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

by JRP 01.04.16 16:13

The facts are. The crèche records are a mess, hardly worth the paper they use up. Then there is the BBC undercover video which shows that MW's award winning childcare is in reality... pretty chaotic.

I can't agree with the Kiko substitute child idea, because I think it would be noticed. The sub child carries too much risk of being rumbled, and how would that be explained away? Also, Kikos idea involves another family and borrowing a child.... that conversation could have gone very wrong, don't you think!
The no child idea carries little risk, and yes I do see that the nannies could have seen 5 signatures on a register and only had 4 children, or 14 and only had 13, but would that be a bother to them?
Even if it was, it could easily be explained by saying... we signed Maddie in, but she created a fuss, and left without signing her out.

Let's say the nannies have in front of them 6 children, and those 6 are going to the beach. Would they check the sheets to make sure the signatures matched the amount? The state of the sheets tell me they wouldn't, IMO they'd just take whoever was there and bring them all back safely.

Madeleine was booked in and out of the creche Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Was she genuinely there?
Of course, some would say yes, because everything was OK until Thursday evening. But if you think something happened earlier in the week, as many voted recently, then how was she at the creche?

You could say CB knew, as I said earlier in the thread, but logically, how would that conversation go?

by joyce1938 01.04.16 16:24

I must say I realized that only a small part of the files were released at the time, the rest won't come to light until Mr Amaral knows it can be used in the right way that would be in court, too dodgy for all to been put out and then can't be used? So what we have maybe in fact letting us have more license to do a lot of guesswork. It's just normal we want to work it out, but as time has shown us, so many differing accounts that we could be led up the garden path. Then we can't really prove at all with so many ideas around. Those scribbled accts of the crèche,well, sort of puts the cat amongst the pigeons. We can't take them as gospel, eh? joyce1938

by Liz Eagles 01.04.16 16:42

joyce1938 wrote:I must say i realized that only a small part of the files were released at the time ,the rest wont come to light till mr Amaral knows it can be used in the right way that would be in court,too dodgy for all to been put out and then cant be used? So what we have maybe in fact letting us have more license to do a lot of guesswork . Its just normal we want to work it out ,but as time has shown us , so many differing accounts that we could be led up the garden path ? Then we cant really prove at all with so many ideas around . Those scribbled accts of the crech ,well sort of puts the cat amongst the pigeons,we cant take them as gospel eh ? joyce1938

Are you saying everyone should pack up and do something else Joyce?

by NickE 01.04.16 18:35

HiDeHo wrote: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?

I know there´s an another thread for "Kiko´s" theory and maybe you have seen this already but anyway, I think this part is relevant to this discussion,
especially for May 1st.
This is snipped from his "Final report".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 01.04.16 20:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Nowhere else do KM or GM write a french 4 ..

I've heard of a French letter but a French number - that's a new one on me.

by Guest 01.04.16 20:44

This is someone who wasn't really aware of who was who, who was not, who was where and who was when?

Catriona Baker Witness Statement - 6th May 2007 [three days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance]. Snipped..

States that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, the 29th of April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the "Minis" service.

She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child's outdoors activities.

Concerning the little girl, she states that she was a quite active and sociable child, who nevertheless paid most of her attention to the children of her own group (Lobster Team).

Refers that only on the first day she was more reluctant to remain in that [word is missing]

She further refers that during the period that Madeleine remained under her care, at no time did the little girl seem sad or unsatisfied, having produced no comments whatsoever about being angry, sad about anyone or discontented at anything.

She equally refers that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers.

It was always Madeleine's parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the "Minis".

She replies that within the exercise of her functions, both inside the building and outdoors (above specified activities), she never noticed anyone suspiciously observing the children under her care. She didn't notice anyone taking pictures of the children, namely of Madeleine.

She refers that her colleagues never mentioned anything concerning their children, either.

The deponent mentions that following Madeleine's disappearance, she didn't see or hear anything, no plausible reason that could explain what caused said disappearance.

That's a whopping great lie if she wasn't aware of Madeleine's presence and it's a whopping great lie if she was.

by **HiDeHo** 01.04.16 21:00

Verdi wrote:This is someone who wasn't really aware of who was who, who was not, who was where and who was when?

