The Creche Sheets

roz wrote:Re- Can the records have been signed out of view?
I can only surmise that once you go upstairs to the Baby Club and Mini Club area, there are coat hooks for each child, and a reception desk which contains the crèche attendance sheets; for the Baby Club and both Mini Club groups.

Before getting too carried away, I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was a reception desk.  If the thought comes from Charlotte Pennington's witness statement, you need to look at the quote you selected in context.  She makes another two references to the word 'reception'..

1.  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.

2.  Madeleine McCann belongs to the group called the "Mini Club" with children aged between 3 and 4 years and, she explains that the "Mini Club" group and the "Baby Club" are in the same building , close to the OCEAN CLUB's reception, the reason why the informant has been personally in contact with the missing minor.

I could of course be wrong but I think you'll find she was referring to the location of the 'Mini Club' and the Baby Club'.  Not that I believe a word of it, I seriously doubt she had any direct contact with Madeleine McCann - just analyze her statement.

Bridget O'Donnell, partner of Jeremy Wilkins, was never formally interviewed as a witness.  Her account of events is taken from a rather protracted article written for the Guardian in December 2007.  The article bears no resemblance to reality, it is a fantasy story written for sensationlism.  I'm guessing either she was commissioned to write the piece or she thought by doing so might enhance her career and/or earn a few quid.  In case anyone hasn't already read it..

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

Charlotte Pennington is a fantasist with a somewhat colourful CV, ranging from fairy to actress to model to promoter of something to  New Zealand soap opera starlet to supernanny and more -  phew - all before reaching the ripe old age of 20 years.  She got well and truly stuck-in putting herself in the limelight with media interviews and many fantastical stories relating to Madeleine's alleged disappearance.  She had more tales to tell than cuddlecat!

Although interesting to observe in there own right, I don't think they add much value to discovering the truth behind Madeleine McCann's disappearance - apart from yet another example of the lengths the McCann defence team have gone to in order to deceive.

NOTE:  Let's not forget both the witness statements of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington were translated by Robert Murat working in some quasi-official capacity for the PJ !!!  I don't however think he can be held responsible for Bridget O'Donnell's fantasy.

All very good points in response Verdi. We can but try.....

I was trying to get some idea as to where the crèche attendance sheets were signed, but could not post these photographs yesterday.  So do you think there is only a reception desk downstairs?

Verdi wrote:NOTE:  Let's not forget both the witness statements of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington were translated by Robert Murat working in some quasi-official capacity for the PJ !!! 

I think @ Verdi you have made a couple of uncharacteristic errors there.

I think it would be much more true to say that Murat 'was working in some quasi-official capacity for the British government and security services'.

Please see my article (about 2 years ago) below, from which it seems clear that Murat was recommended as an interpreter to the PJ by 'staff from the office of Bill Henderson, British Ambassador'.

Not only that, but of course when the PJ, in the person of Inspector Varanda, discovered Murat  trying to look at secret police documents, started suggesting all manner of lines of enquiry to him, and behaving in all sorts of odd ways, so the PJ soon got shot of him.  

2nd offence:  You'll notice I used the word 'interpreter' in preference to your word 'translated'. When, a few months ago, I made a similar reference to Murat 'translating' for the PJ, I got a Royal, very public telling-off from 'aquila', who forcefully reminded me that oral translations are properly described as 'interpretations'. I have never quite got over this and suffer a kind of mild Pavlovian reaction whenever I see 'translate' used where it should be 'interpret'.  

I hope you will take no offence at this reprimand from the forum grammar police: 

===================================


A different explanation of how Robert Murat became a translator on the Madeleine case

But elsewhere…

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

…we find an alternative explanation for how Robert Murat became a translator in Portugal in connection with Madeleine’s disappearance:

QUOTE

Staff from Bill Henderson’s office suggested the name of Robert Murat as a reliable translator who could be used in the police inquiry, in the days following Madeleine McCann disappearance. Murat was already known among diplomatic staff, as he had letters of recommendation from Norfolk Police, where he worked for Bernard Matthews, one of the largest poultry farm companies in UK, which employs hundreds of Portuguese workers. The fact that Robert Murat has acted, before, as translator for Norfolk Police, and the recommendation issued by Bill Henderson’s office, at the time the British consul in Algarve, took police to accept the suggestion, according to PJ [Portuguese Police] sources. After Murat was named a formal suspect, the police went through all translations he had done, checking their accuracy, but no problem was found, according to the same sources. Bill Henderson retired from his diplomatic post and went back to the U.K. in August.

UNQUOTE

kaz wrote:I’m really unsure of how the crèche sheets could be ‘forged.’ For a start wouldn’t the other parents have something to say if their children’s names appeared on a sheet fraudulently? I could understand better if Madeleine’s name always appeared first or last on the list but it appears in various places where insertion would be impossible. The timings generally tie in with the twins’ arrival/ exit at/ from  their crèche too.

