Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?

DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE BEFORE 5.30PM MAY 3^RD?
 
If so, that would mean that she did not attend the crèche during May 3^rd or earlier.

Have you considered how this could be explained?  Catriona, her nanny, claims Maddie was in the crèche during Thursday (and before).  For the record, I DO NOT believe Catriona was lying.
 
Is the following scenario possible?
 
Suggesting that something happened to Maddie before Tuesday morning (when the major discrepancies/contradictions/lies started…likely to hide the truth) then Maddie would have only visited the crèche for a day or two.

What I feel is important to remember, is that the crèche did not follow the strict guidelines of a school, where children were expected to be present and accounted for during the full day.

Children were dropped off and picked up randomly and the register was likely used as a record of where to find the parents if needed  as opposed to a record of their use of the crèche (which was free, so no need to establish cost) There were approximately 13 children that used the kids club (3 – 5 yrs old) and were divided into two groups. Lobsters and Sharks. However they all shared the same crèche room and although assigned to specific nannies, were likely interacting together.








We are told that there were several little blonde girls and  I doubt for the first day or two the nannies were able to distinguish between them or notice if one or more of the young children were missing for the rest of the week.

Children arrived and left randomly, and were the records strictly kept where each nanny greeted the parents at the door as they arrived and signed the register, or was the register a requirement to locate the parents and was left‘on the side’ for them to responsibly sign in case the nanny needed to contact them?

Would the nannies scrutinize the register and take special note of who should be there at any specific time during the day? Likely  not.  Once children arrived and doors were closed, the nannies, at the beginning of the season when everything was new and lprobably not all in place, would likely be focused on keeping the children’s attention and dealing with minor issues between the children.

Catriona claims there were bracelets issued to each child and whether used or not, in a room of approximately 13 children, that were only going to be there for less than a week, and sometimes only a couple of hours, remembering their names would likely be secondary to keeping them occupied.  There was no expectation for every child to be in attendance every day and so if one or more was missing, I can’t imagine it being of importance.

Is this the reason that, whether during the week or only Thursday, it may not have been apparent that Maddie was not there?


How could the McCanns have accomplished this deceit? 
How could Catriona claim to have seen Maddie, even though she was not there?


Is it possible that this following scenario explains how the McCanns deceived everyone into believing Maddie was attending the crèche?


JaneTanners daughter was similar in appearance to Maddie. She was only 3 months younger and had similar hair colour..  Her shy personality was very different from what we have been told about Maddie but is it possible that Catriona was 'intimidated' by the knowledge, once Maddie disappeared,  to learn that SHE had been looking after Maddie until that afternoon.  










Did she SPECIFICALLY remember Maddie (by name) as being there or KNOWING (according to the McCanns) that she had been with Maddie that day maybe she was thinking she didn’t recall the name of the child that day (or before) but as far as she was told, Maddie WAS at the crèche and she could have second guessed herself and felt the child that had disappeared must have been the child that resembled who she later learned was Maddie.

If she couldn’t remember EXACTLY the child named Maddie was there that day, (or earlier) there is no way she could have jeopardized her job by claiming shedidn’t remember.

She had been TOLD Maddie was at the crèche that day and as the ‘abduction’happened from the apartment, the crèche was not involved.  However there WAS a BBC Whisteblower program that had criticized a Mark Warner crèche in another location only three weeks prior.  Admitting to not SPECIFICALLY remembering Maddie could jeopardize her credibility for the job



.

She presumed that Maddie was the child that may or may not have been called ‘Ella’.  Is this the reason that Catriona and many of the other OC staff described ‘Maddie’ as being shy and had the personality of Ella?

It goes without question that,  even though she may not have remembered Maddie specifically, (especially if Maddie was actually only there during the first couple of days) she would give her statements about the child she now believed must have been Maddie.

Once acknowledged Maddie was there she could never retract her statement. There was no turning back. Was this the reason she went through a depressing time a few weeks later (as described to a friend) when she inwardly realized the scope of the case?

This brings us to HOW could the McCanns achieve their deceit of Maddie attending the crèche?
 
 
After scrutinizing the crèche records, and guided by the discrepancies/contradictions starting on TUESDAY MORNING, so with the possibility that they were trying to hide something at this point, Monday MAY have been the day something happened.

