, which means that they change places from week to week, changing the age group they have to work with.

She states that as part of her job she has to work out a weekly plan of activities to develop with the children who are entrusted to them, notably outside, like swimming tennis, the beach…

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

In continued answer to our questions, she responds that she has known the McCann family since last Sunday, April 29th, when the McCann parents placed their daughter in the “Mini Club”. She adds that until Thursday May 3rd, the little girl came every day.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

When asked, the informant responds that it was always the parents who brought Madeleine and fetched her from the “Mini Club.”

When questioned, she responds that in the course of her work, on the company’s premises and outside (as described above) she has never noticed anyone in particular or suspicious watching the children with whom she was working. She did not notice anyone taking photos of the children and notably of Madeleine. She states that she never heard her colleagues refer to such things either.

The informant states that in the context of the disappearance of the minor, Madeleine, she saw nothing and was not aware of any reason which might explain the disappearance. Finally, the informant advises that in the few years that she has been working in this profession, for the same company, in various countries, she has never heard anyone talk of an event of this kind.

The informant states that since she has been in Portugal, in addition to the British people and her colleagues, she has got to know people outside the tourist company, some of Portuguese nationality but mostly British people whom she associates with when going out at night to enjoy herself. During her evenings out no one has asked her about her work, or about the children, or the McCann family in particular.

Nothing more was said …

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

____________________

by Realist Fri May 27, 2016 12:40 am

MayMuse wrote:"Lies can easily flourish - if their tellers are more vocal and more passionate than the guardians of the truth"

____________________

Do you believe she allowed herself to be party to a conspiracy (edited for possible libel) or perhaps more poignantly, do you believe the McCanns entrusted her to play a major role in a conspiracy (edited for possible libel)?

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 12:41 am

@Realist wrote: Catriona stated that she made a statement to the Portuguese police on the Friday morn. following Maddiy's disappearance, which would have been the 4th May, but the actual date on this statement is the 6th May. I presume this discrepancy is due to the time it took to be translated and written up.

There is a record of an informal interview with Catriona Baker somewhere in the PJ files - if I remember correctly that was taken on 4th May. I looked for it earlier for my own reasons but as usual, was unable to find due to limited time. Sure someone else will point you in the right direction.

by Realist Fri May 27, 2016 12:45 am

Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: Catriona stated that she made a statement to the Portuguese police on the Friday morn. following Maddiy's disappearance, which would have been the 4th May, but the actual date on this statement is the 6th May. I presume this discrepancy is due to the time it took to be translated and written up.

There is a record of an informal interview with Catriona Baker somewhere in the PJ files - if I remember correctly that was taken on 4th May. I looked for it earlier for my own reasons but as usual, was unable to find due to limited time. Sure someone else will point you in the right direction.

Thanks, I did wonder, but when I couldn't find it, I assumed that it was the same as the one taken on the 6th. but merely written up later.

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 12:49 am

Hobs wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:While compiling this video something struck me about the Australian interview portion at 5.21 approx

Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)

If you go to the Australian Interview 'Did you kill your daughter'... what is SHOCKING is the slip of tongue about to say 'disposed' (of her body)

He is describing how impossible it would have been to hide her body WHILE THEY WERE AT DINNER..

He does NOT describe how they couldn't have 'dispo...hidden her body' at any OTHER time... so once again... He is not lying?

Deception is stressful and the brain doesn't like being stressed so it seeks to speak the truth to relieve the stress.
Outright deception is unusual, as in creating a new reality. Rather, deception by omission or minimizaton is more common.

This is why it is important to believe the subject is telling only the truth, thus anything unexpected stands out.
It is also important to see what is minimized and what is missing, pronouns can be a good indicator as to if the subject is taking ownership of their words.
Changes in tense can indicate story telling rather than factual experienced memory.

An example could be gerry saying he didn't get 16 messages, it was for example 14 but he isn't going to say that. He lets the listener assume that he got no messages.

It is also not only what is said, it is also what is left unsaid.
kate uses phrases such as you know, obviously, and the pronoun you.
These are words meant to convince and convey information that isn't actually said and also shows awareness of the interviewer.

Kate also uses the pronoun you rather than the expected I.

she doesn't tell us how she actually feels, it is how we(you) would feel.
It is distancing language and is unexpected in such a case where maternal instinct and bonding as a mother would be strong.
This begs the question as to why kate is so distant to Maddie and points to a possible motive.