Catriona Baker Witness Statement - 6th May 2007 [three days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance]. Snipped..

States that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, the 29th of April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the "Minis" service.

She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child's outdoors activities.

Concerning the little girl, she states that she was a quite active and sociable child, who nevertheless paid most of her attention to the children of her own group (Lobster Team).

Refers that only on the first day she was more reluctant to remain in that [word is missing]

She further refers that during the period that Madeleine remained under her care, at no time did the little girl seem sad or unsatisfied, having produced no comments whatsoever about being angry, sad about anyone or discontented at anything.

She equally refers that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers.

It was always Madeleine's parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the "Minis".

She replies that within the exercise of her functions, both inside the building and outdoors (above specified activities), she never noticed anyone suspiciously observing the children under her care. She didn't notice anyone taking pictures of the children, namely of Madeleine.

She refers that her colleagues never mentioned anything concerning their children, either.

The deponent mentions that following Madeleine's disappearance, she didn't see or hear anything, no plausible reason that could explain what caused said disappearance.

That's a whopping great lie if she wasn't aware of Madeleine's presence and it's a whopping great lie if she was.

I agree Verdi and anyone who believes something happened to Maddie before 5.30 would have to believe it also.

One has to wonder how much of that was referring to what was on the registration forms as opposed to memory...

One also has to wonder about this..

'She equally refers that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers'

Sounds more like Ella than Maddie Click on SPOILER for personality (Jane describes Ella as shy) This is one of the reasons I feel that Ella was mistaken for Maddie... Madeleine's personality was often described as shy by OC staff... Ella was shy..

Jane Tanner Rog
'we were almost a bit worried how Ella and Madeleine would get on, because Ella’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know whether you can call a child vivacious'

Madeleine's Personality:

by Liz Eagles 01.04.16 21:00

I always come back to the same point. If Madeleine was abducted and the abductor passed by the twins to take Madeleine from her bed and her parents along with the Tapas 7 were so alarmed, how come the twins were placed back in the care of strangers in the creche the following morning? Why wasn't everyone under suspicion by the T9?

by JRP 01.04.16 21:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think she's covering MW with her statement, and covering her own backside as well.
Imagine if she'd have said, Madeleine? Which one was she.... nope don't remember her!

Funny that the only day I think she was there ... Sunday... CB can't be sure if she was there or not. Wall Head Bang!

by canada12 01.04.16 21:09

Indeed, and having just experienced your eldest child gone missing, why would you then distance yourself from your other two children? Any normal person would want to keep them close and cherish them. These are parents who want to keep their remaining two children out of the way. I wonder why?

by **sandancer** 01.04.16 21:26

"they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the childs outdoor activities "

Was that before or after a tennis lesson , before or after jogging Maybe they waved as she went past on her way to the beach !

As for putting the twins in the creche the next day , well they were incredibly busy (not ) searching weren't they !

My children would have been tied to me not left in the care of "strangers " the ones they couldn't let babysit !!

My children are adults now , one of them has not spoken to me for over 10 years , but if he needed help I would go to the ends of the earth and beyond for him .

by whodunit 01.04.16 22:10

Doesn't Cat Nanny signing Ella in on May 1 pretty effectively put the kibosh on 1. her not being aware of which child she was looking after and 2. her not being on top of the register?

If she's aware enough of the child, Ella, to know who she is signing in, and if she's aware enough of the register to be aware of the fact that Ella's parent neglected to sign her in, then Cat is either 1. fully aware that "Madeleine McCann" is signed in/out but isn't actually present or 2. A child purporting to be Madeleine McCann was present or 3. Madeleine McCann was actually present.

In any case, per this theory WHO was signing the phantom Madeleine in/out at the same times they were signing Ella in/out? Because I see no similarities in handwriting as I do with the Naylor sigs. Wouldn't it seem pretty preposterous to anyone paying even scant attention to see the parents of 2 children arrive with only 1 child but both parents actually sign the register? For this theory to work, 1 parent has to sign in both children but I can see no evidence for this in the handwriting.

by joyce1938 01.04.16 22:59

Aquila, no, I certainly do not think we should stop in our interest of this sad case. It just seems to have become more and more complicated as time has gone by. I guess I am just getting old. joyce1938

by Guest 01.04.16 23:27

JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think she's covering MW with her statement, and covering her own backside as well.
Imagine if she'd have said, Madeleine? Which one was she.... nope don't remember her!