MONDAY AFTERNOON - Oddly, Maddie was signed into the crèche at 3.15pm and signed out after 15 mins.

Approximately half an hour later, Ella was signed in at 4pm, but not signed out.




 
TUESDAY morning, Gerry and Russell walked to the crèche along with Jez Wilkins.  Jez makes mention of Gerry telling him about the children being left alone and he responded by talking about children can go to evening crèche and carried home with a blanket.
 
Could this have been the first initial effort to suggest the children would be alone to facilitate an ‘abductor’ being the reason Maddie disappeared? Was it inspiration of bundleman?
 
Jez’ daughter was in the Sharks group but sharing the same room as Maddie’s group,the Lobsters and Russells daughter was also in the Lobster group.

At 12.30pm Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign the register.  Was this because there was only ONE CHILD?

TUESDAY AFTERNOON Gerry signs ONE CHILD in at 2.30.  Ella is signed in at the same time by CAT(Did Russell forget to sign or was there only ONE CHILD?)
 
At 5.30pm only Russell signs out ONE CHILD Maddie is not signed out (Blank) Is that because there was only ONE CHILD?  Kate signed the twins out at 5.20pm  They were at high tea together.  Why did she not sign Maddie out at the same time? Was Maddie there?




 
On WEDNESDAY MORNING both Gerry and Russell sign in their child AT THE SAME TIME(could there have only been ONE CHILD?) but at lunchtime Russell signed out ONE CHILD and it was CAT who signed out Maddie at the same time. 12.30pm.  Why and when did CAT sign Maddie out?
 
Kate and Russell both arrived at the same time on Wednesday afternoon. 5.30pm






 
THURSDAY is RIDDLED with discrepancies and one example is regarding picking up the McCann children for the crèche at lunchtime….
 
Kate and Fiona were SUPPOSEDLY at the rec area together.

Fiona claims they went together from the rec area to pick up the children(Maddie and Scarlet)
 
Kate claims she went back to the apartment to prepare lunch before going to the creche.

HOWEVER, Gerry claims HE went to the crèche to pick up Maddie and he specifically remembers taking the short cut
 
Kate signs the register at 12.25pm.  Did Gerry REALLY pick up Maddie as he claims?

Keep in mind that Catriona said she did NOT REMEMBER who picked Maddie up at lunchtime

Along with this, neither of them are certain who picked up the TWINS and curiously the twins crèche records for THURSDAY morning are MISSING from the files.





















Most of the above is from memory and along with the graphic is just an indication of why I feel it’s a POSSIBILTY so if any of the info is to be used elsewhere PLEASE confirm or contact me for a link.

As mentioned, for those that believe something happened to Maddie before 5.30pmon May 3^rd there needs to be an explanation as to how it can be explained HOW Maddie was ‘missed’ in the crèche.

For those that believe something happened in the hour and half they were at the tapas on May 3^rd, I would be interested to hear an explanation of how it could be accomplished in such a short period of time.

To date I have not heard a a viable explanation.

During the week Madeleine was said to have attended the crèche, Catriona Baker was the childcare worker assigned to the Lobster group.  If the crèche record is to be believed, she had between four and seven children to look after on any given morning and/or afternoon. Is it really likely she would confuse one child with another?  Part of her job was to organise activities for the children in her care, in particular outdoor actvities, she must have known the identity of the individual children - how else could she effectively supervise them?

I've said before that seasonal workers at any tourist destination are generally a bit flighty but I can't believe a child carer would be oblivious of the identity of the children in their care.  That aside, Catriona Baker makes it quite clear she was acquainted with Madeleine and her parents.

Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007  [snipped]

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

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."

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

Mistaken identity?  

I thought I explained as best I could that unlike a strict school regime of ensuring security and identity of each child I am suggesting that in a room of approx 13 children and only (possibly) seeing Maddie a couple of times wouldn't it be POSSIBLE that random children arriving and leaving at different times that each child  would not necessarily be remembered specifically.

Viewing the Whistleblower video may explain how I feel it may be difficult.

I welcome a suggestion of an alternative way they achieved the deception.

As I said, Catriona Baker had charge of between only four and seven children on any one morning and/or afternoon - any other children do not enter into the equation.  Nor does the whistleblower video have any bearing on the Ocean Club holiday complex child care arrangements.