When we listen to kate and gerry speak, they are leaking the truth as to what happened.
Sometimes it is subtle and other times it is blatant.

They do so without realizing.

I don't know who you work with Hobs, so I'll ask a hypothetical question - if assisting with a criminal investigation, how is your line of work integrated? Is the analysis of a witness statement used as evidence and/or intelligence or is it a tool to assist with identifying criminal behaviour, much on the same lines as a criminal profiler?

My reason for asking is that I frequently find myself using words and phrases in general conversation that you illustrate as indicative of detachment. Add to that the increasing disregard for the correct use of the English language, swamped with platitudes, buzz words, catch phrases, internet slang etc - not many seem to bother these days about the proper use of the language.

by BarryTheHatchet Fri May 27, 2016 7:29 am

On a related note - there is the "distancing" of the parents from the victim.
"Where is the child?" - Gerry McCann.
"Someone's gone into that room, and taken the little girl" - Kate McCann.
Just No. "Someone's gone into that room and taken my daughter". That would be a normal reaction. "Where is Madeleine?"
That statement by Kate McCann (just before Crimewatch, and so heard by millions) chilled me to the bone.

by skyrocket Fri May 27, 2016 8:02 am

The 4 May informal interview with Cat Baker can be found here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KIDS-CLUB-STAFF.htm

*CATRIONA B.*

'In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile B., also known as CAT, she stated:

1. That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007;
2. That she cared for Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always worked the same hours;
3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her;
4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;
6. That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine);
7. That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time or previous days.
8. That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more calm and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful.
9. That she was never far from Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility, even asking her permission to go to the bathroom;
10. That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents;
11. That she noticed no abnormal situation relating to this family;
12. That Madeleine had not told her about any person who had contacted [spoken to] her in recent days, nor [about] any possibly suspicious conversation.'

With reference to the Rogatory interview, the translation between the Portuguese and English isn't spot on. There are several areas where words can have different but similar meanings and the wrong choice has been made, and other areas where words have been missed out. I have made comments like this before and been slated for criticising the hard work put in - that is not my intention, but in some sections completely accurate translation is more than critical.

Just to give example:

'Kate foi buscar a Madeleine na area do Tapas Bar' has been translated as 'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area', when actually 'foi buscar' can be translated as 'fetched' or 'picked up', as well.

In the following section the words 'and teatime' (lanche translates as snack or teatime but used with, but after, almoco (lunch), it can only really mean teatime) have not been copied over at all from the Portuguese version, where I have ****** below:

'Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour ******** to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.'

I was going to post yesterday but I was in 2 minds as I don't believe that MBM was at high tea on 3 May. I also tend to agree that it is unlikely that Cat Baker would have been aware of whatever was going on, but I have no explanation.

by mysterion Fri May 27, 2016 8:05 am

It also shows "ownership", not "relationship".

by Realist Fri May 27, 2016 2:06 pm

skyrocket wrote:The 4 May informal interview with Cat Baker can be found here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KIDS-CLUB-STAFF.htm

*CATRIONA B.*

'In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile B., also known as CAT, she stated:

1. That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007;
2. That she cared for Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always worked the same hours;
3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her;
4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;
6. That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine);
7. That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time or previous days.
8. That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more calm and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful.
9. That she was never far from Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility, even asking her permission to go to the bathroom;
10. That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents;
11. That she noticed no abnormal situation relating to this family;
12. That Madeleine had not told her about any person who had contacted [spoken to] her in recent days, nor [about] any possibly suspicious conversation.'

With reference to the Rogatory interview, the translation between the Portuguese and English isn't spot on. There are several areas where words can have different but similar meanings and the wrong choice has been made, and other areas where words have been missed out. I have made comments like this before and been slated for criticising the hard work put in - that is not my intention, but in some sections completely accurate translation is more than critical.

Just to give example:

'Kate foi buscar a Madeleine na area do Tapas Bar' has been translated as 'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area', when actually 'foi buscar' can be translated as 'fetched' or 'picked up', as well.

In the following section the words 'and teatime' (lanche translates as snack or teatime but used with, but after, almoco (lunch), it can only really mean teatime) have not been copied over at all from the Portuguese version, where I have ****** below:

'Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour ******** to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.'

I was going to post yesterday but I was in 2 minds as I don't believe that MBM was at high tea on 3 May. I also tend to agree that it is unlikely that Cat Baker would have been aware of whatever was going on, but I have no explanation.

Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

This of course doesn't detract from Hideho's assertion that Catriona doesn't actually state that she saw Maddie at around 5 30 pm in any of her subsequent statements to either the Portuguese, or British police. In conclusion, like you, I have no logical explanation which leads me to the belief that there are some vital pieces of the jigsaw that are missing from this puzzle.

by **HiDeHo** Fri May 27, 2016 2:11 pm

Thank you Realist for the detailed response.

I have never contemplated anything to do with suggestion she was killed... That came out of left field in your answer and any suggestion like that has the possibility of being libel. I would appreciate if you could edit your post if you agree to that possibility (I only skimmed)

I have a couple of threads on the 'Important' section which have explained about my thoughts on Catriona and that I dont believe she had any involvement other than maybe feeling 'intimidated' and second guessing herself.

What we have to try to remember is to not read the statements in 'hindsight'

At that point Maddie had been one of the other blonde pretty girls dressed in pink and the statements may have been based on looking at the records and recalling according to what was written

Thursday lunchtime has some major discrepancies with Catriona not recalling who picked Maddie up and who dropped her off...

At the time the photos of Maddie were a much younger Maddie and could have been confused with one of the other children...

It is a big topic of discussion that cannot be discussed or explained quickly and I have to rush now, so appreciate your patience and I will maybe add a more focused topic dealing with those issues...as soon as I can

by Realist Fri May 27, 2016 2:17 pm

HiDeHo wrote:Thank you Realist for the detailed response.

I have never contemplated anything to do with suggestion she was killed... That came out of left field in your answer and any suggestion like that has the possibility of being libel. I would appreciate if you could edit your post if you agree to that possibility (I only skimmed)

Okay , I'll edit it immediately before I set off to view the offerings of our local auction. big grin

NB, It's too late to edit, Hideho but I will add this rider in relation to my initial posting. Whatever the contents of the aforementioned, there was no intention to intimate that Hideho was making any form of suggestions relating to Madeleine having been killed. I trust this will suffice

by **Hobs** Fri May 27, 2016 2:18 pm

Verdi wrote:I don't know who you work with Hobs, so I'll ask a hypothetical question - if assisting with a criminal investigation, how is your line of work integrated? Is the analysis of a witness statement used as evidence and/or intelligence or is it a tool to assist with identifying criminal behaviour, much on the same lines as a criminal profiler?

My reason for asking is that I frequently find myself using words and phrases in general conversation that you illustrate as indicative of detachment. Add to that the increasing disregard for the correct use of the English language, swamped with platitudes, buzz words, catch phrases, internet slang etc - not many seem to bother these days about the proper use of the language.

Hi Verdi.
Information gleaned from a statement by a statement analyst can be and is, used as evidence in any trial.

Evidence from a trained statement analyst is classed as expert testimony and accepted in court unlike a polygraph.
The analyst can be cross examined as to how and why they came to the conclusion they did again unlike a polygraph.
The analyst gives their evidence based on the language of the subject themselves, IE the defendant.
The defense cannot claim what their client said is wrongly stated, or that language was introduced by the prosecution or that wasn't what they meant along with all the other excuses so beloved by defense attorneys.
The subject used those exact words in relation to what they were asked, if they didn't mean what they said why did they use those words?
The subject is condemned by their own words.

It can be down to a single word, use of a specific tense, unexpected words or a dropped pronoun that causes the truth or the lie to be revealed.
It can also be used not only to prove guilt, it can be used to prove innocence, where the subject repeatedly gives strong reliable denials or when the confession is coerced, as in the subject ends up repeating the language of the investigator back to them rather than a strong first person singular past tense event specific admission.

It can also be used as an investigative tool.

Information gleaned from any statement be it verbal or written can be used in business such as hiring staff, dealing with complaints against staff and/or customers, it can be used by social services, police departments, schools, anything where you need to know if the subject is suitable for the job and does not have an ulterior motive such as theft, filing fake complaints, has the right temperament for dealing with the public in stressful situations, whether that will be a risk to others or even if you want to know if the nursery you are sending your child to is the right one.

If you are hiring someone who will have access to cash or valuables, you want to know that they can be trusted, analysis of their words during an interview both written and verbal will revel if the person is honest and can be trusted or, if they have an ulterior motive such as theft.

