Re: The concise phone thread

[jd]

1) On April 30th Madeleine was signed into creche by kate mccann at 1515, she dropped the twins off at 1525 then went back and got Madeleine out of the creche at 1530….just 15 mins later...What motivated kate mccann to go back and take Maddie out of creche after just dropping her off for the afternoon? Its highly likely she received a call from Cat Baker to go back there. Highly probable because Maddie had some sort of accident to warrant the call and kate mccann going back to creche. We can't confirm either of the mccanns phone pings from the 30th April because this is the only day that has been seemingly withheld in the PJ Files. Wonder why? Any call from Cat Baker (or MW) this afternoon between 1515 and 1530 would reveal everything

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

2) Assuming the mccanns were in the situation it looks they were in at 1530 on the 30th April, took maddie back to their apartment, I think it is reasonable that in their moment of panic they would want their closest friend with them not just for medical reasons but for emotional and friends support in their hour of need. This would be david payne.....His mobile pinged at 1550 on the 30th April

3) Creche Sheets - This afternoon was the only day that no parent signed out their kids. The sheets were there to be signed as Maddie was signed out at 1530 and Alexander Mann was signed in at 1630, so what could have happened that nobody suddenly signed their kids out 30-60 mins later? The next day on May 1st, Maddie is the only child not to be signed out

4) 30th April - Compared to other days, this day appears to be blackout day. From the Tapas 9 version of events to not even the Tapas reservations sheets to the mccanns phone pings....Interesting to say the least
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[tigger]

I really don't think Maddie would have had an accident in the creche. The girl dropped off might not have been Maddie, but assuming it was, she could simply have had a tantrum. Now JT took some trouble to go over the fact that Ella had a tantrum and was difficult and had to be taken back. I'm wondering when that was.
Means going through her interviews again!

A tantrum - and Maddie was said to be a difficult child and a screamer - would be enough to take her out of the creche.
But I believe there are no phone pings between 15.15 and 15.30 to Kate's number that would account for the creche having phoned her.
I really think it's something else.
If it was the sub, then perhaps it was just to establish presence in the creche and the child was taken out again to go to the beach or whatever had been the original idea?
(I've just posted the rogatory int. bits on Ella on the Tanner topic)

[Hummingbird]

30th April creche records are as jd says suspect to say the least.

1. Kate signs (if we are to believe it is Kate) the removal of MM as KMMcCann she uses 2 Ms - she has not done this before or again.

2. If something had happened to make the other not sign their children out why were 2 children admitted after the incident?

3. Alexander, who was admitted at 4.30 looks as if whoever admitted him forgot who he was, his name has been written over when you blow the sheet up someone has tried to sign him out but looks like the sheet has been messed with.

4. If you look at the headings on all the other sheets (jellyfish too) you will see it says parents location but not on the 30th April it just says location

5.If you look at the sheet for jellyfish for the same day 30th April the heading for parents location also has a typo. Parents lscation!!

6. On the 3rd May there is no sheet for the am attendance for jellyfish and it is suspect BUT it could be that no one attended that morning and if so that means that the MMs had the twins with them!

I find it very strange that in the afternoons people seemed to take the children quite late even for an hour or less yet in the morning they were all there by 9.30 everyday of that week!!

One thing I do not believe at all is that you go on holiday with so called friends that you are so into and knew previously that you would not take the children together to the creche each day. At least they would have been going with a little friend and would have felt more comfortable and so would you as parents! I do not believe they took them seperately like the sheet timings say they did.

If something did happen that day maybe they didn't have to phone them because they would have still been around as they were dropping off the twins at the same time, perhaps they just went into reception and saw them still there and asked for them to remove MM or maybe they could hear her kicking up a fuss because she didn't want to be there again and just went and got her.

Whatever there is no way these sheets are right and I am sure the PJ know this. It is my opinion the nannies signed most of these and did the signatures for not just the MMs but for other parents too.

Oh and for the record I can tell you that there is no way either that they could have got from pdl to Sagres and back in the time frame I have done it from further down the coast nearer to Sagres and it took longer than they say and where did they get the car from - are these the keys you can see in the photo of their room in the drawer?

[tigger]

I think there's something about a car in Amaral's book. MO and ROB after 3/7 allegedly didn't have a car, but their phone pings showed that they travelled well outside the Luz attenna catchment and activated another antenna further south. It would not have been possible for them to do this without a car. So if there was a car available then, why not earlier?

