Illustrated Holiday Timeline, Discrepancies and Videos

Verdi wrote:Wednesday 2nd May 2007

Tonight it was Rachael’s turn to be feeling a bit under the weather and she gave dinner a miss, remaining in her apartment next door to ours. The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area – where it was, to my relief, warmer – for a liqueur. As a result we went back to our apartments a little later than normal. It also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to forty-five minutes.

At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, ‘Right, I’m off to bed. Goodnight.’ As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, ‘She’s not that bad, Gerry!’ I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave’s remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive. Let me tell you something about Gerry. His honesty and openness make him very direct, often to the point of bluntness, and he’s not a touchy-feely guy. Like many men, he assumes I take his feelings as read and doesn’t see any need to express them with soft-soaping,flowers or cards. And  although, like most women, I would appreciate the odd romantic gesture, the fact that he has always been loyal, solid and loving deep down, where it really matters, is far more important.  It’s just Gerry, I’m used to his foibles and generally any deficiencies in gallantry simply go over my head.

As far as Gerry was concerned, it was late, he was tired, and he was going to bed. End of story. I am not sure why I was miffed by his lack of social graces that particular evening. Perhaps because the other guys in the group were all attentive ‘new men’, compared with Gerry, at least, and I was a bit embarrassed. Anyway, I followed him a few minutes later. He certainly was tired, because by the time I got into the apartment, he was asleep – snoring, in fact. Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented, even: the only occasions when we ever slept apart were when our jobs and on-call duties dictated it. I wasn’t the type to flounce off to the spare room and never would have done so at home.

I suppose it was because there was a bed made up and ready in the other bedroom and at that moment my peaceful, slumbering babies were more attractive room-mates than my snoring husband. It was a storm in a teacup, and I’m loath even to mention it as it was such an isolated incident and not at all representative of our relationship. However, since every scrap of information was shortly to become potentially crucial, I feel it is necessary to state for the record that I was in that room that night.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Indeed!

A couple of things.

"The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area"

So presumably they could no longer see the open patio doors of 5A... (not that they could anyway).

"Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented"

"First time we/I..." stories are always a big red flag in any investigation.

There is some reason she needs to explain why she slept in the other room.  I personally think that Madeleine was very poorly and she was keeping an eye on her.

" Let me tell you something about Gerry "  Excuse me is this book not supposed to be about Madeleine , your daughter ? Tell us " something about Madeleine " !

The amount of fine detail she goes into regarding sleeping in the other room is strange when " every scrap of information was shortly to become crucial " , yet every other " scrap " is glossed over , bypassed or ignored !

Look at what I'm telling you , Don't look at what I'm Not telling you

From everything I've read, the action started on Tuesday 1st May 2007.  Here's a reference to the shortcut they used between the childcare rooms and apartment 5a.  The shortcut I think was used so they were less likely to be seen.

Gerry McCann's witness statement 10th May 2007

>>  From memory, on Tuesday, 1 May 2007, being shown by RUSSELL, he went to pick up MADELEINE at creche using a short-cut that began at the car park opposite the secondary reception and went between the buildings, which he used to fetch and carry his daughter. <<

This next bit has never been explained or clarri-fied - I believe it's the only reference made to David Payne checking the McCann children whilst they were at the Tapas restaurant.  Why on this day did Gerry McCann and his wife leave the patio door unlocked - so David Payne (or anyone else) could enter?  The curious thing being of course, that David Payne strenuously denies checking any other of the groups children - nor indeed his own.  It has long since been assumed (not by me I hasten to add) that the patio door was unlocked every night but here we have direct reference by the man himself, that 'on this day' they left the door unlocked !!!  He also gives a somewhat diluted version of the nights sleeping arrangements.

>> On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007,  as well as he and his wife,  he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key. He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside. Still on this night, KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring. <<

Oh what a tangled web they weave - I smell a rat.