The image you provide - is that evidenced as the same location occupied by the Lobster Group at the Praia da Luz Ocean Club complex in the summer of 2007?

If a deception is to be assumed, it's necessary to look at the bigger picture that comprises not only Catriona Baker but all the childcare workers who claimed knowledge of Madeleine' Maddie' McCann.  Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney to name but two.  Never forgetting the interpreter who volunteered his services to the PJ for witness interviews - Robert Murat.

Why were the childcare workers so vocal about Madeleine McCann?  Ostensibly Madeleine disappeared on the night of 3rd May - how does that concern the childcare workers when not in their charge?  They were officially interviewed only to comment on the child's demeanour, how the child reacted to the parent/s and if they noticed anything suspicious when the child was in their care.  Why did specific childcare witnesses go the extra mile in support of the McCanns?

Deception?  Where to start..

Part of the reason I have not posted this scenario before now is that it relies on all the information and research I have shown over the years, but particularly in the last few years.

'Who saw Madeleine post' explains the reason I found that the creche workers were often mistaken, OR not specifically credible proof that she WAS seen (it doesnt mean she WASNT seen)

Although Catriona had charge of 7 children in Lobsters (at random times) the Sharks group and the babys shared the same creche room.

As far as I know the photo was online very early and likely represented the room as it was around the time of Maddie's disappearance.

The 'Whisteblower' video was n example of how difficult it can be to distingish  at a later date, one child that may have only been there a few hours/days.  The program did refer to Mark Warners creche in another location but was not included in the portion of video I managed to save.

I feel I have covered the 'big picture' in the MANY posts I have I have detailed with information and research over 10 years.

Finally I felt many people could view THIS possibility as a reasonable explanation with knowledge of all my previous posts.

Its not for everyone, but it is certainly a topic that is needed, considering if something happening to Maddie earlier, it would require an explanation about the creche.

It is possible and it is interesting. I just can't get my head around a lackadaisical childcare service offered by a reputable holiday company in this day and age. It happens I'm sure, but much rarer than we are sometimes led to believe, and not here to the point of not knowing who the children are. Children are far too important. Other people's children are surely off the spectrum. Has to be more lies here for me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] & [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - there is no question that the photo shown is of the MarkWarner tented creche which was erected as its childcare base, when MW bought out the OC in early 2006. I've worked out in the past that the creche is about 35sqm (350 sqft) in area. It was located behind the tapas bar/restaurant and above the OC laundry, next to the tennis courts.


The photo [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has posted is from one of the MW late-2007 websites (there are no photos of the crèche pre-May 3 2007 that I can find), and IMO, it shows Mini Club age children. Older children’s clubs being located at the Millenium site.
 
The website from April/May 2007 (and before) states the following:
 
Ocean Club Summer Beach Resort
Childcare
Located in the Waterside Garden is our fully equipped childcare centre offering our award winning childcare for children aged 4 months and upwards. There is a colourful crèche with an outdoor play area and the nannies organise regular beach trips and other supervised fun activities for the children. Hours are 9am till 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm.
We offer a ‘dining out service’ (only available for parents using the Millenium and Tapas restaurants) in the crèche on a drop-in basis in the evenings for children aged 4 months to 9 years.
 
So, we are back to the elephant in the room:
 
The website pre-May 2007 states the early years kids clubs are housed at the childcare centre located on the tapas site; the photo from early October 2007 shows Mini Club children in the tented crèche/centre on the tapas site; the MW site map, which is only included on the website from early October 2007, shows the Minis and the Toddler 2’s in the tented crèche and the Toddler 1’s and Babies located in one of the apartment directly behind the tapas tennis courts (this location for the Baby Club has been brought up independently by another poster).
 
No mention anywhere at any time on the website about any of the kids clubs being above the OC 24 Hour Reception, from 2006 to when MW sold the OC, but references from other guests such as Wilkins/O'Donnell.
 
Take from all that what you will – IMO, it at least raises questions about where the kids clubs (and evening drop-in) were located during the week 28 April – 5 May 2007.
 
I’m sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but it is my opinion that the Lobster crèche sheets are largely (if not entirely) forged, which would suggest that CB (and others) have been drawn in to the mess. Having said that, I totally agree that there is a strong possibility that Ella was mistaken for Madeleine on a number of occasions.