[Nina]

I think there's something about a car in Amaral's book. MO and ROB after 3/7 allegedly didn't have a car, but their phone pings showed that they travelled well outside the Luz attenna catchment and activated another antenna further south. It would not have been possible for them to do this without a car. So if there was a car available then, why not earlier?

Together?

[jd]

For once I am going to disagree with you Tigger. To me, everything points to 30th April, everything is ticking the boxes from what we know and from what we don't. I think if you were going to falsify the creche records you wouldn't sign out 15 mins later, this only draws attention to yourself and you would sign out 1700 onwards, and why didn't the Mann and Patel families sign their kids out. They have nothing to do with the scam. And with the creche sheets there why weren't they signed by anyone. If the situation I think they were in is right then the last thing on their minds would be to sign creche sheets

Maddie may have thrown a tantrum which kate mccann had to go back and collect her, she may have had a fall or similar, but something enough to take her back out of creche so soon. And how would kate mccann know to go back? Unless Lobsters and Jelleyfish were next to each other that afternoon then it had to be by mobile phone she knew, and these sheets are seemingly withheld

I'm saving this for another topic but the relationship between the mccanns and cat baker is somewhat bizarre. The mccanns talk about her like she is the best thing since slice bread and cat baker was so distraught, but why? She only knew Maddie for 4 days and had nothing to do with the abduction, nor time to form a close enough relationship to get so distraught from. But she would get so distraught if she had an 'if only' moment, an 'if only' which meant Maddie not needing to leave creche and go back to the apartment. The mccanns didn't trust the nannies enough to look after their kids (something they strongly felt since the booking was made) as they got sloshed in the Tapas bar, so why are they now so concerned about Cat Baker

Jane tanner, I think she was unaware of what was happening in that hour. She said in her statement on 10th May 2007 that she met the Gorrods on the 30th April (after the Gorrods finally found the place after 36 hours). I think I read somewhere they were having lunch or something. This would make sense to me they met up and then ROB dropped Ella off at 1600. But in yet another contradiction, in jane tanners RI in April 2008, she makes no mention of meeting the Gorrods. this after their hire car was searched so why no mention of meeting them. She went windsurfing, played tennis and sat around the pool according to the reactive RI statement. If she was sitting around the pool in the afternoon then why did she decide to put Ella into creche at 1600 and not before? tanner doesn't seem to know much about her daughters whereabouts this day which is concerning for the child

Why did Cat Baker sign Ella in the next day May 1st, and with the wrong apartment as the oldfields were in 5B

jane tanner 10th May
Monday 30/4
Met a couple they know from Exeter, who were in the same resort (Praia da Luz or Ocean Club?) who had rented a car. Named as Jim and Charlotte Gorrod and 20 month old child.

jane tanner April 2008
4078 “Okay. And what do you remember about the Monday?”
Reply “I definitely had a tennis lesson that day and I think Ella went to the kids club that day because she was sort of saying why couldn’t she, she was wanting to go at that point, err so yeah they both, both of the girls went to the kids club, Evie only in the morning but I think Ella probably did go both, you know both sessions so the morning then came back to us for lunch and then…”

Reply “Err will come later but err yeah so they would have gone there, I’d have probably had, I think it was probably, it probably was the first tennis lesson, or it could have been the second I’m not sure so that would have been from nine till half ten or whenever.”

4078 “Mm.”
Reply “And I think from that I then went to windsurfing because I’d already booked in to that so it was like straight from that so we went down to the beach and then came back from that and then picked the children up about, I think it’s half twelve you have to pick them up and had lunch. I don’t know where we had lunch but we often tended to have lunch in err Dave and Fi’s room, again because it was a bigger room and we just tended to congregate there.”

4078 “Did everybody do that?”
Reply “They did but apart from Kate and Gerry often had it in their own, their own apartment, err I don’t know whether they ever came, I don’t think they ever, I think they tended to have lunch, lunch in their own apartment but their, Sean and Amelie tended to go back to the kids club in the afternoon whereas err the rest of us, because they were younger they didn’t, so.”

4078 “Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “And Ella.”
Reply “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon. Err then I think we just took Evie down by the pool, we didn’t go in but we just sort of sat, sat, sat by the pool in the afternoon.”

4078 “Okay. So Monday afternoon you were sitting by the pool and the playing area was near there. Can you remember what else happened on the Monday?”
Reply “No, no I don’t, I don’t, I think they, well I think we were in there and then we took the children, they go, you can give the children tea, they do like a tea and I think that was at five so we’d have, I think we were just round there. We took Evie back up because if they stay in the kids club the nannies bring them for tea and then you can pick them up from tea but because Evie wasn’t in we went and took Evie, and I think we actually went and picked Ella up that day, other days the nannies walked them up from the other one but I think we actually went to pick Ella up and took her to tea but again that might not be, that might not be correct, but.”

