Re: Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche?

by JRP 31.03.16 9:19

I find it difficult to believe that CB knew what was going on, and decided to play a part in the cover up.
But, I also find it hard to believe that CB wouldn't notice a switch, a substitute child. So I have a dilemma.

If Madeleine was in the creche on the Sunday, then surely some bonding would take place. In my mind it would, because the first day with everything being new and strange, the nannies would have more face to face contact, reassuring them and such like.
So then Monday comes, and Madeleine looks slightly different, acts different, thinks her name is Ella... that to me doesn't make sense.

If Ella replaced Madeleine from day one, and was used as a substitute on Sunday, then other question arises....
Did something happen to Madeleine on Saturday?
Was something planned before the holiday?

To get to the truth but not to consider every possibility is a bit difficult.

Perhaps there was no substitute child. Perhaps there are just signatures to say Madeleine was there.
Why risk being found out by using Ella when the paper system is so useless you can just sign nobody in, and sign nobody out.

by Guest 31.03.16 11:41

Lobster Club records

Sunday 29th April
Madeleine signed in at 2:45 pm
Ella singed in at 2:45 pm

Monday 30th April
Madeleine signed in at 9:30 am and 3:15 pm
Ella signed in at 9:15 am and 4:00 pm

Tuesday 1st May
Madeleine signed in at 9:30 am and 2:30 pm
Ella signed in at 9:00 am and 2:30 pm

Wednesday 2nd May
Madeleine signed in at 9:20 am and 2:45 pm
Ella signed in at 9:30 am and 2:30 pm

Thursday 3rd May
Madeleine signed in at 9:10 am and 2:50 pm
Ella signed in at 9:30 am and 2:50 pm

A simple question - if Ella was Madeleine, who was Ella? Is this a Jekyll and Hyde complex?

by **HiDeHo** 31.03.16 13:20

JRP wrote:

Perhaps there was no substitute child. Perhaps there are just signatures to say Madeleine was there.
Why risk being found out by using Ella when the paper system is so useless you can just sign nobody in, and sign nobody out.

That is my point about this thread...

I don't believe it was specific to create a substitute child, rather to make up the numbers.

IF that is the case and they didn't send Ella, then it would have been difficult to suggest Maddie was there...

We must not forget that there were approx 14 children of that age in the creche and with no reason to be observant would you really remember if one was missing? If a NEW child appeared then that MAY be different.

JRP wrote:In all that time, CB has never come forward and said... The girl I looked after, was not the girl in the news.

Why?

The only answers I can think of are...
1) CB did look after Madeleine and therefore she was alive on Thursday
2) CB knew a sub was made but fears coming forward because.... ?
3) CB has never seen a newspaper and has no Internet
4) CB knew a sub was made and helped with a cover up

If there is another answer then it would be interesting to read it.

Possibly..

5) CB did NOT know that Maddie wasn't there until AFTER she was told that Maddie was in her group and she saw the register...

At this point the creche was not involved.

Maybe she wondered how this could have happened. Maybe the 'Ella' she was looking after was Maddie and she had been calling her Ella all week?

She could have second guessed herself but would a young girl jeopardise her job etc by claiming she doesnt remember Maddie when clearly she SHOULD have remembered her...

As I have said before... was she INTIMIDATED into believing it was Maddie she was looking after as she had been TOLD Maddie was there...

Would ANYONE suggests things weren't as the McCanns had claimed...never mind a young girl..

It seems I havent changed my thoughts since 2010...lol

Title: Catriona and Creche Inconsistencies
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Madeleine Forum Post from 2010:

Maybe we should consider that she suffered after the disappearance...Had she realised the creche MAY be involved?