Was Ella signed in to the creche after Thursday May 3rd? If so, the nannies would realise that she was not Madeleine, especially if Ella had been used as a substitute.

Was Ella seen at all with Jane Tanner by any witnesses after May 3rd?

If so then surely anyone who thought she was Madeleine would have said something like "I thought Ella was Madeleine, but she can't have been"?

Or was Ella kept out of the creche after May 3rd because she'd been used as a substitute? 

And did Jane Tanner always carry Ella like this after Madeleine went missing so she couldn't be recognised because she'd been used as a substitute?

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

These stripey jumpers seemed to be popular with Ella and Amelie and whoever's jumper that is on the wardrobe door, whether it's Amelie's or Madeleine's.

Interesting comments. Thank you all.

Please keep in mind, although the creche records threads had thousands of posts on many different threads, identifying the possible in/out scenario has only been possible since I studied the (easier to read) graphics.  Although I recognised this possible scenario a long time ago, it is part of the big picture, which could not be discussed without the possibility of something happening to Maddie earlier in the week.

It's basically still a WORK IN PROGRESS research and I appreciate input.

Whether it is viable is something that I won' know without input so I can second guess my thoughts.

One thing I have learned is to be careful about making overall judgements on a possible situation.  It's very easy to make a blanket statement that care workers SHOULD know each child individually, but in reality, when a nanny is surrounded by approximately 13 children between 3 and 5, (7 allocated to Catriona) and as we are led to believe many 'pink and pretty' it's hard to imagine how it was.

One care worker (on another thread) has suggested that its more about head count than names, as they spent their time outside and trips to beach etc.

I do not mean to suggest in any way that the nannies and the care was not up to the standard suggested, but I do not think the records were scrutinised as being any ore than to assist with location of parents as well as a basic idea of which chidren should be there for a head count.

It was not filled in strictly and many blanktimes including CAT filling in herself.

What I am suggesting is that IF something happened to Maddie earlier and she only attended on Sunday and for a short time on Monday, would everyone be able to identify her from the photo of a younger child several days later?

The suggestion that Jane Tanners daughter would be recognisable after is interesting, but we don't know whether she was at the creche the following week (not within their 'holiday' times which finished on Friday for the creche) and lets not forget that by the following Friday (I believe) the nannies were moved to Greece.

That was very strange IMO.

I'm confused! On Thursday it says Gerry signed out, but isn't that Kate's (supposed) signature?

We know the creche was located above the main reception as per the photos taken for the trip to the beach.

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

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

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

Julie R wrote:I'm confused! On Thursday it says Gerry signed out, but isn't that Kate's (supposed) signature?

Yes, that is highlighted in the DISCREPANCIES...

Explained a little more in this video

Verity wrote:Was Ella signed in to the creche after Thursday May 3rd? If so, the nannies would realise that she was not Madeleine, especially if Ella had been used as a substitute.

Was Ella seen at all with Jane Tanner by any witnesses after May 3rd?

If so then surely anyone who thought she was Madeleine would have said something like "I thought Ella was Madeleine, but she can't have been"?

Or was Ella kept out of the creche after May 3rd because she'd been used as a substitute? 

And did Jane Tanner always carry Ella like this after Madeleine went missing so she couldn't be recognised because she'd been used as a substitute?

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

These stripey jumpers seemed to be popular with Ella and Amelie and whoever's jumper that is on the wardrobe door, whether it's Amelie's or Madeleine's.

It is understandable that Jane Tanner would hide her daughters face from media.

Regarding the creche. The T7 children would not likely have the cost of the creche included after the end of their holiday.  We don't really know, but we DO know many of the nannies were moved to Greece the end of the following week.

It is also apperent while trying to identify the Black and White pics that stripes were very popular at that time

IF Maddie was only at the creche Sunday and a few hours on Monday, would people easily identify her from a younger pic several days later?

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

On the afternoon of Wednesday 2 May, Kate's signature sure looks like KMHealy, which is what she was known as and her passport states. Might all the other KMMcCann signatures be by someone else ?

polyenne wrote:On the afternoon of Wednesday 2 May, Kate's signature sure looks like KMHealy, which is what she was known as and her passport states. Might all the other KMMcCann signatures be by someone else ?