Having human resources trained in statement analysis can and does prevent a whole lot of problems down the line if the potential troublemakers are screened out early.

The problem is, having learned even the basics of statement analysis, it cannot be unlearned and you, like me and many others, will find your own personal language changes.
I have become more aware of when and where i drop pronouns (not taking ownership of what i am saying) where i use minimization and where i use qualifiers (words that when removed don't change the meaning of the sentence)
I think carefully about what i want to say, what i want the other person to understand i am saying and why i am saying what i am saying.
I find this more so when i use words such as because, so, thus, but.

Statement analysis is 100% reliable when used by a trained statement analyst.
They have to have full confidence in their analysis since a person could be convicted or fired based on said analysis.

The downside for me is that TV ads are intensely annoying when i see the minimization, dropped pronouns and qualifiers used or even the language used leading me to think what the heck does that even mean?
It does help when i am doing reports when i am testing products in that i will point out all the nonsense and waffle and sheer dumb words used to describe and promote said product and i will suggest better words and language to use instead.

Looking back over numerous missing persons cases, especially children, where the claim by the parent is their child was abducted from their bed, house or garden or, where the person was last seen by their partner, or a death is claimed to be accident or suicide,it can often be easy to see where their language indicates guilt of the subject.
There is distancing, unexpected language, subtle demeaning of the victim (although in at least one case the subtle demeaning was in your face outright hatred and vitriol against the victim) and contradictions.

There could be all the evidence in the world to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt yet the jury is just too dumb or doesn't want to be in any longer than it has to and the guilty literally get away with murder (casey anthony)
Other times there is plenty of evidence to implicate the subject in the crime, including their own words yet they never get prosecuted as the state prosecutor is too scared to come up against a highly paid defense attorney or they are fearful of what could happen if the subject is charged.

The mccanns have told us Maddie is dead, believe what they are saying.
Dipietro, celis, adkins and dunn, ramsey, cummings, kunz have all told us their child is dead and they are involved yet they are still running free.

We can hope that they will be charged in the future, be it because a body was found, confession, or someone in the know has decided to speak out.

by plebgate Fri May 27, 2016 2:40 pm

HiDeHo wrote:
Doug D wrote:HiDeHo:

‘Many of you have noticed that they seem to be 'clever' at answering questions changing them slightly to leave that element of truth in the denial (eg 'no I didnt receive 16 text messages' (but it was 14) so technically he was being truthful (numbers from memory)’

They also seem to do it by passing or letting the other partner answer an awkward question, who may be able to truthfully deny something.

I hadn't though to that possibility. Do you have any example?

Also the 'Absolutely no evidence...' as opposed to 'We did not.. ' etc

In that interview from the video he was caught unawares and has some very odd physical reaction which appeared outside the courthouse in Jan 2010

I originally had that in the video but I had to redo it and forgot to add...

See it here at about 4.12

FYI if there is anyone on here that use video editors... NEVER use the free version of Filmora

My Windows Movie Maker was not working and the new Windows 8 version is not good...

I found Filmora which was very close to WMM making it easier to create with similar actions and abilities.

It warned at the beginning that on playback the quality is not good and jumps etc but not to worry as when its downloaded the version will be fine... I never thought any more about it.. Just made it a little difficult to edit...

When I had it completed I wanted to save to my computer to upload to YouTube... One has to UPGRADE to save. There is NO WAY of converting the .wve file unless you pay for the full version.

After spending almost 30 hrs working on the video I couldnt save it.

I don't give in easy and decided to do a screenshot recording. That is my fall back method of recording if I cant download to save...

Thats when I realised that the jumps etc were there for a reason... to prevent anyone screenshotting the video!! That is disgusting. I found many people that had spent varying lengths of time editing a video and held hostage to pay for an upgrade if they wanted to publish. Who wants to pay to a company like that!

I found and downloaded Windows Movie Maker 6.1 and redid the video from the start... Hence I forgot some of the portions from the first....but at least the quality was a lot better :)

Sorry about the rant...but its justified Warning... NEVER USE FILMORA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for going off topic although anything that happened in the last days or so, were probably contrived to fit with the abduction scenario...

Here is a 'crying' video that may be helpful to the topic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F2TfUAfRnU

This youtube vid. show Mr. & Mrs. interview with Sian and Bill, BBC.

At 4.22/24 on this vid. Mr. says that they wondered whether the crying incident was when they were being put to bed.

Now my question is why would they wonder that if they were the ones putting them to bed?