MAIL - Revealed: The nanny who could help clear the McCanns' name 14 October 2007 wrote:

The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.
They were all linked to the seven holidaymakers who had eaten in the resort's tapas restaurant with Kate and Gerry McCann on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
It is believed Ms Baker has since been reinterviewed by both British and Portuguese police but she has been told not to comment on the investigation.
The young nanny, described as 'fun and vivacious', has been deeply affected by Madeleine's disappearance, telling friends of nights without sleep and a complete loss of appetite.
Writing to one concerned friend nine days after Madeleine disappeared, she admitted: 'I was her nanny, so it's been tough for me, you wouldn't recognise me.
'It's hit me so hard I've hardly slept or eaten. My mum came to see me, but transferring me to "San Ag" has put me back at stage one as I am so stressed again.
'Love you loads, thanks for writing. I'm sorry I haven't been in touch, I have not been out of the house much.'
To another she added: 'Thanks so much for your support ... I am trying to cope, but not really liking "San Ag"... I don't plan on staying here. If they don't send me back to Portugal. I'll go home.'

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

by **HiDeHo** 31.03.16 13:31

Thanks to Joana Morais

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

19 November 2008

Some have doubts about the Ocean Club’s crèche records. The doubts increase if we pay attention to the depositions from Maddie’s last nanny

by Hernâni Carvalho

“The disappearance took place during the time period between 5.35 and 10.05 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007”, reads the report from the 4th Brigade of the PJ in Portimão. A premiss that is now questioned. Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker was the nanny who worked at the crèche and was responsible for Maddie since the McCanns arrived in Praia da Luz. The statements that the nanny gave to the police raise doubts. After Maddie’s disappearance, she was heard by the PJ in Portimão. One week later, she was transferred to another location by her employers. Soon afterwards, she returned to England. At Leicestershire police, she was also heard, but corrected the statements that she had given in Portugal.

“I was allowed to refresh my memory by reading the translated version of my original statement to the Portuguese police”, one can read in the report that was taped by Leicester police. The contents of the nanny’s statements was such that she was heard three times on the same day, and had to have her memory refreshed. At Leicestershire police headquarters,Catriona Baker was heard by detective Gierc between 10.09 and 10.54 a.m. on Monday, the 14th of April 2008. Between 11.57 and 12.12 a.m. on the same day, she was heard again by the same detective and between 1.35 and 1.45 p.m. on the same day she was again questioned by the same detective.

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

by **HiDeHo** 31.03.16 13:44

Verdi wrote:Lobster Club records

Sunday 29th April
Madeleine signed in at 2:45 pm
Ella singed in at 2:45 pm

Monday 30th April
Madeleine signed in at 9:30 am and 3:15 pm
Ella signed in at 9:15 am and 4:00 pm

Tuesday 1st May
Madeleine signed in at 9:30 am and 2:30 pm
Ella signed in at 9:00 am and 2:30 pm

Wednesday 2nd May
Madeleine signed in at 9:20 am and 2:45 pm
Ella signed in at 9:30 am and 2:30 pm

Thursday 3rd May
Madeleine signed in at 9:10 am and 2:50 pm
Ella signed in at 9:30 am and 2:50 pm

A simple question - if Ella was Madeleine, who was Ella? Is this a Jekyll and Hyde complex?

This thread is an effort to see the possibility of only one child attending the creche because the records show that on occasions one child was signed in and one was signed out...

There are possibly many scenarios that this MAY have happened and I do not think that Catriona was involved in any way... Only that the uneventful days prior to Maddie disappearing would not be uppermost in her mind and in a room of approx 14 children (both groups) its possible that one child would not be missed.

Following the disappearance and without any knowledge of the creche ever being involved, maybe Catriona second guessed herself or felt intimidated not to say she couldn't remember Maddie.

As far as I know the records may have been kept to be able to contact parents if necessary. I don't believe it was used as a register as in schoold where each child is checked as 'present'. Children went to the creche at random times and left at random times.

Were the records taken when they went outside of the creche so if a child arrived late or left early, they would be entered?

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

by JRP 31.03.16 20:18

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thanks for the info about CB, I didn't know the story. I can see why you say she wasn't involved.

If something did happen to Madeleine earlier than Thursday, you say Sunday, I think Monday, then obviously some plan needed to swing into operation to prove she was somewhere. The crèche being the obvious place.
The signing in and out of a stand in child bothers me, it's not feasible.