If this is a case of forged crèche sheets it concerns several families not just the McCanns . The net just keeps getting wider.

If Madeleine met her demise sometime Sunday evening or Monday why would the crèche records be ‘forged’ on  the Sunday ? What would be the purpose?  If someone could explain to me how it was all done , I’d be grateful.

@ kaz   These are good and fair questions. I am going to try and give a long and full answer.

Consideration of my suggestions will require (a) suspending certain previous assumptions and also (b) considering very carefully the chart of timings of drop-offs and collections of Madeleine and the twins that I've set out below.

So I begin with a scenario where something serious happens to Madeleine on, say, Sunday night. Not saying that that happened, but suppose for a moment that it did. Suppose, secondly, that the McCanns and Cat Baker knew each other before April 2007 (for which there is some evidence, but no absolute proof). Suppose, thirdly, that Cat Baker knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there. Bear in mind finally that, presumably, none of the other parents, apart of course from Russell O'Brien, would have known Madeleine prior to the holiday.

In answer to your question about Sunday, we may presume that Madeleine was at the creche as stated. 

For the other days, if we go by the above scenario, then one of the McCanns drops off the twins as per usual, while one or other of the McCanns goes to the Lobsters, and signs Madeleine I nand out even though she isn't there. All that needs is the co-operation of one other person - namely, Cat Baker. 

This is only a scenario, just thinking aloud.

Now please have a look at the chart below and consider the above scenario in relation to the strange timings seen below:

======================   





 

 

Maddie  S & A               Who was dropped off/      By how many minutes?
                                           collected first

 

This is what I have charted;
Sunday morning                K signs IN Madeleine 9.45          G signs Madeleine OUT 12.15
I do not see a problem here, apart from having no record of Sunday morning session for twins.
Sunday afternoon                 K signs twins IN 2.35                 G signs twins OUT 5.30
                                      G signs Madeleine IN 2.45          K signs Madeleine OUT 5.30
I do not see a problem here. (Possibly the children were led to the Tapas for High Tea and parents signed there at 5.30.)
Monday morning                G signs twins IN first 9.20           G signs Madeleine OUT 12.10
                                      G signs Madeleine IN 9.30          G signs twins OUT 12.15
I do not see a problem here.
Monday afternoon              K signs Madeleine IN first 3.15    KM Mc signs Madeleine OUT 3.35
                                      K signs twins IN 3.25                  K (?) signs twins OUT 5.20 
I do see a problem here.
Did Kate walk with Madeleine, with the twins in tow, to the Mini Club? If so, where was Gerry? (We have no tennis records for Monday.)
Did Kate walk with Madeleine, without the twins in tow, but left them with someone until she got back from the Mini Club?
Why did Kate walk straight back to the Mini Club after leaving the twins in the Tapas crèche?
Why did Kate sign Madeleine out after 20 minutes?
Kate used the initials KM for the first, and only time that week; KM Mc Cann (Kate Marie – 3.35)
I would question as to whether that is Kate’s signature -17.20

.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:NOTE:  Let's not forget both the witness statements of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington were translated by Robert Murat working in some quasi-official capacity for the PJ !!! 

I think @ Verdi you have made a couple of uncharacteristic errors there.

I think it would be much more true to say that Murat 'was working in some quasi-official capacity for the British government and security services'.

Please see my article (about 2 years ago) below, from which it seems clear that Murat was recommended as an interpreter to the PJ by 'staff from the office of Bill Henderson, British Ambassador'.

Not only that, but of course when the PJ, in the person of Inspector Varanda, discovered Murat  trying to look at secret police documents, started suggesting all manner of lines of enquiry to him, and behaving in all sorts of odd ways, so the PJ soon got shot of him.  

2nd offence:  You'll notice I used the word 'interpreter' in preference to your word 'translated'. When, a few months ago, I made a similar reference to Murat 'translating' for the PJ, I got a Royal, very public telling-off from 'aquila', who forcefully reminded me that oral translations are properly described as 'interpretations'. I have never quite got over this and suffer a kind of mild Pavlovian reaction whenever I see 'translate' used where it should be 'interpret'.  

I hope you will take no offence at this reprimand from the forum grammar police: 

===================================

Ooops - I stand corrected .

The odd bit of chastisement never did anyone any harm - I admit to being a trifle lackadaisical with detail + of course sometimes ones facetiousness is misunderstood.



I blame my laptop .