From Gerry's first statement to the P.J the family's sleeping arrangements altered, perhaps as early as Monday night. Gerry claims that
  "He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise."  
Why does he describe Madeleine as sleeping with KATE, given that they had pushed the parents two single beds together to form a double-bed immediately after arrival? If he was in the room, even having slept through the crying and interruption surely he would have described it as "Slept with US"? Did he sleep elsewhere? He makes no mention of him using/moving to the spare bed in the children's room. However, he is keen to explain that on Wed Kate slept in the children's room (according to her because she was miffed at Gerry).This suggests that on at least two nights the McCann parents slept apart in different rooms. Were they rowing or had something else occurred?

Apologies if this has been raised before............

I'm reading "madeleine" by KM (it was bought for me so I've relented) and of course I have highlighter in hand.

One thing that's mentioned is that the nannies allegedly bought the children down to high tea in the Tapas zone between 5pm and 5.30pm each day. If that's the case, how could parents sign out the children in the crèche register at the end of each day unless each register was brought to the Tapas zone for them to sign ?

polyenne wrote:Apologies if this has been raised before............

I'm reading "madeleine" by KM (it was bought for me so I've relented) and of course I have highlighter in hand.

One thing that's mentioned is that the nannies allegedly bought the children down to high tea in the Tapas zone between 5pm and 5.30pm each day. If that's the case, how could parents sign out the children in the crèche register at the end of each day unless each register was brought to the Tapas zone for them to sign ?

Excellent point. I believe the whole creche set up was an ad hoc shambles with the creche records not properly maintained and filled retrospectively to fit claims. Looking at the "Jellyfish" records - on the p.m of April 29th Sean and Amelie are in the "jellyfish" group (the a.m. record of 29th not in files). Three nannies Sinead, Susie and Sarah are on duty. Sinead is in charge of Sean, Amelie and Otis, (signed in) Susie has Roman, Alex and Atticus (signed in) while Sarah  has no children signed in as present. four children are assigned to her Isabelle, Lucy, Matthew and K Hessleton. A note beside Isabella (Bella) reads "Playing with mummy and daddy this afternoon." Lucy is signed in but the signing out column reads "Came back in mins later" - no sign out time. Bizarrely, K Hessleton, who is presumably a similar age to the twins, has managed to write "I am playing with mummy and daddy today"!! Did the parents really tramp all the way to creche to explain why their children would not be turning up for a non- compulsory creche session? I suspect this was filled in retrospectively, perhaps the next day. What did Sarah do all afternoon when none of her charges needed her? Did she really hang about the creche - 3 nannies for only six children? Then lo and behold, the following a.m. (April 30th) Sean and Amelie now belong to a group named "Starfish" not  "Jellyfish" minded by the same 3 nannies. In the afternoon, only 4 children need minding - Sean, Amelie, Alex and Lucy. Did this really require all 3 nannies were present? I doubt it. And why are children's names listed when they did not attend? It seems to me that it was creche practice to write in the children's names in advance and then fill in their attendance retrospectively. This could be important. By the next day (May 1st) the group is being called "jellyfish" once again and on that p.m. Sinead minds Sean, Amelie and Otis, Susie minds one child- Alex, and Sarah again has no one turn up to be minded, despite her charges' names being on the p.m. sheet. On the morning of May 2nd nanny Sarah must have felt terribly rejected - only two of her four charges turns up for her, not properly signed in or out. Sinead has only Sean, Amelie and Lily, and Susie has only Roman and Alex, also not properly signed in. Still, things got busier in the p.m. (May 2nd) with 6 children turning up. Sarah suddenly had 4 to mind. No  wonder nannie Leanne W. had to come to help by signing out Bella. On the p.m. of May 3rd (no a.m. records) none of nanny Susie's kids showed up. Sinead pawned off her 3- Sean, Amelie and Otis, to Stacey Portz- why? and Sarah had only 3 kids for the p.m. session. Apologies if this is tedious reading but I am trying to show the shambolic nature of the creche, with idle nannies, children listed regardless of whether they attended and non designated nannies stepping in to cover. Small wonder Madeleine's creche log attracts scepticism. I suspect high tea sign out was also filled retrospectively.