But signing in no child, as in, just signing the register, but leaving or picking up nobody is a distinct possibility.

by Doug D 31.03.16 20:52

Steel Magnolia first questioned the wristbands back in 2011:

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

and although they have been talked about since I don’t believe we have ever had any reasonable conclusion drawn about them.

HdH is surmising ‘I do not think that Catriona was involved in any way’, but as it was Cat who claimed in her rogatory that she had ‘previously written the children’s bracelets which included their name, any allergies and relevant information.’ if this is correct, based on what is being suggested here, whose wrist did she attach MM’s wristband to?

I’m sorry, but I can’t believe Ella would have been happy walking round all week with a wristband with MM’s name on it.

Should Alex Woolfall trying to identify photo’s of MM where ‘her face was visible’, read instead ‘where her wrists are not both visible’, as MM having no wristband should surely date/time any photo to before 9.30ish on the Sunday morning?

by JRP 31.03.16 21:14

Doug D wrote:Steel Magnolia first questioned the wristbands back in 2011:

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

and although they have been talked about since I don’t believe we have ever had any reasonable conclusion drawn about them.

HdH is surmising ‘I do not think that Catriona was involved in any way’, but as it was Cat who claimed in her rogatory that she had ‘previously written the children’s bracelets which included their name, any allergies and relevant information.’ if this is correct, based on what is being suggested here, whose wrist did she attach MM’s wristband to?

I’m sorry, but I can’t believe Ella would have been happy walking round all week with a wristband with MM’s name on it.

Should Alex Woolfall trying to identify photo’s of MM where ‘her face was visible’, read instead ‘where her wrists are not both visible’, as MM having no wristband should surely date/time any photo to before 9.30ish on the Sunday morning?

On Sunday, both Madeleine and Ella attend creche. Madeleine would have her wristband made out with her details and Ella would have her wristband with her details.
From Monday Madeleine no longer goes to crèche but is signed in and out. Only Ella attends in person.
The nannies don't notice her absence, because they're busy, and it's chaos. Madeleine now only exists as a signature.

When questioned CB makes her statement about wristbands as that part is true.

by Doug D 31.03.16 21:30

JRP:

‘When questioned CB makes her statement about wristbands as that part is true.’

OK, so fast forward to the ‘tennis photo’ (right arm) and then ‘last photo’ (left arm).

Wot no wristbands?

I don't believe any of the MM photos show both wrists, even when she is wearing long sleeves.

by Guest 31.03.16 21:57

Doug D wrote:JRP:

‘When questioned CB makes her statement about wristbands as that part is true.’

OK, so fast forward to the ‘tennis photo’ (right arm) and then ‘last photo’ (left arm).

Wot no wristbands?

I don't believe any of the MM photos show both wrists, even when she is wearing long sleeves.

Probably weren't good quality wristbands - it makes all the difference..

by JRP 31.03.16 22:17

Doug D:

I think there is confusion that HdH is saying Ella is a substitute for Madeleine. She's not, she's suggesting when Ella arrives or leaves, Madeleine is also signed in or out. So one child arrives, but two are signed in, and to make it convincing they make the times slightly different.

I don't know why the wrist band would be concealed, maybe all the photos were taken on Saturday or Sunday before a band was attached.

Flip the tennis ball photo and who would know? Left arm becomes right arm.

by joyce1938 31.03.16 22:28

The records for first few days it really seems like very few kids used the crèche. In fact, with so many kids there most parents did not use the crèche. So the nannys were not pushed too hard at all and, I would think, they would be able to take in if a child was missing or not and replaced with another. joyce1938

by j.rob 31.03.16 22:40

Instead we have tanner being evasive with her responses.
She can't even say she specifically remembers doing this or that and screws herself into the ground in an effort to avoid being pinned down to a specific event or a specific time.

“Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club. I can’t remember if Evie did, I think she probably did, I mean I can’t see any reason why she wouldn’t have done so I think she probably went to the kids club in the morning err I honestly can’t remember what we did that morning. I don’t know, I don’t think, I think the tennis lesson, I can’t remember whether the tennis lesson started that day or the next day but err so I think, no I can’t remember apart from the fact I know Ella didn’t go, so I presume we stayed with Ella or either Russell or myself you know stayed with Ella by the pool because there’s like a park area by the pool, so.”

