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

JRP wrote:

Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?

I've asked that same question many times in the past - have yet to see an answer.

There are some people that believe she died between the times they were at the tapas.  Some believe it was after 5.30pm  Some believe it was Wednesday. Others believe she died earlier in the week.

Personally I have seen nothing to indicate when she died.

Ella was 'Ella' at the creche as I tried to explain in the OP.

As far as Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth... One would have thought they were just as important to interview as all the other OC staff.

I have done my best to offer a possible scenario... Just as it is possible that, eg, Catriona knew ALL the childrens names, but that would need an explanation about how (if Maddie WASN'T in the creche) it can be explained that the McCanns were able to deceive everyone.

I'm not seeing anything offered to suggest HOW it could have happened if that is the case, based on what we 'know' from the files.

HiDeHo wrote:

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

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.

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

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.  

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

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.

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

 
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?

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

 
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

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

 
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

I think she cracked her head open and died on the night Mrs Fenn heard crying that wouldn't cease from the apartment. 
I don't think its rocket science to mislead staff working at a holiday site. Its warm weather & the environment is such where 'danger' would be the last thing on the staff members minds.

Verdi wrote: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!

Interesting point.  Who was the most senior member of staff on duty at 10 PM on 3 May 2007?

Basil with a brush wrote: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.

There are lots of 'lackadaisical' care services, across a range of settings, catering to a range of young people and adults.
You can view the relevant inspector records online. However, in a holiday setting, increased 'lackadaisical'. Once staff get used to an environment with x number of children turning up, staying a couple of days, or a week then going. They are hardly going to start to get bonded with them. Sit in a coffee shop for a couple of hours and see people go in and out. Staff won't remember what day or time their regulars turned up, or if they didn't that day. It becomes routine.

Phoebe wrote: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. 

This may be a contributing factor towards why Madeleine was left on her own that evening and provides a rationale for her being drugged by the family. She then possibly woke up, climbed on sofa and cracked her head open crying so loudly Mrs Fenn could hear.

I sometimes wonder whether members think I 'create' a scenario and just throw it out there because I can make it fit.

Far from it.

When you have scrutinised all the T9 statements and separated them all into about 200 timelines and timetables for each 15 mins or hour during the holiday (including the rogatory statements) and then compared them against each other, for every 15 mins of the holiday, one tends to retain a lot of information that is not always apparent for most people from only reading each statement independently.

They are far too complicated to understand and to mentally compare to other statements.

It's far too difficult to even read them once they have been compiled, but this is the basic information that I use when compiling posts and videos.  It's like a big picture of what we are TOLD happened during the holiday.

I don't expect anyone else to have that info retained.


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


Initially (during 2007) I realised two main things

1) That she died before Thursday evening

2) That the children were not left alone in the apartments and the 'neglect' was claimed to facilitate the possibility of an 'abductor' entering the apartment.

What I DON'T think was planned but was of tremendous value to the McCanns is that 'neglect' became the trade-off for what REALLY happened that night.

The continued claims of leaving the children alone has been the ONLY negative comment that continues to be allowed by the media.

Why would they not suppress the media?

Two reasons...

1) By allowing the 'neglect' issue it inadvertently supports an abduction.  When people 'McCann bash' about them leaving the children alone they are indirectly suggesting that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone (ie abducted)

We know that isn't the case.

2)  The OTHER reason they must love the accusations of neglect is because it is a TRADE-OFF for what REALLY happened.

Thursday night wasn't about leaving Maddie alone...it was about putting everything in place for the FAKED ABDUCTION.

It took  3 years of continually posting about neglect and having noone respond or believe it was a worthwhile scenario to consider...

Finally in 2010 it became an accepted possibility and someone coined the phrase  'No Neglect = No Abduction'

Following the acceptance of the 'neglect' issue I attempted to encourage members to consider the more than 50 major discrepancies (non memory related) and one by one they are starting to be recognised.

With many of the discrepancies in place (that started on Tuesday morning...(suggesting something had happened prior to Tuesday) I chose to scrutnse ALL the people that claimed they saw Madeleine.

I had NO IDEA which day would be the statement that convinced me she was seen at the Ocean Club.  I felt that the discrepancies by Tuesday morning, although indicating they were hiding something by then, could be corroborated by discovering WHICH day she was last seen.  

I needed to find statements that specifically identified Maddie that I could consider 'proof' she was seen and that could give me the day that something happened.

After going through them all the ONLY one that I felt was credible 'proof' that she was seen was the cleaners daughter Fatima that saw her SUNDAY LUNCHTIME! Many statement may be valid but they ALL had a degree of question to them and could not therefore be considered 'proof'

At that point it dovetailed with the discrepancies starting Tuesday, suggesting something happened AFTER Sunday lunchtime and BEFORE Tuesday morning.