I have brought this over from another thread where it was slightly off topic but is related to this thread...

HiDeHo

Ruffian wrote:

Ruffian wrote:With respect Verdi my previous answer was in relation to a members comment.
Staying on topic, as requested  

 On the point that the resort was busy, the creche was not. The ratio of nannies to children in the toddler age-group was extremely low.

If that is true then that would make the claim a substitute child was used harder to believe.

The theory would need to be explained further: 
How would it be effectively achieved without raising suspicion 
How would they explain to another child their sudden name change
Who would have been put in place of the child substitute

Lizzy can you explain this part of your theory

Thanks Ruffian.  Yes... I do have my thoughts on how this COULD all be accomplished.

It doesn't rely on any conspiracy theory, only on the knowledge that the week was a normal week at the beginning of the season, where no-one was really making note of anything out of the ordinary...

Anything could have been accomplished, as the McCanns were just another family and not outstanding in any way.

It wasn't bustling with people making it difficult to remove her body unseen.

Creche records were not used in the same way as a school register would be used to keep a record of attendance, so much as having a record of where to find the parents in case of an emergency.

The children were coming and going at all times of the day...not always when they were in the creche building but when they were outside doing some of the activities.

They weren't required to be in the creche, so there would likely be nothing to alert the nannies if some of the children didn't attend.  If one child attended the first day, but did not return the rest of the week, would it be easy for any of the nannies to identify her precisely, considering there were about 13 children sharing the same creche room and several other blonde girls of the same age?

Thats the basis on how it was possible for Maddie to have not been there during the week...

She would likely not have been missed...

How this was achieved with the creche records is a different scenario, and that too, can be explained as POSSIBLE...

Did the nannies scrutinise the creche register?  Did they personally go to the door each time a parent arrived and welcome the children or did the parents access the register at the door and send their children into the room?

We know the discrepancies started to happen Tuesday morning...indicating the possibility of something having happened and attempts to hide the truth...

Curiously on Tuesday  morning Gerry and Russell (and Jez) walked together to pick up their children.

Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign his daughter out...

In the afternoon Gerry signed Maddie in but Russell did not sign his daughter in...


At 5.30pm in the tapas Russell signed his daughter out but Gerry or Kate did not sign Maddie out...

ONE CHILD IN AND ONE CHILD OUT?

I'm not saying that DID happen, only the possibility that it COULD have happened...

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

I would like to add further to this being a possibility....

IF as the above details show its possible that the creche sheet was not as 'important' as we tend to think... that it was not used to confirm which children were there as much as emergency telephone numbers and who delivered and picked them up.

Jez, Gerry and Russell arrived together at the creche Tuesday lunchtime   but only one child was signed out.. Madeleine.  Russell did not sign his daughter out at lunchtime (even though he was there) and he didn't sign her in after lunch only Maddie was signed in, but at the end of the day ONLY Russells daughter was signed OUT.  Maddie wasn't signed out...

Although they both went to the creche together only one of their children was signed out...only one of their children was signed in after lunch and only one of their children was signed out at the end of the day.....

Was it POSSIBLE that the child was Ella and not Maddie?

Maybe yes, maybe no.... but can we be SURE that was not the case...

One question this leads to is how could Catriona not know Maddie was there....

Ella was very similar in appearance, silmilar colour hair and only three months difference in age..

We can establish that children arrived randomly throughout the day, maybe with the register sheet available when they were outside or down at the beach, maybe not.  I was NOT like a school where attendance was taken every morning to ensure every child was present...

We don't know if parent signed in view of the nannies or not...but the creche room was shared with the other group of 3 year olds as well as baby group and teenage group.

Approximately 13 3 year olds, many of them 'pink and pretty'...

Any child that arrived the first day or two, would likely not be missed and with a week that nothing of any importance had happened, who were really taking note.  Could a child that only visited one or two days be remembered visually among all the other 3 year olds?

Is it POSSIBLE that Catriona interacted with all the children of both groups?  Did they all do the same crafts at the same time?