Funny that the only day I think she was there ... Sunday... CB can't be sure if she was there or not. Wall Head Bang!

I understand your point but if you go back to the witness statements of all the childcare staff, it's perfectly clear by the similarity of response, that a specific set of questions was prepared by the PJ. Normal policing procedure, particularly when interviewing persons on the periphery. However, if you take your comments on board, Catriona Baker's witness statement goes well beyond the call of duty - in short, it was not necessary for her to go into such detail.

Ostensibly she was but a nanny working for Warners who happened to be supervising the group of children that Madeleine attended. If she is totally clean, she had no need to elaborate, least of all to cover her own backside. Madeleine didn't disappear whilst in Baker's care (as far as we know) so why does she need to protect Warners or indeed herself?

From everything I've read, I'm inclined to think that Catriona Baker was known to the McCanns and/or their group of friends prior to that fateful holiday. Both she and Pennington claim to have worked as nannies in the UK - who knows if they had prior knowledge of one or more of the children. I can quite see the need for the McCanns to pretend Madeleine was in and out of the creche during the whole week if she disappeared at some time earlier than 3rd May but I can't see the need to further complicate an already precarious position by using another child, either as a substitute Madeleine or a fixture, so to speak.

I think it far more likely that Catriona Baker formed part of the overall deception. As I've said many times, maybe she and/or one of the other nannies was hired privately by the group to babysit whilst they were out to dinner. It certainly would explain why Catriona Baker went into such detail during her witness interview and might even explain why Charlotte Pennington featured so prominently!

by Guest 01.04.16 23:41

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

One also has to wonder about this..

'She equally refers that Madeleine was an extremely obedient child, who never left the group. She was not a child that would speak to strangers'

That statement smacks to me of a contrived adherence to the Tapas group description, along with one or more family members. On face value, it's not the sort of description one would expect from a child carer who only knew the child for a few hours a day for a maximum of five days, in a group of other children. How can she possibly say that 'she was not a child that would speak to strangers'? What strangers could Madeleine have encountered in the creche environment that would qualify such a statement? What does she mean by saying she 'never left the group'? If she and her colleagues were doing their job I sincerely hope the children wouldn't have any opportunity to leave the group.

Too much detail for my liking - gives the appearance of having something to hide. All she had to do was answer the questions posed by the PJ.

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 1:43

I am uncomfortable with suggesting Catriona was involved so please forgive me if I continue to believe and hope that this is just a manipulation of the records signing in with only one child and Catriona too intimidated/scared to question that she was supposed to have been looking after Maddie.

I understand there could be many suggestions for those of us that believe something happened before 5.30pm on Thursday evening, but for now I have seen no evidence that Catriona was involved prior to May 3rd and I do not want to see any suggestion without some kind of proof.

Maybe at a later date I may change my mind....for now I need (relative) proof.

by NickE 02.04.16 6:49

JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think she's covering MW with her statement, and covering her own backside as well.
Imagine if she'd have said, Madeleine? Which one was she.... nope don't remember her!

Funny that the only day I think she was there ... Sunday... CB can't be sure if she was there or not. Wall Head Bang!

Yes, I would like to know what CB exactly did for few hours or so on Sunday evening/night.
This maybe?

Snipped from the files:
"Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.
.............................
............................
............................
* "Baby sitting Service": 7.30pm-1am
(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)"

by JRP 02.04.16 12:32

A lot of really good investigative work has been done by Kiko, relating to the creche sheets, signature analysis and mobile phone radio pings.
His suggestion is that a duplicate child was used to fool CB into thinking Madeleine was attending. On one day, Tuesday 1st I think it was, he says that GM had to risk signing the creche sheet without any child attending, presumably because the subsituate child, called Madalene borrowed from another couple, had a prior engagement on that day... ?