This was 2010 and it took several years before my posts were considered as possibly credible.  The scenario relied on the 'no neglect' issue and the Discrepancies being recognised to help with crediblity.

I challenged others many times to have someone show me ANY evidence that it was NOT possible.  To date I have heard lots of 'noise' about witnesses and their statements but in nearly 8 years I have seen NOTHING to make me second guess my conclusion.

Be assured that if Fatimas statement was referring to WEDNESDAY, then THAT would be the day I would focus on, and look for some other reason they were trying to hide something by Tuesday morning.

Now that something happening earlier seems to be more of a possibility and with all of the supporting details in place, I decided maybe it was time to bring forward the possibility of how the creche deceit could be explained...

Hence this thread...

Its NOT something I have suddenly decided to put together.  I have been 'sitting on it' for years but could not expect it to have any credibility until neglect, discrepancies and who saw Madeleine issues had been accepted as possibly credible.

Members need to have the big picture before it could be contemplated as to how it was achieved.

HOWEVER I am second guessing myself as to whether its the right time to expect members to understand what I have  put together without having entered into discussions previously?

I felt sure that most have enough of a 'big picture' to finally consider this scenario involving the creche a possibility.

Am I wrong?

Here is a post I made nearly 8 years ago on this topic (forgotten about but surprisingly found by accident tonight), but it was too early to expect any responses that could give any input.

(Please also know that I have more topics and info not yet known or discussed) 

This is basically the same as the original OP on this thread, but may be easier to understand?


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

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

There’s a way of cold-emailing someone, making an introduction, requesting answers to questions and leaving them free to decline to answer if they so desire.

Over the years, I’ve learnt from your sometimes brusque manner, that you would find it difficult to concoct such an email.

With all due respect of course

Verdi wrote: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!

Good question regarding Amy T.
I brought up a theory some years ago that the (some?) Nannies babysat in the evenings and earned black money under the table from OC guest's.
I do not remember exactly how many, but after this happened was some of the nannies transfered to other resorts in Europe.
Why did MW do this when a child went missing from the apartment in the evening?
It had nothing to do with the Nannies.
What if a nannie did this on Sunday and something happened during this time?
But why did the McCann's hide what happened during a babysit?
Maybe they gave sedatives before they left and this caused the disaster?
That's why one or a couple of nannies could pretend that Maddie was present at the creche?
What had happened to the Mark Warner if it had been revealed that their nannies earned black money and especially in combination that something bad happened to a child?
What had happened to the McCann's if it has been revealed that something happened because they gave drugs to their child?

In this sceanrio:
Both MW and The McCann's had everything to lose if the truth was revealed.

G

HiDeHo wrote:I sometimes wonder whether members think I 'create' a scenario and just throw it out there because I can make it fit.

Far from it.

When you have scrutinised all the T9 statements and separated them all into about 200 timelines and timetables for each 15 mins or hour during the holiday (including the rogatory statements) and then compared them against each other, for every 15 mins of the holiday, one tends to retain a lot of information that is not always apparent for most people from only reading each statement independently.

They are far too complicated to understand and to mentally compare to other statements.

It's far too difficult to even read them once they have been compiled, but this is the basic information that I use when compiling posts and videos.  It's like a big picture of what we are TOLD happened during the holiday.

I don't expect anyone else to have that info retained.


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


Initially (during 2007) I realised two main things

1) That she died before Thursday evening

2) That the children were not left alone in the apartments and the 'neglect' was claimed to facilitate the possibility of an 'abductor' entering the apartment.

What I DON'T think was planned but was of tremendous value to the McCanns is that 'neglect' became the trade-off for what REALLY happened that night.

The continued claims of leaving the children alone has been the ONLY negative comment that continues to be allowed by the media.

Why would they not suppress the media?

Two reasons...

1) By allowing the 'neglect' issue it inadvertently supports an abduction.  When people 'McCann bash' about them leaving the children alone they are indirectly suggesting that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone (ie abducted)

We know that isn't the case.

2)  The OTHER reason they must love the accusations of neglect is because it is a TRADE-OFF for what REALLY happened.

Thursday night wasn't about leaving Maddie alone...it was about putting everything in place for the FAKED ABDUCTION.

It took  3 years of continually posting about neglect and having noone respond or believe it was a worthwhile scenario to consider...

Finally in 2010 it became an accepted possibility and someone coined the phrase  'No Neglect = No Abduction'

Following the acceptance of the 'neglect' issue I attempted to encourage members to consider the more than 50 major discrepancies (non memory related) and one by one they are starting to be recognised.