We know they went on some of the trips to the beach together.  Emma the other nanny did not remember seeing Maddie on a beach trip)

Is it POSSIBLE that MADDIE was not there after the first day or two, but attendance was not the issue as long as the children that were there were looked after?

She was looking after Ella... VERY similar to Maddie.  She even describes a trip to the beach where Maddie was scared and upset... (VERY similar to how Ella would be, knowing she was very shy and clingy)

Then...suddenly... THE ABDUCTION!

Catriona was advised it was one of the children she was looking after.  She was shown the photo of a 'younger' Maddie... not the nearly 4 year old she was supposed to be looking after...

Could she have second guessed herself as to which child was which?

She was told she was looking aftr Maddie.  Gerry and Kate SAID she was looking after Maddie.  She could hardly say she couldnt be precise or it may have been the child that was only there a day or so... or maybe she was mistaken about which child was Ella.  Which child was Maddie.

At this point there was no concern about the creche...  Maddie was 'abducted' from the apartment.  Nothing to do with the creche...

She may have believed at this point that she DID look after Maddie and maybe was confused but there was nothing connected to the creche, and she would have no reason to point out her reservations... indeed it would be too intimidating to eve suggest that she was not 100% sure that Maddie was at the creche... she was signed in and out... She MUST have been there......

She told the investigation that she was there all week, and though she didnt claim specifically that Maddie was there at high tea on  Thursday in her statements, Goncalo may have reason to believe that she did see the child all week....

Hence the last time 'Maddie was seen was at 5.30pm..

I don't know if any or all of the above is likely, but it is POSSIBLE...and THAT could help explain why the creche records are so questionable and why Catriona's statements were questionable.

Not because she was lying (I refuse to believe a young girl that was in the wrong place at the wrong time was complicit)...

Intimidated, maybe...

Along with other nannies she was sent to Greece by Mark Warner within a week and unable to be questioned further until the following April.... After an invitation by the McCanns to visit Rothley in November...around the time of the 'secret meeting' prior to the rogatories....













[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On Monday 30th April Madeleine is signed out of creche early for lunch at 12.10pm, while all but one other child wait til 12.30-35 pm. Her afternoon return was delayed til 3.15 pm and she only stayed 15-20 mins.Where was she during her 3 hour lunch break? Where was she all afternoon from 3.30ish onward? Who was minding her? I suspect she acted up and refused to stay in creche. If so, no wonder the McCanns and friends have little to say about Monday's itinerary. It would look bad if they had to admit after her "abduction due to negligence" that they were so selfishly determined to have "me time" that they continued to insist on placing an upset, reluctant child in creche all day, then abandoned her again for more "me time" while dining at night! The following day (Tues May 1st) Gerry claims to have begun using the short-cut. He delivers her in the morning, collects her for lunch, returns her in the afternoon and collects her at an unknown time without signing her out. Was she still acting up and refusing to stay? I wonder if Gerry's taking the short, more hidden route could be explained by A) his haste and determination to get her to creche, no nonsense allowed and b) his reluctance to be seen hauling/carrying an upset, crying child back to creche against her wishes. Matt tells us that he so dreaded delivering Grace, who hated going to creche, that he dodged the task to his wife at every opportunity. The following day, Wed.May 2nd. Gerry again allegedly, lands Madeleine in creche in the morning but she has to be signed out for lunch by Cat. That afternoon Kate brings her, signing her in as K McCann@ 2.45 and out as KM Healy at 5.30pm. Was flustered over something or did someone else sign this? Although Madeleine is signed in and out for Thurs morning by Kate, I believe this was a faked signature added by someone else. ditto for the p.m. when whoever signed the child in could not even spell her name correctly. No parent makes that mistake! I believe Madeleine was most unhappy in creche, something her parents and the nannies/M.W.. would have reason to be untruthful about. I don't think she went at all on the 3rd and possibly not on Wed 2nd either, especially Wed p.m. I also don't believe Cat. was the only nanny who minded her group. I believe they chopped and changed among themselves consequently not really able to vouch for who was where.