So that leads me to believe that Kiko thinks CB needs to be fooled. In other words CB isn't involved. If the nanny is in on the creche scam then they wouldn't need a substitute child.

I know that some people have said there is a link between CB and the Macs.
This is mentioned on Richard Hall's last film, but there isn't proof of that link as far as I'm aware. If there is proof, post it and let's have a look.

The signature of Cat Nanny on the register proves that she was in on it?
Well, that depends on when she signed the gaps, and if she was so amazing at administration, why didn't she sign all the gaps? Or use two sheets per day, as per MW instruction.
If she signed them on the day, then yes, I can see that she would have seen Madeleine on the sheet. Either suspected a scam and said nothing, or, was in on it as suggested.
If she signed the gaps on Friday morning as a panic exercise to make her administration look "better" well, maybe she wasn't in on the scam.

If CB did know the Macs prior to the holiday, and I'm not saying that isn't possible. But it's still a big step away from helping them out. That's a huge step up the friendship ladder. The ramifications would be life changing.

I don't know if she was babysitting for the Macs, is that possible to prove or is it just another avenue to ponder?
If it is something I'm unaware of, please post a link. Thanks in advance.

Yes people do tend to elaborate when they tell lies. A simple yes or no isn't sufficient, they create extra information to drive the message home.
CB does this in her statements and I do take that on board, she could be lying, and in fact I think she is.
She's covering the child care fiasco for one thing. Only using one crèche sheet per day, not two. Gaps where parents should have signed. She's even signed some herself as we've discussed. That in itself isn't company policy for obvious reasons.

She isn't covering MW for any criminal reason, she wasn't in the creche when she went missing, so MW aren't involved in that way. What she was doing was covering MW's reputation for child care.
All was well. All were happy. No worries. No problems. The parents were attentive and interested. Blah blah blah.... rubbish!

If the truth is that CB knew the Macs prior to the holiday, then that puts pay to certain aspects of the substitute child or no child theory.

But I would like to finish by saying this.
If Madeleine did indeed die on Sunday 29th or Monday 30th then the Macs would need to prove she was somewhere. They can't simply say she was with them 24 hours a day. They need to show that independent witnesses saw her.
The crèche sheets "prove" she was there. She was signed in and out, from Sunday through Thursday. Therefore the police believe the sheets... and come to the conclusion that she was alive up to Thursday evening.

Like everyone else, I would like to know if those crèche sheets are a genuine representation of Madeleine's attendance, and if not, why not.

by Guest 02.04.16 13:02

HiDeHo wrote:I am uncomfortable with suggesting Catriona was involved so please forgive me if I continue to believe and hope that this is just a manipulation of the records signing in with only one child and Catriona too intimidated/scared to question that she was supposed to have been looking after Maddie.

I understand there could be many suggestions for those of us that believe something happened before 5.30pm on Thursday evening, but for now I have seen no evidence that Catriona was involved prior to May 3rd and I do not want to see any suggestion without some kind of proof.

Maybe at a later date I may change my mind....for now I need (relative) proof.

With respect, isn't that exactly what you are doing? There is no proof or, as I see it, indication from the creche register that substantiates your speculative suggestion. The example you present includes another two children that were signed in the Lobster group but not signed out, what tangible explanation for that? Also the Carpenter child was signed in but the whole entry has been crossed out.

Seems to me the register is a shambolic disaster that should have been thoroughly investigated immediately after Madeleine disappeared. As the McCanns and their friends were shouting 'abduction' from the rooftops surrounded by a bastion of wealthy and high powered adherents, sadly the PJ with Mr. Amaral at the helm, were led up the proverbial garden path and prevented from following a routine police investigation.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Snipped from Catriona Baker's rogatory interview - 18th April 2008

Mark Warner has a standard procedure, the signature on a page when a parent leaves or checks-in a child. There is a separate page for the morning and one for the afternoon. The page contains the name of the child, the hour of sign-in and the hour of pick-up for the afternoon. Only the parents have authority to take the children, except when there is some other agreement. When Gerry and Kate came to pick up Madeleine there were loving and the child would run into their arms.