With many of the discrepancies in place (that started on Tuesday morning...(suggesting something had happened prior to Tuesday) I chose to scrutnse ALL the people that claimed they saw Madeleine.

I had NO IDEA which day would be the statement that convinced me she was seen at the Ocean Club.  I felt that the discrepancies by Tuesday morning, although indicating they were hiding something by then, could be corroborated by discovering WHICH day she was last seen.  

I needed to find statements that specifically identified Maddie that I could consider 'proof' she was seen and that could give me the day that something happened.

After going through them all the ONLY one that I felt was credible 'proof' that she was seen was the cleaners daughter Fatima that saw her SUNDAY LUNCHTIME! Many statement may be valid but they ALL had a degree of question to them and could not therefore be considered 'proof'

At that point it dovetailed with the discrepancies starting Tuesday, suggesting something happened AFTER Sunday lunchtime and BEFORE Tuesday morning.

This was 2010 and it took several years before my posts were considered as possibly credible.  The scenario relied on the 'no neglect' issue and the Discrepancies being recognised to help with crediblity.

I challenged others many times to have someone show me ANY evidence that it was NOT possible.  To date I have heard lots of 'noise' about witnesses and their statements but in nearly 8 years I have seen NOTHING to make me second guess my conclusion.

Be assured that if Fatimas statement was referring to WEDNESDAY, then THAT would be the day I would focus on, and look for some other reason they were trying to hide something by Tuesday morning.

Now that something happening earlier seems to be more of a possibility and with all of the supporting details in place, I decided maybe it was time to bring forward the possibility of how the creche deceit could be explained...

Hence this thread...

Its NOT something I have suddenly decided to put together.  I have been 'sitting on it' for years but could not expect it to have any credibility until neglect, discrepancies and who saw Madeleine issues had been accepted as possibly credible.

Members need to have the big picture before it could be contemplated as to how it was achieved.

HOWEVER I am second guessing myself as to whether its the right time to expect members to understand what I have  put together without having entered into discussions previously?

I felt sure that most have enough of a 'big picture' to finally consider this scenario involving the creche a possibility.

Am I wrong?

Here is a post I made nearly 8 years ago on this topic (forgotten about but surprisingly found by accident tonight), but it was too early to expect any responses that could give any input.

(Please also know that I have more topics and info not yet known or discussed) 

This is basically the same as the original OP on this thread, but may be easier to understand?


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

Keep the faith! Your Detailed de-constructions, timelines, graphics and rationale will eventually break the web of confusion, deceit and cover-up as sown by Gerry McCann, his acolytes, sycophants and nonces (Nessling, Freud)

Here's another possible scenario to fit the crèche records (if they're to be believed)

On Monday 30/4, Madeleine is the only child signed out after a 15 minute slot. Notwithstanding other signing anomalies that afternoon (Alexander and Ella signed in late and then not signed out), can I suggest that Kate took Madeleine to the session, signed her in but, as the session had been cancelled for some reason, she chatted for 15 minutes and then signed her back out. That afternoon was scheduled for sand painting and garden adventure so was poor weather a factor ??

On Tuesday 01/5, at 12.20 Gerry signs Madeleine out but also takes Ella (as Rob is "occupied"). At 2.30 he brings them both back. At 5.30, Russell returns the favour (maybe Gerry is now "occupied") by picking both Ella & Madeleine up.

On Wednesday 02/5, at 12.30 Russell collects both Ella & Madeleine as Gerry and/or Kate were "occupied".

Is it possible anyone can place Russell or Gerry either windsurfing (Russell) or playing tennis (Gerry) to coincide with this theory as I cannot easily find any record of their movements on those days.

@ HiDeHo. You mention above that Cat met with the McCanns before giving her May 6th statement to the P.J. Now that IMO is noteworthy. I do believe that she was "persuaded" by them regarding what to say to the police. Cat was twenty, almost half their age. She was a young, seasonal, childcare worker, while they were, respectively, a mature, respected consultant and a doctor. Gerry, like many, was the child of Irish economic emigrants - part of what we call here "The Diaspora". Kate's maiden name was Healy, her mother's Kennedy (I believe). Both names strongly suggest Irish heritage as does their Catholicism. Cat too was a youngster from a strongly Irish background. Her mother's family hails from Ireland, her uncle is married and living in Ireland and she has many relatives here and a strong bond. I don't believe Cat actually knew the McCanns prior to May 07 but the Irish abroad are famously clannish and anyone from "the old sod" tends to be immediately given the "Hail, well met" treatment. I suspect Cat swallowed whatever tale the poor, nice McCanns told her and went out of her way to do what she could for them when they were being bullied and wrongly suspected (as they claimed) by the lazy, useless Portuguese police who were trying to defend their own reputation, and that of the Algarve, by pinning the disappearance on the tourists themselves instead of looking for the abductor and his victim.