It does make me wonder whether previous suggestions of a babysitter being used might be correct?

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 3:51 pm

@Hobs: Hi Verdi. Information gleaned from a statement by a statement analyst can be and is, used as evidence in any trial.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain so fully. What an interesting and if I may say, fascinating subject. I guess the majority aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes of a criminal investigation, unless directly involved - no wonder when being questioned by the police the interviewee is advised to remain silent.

Kate McCann would know!

by MayMuse Fri May 27, 2016 8:59 pm

@Plebgate
Quite possibly one of the T7??? Which could then make an assumption that maybe all the children we together?

A few things strike me, one is why did Jane and Fiona mention the crying incident in their later interviews as this makes it worse? Secondly If Madeleine actually did ask that, Kate did not give any reason to explain where she was and no one has asked them either , as far as I am aware , as the presumption is that they were at "dinner"?

It is covered quickly by saying "Madeleine moved on"?
The end!!!

Thirdly, I am always struck by the obvious 'distain' and 'removed' sense that Kate portrays when having to recall this (and other) episode.

by MayMuse Fri May 27, 2016 9:01 pm

Verdi wrote:@Hobs: Hi Verdi. Information gleaned from a statement by a statement analyst can be and is, used as evidence in any trial.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain so fully. What an interesting and if I may say, fascinating subject. I guess the majority aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes of a criminal investigation, unless directly involved - no wonder when being questioned by the police the interviewee is advised to remain silent.

Kate McCann would know!

You beat me too it Verdi, I find it fascinating too & join you in the thanks to Hobs yes

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 9:26 pm

Only one snag - now I'm nervous about how I write case she has me up before the beak cutthroat

.

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 9:38 pm

MayMuse wrote:"Lies can easily flourish - if their tellers are more vocal and more passionate than the guardians of the truth"

Reminder of Catriona Bakers statements

Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker
Childcare Worker
Time/Date: 18H36 2007/05/06
British Citizen
Translated by Robert Murat

The informant is heard as a witness. Being of British nationality, she has no command of the Portuguese language in spoken or written form, because of which and because he is present, the person named: ROBERT MURAT residing at Casa Liliana, Ramalhete Road in Praia da Luz, 8600 Lagos, contactable via telephone no: 913…., offered to translate the interview.

In answer to our questions, she responds that she has been in Portugal since March 21st of this year and that this is her first visit to the country. Next, she says that she came to Portugal to work as aplay leader, having obtained a contract of employment with the “Mark Warner” company. She states that her contract started on March 21st and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country. She points out that the company in question, in its turn, has a contract with the “OCEAN CLUB” tourist village to provide a child care service for parents who are clients of the village. She adds that in the tourist village, this type of child care takes place in four different places according to the ages of the children.

For children aged four months to one year it is the “Baby Club” which is close to the OCEAN CLUB’s main reception. For children aged one to two years, it is the “Toddler” which is next to the “Tapas” restaurant. For children aged three to five years, it is the “Mini Club” which is also close to the Ocean Club’s main reception. And finally, for children aged six to nine years and from ten to thirteen years, it is the “Junior Club” which is close to the “Millenium” restaurant.

Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.

* Mornings: 9am-12.30pm
* Afternoons: 2.30-5.30pm
* Dining Out Service 7.30pm-11.30pm

(children are watched in a room above the main Ocean Club 24hour reception; there is no extra charge for this service but parents must take and fetch their own children)

* “Baby sitting Service”: 7.30pm-1am

(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)

The informant mentions that the work of the play leaders is the same in all areas specified above and that all colleagues have similar training. Rotations are scheduled, which means that they change places from week to week, changing the age group they have to work with.

She states that as part of her job she has to work out a weekly plan of activities to develop with the children who are entrusted to them, notably outside, like swimming tennis, the beach…

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

In continued answer to our questions, she responds that she has known the McCann family since last Sunday, April 29th, when the McCann parents placed their daughter in the “Mini Club”. She adds that until Thursday May 3rd, the little girl came every day.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

When asked, the informant responds that it was always the parents who brought Madeleine and fetched her from the “Mini Club.”

When questioned, she responds that in the course of her work, on the company’s premises and outside (as described above) she has never noticed anyone in particular or suspicious watching the children with whom she was working. She did not notice anyone taking photos of the children and notably of Madeleine. She states that she never heard her colleagues refer to such things either.