Phoebe : I'd noted in a previous post the anomaly of KMHealy. Is it not a possibility that whoever signed prior was NOT Kate and assumed that "she" should sign KMcCann, after all it was Madeleine McCanns Mum who was supposedly signing.

The one time Kate really did go to sign, on the Wednesday, she correctly signs KMHealy.

I'm not actually saying they signed any child out (as I stated earlier, the nannies allegedly brought the kids down to the Tapas area for High Tea so where was the register for signing at that time ?), I think they just signed, as I firmly believe Madeleine was "gone" by this time.

If Kate McCann, prior to Madeleine's disappearance from her bed as her parents dined with friends, was known as Kate Healy, then surely she would sign the creche sheets as "Kate Healy". My belief then, is probably similar to polyenne's, that somebody else was signing the creche sheets on her behalf, and presumed the signature would be McCann.

Fascinating as they are, with their timing discrepancies, and the unanswerable questions about who dropped which child and when, I would say, that is the whole point of the creche sheet anomalies. Camouflage!

I believe that something happened to Madeline as early as Sunday night or Monday, so whatever the sheets may state to contradict that view, I would say, prove she was in the creche; show me a photo of her in the creche with the other kids, or a video of her, or a photo of her on a trip with the other kids. 
Those photos probably don't exist, otherwise they would have been made public like the others.
But other parents and holiday makers will have taken photos of their kids, and of each other, and while doing so, inadvertently caught kids in the background. 
So, they could prove Madeleine was alive during that week, simply by making some of those photos public, after all, these holiday photos taken by other holiday makers were requested to be handed in, yet we never saw any. 
Is that because non show Madeleine, is that why they were culled?

As for Gerry and his doors and routes to the creche.... 

And the seeming lack of holiday photos is a big red flag to me. Not only from the T9/T7 but from all the families with young children (and there were many). 

I know the PJ requested access to cameras but are you telling me no other family has "slipped" one into the public domain ? Not very sporting.............

Hmm, Facebook went public in 2004. Anyone trawled through and found other PdL guests and their old holiday photos on FB ?

Has a hand writing expert ever studied the signatures on the creche records.

Maxbex wrote:Has a hand writing expert ever studied the signatures on the creche records.

Certainly "experts" on here have. No doubt someone knowledgeable will source and post a link.

IIRC, there was some consternation over the similarity with RNs handwriting and with the signing in/out with EN.

Thank you polyenne im a newbie and trying to catch up.

JRP wrote:If Kate McCann, prior to Madeleine's disappearance from her bed as her parents dined with friends, was known as Kate Healy, then surely she would sign the creche sheets as "Kate Healy". My belief then, is probably similar to polyenne's, that somebody else was signing the creche sheets on her behalf, and presumed the signature would be McCann.

Fascinating as they are, with their timing discrepancies, and the unanswerable questions about who dropped which child and when, I would say, that is the whole point of the creche sheet anomalies. Camouflage!

I believe that something happened to Madeline as early as Sunday night or Monday, so whatever the sheets may state to contradict that view, I would say, prove she was in the creche; show me a photo of her in the creche with the other kids, or a video of her, or a photo of her on a trip with the other kids. 
Those photos probably don't exist, otherwise they would have been made public like the others.
But other parents and holiday makers will have taken photos of their kids, and of each other, and while doing so, inadvertently caught kids in the background. 
So, they could prove Madeleine was alive during that week, simply by making some of those photos public, after all, these holiday photos taken by other holiday makers were requested to be handed in, yet we never saw any. 
Is that because non show Madeleine, is that why they were culled?

As for Gerry and his doors and routes to the creche.... 

...good a short cut was found!!!!!

polyenne wrote:Certainly "experts" on here have. No doubt someone knowledgeable will source and post a link.

CMoMM has in-house expert professional graphologists?  Thanks, I didn't know that .

Whatever, it's just another pseudo science that amounts to nothing in reality.  Nice hobby though.