There are certainly issues regarding the signatures.  Whether they were contrived or false I have no way of knowing, but they have been discussed at length in thousands of posts from 3A days

Here are a few


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

Thats why I included the sigs in the graphic.


Seems there WERE issues with the validity of the creche records.


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

 
Perhaps a younger photo of MBM was used to disguise the fact that Madeleine wasn’t around after the first couple of days.
 
Younger photo – I’m not sure - I think I saw her.
 
Current photo – Yes, I remember her - but I’m sure I didn’t see her after Sunday.
 
Wouldn’t the fact that Ella had a sore foot (we are told that she had to wear slippers to travel out to Portugal in) ensure that Cat nanny was aware of who she was right from the moment she was signed up for the Minis? Could the foot story have been fabricated? Why would it be, particularly when it would be easily verifiable?
 
We are told by Jane that Ella had an infected foot and had been cleared to go away on holiday providing she didn’t go swimming (the entire holiday?).
 
On Sunday 29 April at 3.30pm – 4.30pm the Lobsters are timetabled to go to the indoor pool and it is interesting that Ella attends the Mini Club for the first time at 2.45pm. She is then signed out again at either 3pm or 3.30pm, by JT. We are told she loved the club from the word go suggesting that she didn’t leave because she didn’t like it. (If Ella left because of the swimming session, why didn’t she just get transferred to the Sharks for the afternoon?)
 
The second scheduled pool session is at 10am on Tuesday 1 May. On this morning, Ella was signed in at 9am by RO’B but wasn’t signed out again. Was she picked up early because of swimming?
 
We are told that Ella did go sailing on the Thursday morning 3 May, and the activity sheet shows that she was due to go swimming between 3.30pm and 4.30pm on the Thursday afternoon. She is shown as signed out at 4.30pm by Cat Nanny – did she go swimming? Russell says he rushed up from the beach and that he signed Ella out before 5pm, and before the nannies had taken the Minis up for tea at the Tapas.
 
The above doesn’t negate the fact that everyone else might have been unsure about Ella/Madeleine but I can’t see how Cat could have been confused.
 
With ref to the signatures on the crèche sheets – I’m convinced they are mostly forged. Whatever was done to the crèche records had to be done before they were handed to the PJ on the 4 May.

On the afternoon of May 3rd Madeleine was, according to creche records, the SOLE girl remaining in the Lobsters group for the last hour of the session. She also was the SOLE girl from Lobsters who needed to be brought to high tea when session ended. There were ONLY two other little boys with her, A.M. and W.T., a total of 3 children. Cat Baker claimed to be minding these three during this period. If this were true I see no opportunity for mistaken identity.
 Earlier that day, Cat had charge of just two other girls besides Madeleine - Ella and J.B. with only 3 other boys. Furthermore, Madeleine is claimed to have drawn attention to herself by her panic at the sail. So, Madeleine was either definitely in creche on Thursday or Cat is not telling the truth. I opt for the latter.
 I believe Cat was not there on Thurs. She makes a mess of describing the "mini sail" (which bears no resemblance to reality) recounting the three year olds being brought out onto the high seas by a "launch boat", when a mini sail actually involves the children stepping aboard a plastic boat drawn up on the beach which is then pushed about in waist deep water!
 I firmly believe the creche (in May 07) was shambolic, a fact that has been diligently covered up to save M.W. blushes. There was no accurate record keeping, nor evidence of identity bracelets, I think the nannies secretly chopped and changed rotas and combined groups to give each other time off. I also believe creche records were hastily filled and forged retrospectively to try to hide this. Furthermore, it appears that there was some contact between the nannies and the McCann group after the disappearance. For me this is evidenced by Amy Tierney. On the night of the disappearance the searchers were looking for a child who had wandered out from the apt. and got lost. John Hill said so, Mark McCarrick claimed, early next morning, to have been told by Ocean Club staff that a door had been left open. It was Amy who informed Lyndsay Johnston that  night that Madeleine was missing. She in turn relayed this information to Hill. However, Hill made no reference to the open window and raised blinds which Amy stresses twice in her statement given three days after the disappearance. Why would he persist in assuming that Madeleine woke and wandered if he had immediately been informed about the open window and raised shutters? I believe that Cat was contacted by the McCanns and supported their story to save her own reputation.
 I also believe Madeleine hated creche and, on Monday, acted up so badly she had to be collected after 15 mins. I imagine Cat would have been only too grateful if the McCanns suggested there was no reason to mention any of this. I can imagine how relieved I would feel if parents of an "abducted" child (splashed all over the news) offered not to mention that the child disliked me and or had said she was afraid of me!