This is highly sensitive to tanner, a cluster of blues, which is unexpected, especially since it was the first full day of their holiday.
We have repetition of things in the negative, telling us what didn't happen as opposed to what did happen.
Because/ so is used to explain why something happened, it answers an unasked question, a question the subject thinks will be asked.
You know/obviously is used to convince and convey, to accept without question, it also shows awareness of the interviewer.
How could she not remember if Evie went to the kids club?
She has two children, the maths is not that difficult unlike if she had a dozen or so.
She tells us what she can't remember as opposed to what she can remember.
In order to not remember something, you have to have an idea of what was supposed to be remembered, in this case attending the kids club on the sunday.
She can't even be pinned down to who was actually with Ella, who, she eventually remembered, didn't go to the club.
It was the first full day of the vacation, she has two children, yet she cannot remember who did what with whom and where.
You would remember looking after at least one child on your first full day of your vacation.

Looking at this statement from tanner, all the sensitivities, i am wondering if something happened on the Saturday night, early Sunday morning that resulted in her going to pieces and contradicting herself, and avoiding anything definite on what should have been a normal Sunday, the first full day of the holiday.

-----------

I see what you mean. Why on earth would it be so difficult for Tanner to remember what happened on the first full day of the holiday? I think that this might possibly suggest that Madeleine also didn't go to the kids' club on the Sunday.

Given the evasiveness of Tanner's response, it would seem that Sunday was a sensitive day.

I had often assumed that what happened to Madeleine might have, in part, been connected to a fit of jealous rage over quiz night which was, apparently on Sunday and Tuesday.

But if something had happened to Madeleine by the early hours of Sunday (after the meal at the Millennium which they all went to en-famille) then what was the trigger for the event - assuming that what happened was an accident and/or someone lashing out in frustration/anger? That's very early on indeed in the holiday week...

by JRP 31.03.16 22:40

joyce1938 wrote:The records,. for first few days , it really seems like very few kids used the cretch. Infact with so many kids there ,most parents did not use the cretch.So the nannys were not pushed too hard at all.And i would think ,they would be able to take in if a child was missing or not and replaced with another.

They didn't know she was missing. That's the point. They didn't look at who was on the register and do a head count, they just looked after who they had at the time.
The nannies didn't supervise the register, that probably just sat on a reception desk for parents to sign.

by suzysu 01.04.16 5:54

Doug D wrote:JRP:

‘When questioned CB makes her statement about wristbands as that part is true.’

OK, so fast forward to the ‘tennis photo’ (right arm) and then ‘last photo’ (left arm).

Wot no wristbands?

I don't believe any of the MM photos show both wrists, even when she is wearing long sleeves.

After Madeleine disappeared, didn't the twins keep going to the crèche? There are plenty of photos of the twins during those times but I don't recall they were wearing wristbands.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 01.04.16 6:05

suzysu wrote:
Doug D wrote:JRP:

‘When questioned CB makes her statement about wristbands as that part is true.’

OK, so fast forward to the ‘tennis photo’ (right arm) and then ‘last photo’ (left arm).

Wot no wristbands?

I don't believe any of the MM photos show both wrists, even when she is wearing long sleeves.
After Madeleine disappeared, didn't the twins keep going to the crèche? There are plenty of photos of the twins during those times but I don't recall they were wearing wristbands.

Good point. I've only ever seen their parents wearing wristbands!

by skyrocket 01.04.16 7:51

When you Google 'Mark Warner Childcare' images, it's quite clear that the use of armbands is very erratic within Mark Warner in general. One mum's blog describes how the bands were issued every session (Lemnos current), however, photos show some MW groups wearing them and others clearly not at all. The link below shows a group of what looks like a MW Kidz Club (6-9 years) none of whom seem to be wearing bands despite the large number involved and the activity.