Verdi, that is why I put experts in inverted commas. There is a thread on here where much close examination and subsequent comment was given to the similarities in the handwriting.

Why are you, quite often, so negatively dismissive of others research. If you have nothing constructive to add, add nothing at all.

sar wrote:

JRP wrote:If Kate McCann, prior to Madeleine's disappearance from her bed as her parents dined with friends, was known as Kate Healy, then surely she would sign the creche sheets as "Kate Healy". My belief then, is probably similar to polyenne's, that somebody else was signing the creche sheets on her behalf, and presumed the signature would be McCann.

Fascinating as they are, with their timing discrepancies, and the unanswerable questions about who dropped which child and when, I would say, that is the whole point of the creche sheet anomalies. Camouflage!

I believe that something happened to Madeline as early as Sunday night or Monday, so whatever the sheets may state to contradict that view, I would say, prove she was in the creche; show me a photo of her in the creche with the other kids, or a video of her, or a photo of her on a trip with the other kids. 
Those photos probably don't exist, otherwise they would have been made public like the others.
But other parents and holiday makers will have taken photos of their kids, and of each other, and while doing so, inadvertently caught kids in the background. 
So, they could prove Madeleine was alive during that week, simply by making some of those photos public, after all, these holiday photos taken by other holiday makers were requested to be handed in, yet we never saw any. 
Is that because non show Madeleine, is that why they were culled?

As for Gerry and his doors and routes to the creche.... 

...good a short cut was found!!!!!

Gerry and friends have been finding"Short Cuts"for the past Ten years with assistance from the UK Government Prime Ministers of All parties?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
I wasn't disputing there was a short cut to the creche, discovered apparently by the explorer ROB, neither am I disputing that Gerry was at the creche, as he was seen at the creche by numerous staff... apparently.
What would be interesting is if there was an independent sighting of him walking this discovered path with Madeleine, and there isn't one as far as I know.

Possibly he was at the creche, so he would be seen, being visible so people who did see him would assume that he was there to pick Madeleine up, or drop her off.

I'll put a few !!!!!! just for good measure.

Willow 

polyenne wrote:Phoebe : I'd noted in a previous post the anomaly of KMHealy. Is it not a possibility that whoever signed prior was NOT Kate and assumed that "she" should sign KMcCann, after all it was Madeleine McCanns Mum who was supposedly signing.

The one time Kate really did go to sign, on the Wednesday, she correctly signs KMHealy.

I agree with this evaluation. I believe she states in the book that it was essentially the media who "renamed" her KM and that she used Healy.

polyenne wrote:
Why are you, quite often, so negatively dismissive of others research. If you have nothing constructive to add, add nothing at all.

Research - what research?  I was commenting on the existence of a handwriting expert on CMoMM.

Apart from that, your comment duly noted.

There is a tendency for members, especially new members who haven't grasped the true purpose of the forum, to treat CMoMM as they would social media i.e. twitter and facebook.  It is therefore essential for the team of admin and moderators to prevent a decline in the forums purpose - being to uncover the truth about little Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Sometimes, or should I say frequently, it is necessary to stop particular topics from going astray with wild unsubstantiated theory and commentary.  When you have more time to explore the forum you will see how often specific subjects drift off into the realms of ridiculous theorizing - fantasy - which is frankly, detrimental to CMoMM. The handwriting issue is a good example.

The ever present critics will pick on anything in order to destroy the forum's reputation.  All members are asked to be mindful of the situation and to think carefully before theorizing and/or opining on unsubstantiated information created by an unbridled imagination and non-existent evidence.

Please take note and refrain from vocalizing on the modus operandi of the forum's administration - anarchy is not to be encouraged.  Thank you.

Verdi, so let's get this straight. You think that the apparent action of the same person to sign in a child that is not theirs is "wild unsubstantiated theory" and "drifts off into the realms of ridiculous theorising - fantasy" ?

Really ? I'd say that, in this situation, it was very relevant and could possibly suggest a pre-meditated element. That has been suggested by more than one member of this forum. 

But then I haven't been a member here for that long so what would I know ?