HiDeHo wrote:I thought I explained as best I could that unlike a strict school regime of ensuring security and identity of each child I am suggesting that in a room of approx 13 children and only (possibly) seeing Maddie a couple of times wouldn't it be POSSIBLE that random children arriving and leaving at different times that each child  would not necessarily be remembered specifically.

Viewing the Whistleblower video may explain how I feel it may be difficult.

I welcome a suggestion of an alternative way they achieved the deception.

I know from professional audit/investigation experience in the commercial world that an attendance register cannot be relied upon to show actual presence of persons on a certain day: it simply shows who ‘signed in’. Moreover, the duplicitous get others to sign in, to create a false trail of evidence of attendance.  Rarely is there auditable verification of signatures to attendance. Eg a receptionist will rarely know which contractors are really working on a site, unless separate ID passes are issued and worn at all times. I therefore have to ‘see the records’ for what they are, not an absolute proof of attendance!

In this instance, the crèche register must be construed  as a ‘voluntary’ signature at an unattended register, by a parent dropping of their child, with the child eventually under the supervision of a nanny. We see a significant element of TRUST in this system. Add the complexity of inconsistent arrival and departures, kids missing beach days and one starts to realise that it would naive to place strong reliance on the Mark Warner crèche attendance record to demonstrate evidence of the presence of a child. Moreover, an open register on a reception desk is very open to ‘back filling’. 
We also have surmised ( by checking the released photos) that the Tapas children were not wearing ID bracelets, as per the MW induction procedure and the stated claim by Nanny Cat.
We (you) have also noted the use of inconsistent signatures (shapes, styles, underlines, colours) and also that Kate M maccann changes her signature name, as per her official UK passport from Kate Healey to Kate Mccann that very week, as per the crèche records!
We also know that there were several small, angelic looking small girls with blond hair age 3 to 4 in the Tapas group. They all look similar from a distance to strangers,but have differing personalities though.

So who gained from this weak, inconsistent and down right duplicitous ‘evidence’ of attendance?
The McCanns gain an alibi that purports that their daughter is alive all week = hey PJ, see the records!
Mark Warner can show that they did not fail in their Duty of Care (or breach of their operating procedure) = hey investgator/insurance company see the records!
The nanny’s all can claim they worked as per the Mark Warner procedure = hey Mark Warner ,see the records showing What great workers we are!

I find this as a possilbe scenario [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
As you said, they were in starting phase for the season and we have Amy Tierney who didn't even know that the Kids club were open at Sunday and remember she was Head of the Baby and Mini Club.
Cat Baker said "that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service" and Ella wasn't signed in on Sunday.
Could it been Ella the McCann family took to the creche on Sunday and signed in as Madeleine?
The problem with this is the name, children in this age are no good lier's.

In answer to the question of the nannies being able to recognize the various children charged to them. It must be remembered that this isn't a school where a register is called and it is probable that at some time, one-on-one "tuition" is necessary. It's a play group where "all" the nannies had to do was to entertain or provide entertainment to keep those kids occupied. So I don't believe it was necessary for them to have to "get to know" each one.

And what of the Naylor's little girl ? Wasn't there some issue with her being signed in....or not ?

Again I stress - these witness statements were not recorded verbatim.  In short, they are not the words spoken by the witness but are a record of the interviews.  The statements cannot be taken as a literal account.

Diligence carried out with Catriona Baker regarding Madeleine's outing to the beach 2007.05.10

Today (10 May 07), accompanied by Joao Barreiras and Catriona Baker, the 'nanny' responsible for the missing minor, retraced the places and times at which they left the resort area to go to Praia da Luz. A photographic report [of this journey] is attached:
- We were told by Catriona that the only days they went to the beach were Tuesday afternoon (1 May 2007) between 15:30 and 16:30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock (see attached table [of creche activities]).