I am having problems with the possible scenario that Cat Baker ‘knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there’. (TB I think it was.)
I do not believe the first part of that.  I do not believe that anyone outside of the Tapas group, (apart from Murat, British government and security services), would have known that ‘something serious’ had happened to Madeleine, certainly not Cat Baker.
I do believe that Cat Baker was aware of Madeleine’s name being added and signed in and out each day.  I do believe that once noticed, she would have been puzzled by this.  I believe that possibly ‘gift-of-the-gab-Gerry’ met with Cat B on the Wednesday afternoon during beach trip – (See statement Kirsty Louise Maryan where Cat appears to be absent.)
Whatever G said to her, at whatever time, I do not believe that it would have been, ‘that something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

roz wrote:I am having problems with the possible scenario that Cat Baker ‘knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there’. (TB I think it was.)
I do not believe the first part of that.  I do not believe that anyone outside of the Tapas group, (apart from Murat, British government and security services), would have known that ‘something serious’ had happened to Madeleine, certainly not Cat Baker.
I do believe that Cat Baker was aware of Madeleine’s name being added and signed in and out each day.  I do believe that once noticed, she would have been puzzled by this.  I believe that possibly ‘gift-of-the-gab-Gerry’ met with Cat B on the Wednesday afternoon during beach trip – (See statement Kirsty Louise Maryan where Cat appears to be absent.)
Whatever G said to her, at whatever time, I do not believe that it would have been, ‘that something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

There are a couple of theories surrounding the creche sheets.
A guy called Dewy Leonard, who I believe is a member here but mainly posts on Twitter as @kikoratton has a theory that Madeleine was replaced by a child whom Gerry borrowed from another family. Her name was also Madeline (different spelling).
Dewy Leonard's theory has us believe that Cat Baker didn't notice the swap, even though she must have met the real Madeleine at some point during Saturday and/or Sunday.
It is all very interesting, but of course, this theory relies on the McCanns confiding in another family their need to borrow a child.


The other theory belongs to Hideho, where Gerry or Kate turn up every day and sign Madeline in and out of the creche, but they don't deliver Madeleine in person. She exists only as a name on the creche sheet, and isn't physically present. Hideho's theory is based upon Cat Baker being too busy to notice she is one child down, despite the fact that she only has between 7 and 4 children under her care during the week. It is only 6 - 3 children if we take the phantom Madeleine out of the actual figures.

The Lobster group creche sheets state:
Sunday morning 6 children attended the Lobster group under Cat Bakers supervision, and in the afternoon she had 5.
Monday morning 6 attended creche, and in the afternoon there were 5.
Tuesday shows 6 in the morning, and 7 in the afternoon.
Wednesday shows 7 in the morning, and 4 in the afternoon.
Thursday shows 6 signed in during the morning, and only 4 signed in for the afternoon. 

I guess the argument could be made that the creche sheet is on a desk out of sight of the nannies, I don't know if that is true, and I doubt anyone else does. Or, an argument could be made that Cat Baker didn't look at the creche sheets too closely as they aren't important. 
But... she signs the sheets herself. She signs Madeleine out as "Cat nanny" and other children too, on various occasions.
How does Cat Baker sign a child out of the creche, if that child is not physically there?

Kate McCann stated that on Thursday 3rd she became Kate McCann because that's what the press called her. Up until this point in time she had used her maiden name, Kate Healy. So why are the creche sheets signed Kate McCann?

Which is more likely?
Cat Baker kept accurate creche sheets and Madeline attended as shown.
Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns because they used a borrowed child.
Cat Baker was duped into thinking Madeleine attended creche because her name was on a sheet.
Cat Baker knew Madeleine wasn't attending the creche.

I think it’s quite possible that Cat Baker was duped into thinking Madeleine attended the creche because her name was on a sheet.

 

She obviously was a very poor record keeper allowing parents ( did she even check? ) to take their children without signing them out. Quite possibly after  the last child left the creche for the afternoon  she just signed her name in all the blanks where signatures should have been. Maybe she felt intimidated by the ‘professional status’ of the parents and didn’t have the confidence to insist on proper record keeping as she should have. Possibly she was distracted with other children as kids came and went.
 Monday afternoon presents a different scenario with only Kate signing in all  the children. As Roz says there’s no sign of Gerry but why would Kate struggle on her own with all three children? Could she even cope with it? Why would she drop off Madeleine , then the   twins and then pick up Madeleine again? Like Gerry said, confusion is good. Was it all designed to confuse the poor nanny? My guess is she kept quiet whatever her reservations were because she was afraid of being found out as an incompetent. Maybe she was told HER negligence was actionable. Make no mistake, it WAS negligent. .  Possibly it suited them all.  Warners included.

I can’t find it now but there is a statement where Cat gets the number of children in her charge on the Thursday incorrect. ………………………..short of one I believe.

Was Cat Baker also duped into stating the Mc's went on trips or activities with her and Madeleine? I just don't get this at all. 
I wonder, why would any parent accompany their own child on a creche activity with a nanny? 