Mark Warner maintained a register to all the activities in which the children participated. It functioned as a calendar, referring hour by hour, to what the children were doing. I believe that the Portuguese police collected the sign-in/out sheets and the registry of activities immediately on the day following the disappearance. I would say that Madeleine adored her family; she seemed happy as they did in the club.

by **Hobs** 02.04.16 14:38

Regarding the creche and remembered seeing whom and when.

There is a thing called false memory.

There was a TV episode on it a while back and it also gets repeated.

A group of people were taken into the desert and during the trip came across a group of soldiers protecting something, a UFO.
Nothing was said and the group carried on as normal.
A few weeks later, members of the group were asked individually about the trip and what they had seen.
They remembered seeing guns and other things, things that were never there.

It is possible that the same thing could happen with the creche.
Given the age of the children in the group and knowing they would be using the creche facilities, it is entirely possible that the creche staff are remembering something that did not happen.

The obvious conclusion is that if the twins were at the creche, so then was Maddie, after all, why would a parent of three children drop the twins off and not drop Maddie of as well?
The records are a mess and it would not be the first or last time that someone has signed someone in or someone out because the parents forgot to.
The staff would not have known that at some point during that week, that one of their charges would allegedly be abducted and the records would become evidence.
They would not be able to identify a particular child out of a group unless they stood out, such as the twins.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of many.

The creche workers would not have been familiar with the parents in the group as pretty much the only time they would see them is at drop off and collection and when it is busy, kids running around doing what kids do, the parent is just another face.
Also, if multiple parents collected their children at the same time or dropped them off, who would remember which child belonged to which parent?

The records were not like a school register where, if a child is absent, the creche contacts the parent to ask where their child is, their concern is just a paper record for the boss as to who dropped their kids off and who collected them, and also to help with billing at the end of the vacation if more use was made of the creche than was agreed upon at the time of booking.
It was not compulsory for the parents to sign though they were told to sign in and sign out their children, it was just to cover their backs if something went bosoms up whilst the kids were in their care, who to blame and to make sure everything was paid for regarding trips etc.
What went on when the kids were with their parents was none of their concern.

I do wonder if there were other records for when the parents made use of the evening creche or the babysitting facility.
If so i wonder how those looked?

The only evidence we have that Maddie attended the creche every day is a slapdash sign in/out sheet for supposedly morning and afternoon, signed by the parents not the creche workers.
A parent could claim their child was present at a certain time on a particular day because they had signed the sheet.
Even if the creche worker had said, "i don't recall seeing child XYZ at a certain time on a particular day", the parents just have to say" my child was there, see, i signed them in and out. Why would i do that if they weren't there?"
Paper evidence would trump memory, after all, no one would expect parents to be deceptive about dropping off and collecting their children each day.
You must have forgotten seeing her because she was behaved etc, see here is the evidence she was there.

The staff are not going to say hang on that child wasn't there that day and i forged the parents signature on the sheets, it would cause all sorts of issues for the member of staff, MW etc, as well as giving the parents something to hold over their heads, especially in today's litigious society where people sue at the drop of a hat.
MW would take the word of the parents over that of the creche worker.
Worker gets sacked, possibly prosecuted or sued and the parents get away scot free due to all the muddying of the water.

Maddie was at the creche every day as she was signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
The twins were the creche every day as they were signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
If Maddie had not been 'abducted' the creche sheets would have been irrelevant, they would not have been needed to prove someone was present or not.
The twins may have been a bit more memorable simply because they were twins, although none identical.
Had they been identical, they would have been very memorable.
Had a twin gone missing then despite what the sheets were saying, a creche worker is going to far more certain if one had not shown up.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of similar looking little girls.

Whether the sheets were taken into account prior to Maddie going missing, i don't know.
What i do know is, that the slapdash signing in/out worked to the mccanns favor.
It was a paper trail showing Maddie was alive on particular days at particular times.

No one is going to ask why would the parents sign their child in when said child wasn't there, and sign them out when the child was never there.
Why sign a non existent child in and out?
They had booked their child(ren) in for a week all day every day, why would they then not make use of the facility they have paid for and keep their child(ren) at home with them?