- The route taken was as follows:

1. The parents left the children at "Baby Club", Mark Warner, situated next to the principal reception and which is open 24 hours;
2. then Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach. The distance is about 100 metres but not in a straight line;
3. she was always in front with the children behind linked together in a "summy snake" (the object being to form a snake so that the children stayed together in Indian file);
4. leaving the "Baby Club" they descended the stairs to the principal reception, through the front-entrance and crossed Rua Direita (the main street in Praia da Luz) heading for Beco das Palmeiras [passageway: called 'alley of palm trees'];
5. then they made a right towards Beco do Nordeste [passageway: called 'northeast alley'] after which they made a left and went down a stairway next to a property called "Casa Ortiga", that has the number 17;
6. at the bottom of the steps is Travessa das Redes [another street];
7. crossing this they descended alongside the parking lot towards the esplanade that runs the length of the beach;
8. after reaching the beach they went along the boardwalk to an area where there was a red awning and several thatched sunshades;

- On the first two days the children played and did activities in the sand. On the Thursday they went sailing next to the beach.
- On that day they sailed in a small yellow "catamaran";
- Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat. Three children sailed with her at one time;

- Chris Unswork transported the children in a red amphibious boat (life-saving boat) until the boat reached the open sea, and, a few minutes later, returned them to the beach to pick up three other children from the group;

- All said that the children did not meet anyone else during their time at the beach, nor during the trip to it.
- All said that they saw no-one suspicious watching the children nor in the vicinity.
- Catriona said she noticed nothing abnormal [unusual] along the route either when going to the beach or when returning to the resort area.

BTW, I contacted Chris Unsworth around the middle of last year (he's at Exeter Uni IIRC) and put to him a short list of questions.

He failed to respond.

polyenne wrote:BTW, I contacted Chris Unsworth around the middle of last year (he's at Exeter Uni IIRC) and put to him a short list of questions.

He failed to respond.

Considering Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley were the instructors on the beach when Maddie was supposedly attending the mini sail.  They were interviewed 'unofficially' according to the files.

One would think their statements would have been important (more so than some of the other staff).  One has to wonder whether they DID NOT remember seeing Maddie on Thursday and therefore would have no input, or whether the mini sail DID happen on Thursday morning.

These issues move towards the 'Who saw Madeleine' topic.

Other nannies do NOT remember seeing Madeleine at some times they were transporting the children to another location (possibly beach)

Amy Tierney is an enigma to say the least - she stands out above all others, even over and above Catriona Baker who allegedly had charge of Madeleine's day care during the holiday week.

To start, I find it unbelievable that a member of staff employed as a seasonal childcare worker, took charge of such a serious situation as a missing child - a missing child with screams of abduction ringing in the ears. I understand the manager was not on duty at the time but surely, at only 10:00pm, there would be a senior member of staff on duty?

When Amy Tierney contacted Lindsay Johnson, why did the latter initiate the Warner's 'missing child' procedure, I imagine that's a procedure initiated when children are in the care of the crèche workers. A three year old child disappears from a holiday apartment at night, wouldn't it be more sensible to contact the police - directly! Even if the child had genuinely wandered off, under the circumstances I feel the police would be an essential ingredient, not an after thought! Even after the manager, John Hill, was alerted still it didn't occur to them to call the police? It was said by all and sundry that Gerry McCann went to reception to ask them to call the police. OK panic situation but does that satisfactorily excuse such an oversight?

Meanwhile back to Amy Tierney. According to her witness statement, on hearing of Madeleine's disappearance she went straight to apartment 5a and undertook a thorough search - leaving no stone unturned to coin a phrase. Well, apart from the fact that no one else appears to have seen her there, what was she searching for? Kate McCann had thoroughly searched before raising the alarm, so say she; then the group of friends thoroughly searched the apartment and then a whole host of miscellaneous bods did likewise, trampling around contaminating the crime scene - and later blaming the GNR and PJ for not sealing off the crime scene - but that's another matter altogether.

Why did Amy Tierney visit, or say she visited, apartment 5a on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. I can't see any reason - unless of course she was doing a bit of unofficial babysitting somewhere in the vicinity. Then what of the photograph/printer saga?

What a tangled web they wove!