[tigger]

I'm 100% with you on the 30th, just not on an accident in the creche. Something clearly happened at some time in the apartment. Asking to believe in two separate or linked accidents would be too much for me.
A tantrum and taking her back would absolutely infuriate Kate. imo. That could certainly trigger an accident.
The 30th - no phone pings available, not even to Kiko?
I saw a list not long ago, of the documents withheld by the PJ. Isn't it a lovely thought that the last thing the McCanns expected was to find nearly all this information in the public domain? Bless the Portuguese lawmakers!

Off to bed now...

[jd]

I'm 100% with you on the 30th, just not on an accident in the creche. Something clearly happened at some time in the apartment. Asking to believe in two separate or linked accidents would be too much for me.
A tantrum and taking her back would absolutely infuriate Kate. imo. That could certainly trigger an accident.
The 30th - no phone pings available, not even to Kiko?
I saw a list not long ago, of the documents withheld by the PJ. Isn't it a lovely thought that the last thing the McCanns expected was to find nearly all this information in the public domain? Bless the Portuguese lawmakers!

Off to bed now...

Yes a lot from what they did or said gives me the impression they never thought this would get to the scale it became nor the PJ files into the public domain! Definitely bless the Portuguese lawmakers! What I mean about something happened at creche is this is what got Maddie back to the apartment. If nothing happened then she would still have been at creche is the point I am trying to make. Whatever happened at creche I don't think was anyone's fault nor is connected. The real accident happened in the apartment I agree, and behind the sofa as this is where the dogs alerted to cadaver and blood

As far as I aware nobody has any real info on the mccanns phone pings on the 30th April. If someone does I would love to know!

[sami]

I tend to think the creche were guilty of sloppy record keeping and a bit of a couldn't care less attitude. All well and fine until you have a major investigation at your door. Given the previous track record of MW childcare scandals, inaccurate records of what child was there at any given time would warrant some sort of cover up in itself by MW.

There's a couple of reasons for a child leaving early, a tantrum is a likely one, so too is something like soiling themselves or vomitting or perhaps destroying their clothes with paints and water.

There is also a possibility that the McCanns were aware of the sloppy attitude to signing in and took a chance in dropping Madeleine off, with a view to ensuring she was signed in and hoping she might not have to be signed out at the correct time. A confusion tactic - run in while the children are still being settlted and perhaps even still arriving for the afternoon, and take her away in the mayhem, hopefully without signing her out. Obviously the question is why, so a bit far fetched but still it seems to me that they wanted her to appear to be in the creche but in actual fact had plans for her elsewhere. Had they not bothered sending her in at all, it is clear she was with them, by dropping her and taking her away quickly, were they hopeful it would go un-noticed and in being asked to sign her out, because it was unexpected they mucked up and wrote the correct time ?

As far fetched as it seems, I cannot discount the pre-planned scenario.

[russiandoll]

Compared to their other phone use prior to abduction day, Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann both used their phone a lot on 2nd May and simultaneous use at 13.59. Gerry in particular received many texts.



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


   Jane Tanner phone 0780 8584

29/4/07 at 04.12

30/4/07 at 18.31 & 20.41

01/5/07 complete silence

02/5/07 8.21, 10.05, 13.59, 14.33, 19.22, 19.27

03/5/07 she sent a text at 20.30 to 0794973

04/5/07 she sent another text at 9.04 to 0794973

[whmon]

Love this blog:

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

[Estelle]

As SY have claimed that they are examining the phone records, I think much of the truth about what happened that week will be revealed not only by forensic examination of the phone records earlier in the week but also of the signatures on the creche records for the whole week.  

Why did Kate selectively delete everything up to Thursday, 3rd May, 2007? 

Was she trying to avoid alerting the PJ to evidence?

What really went on earlier in that week that they wanted to hide?

The Deleted Phone Records

.........Why would she selectively delete everything up to Thursday 3rd May 2007 with the exception of one wrong number and what was her reason for deleting three of the four calls, between 23.14 and 23.17, from her husband on that critical night?.
A possible answer is that she wished to avoid alerting the PJ to evidence that details of around 40 calls had been erased and she felt happier leaving something uncontroversial (or misleading) in memory for them to find.
Another answer is that, unsurprisingly, she was under the most extreme stress imaginable following the disappearance of her daughter: but why, in that case, give priority to deleting anything.
It is the last thing most parents would think about in the circumstances........


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