The informant states that in the context of the disappearance of the minor, Madeleine, she saw nothing and was not aware of any reason which might explain the disappearance. Finally, the informant advises that in the few years that she has been working in this profession, for the same company, in various countries, she has never heard anyone talk of an event of this kind.

The informant states that since she has been in Portugal, in addition to the British people and her colleagues, she has got to know people outside the tourist company, some of Portuguese nationality but mostly British people whom she associates with when going out at night to enjoy herself. During her evenings out no one has asked her about her work, or about the children, or the McCann family in particular.

Nothing more was said …

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

Translated by Robert Murat

Robert Murat - who claims to have known nothing about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until the morning of 4th May 2007. Robert Murat - who happened to walk in off the street and offer his services as a translator..

As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.

In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.

In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

The work being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.

As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.
Before such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always countered insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.

It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own consultation, in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.

Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden" (in which the events under investigation had taken place) and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had they agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the consummation of the present illegal act to foreign third parties.

The above being exposed - and without intending in any way to place in question the competence of the above individual, nor the slightest imputation that that was what he wanted to be - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.11 May 2007
Inspector
Pedro Varanda

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

by MayMuse Fri May 27, 2016 9:41 pm

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Hobs: Hi Verdi. Information gleaned from a statement by a statement analyst can be and is, used as evidence in any trial.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain so fully. What an interesting and if I may say, fascinating subject. I guess the majority aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes of a criminal investigation, unless directly involved - no wonder when being questioned by the police the interviewee is advised to remain silent.

Kate McCann would know!
You beat me too it Verdi, I find it fascinating too & join you in the thanks to Hobs
Only one snag - now I'm nervous about how I write case she has me up before the beak .

Surrender now while you have the chance!

by MayMuse Fri May 27, 2016 9:46 pm

@Verdi Yes translated by RM
I have been trying find any others which have been also, are you aware of any?

Thanks for the link, after reading it again it further instills in my mind that MR Murat knows far more than he is telling IMO

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 11:39 pm

@Realist wrote: Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

It would appear to me that Catriona Baker's informal statement taken on 4th May 2007, was not made while her mind was still fresh but more to accord with a predetermined futuristic path in mind. The times she states for signing in and signing Madeleine out of the creche by Kate and/or Gerry McCann on Thursday the 3rd May, are the exact times recorded on the creche register. Considering six children attended the creche in the morning and four in the afternoon, do you seriously think it likely she would be able to recall the exact times - to the minute?

Catriona Baker was reported to have been seriously disabled by Madeleine's disappearance, which I think extraordinary considering she only knew Madeleine for a few hours over a period of five days, if she is to be believed. If Madeleine disappeared whilst left unattended by her parents on the night of the 3rd, why would a nanny that supervised her during the day, be so affected? Apparently Catriona Baker was swiftly shipped out by Warners to another country, in itself peculiar if she was an important witness !?!

It should be remembered that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed during the rogatory process at the request of the McCanns - not the PJ or the UK police. One can deduce from this that they considered her to be an important witness but why? Ostensibly she couldn't be a witness in any way connected with Madeleine's disappearance but a character witness? How would that be possible when she only passed the time of day with the parents when they dropped off and/or collected Madeleine from the day care facilities?

The way the rogatory interviews were conducted remains an enigma to me, unorthodox in terms of customary policing I would suggest. Whatever, they proved to be insignificant as regards the PJ investigation. The McCanns request for specific persons to be interviewed or re-interviewed is recorded in the PJ files as follows [snipped]..

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:
----------

So how does Catriona Baker fit in with this I ask? Is it so difficult to understand why some people think Catriona Baker is not the real deal?

by Verdi Fri May 27, 2016 11:42 pm

MayMuse wrote:@Verdi Yes translated by RM
I have been trying find any others which have been also, are you aware of any?

Thanks for the link, after reading it again it further instills in my mind that MR Murat knows far more than he is telling IMO

Yes, there are other witness statements translated by Robert Murat - off the top of my head I can't recall who and I haven't time to look at the moment. It shouldn't be too difficult to locate if you check-out the statements listed on mccannfiles or mccannpjfiles.

by plebgate Sat May 28, 2016 7:06 am

Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

It would appear to me that Catriona Baker's informal statement taken on 4th May 2007, was not made while her mind was still fresh but more to accord with a predetermined futuristic path in mind. The times she states for signing in and signing Madeleine out of the creche by Kate and/or Gerry McCann on Thursday the 3rd May, are the exact times recorded on the creche register. Considering six children attended the creche in the morning and four in the afternoon, do you seriously think it likely she would be able to recall the exact times - to the minute?