The creche workers were fed a false memory and when questioned talked about something that never happened.
The paperwork would back up the said false memory simply because it would not cross anyone's mind that the signing in and out was for a non existent child.
Maddie was there only because the paperwork, the creche sign in/out sheets said she was.

How else could the discrepancies and contradictions work?
One claimed certain activities took place one one day and someone else said it was a different day.
She was there, she wasn't.
She was in this group, she wasn't.
The tennis ball photo is a good example, they couldn't even agree which day it took place on let alone what time.

The creche workers are going to go with what the parents are claiming simply because
A) They are professional, doctors. Doctors would have no reason to lie.
B) The parents version of events, especially given their daughter was allegedly abducted, is going to be believed over that of a creche worker.
C) Why would the parents lie over such a trivial matter (when the trivial matter conceals a none trivial matter with bad consequences)
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events because they cannot remember anything of the week regarding which children were where and when.
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events as disagreeing will have consequences such as being sacked and getting bad references since clearly as a creche worker they were terrible and the bosses will back the parents rather than them.

No one can definitively say, nor is there any actual evidence, that Maddie was alive the whole week up to the Thursday night.
All we have to show that Maddie was alive that week is slapdash creche records with inconsistent signatures and even names, vague memories of her being at certain activities which did or did not not happen on the day or times claimed, vague witness statements from staff and the public seeing someone who may or may not be Maddie, a couple of photos which could have been taken on days other than when was claimed (the pool and the tennis balls) and contradictory statements from the parents and members of the tapas 7.

There is no independent witness, no independent evidence that shows Maddie was alive at any time after she arrived at MW on the Saturday or after Sunday AM.

We have an incoherent statement from tanner regarding the Sunday, a day which should have no reason to cause sensitivity regarding who did what and where.
Something happened the Saturday night/Sunday morning to cause tanner to go into a verbal meltdown when there was no reason to do so.
That she is almost incoherent would cause me to delve deeply into the Saturday night/Sunday morning to learn what really went on.

I can recall what i did, who i was with on the first day of my vacations to Canada and The States.
Heck i can even remember what i did at the airports here and abroad, the passengers on the plane ( it was talk like a pirate day and it all got very silly)
This was from 2006 and 2008.
How come tanner could not recall a particular day days or a few weeks after?

by whodunit 02.04.16 15:24

JRP wrote:A lot of really good investigative work has been done by Kiko, relating to the creche sheets, signature analysis and mobile phone radio pings.
His suggestion is that a duplicate child was used to fool CB into thinking Madeleine was attending. On one day, Tuesday 1st I think it was, he says that GM had to risk signing the creche sheet without any child attending, presumably because the subsituate child, called Madalene borrowed from another couple, had a prior engagement on that day... ?

So that leads me to believe that Kiko thinks CB needs to be fooled. In other words CB isn't involved. If the nanny is in on the creche scam then they wouldn't need a substitute child.

I know that some people have said there is a link between CB and the Macs.
This is mentioned on Richard Hall's last film, but there isn't proof of that link as far as I'm aware. If there is proof, post it and let's have a look.

The signature of Cat Nanny on the register proves that she was in on it?
.

No, it proves she was aware of who Ella was and it proves she was aware enough of the creche register to notice that Ella's parents had neglected to sign her in that day.

Cat Nanny signing Ella in that day does prove she couldn't have been fooled by a phantom Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. This doesn't mean she was in on it, it merely means this particular theory doesn't really fly.

by willowthewisp 02.04.16 15:26

Hi Hobbs thanks for your comments and well constructed points, it would seem as though the Tapas 7/9 had some sort of " Selective Memory Syndrome" as to what they could and could not recollect during the week from Saturday 28 April to 03 May 2007, with plenty of errms and Ahhs in their statements to Police Officers of both Countries, especially towards the second statements taken by Leicestershire Police force, who allowed the Tapas 7/9 to re-read their PJ statements before taking a second statement, one would ask is this a normal practice when trying to define as to whether or not a Crime has been committed?
Surely if there was any discrepancies in either statements, especially when the Portugal PJ were not present in the UK when some of the second statements had already been taken in their absence,(DP)!
Why was this allowed to happen if the Crime did not happen in the UK and Portugal had Jurisdiction on the case?