polyenne wrote:

Stacey Portz
• As part of her work she frequently takes the children for swimming, walks on the beach and to the garden [play area] next to the tennis courts.
 • Knew the McCann family since 29th of April as they would drop off their toddlers—Sean and Amelie—in the Toddler Club;
• From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day
• She also knew Madeleine as she would frequently come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;
•She never had Madeleine in her care. 
• From what she was able to observe, Madeleine was an active and sociable child and that when with her siblings [at collection time] she was excited and happy to see them

Really ? I'm not sure that, by reviewing the signing in/out records, that Madeleine was ever picked up first, and certainly not "frequently" such that she would "come to talk to her brother and 

1:Stacey Portz was lying.
2:Stacey Portz didn't lie, there was another girl with them when they picked up the twins, that she believed to be Madeleine, but who was it?

Confused.

NickE wrote:

polyenne wrote:

Stacey Portz
• As part of her work she frequently takes the children for swimming, walks on the beach and to the garden [play area] next to the tennis courts.
 • Knew the McCann family since 29th of April as they would drop off their toddlers—Sean and Amelie—in the Toddler Club;
• From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day
• She also knew Madeleine as she would frequently come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;
•She never had Madeleine in her care. 
• From what she was able to observe, Madeleine was an active and sociable child and that when with her siblings [at collection time] she was excited and happy to see them

Really ? I'm not sure that, by reviewing the signing in/out records, that Madeleine was ever picked up first, and certainly not "frequently" such that she would "come to talk to her brother and 

1:Stacey Portz was lying.
2:Stacey Portz didn't lie, there was another girl with them when they picked up the twins, that she believed to be Madeleine, but who was it?

Confused.

This is the reason I compiled an easier to read 'creche records, so we can see exactly the drop off and pick up times and whether the statements coincide.

If a nanny claims to have seen Madeleine at specific times, I needed to know whether the 'logic' of the creche times fited with their statements or whether they could have been mistaken as to which child they saw and thought was Maddie.


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


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

O/T as such, but good to see Cat is back doing what she is best at!
 
Last time I looked she was editor of ‘Posh Kids’ magazine or some such.
 

Who exactly is "everyone" at the crèche?

A lot of people are under the misapprehension that the crèche is one large area with a lot of sstaff and a lot of nannies, maybe even a reception.

There crèche is spread all over the complex with different crèches for each age group.

The nannies are allocated a maximum of seven children each and each nanny has her own room within the crèche. A child is allocated a nanny at the start of the week and that nanny is the childs nanny for the whole week. Also, as we can see from the crèche records the childs nanny is responsible for the crèche records.

So we have, Madeleine allocated to Cat Baker who is her nanny for the week, who signs her in and out of the crèche, and who has a maximum of five children for the week, in a private room within the crèche.

Cat was a friend of Chloe Corner (daughter of Madeleines' godfather) since 2006 and a stayed at the McCanns house in Rothley in 2007.

So apart from McCann friend Cat Baker and four other young children, some of whom belonged to the McCanns friends, who are "all these people at the crèche"?

polyenne wrote:Verdi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There’s a way of cold-emailing someone, making an introduction, requesting answers to questions and leaving them free to decline to answer if they so desire.

Over the years, I’ve learnt from your sometimes brusque manner, that you would find it difficult to concoct such an email.

With all due respect of course

My reputation precedes me!

Over the years? You've only been a member for 10 months - do I know you from a past life?

Whatever.... a) I would never have the bare faced audacity to email a stranger and ask personal questions and b) you can word a cold email anyway you like - the response from me would be the same.

Don’t flatter yourself. You don’t have to be a member to view this forum.
Oh, and I never asked “personal” questions

Can we keep this thread on topic please!!

sharonl wrote:Who exactly is "everyone" at the crèche?

A lot of people are under the misapprehension that the crèche is one large area with a lot of sstaff and a lot of nannies, maybe even a reception.  

There crèche is spread all over the complex with different crèches for each age group.  

The nannies are allocated a maximum of seven children each and each nanny has her own room within the crèche.  A child is allocated a nanny at the start of the week and that nanny is the childs nanny for the whole week.   Also, as we can see from the crèche records the childs nanny is responsible for the crèche records.