Catriona Baker was reported to have been seriously disabled by Madeleine's disappearance, which I think extraordinary considering she only knew Madeleine for a few hours over a period of five days, if she is to be believed. If Madeleine disappeared whilst left unattended by her parents on the night of the 3rd, why would a nanny that supervised her during the day, be so affected? Apparently Catriona Baker was swiftly shipped out by Warners to another country, in itself peculiar if she was an important witness !?!

It should be remembered that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed during the rogatory process at the request of the McCanns - not the PJ or the UK police. One can deduce from this that they considered her to be an important witness but why? Ostensibly she couldn't be a witness in any way connected with Madeleine's disappearance but a character witness? How would that be possible when she only passed the time of day with the parents when they dropped off and/or collected Madeleine from the day care facilities?

The way the rogatory interviews were conducted remains an enigma to me, unorthodox in terms of customary policing I would suggest. Whatever, they proved to be insignificant as regards the PJ investigation. The McCanns request for specific persons to be interviewed or re-interviewed is recorded in the PJ files as follows [snipped]..

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:
----------

So how does Catriona Baker fit in with this I ask? Is it so difficult to understand why some people think Catriona Baker is not the real deal?

I believe a reconstruction might be able to help establish the facts and consequent discovery of the truth.

by Realist Sat May 28, 2016 10:46 am

Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

It would appear to me that Catriona Baker's informal statement taken on 4th May 2007, was not made while her mind was still fresh but more to accord with a predetermined futuristic path in mind. The times she states for signing in and signing Madeleine out of the creche by Kate and/or Gerry McCann on Thursday the 3rd May, are the exact times recorded on the creche register. Considering six children attended the creche in the morning and four in the afternoon, do you seriously think it likely she would be able to recall the exact times - to the minute?

Catriona Baker was reported to have been seriously disabled by Madeleine's disappearance, which I think extraordinary considering she only knew Madeleine for a few hours over a period of five days, if she is to be believed. If Madeleine disappeared whilst left unattended by her parents on the night of the 3rd, why would a nanny that supervised her during the day, be so affected? Apparently Catriona Baker was swiftly shipped out by Warners to another country, in itself peculiar if she was an important witness !?!

It should be remembered that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed during the rogatory process at the request of the McCanns - not the PJ or the UK police. One can deduce from this that they considered her to be an important witness but why? Ostensibly she couldn't be a witness in any way connected with Madeleine's disappearance but a character witness? How would that be possible when she only passed the time of day with the parents when they dropped off and/or collected Madeleine from the day care facilities?

The way the rogatory interviews were conducted remains an enigma to me, unorthodox in terms of customary policing I would suggest. Whatever, they proved to be insignificant as regards the PJ investigation. The McCanns request for specific persons to be interviewed or re-interviewed is recorded in the PJ files as follows [snipped]..

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:
----------

So how does Catriona Baker fit in with this I ask? Is it so difficult to understand why some people think Catriona Baker is not the real deal?

All of which is very interesting, Verdi, but the bottom line is, for the pre 3rd. May plot to have worked, Catriona Baker would have had to have played an integral role. So again I ask the questions ,1/ Do you believe she would have agreed to participate in a (edited for possible libel), particularly in the vein, as you so poignantly state, she barely knew the McCanns.

2/ Do you believe that the McCanns would have confided in a naive, 20 yr. old menial worker that they had (edited for possible libel) their daughter, disposed of her body and were going stage a spurious kidnapping for the benefit of the Portuguese authorities. These are facts she would had to have been made aware of to enable her to participate in the conspiracy.

by Realist Sat May 28, 2016 11:06 am

plebgate wrote:

I believe a reconstruction might be able to help establish the facts and consequent discovery of the truth.

I understand your philosophy, Plebgate, but all an authentic reconstruction would achieve is to demonstrate the McCanns and their acquaintances are lying. The police from both the UK and Portugal already know this, so what would be gained from staging the aforementioned??

It could only ever be introduced as evidence if there were other tangible evidence with which to indict the McCanns. By tangible evidence, I mean the discovery of Madeleine's body, or evidence that she had come to harm.

Log in for more topics