Surely the point of leaving your child in the care of a creche or a nanny is so you can go and do other things? 
Otherwise you might as well forget the walk to the creche, pack all your kids up and go and do what families do... see the the local sights, go for a meal, enjoy watching your children play, go to the beach, take them on the water, hire a damn boat, tire them out... it just doesn't add up.

I think Cat must have realized at some point – possibly Tuesday towards the end of the crèche session (where Madeleine’s name had been written in the two lines between am and pm.) Maybe Cat phoned G or K. Possibly Cat agreed to meet with G the next day. Possibly Cat was duped by Gerry saying something like; We are going to sign Madeleine in to the crèche, but it is for tax/insurance purposes of course wee bonny lass, nudge, nudge. And we Scottish, like a lot of people, do love a wee bargain…We doctors can claim it back on our holiday expenses…. And of course we intend to take her for bonny little outings instead, but nobody else needs to know that ya wee bonny lass ya….……
I think more likely that type of scenario, than Cat being told that ‘something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

roz wrote:I think Cat must have realized at some point – possibly Tuesday towards the end of the crèche session (where Madeleine’s name had been written in the two lines between am and pm.) Maybe Cat phoned G or K. Possibly Cat agreed to meet with G the next day. Possibly Cat was duped by Gerry saying something like; We are going to sign Madeleine in to the crèche, but it is for tax/insurance purposes of course wee bonny lass, nudge, nudge. And we Scottish, like a lot of people, do love a wee bargain…We doctors can claim it back on our holiday expenses…. And of course we intend to take her for bonny little outings instead, but nobody else needs to know that ya wee bonny lass ya….……
I think more likely that type of scenario, than Cat being told that ‘something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

Childcare is and was free for children aged 2 to 17 years at MW resorts, it was a big selling point.

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

JRP wrote:Was Cat Baker also duped into stating the Mc's went on trips or activities with her and Madeleine? I just don't get this at all. 
I wonder, why would any parent accompany their own child on a creche activity with a nanny? 

Surely the point of leaving your child in the care of a creche or a nanny is so you can go and do other things? 
Otherwise you might as well forget the walk to the creche, pack all your kids up and go and do what families do... see the the local sights, go for a meal, enjoy watching your children play, go to the beach, take them on the water, hire a damn boat, tire them out... it just doesn't add up.

I think you've totally misunderstood my post.


I’m not  is suggesting that Cat was duped into believing that Madeleine was there when she wasn’t for the whole week or that the McCanns accompanied Madeleine on activities (  despite what Cat says in her statement )  I do believe that as far as record keeping she was incompetent and that possibly the McCanns tried to exploit this on the Monday afternoon . She may well have gone along with the McCanns version of events with a  threat of negligence action against her and maybe also  Warners .  It seems from the crèche records that anybody could have waltzed in and taken a child …………………………no signature necessary.

Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], my post wasn't in reply to yours.

What we have is evidence that a child could be taken from the creche without a parents signature on the sheet.
That doesn't mean that Cat Baker didn't know the child had been taken, it simply means she allowed a child to leave without a parental signature.

I think there is more to this than meets the eye, but I don't know what it is.

Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

Hi NickE, hope your well.  Some great developments recently, good news!  

Yes, always thought some sort of un official babysitting went on.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes I have thought similar.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Taking that scenario, it also goes some way to explaining the arrival of risk management.

sar wrote:

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

Hi NickE, hope your well.  Some great developments recently, good news!  

Yes, always thought some sort of un official babysitting went on.

Unofficial babysitting plus one Tapas????????
Thinking out loud!

kaz wrote:I can’t help but think there was a ‘quid pro quo’ situation between Cat, the McCanns and possibly Warners. The situation would have to have been one that incriminated the McCanns quite heavily . Otherwise it would have been compensation time! It would certainly explain Cat baker’s subsequent statements,  continued relationship with the McCanns  and hasty removal from the complex. IMO.

I would gladly pay a dime or two for access to the phone records that belonged to the OC mangement and the outgoing phonecalls from OC landlines, Sunday evening and forward that week.

I do not believe that the day-time crèche facilities were all free. Here is examples from Mark Warner, Rhodes. (not 2007 prices.)
Mini Club (3-5 years)
The Mini Club runs a daily schedule of fun throughout the week, supervised by a high ratio of nannies to children, with a good balance of indoor and outdoor activities. We strongly recommend pre-booking this club in the UK.
6 Mornings: 9am to 12.30pm - FREE
6 Afternoons: 2.30pm to 5.30pm - FREE
6 Full days: 9am to 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm - £180 per week
2 Year olds: In Toddler 2 Club we strive to maintain a ratio of one nanny to four children and the same nanny for each child throughout the week.
6 Mornings: 9am to 12.30pm - FREE
6 Afternoons: 2.30pm to 5.30pm - FREE
6 Full days: 9am to 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm - £180 per week