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

I would surmise that the MW policy was to issue them. Whether this was actually done, as Cat Baker describes, is the issue. I don't believe they were being used. Cat Baker not being able to head count was a scarey thought; not being able to head count and having no ID on young children whilst out and about when she's only just met them - multiply scarey thought by 100. Which parents would she contact if one went walkabout or got injured (that is if she noticed she'd lost one)? If they hadn't been issued it seems likely that you would cover your back (and MW's) when later questioned.

And, the old issue arises of how Cat Baker had wristbands ready for children who hadn't been enrolled in childcare until they arrived. I think I'm correct in saying that there is no mention of wristbands from any of the nannys until Cat Baker's rogatory, and that she is the only nanny to describe them. I think the memory (if real) would have gone more along the lines of 'oh yes I remember, the Mc's hadn't booked MBM in before she arrived (why not?) so I had to make a wristband out for her on the day ...'. Infact, why did she mention it at all - only to emphasize an image of a well run and safe creche facility.

Ella certainly isn't wearing a band in the greyscale images on the balcony. If they were removable ones, issued at each session - surely some of the kids would remove them during the session:

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

by JRP 01.04.16 8:35

MW obviously had great pride in their award winning child care. That would, I presume, include the issue of wristbands and keeping a register of which children were in the creche and which children were removed.
The register as we have seen, falls short of what MW would expect.

When making her statement, CB has to cover MW policy, so her statement may have deviated from the truth. Possibly I was wrong, and no wristbands were issued and she lied, or maybe the wrist bands were removable.
However, I don't think MW lied for TM, I think she gave out MW child care policy chapter and verse... almost. How much of that was true I have no idea.

So, to the issue of whether a child was entered on the register without actually being there. Is that possible?

The register simply acts as proof that Madeleine did attend, but as most of us think she wasn't around after Monday, how does she attend creche? She can't physically be there, and a stand in is too risky.
So, the parents test the register system, to see if they can fool the nannies by signing her in without her being present.

The 15 minute booking has been discussed before. Why book Madeleine in, and then book her out only 15 minutes later.
Was it done to test the plan?
Or, did someone notice she wasn't there?
Did a nanny or senior member of staff notice Madeleine was signed in and wasn't there, then contacted the parents, who then went back and signed her out.

Wristbands or no wristbands, Madeleine was signed in and out of that childcare Sunday through Thursday... How was she there, but not there?

by canada12 01.04.16 9:03

There is another possibility regarding the wristbands - perhaps they were written out and they were issued, but perhaps the Tapas 9 simply removed the wristbands from their children's wrists and they weren't replaced. Would the nannies write out more? Or was the policy to issue them, and if the parents' removed the wristbands, not to replace them? No wristbands on the twins after Madeleine disappeared, of course - why would they be needed? They were long-term residents in the creche by then.

I think the idea of Madeleine being signed in and out without actually being present in the creche is one that holds water with me. When would the nannies have actually seen the creche log sheets? Did they monitor them closely every evening? Every week? At all?

I could see a scenario whereby after Madeleine disappeared, the nannies were asked to review the creche logs and they may have realized THEN that Madeleine had been signed in and out and they had no recollection of actually seeing her there. Would they confide their conclusions to MW? Was that why MW parachuted them out of there to distant places like Greece, after realizing that they may have been complicit in the hoax, without being aware of it? And MW sent them away to protect them - but also the MW reputation?

by joyce1938 01.04.16 10:03

I was looking at the time sheets recently ,and i think that maddie only went half day on the first time there ,was iy a sunday ? Joyce1938

by JRP 01.04.16 10:22

joyce1938 wrote:I was looking at the time sheets recently ,and i think that maddie only went half day on the first time there ,was iy a sunday ? Joyce1938

The Sunday register has Madeleine present in the am and pm

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

by joyce1938 01.04.16 10:36

Yes, I can see what you mean, what a mess, eh. If we could be sure of all these messy things, it might help. They really are too bad to be used to show what they should. Just seems no no-one took it seriously? Bad signatures, letters barely to be seen. I thank you for pointing this out though. joyce1938

by **HiDeHo** 01.04.16 10:51

Thanks to those that have explained what my thoughts are, better than I have managed myself smilie

No substitute child, just a missing child but parents that showed up to give the impression she was brought to the creche.