So we have, Madeleine allocated to Cat Baker who is her nanny for the week, who signs her in and out of the crèche, and who has a maximum of five children for the week, in a private room within the crèche.  

Cat was a friend of Chloe Corner (daughter of Madeleines' godfather) since 2006 and a stayed at the McCanns house in Rothley in 2007.

So apart from  McCann friend Cat Baker and four other young children, some of whom belonged to the McCanns friends, who are "all these people at the crèche"?

I wondered who would spot that first! From tiny acorns do mighty oak trees grow - a small intimate area occupied by a care worker and between three and seven children of the same age group has morphed into the euro Disneyland.

Onus back on Catriona Baker - no extenuating circumstances, Catriona Baker was the employee allocated to supervise the Lobster club, she and she alone was accountable for the Lobster club attendees and their activities during that week.

She had a handful of children to supervise but she can't be expected to be able to identify each child? Humbug!

From Charlotte Pennington's P.J. statement-

  "With relation to the facts of the investigation, the witness states that in the course of her work, she came across Madeleine McCann many times, explaining that, even though she [Madeleine] did not belong to her [Pennington's] group, this was normal, as the physical space where the children groups are located is contiguous......The principal space where the children from MiniClub and BabyClub are situated is in the same building as the Ocean Club complex reception and this is why the witness had personal contact with the identified child"


According to Emma Wilding's P.J. statement -


 "When questioned she states that she knows Madeline's (sic) parents because although Madeleine is not in her group, she frequently speaks to her parents,- When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him,......  She only noticed Madeleine and not her father,......   With respect to Madeleine, she states that she spent most of her time at the Mini Club. The children began arriving at 0900 until 1230 when their respective parents collected them for lunch, and returned at 1430 until 1645 when the Infants' teachers took the children to eat something appropriate for their age at the Tapas restaurant"


The above statements do not suggest a collection of separate rooms akin to classrooms, with one private room for each nanny and her group, but rather a common area shared by children of a certain age group. This would be normal practice in most creches - a large area equipped for children with a dedicated nanny assigned to a number of children.  There would usually be a soft area, a sink and art materials, a sandpit etc. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the Ocean Club had multiple rooms thus kitted out for every single small group and its nanny? 

Verdi wrote:

sharonl wrote:Who exactly is "everyone" at the crèche?

A lot of people are under the misapprehension that the crèche is one large area with a lot of sstaff and a lot of nannies, maybe even a reception.  

There crèche is spread all over the complex with different crèches for each age group.  

The nannies are allocated a maximum of seven children each and each nanny has her own room within the crèche.  A child is allocated a nanny at the start of the week and that nanny is the childs nanny for the whole week.   Also, as we can see from the crèche records the childs nanny is responsible for the crèche records.

So we have, Madeleine allocated to Cat Baker who is her nanny for the week, who signs her in and out of the crèche, and who has a maximum of five children for the week, in a private room within the crèche.  

Cat was a friend of Chloe Corner (daughter of Madeleines' godfather) since 2006 and a stayed at the McCanns house in Rothley in 2007.

So apart from  McCann friend Cat Baker and four other young children, some of whom belonged to the McCanns friends, who are "all these people at the crèche"?

I wondered who would spot that first!  From tiny acorns do mighty oak trees grow - a small intimate area occupied by a care worker and between three and seven children of the same age group has morphed into the euro Disneyland.

Onus back on Catriona Baker - no extenuating circumstances, Catriona Baker was the employee allocated to supervise the Lobster club, she and she alone was accountable for the Lobster club attendees and their activities during that week.

She had a handful of children to supervise but she can't be expected to be able to identify each child?  Humbug!

I'm not sure if the reference about 'everyone' is from something I have said, but if so, it was likely referring to their statements which really has nothing to do with them being in separate locations.  Not sure if Ive responded correctly, just let me know.

Cat was allocated 7 children for the LOBSTER group 5 girls 2 boys

Madeleine McCann
Emma O'Brien
Jessica Berry
Tia Patel
Elizabeth Naylor
William Topman
Alexander Mann


+ SHARKS (approx 7)

She shared the room above main reception with the SHARKS (Emma Wilding) and the Baby Club (Charlotte Pennington) so there would have been approximately 13 children mixing together and  likely interacting with all the children, as well as possibly sharing the same activities.

It would likely be a room similar to this with approx 13 children  and two Nannies looking after them (Catriona and Emma)

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

Bridget O'Donnell wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Bridget O'Donnell (Jez Wilkins partner)


 'Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys.'

Emma Wilding

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


I don't know if Catriona stayed with them but she was certainly with them on November 25th, the day after (what is likely)  the Secret Meeting in Rothley



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

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

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 a play 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.