I don't believe the records were to record and maintain for the nannies each day who was supposed to be there. Not like a school..

Children were dropped off and picked up at random times.

In a room of approx 14 children (which varied every day) I dont think it would be an issue to suddenly wonder why the full volume of children wasnt there and to run to the register to see who was missing... They may not have noticed... The register was important in case the nannies needed to contact a parent.

Before anything had happened there would not have been too much awareness. The nannies were there to keep the children that DID arrive, occupied.

Both Lobsters and Sharks together in the same room... Was it similar to this?

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

With nothing untoward happening that week would you notice if one of those children were not there the next day... With different clothes and not a requirement to attend every day would the nannies be aware if one of those children were not there?

Look at Tuesday

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

Gerry Jez and Russell walked to creche at lunchtime to pick their children up...

Russell didnt sign Ella out, even though he was there...

During lunchtime Gerry and Kate took the children to the beach. Appears to be Gerry signed her in at 2.30 and CAT nanny signed Ella in
at same time...

I may need some help/confirmation on the 'Diagram of Events' for that day...

It appears to be a timeline created from what Catriona said...?

Gerry dropped Madeleine off in the morning but it was Kate that picked her up and returned her at 2.50pm (from the beach) and then Catriona took them back to the beach (3.30 - 4.30) and Kate picked her up at 5.30 (from High Tea)

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

Diagram of Events 59
Day 01-05-2007

Gerald McCann

Kids Club

ROUTINE yesterday she received Madeleine at 09.10, Madeleine was handed over by her father. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007 daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 â€“ 9.10.00

Beach

Catriona told us that the only days that they went to the beach was on Tuesday in the afternoon (1st May 2007) between 15.30 and 16.30 and on the following day Wednesday at the same time.
Catriona Baker page 870
01-05-2007 15.30.00

Kate Marie Healy

Kids Club

ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over to her mother at 12.25. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007, daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 12.25.00

Kids Club
ROUTINE she received Madeleine again from her mother at 14.50. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 14.50.00

Kids Club
ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over at 17.30. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 17.30.00

by Doug D 01.04.16 12:25

If you were talking about the 60’s or even 70’s I could believe it could be that haphazard, but not as recently as this.

You wouldn’t worry too much in the clubroom, behind a locked or supervised door, but a trip out to the beach?

Even untrained, inexperienced childcare workers would be paranoid about losing sight of one of their kids.

The saga of the boat trips and not knowing who was where and when (including the leaders) is completely nonsensical.

by Liz Eagles 01.04.16 12:43

Doug D wrote:If you were talking about the 60’s or even 70’s I could believe it could be that haphazard, but not as recently as this.

You wouldn’t worry too much in the clubroom, behind a locked or supervised door, but a trip out to the beach?

Even untrained, inexperienced childcare workers would be paranoid about losing sight of one of their kids.

The saga of the boat trips and not knowing who was where and when (including the leaders) is completely nonsensical.

I couldn't agree more.

by **HiDeHo** 01.04.16 13:07

aquila wrote:
Doug D wrote:If you were talking about the 60’s or even 70’s I could believe it could be that haphazard, but not as recently as this.

You wouldn’t worry too much in the clubroom, behind a locked or supervised door, but a trip out to the beach?

Even untrained, inexperienced childcare workers would be paranoid about losing sight of one of their kids.

The saga of the boat trips and not knowing who was where and when (including the leaders) is completely nonsensical.
I couldn't agree more.

Can we be sure they were on top of everything? It was the first or second week and they may have had no training..

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

Imogen Willcocks BBC Whistleblower wrote:

At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.

(...)

That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.
Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

by **HiDeHo** 01.04.16 14:15

One thing that is important to keep in mind is that unless you believe that Maddie was abducted, or nothing happened to until AFTER 5.30pm on May 3rd, then there are questions about the creche records not telling the exact story.

They should be explained in some way and I have offered one example of how they could have existed without Maddie actually going to the creche.

In my opinion it is a very simplistic explanation... She wasn't there and because attendance numbers were maybe not of importance it was not noticed that she was missing in a room of possibly 14 children.

Ella may be the child they recollect that resembled Maddie.

I can offer no definitive explanation except that it is likely something happened earlier than Thursday evening and therefore the creche records were not correct and it may be that there was no training about the records, just that they were there to contact the parents if needed.

If both Gerry and Russell appeared at the same time but only one child was in the creche, it would account for nannies recalling Maddies parents bring her.

I don't believe Catriona was involved only that if Maddie wasnt at creche, that she felt intimidated to admit to it and just followed the presumption that another child was Maddie as it was 'KNOWN' that Maddie WAS there.

Others follow the possibility of a substitute child and irregular handwriting entries (which could happen in all scenarios) I just feel that the 'one child in and one child out' scenario is the simplest.

For those of us that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week, then she WASN'T at the creche and Catriona did NOT look after her every day...

How that was accomplished is what we are attempting to discuss.

Enfants Kidnappes - A Belgian police site issued this (Thanks to Anna Esse for translation)

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

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

22/11/08

Since a small part of the case file - the DVD version was made accessible to the public, a great deal of ink has flowed. We note that it is necessary to be cautious as to its contents. In fact, it is only 17% of the complete case file and certain details are only of interest in relation to the complete file and not taken out of their context.

You probably know that our team, at the association, is comprised mainly of professionals from the field of police work. As such, we have analysed the case file and from the first pages, we have identified a few anomalies. Thus, the registers from the Kids Club appeared to be incomplete. Certain gaps have not been explained.

Thus we note that on May 1st 2007, Madeleine McCann's name is on the Kids Club regsiter. She arrived at 9.30am, dropped off by Gerry. According to the register, Gerry spent the morning playing tennis. He went back to fetch Madeleine at 12.20pm. Where things seem stranger to us is in the entries for the afternoon. Gerry drops Madeleine off at the Kids Club at 2.30pm and he spends his afternoon, again according to the register, playing tennis and at the swimming pool. Oddly, no one went back to fetch Madeleine in the evening! No signature for the evening of May 1st 2007. Why? Why did no one sign the register that evening?

Various explanations are possible.

It could be imagined that the parents arrived late to pick up Madeleine and that they didn't take the time to sign the register. In that case, why isn't that made clear in the case file? Why is there no mention of this possible lateness? And above all, why were they late? Right in the middle of an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of a little four year-old girl, these details are important. But the anomalies continue the following day.

According to the register for May 2nd 2007, the day before Madeleine's disappearance, Kate dropped Maddie off at the Kids Club at 9.20am. Madeleine was picked up at 12.30pm but it's not Kate or Gerry's signature on the register. Someone else has signed the register in the space for parents. The signature of Cat nanny, in other words, CATRIONA BAKER is found there.

Here too, you could imagine various explanations. The parents arrived late (once again?) and in a hurry (why?), they didn't sign the register. You could think that they forgot, for the second time, to sign the register. You could imagine that Catriona had finished her shift and as the parents had not yet come to fetch Maddie, Catriona signed the register then took Madeleine to her parents. You could imagine lots of things. But no explanation is provided in the case file. Catriona didn't mention it in her interview, the parents neither. But this kind of detail raises questions that need to be resolved. Too many unanswered questions, too many whys, too many gaps, not enough explanation.

These explanations could go in both directions. Thus, the investigators must wonder SEE MORE [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **HiDeHo** 01.04.16 14:32

For those that believe something happened to Madeleine before 5.30pm on May 3rd, I would be interested to know where your thoughts are regarding Catriona claiming she was looking after Maddie (when she couldn't have been) and how the records were faked to make it appear that Maddie was attending the creche when she couldn't have been there.

1) We have the 'substitute child' highly researched by kiko.

2) One child in and one child out (as per this thread)

What else?