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 16:37

SNIPPED FROM PAGE 13 OF 'Was Madeleine seen after Sunday' thread https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11921p300-was-madeleine-seen-after-sunday-no-credible-evidence-that-she-was-watch-the-video

One thing I DIDN'T address regarding the nannies that saw Madeleine, is to look at those that DIDN'T see Madeleine.

One has to take into consideration that most of them did not have a specific connection with Madeleine and she would have been one of many little 'blonde girls' during the time no-one had the hindsight to know what was about to happen.

Emma worked alongside Catriona and cannot remember seeing Madeleine at the activities she describes.

Emma Louise Wilding -working at the Mini Club for children between 3-5 years wrote:on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine’s group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,

May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.

The baby group was in the same area as Madeleine's group. Charlotte Pennington claims to have seen Madeleine but Lynne Fretter only appears to have seen her during high tea...for a few secondss.

Lynne Rhiannon Fretter - she worked with the baby group. wrote:
she only had one brief contact, a few seconds with Madeleine – whom they called Madie (sic), when she passed by her, having eaten at the table,

Shinead was with the twins creche at the tapas and only saw Madeleine once (whether picking up the twins at lunchtime or at high tea?

Shinead Maria Vine -working only with the Toddler group;Amelie & Sean wrote:

she saw Madeleine McCann once when she arrived during the week

Kirsty Louise Maryan- children between the ages of 6 and 10, known as the 'Junior' group, wrote:she only, on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, (? not Madeleine's group?) as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her;

from what she saw, was a child who did stick out, precisely as she was calmer and shier that the others;

she did not have direct contact with the minor at issue, Madeleine McCann, and is not aware of her habits or that of her parents,

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 17:11

Thanks for that Hobs. Very interesting yes

Something else I snipped from Page 8 of the 'Was Madeleine seen after Sunday' thread https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11921p300-was-madeleine-seen-after-sunday-no-credible-evidence-that-she-was-watch-the-video

Catriona does not say Madeleine was at high tea (that I can find). She seemed to only refer to the twins

I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.

NOTE: No mention of seeing Madeleine at high tea? The LAST TIME she would have seen her?

Most of the time in which I saw the family together, the children would be eating. The twins appeared tired at lunch, after a long day and also perhaps due to the heat, but I never became preoccupied by the children of by the comportment of the McCanns.

NOTE: Lunch or high tea (translation?) but Kate tells us it was MADELEINE who was tired. NO MENTION OF MADELEINE!

Kate went
to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics.

It was around 15h25/18h00. (5.25-600?)

I think that Gerry was playing tennis.

REASON FOR CONSIDERING IT MAY BE NON CREDIBLE/MISTAKEN

Catriona, did not say anything specific in either her first statement (which tells us very little) or her Rogatory statement to show that Madeleine was in any place at any time.

IN FACT quite the opposite.

One would expect Catriona to say about the last time she saw Madeleine was at High tea. She ONLY mentioned the twins!

Taking into account that she visited Rothley in November (Invited by the McCanns) was detrimental to her credibility and her memory. They may have 'reminded her of incidences.

He statement is certainly not PROOF by any stretch that the child she was looking after during that week was Madeleine, and as explained in detail earlier in this thread, it COULD be possible that the 'obedient child' she was looking after MAY have been Ella (who looked very similar to Madeleine and was only 3 months younger)

(Earlier in the thread I showed examples of how Ocean Club staff describe a very different Madeleine to what we are led to believe and the personality reflects that of Jane Tanners oldest daughter as well as how starting on Tuesday, only ONE child was signed in/out of the creche...between Ella and Madeleine even though BOTH parents attended the creche.)

Catriona explanation is very complicated, but with discrepancies it cannot be claimed PROOF that Madeleine was there.

.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.04.16 18:25

HiDeHo wrote:I am uncomfortable with suggesting Catriona was involved so please forgive me if I continue to believe and hope that this is just a manipulation of the records signing in with only one child and Catriona too intimidated/scared to question that she was supposed to have been looking after Maddie.

It is not nice to suggest that anyone is not telling the truth.

But this case is choc full of untruthful statements.

I didn't like having to suggest that Martin Smith's statement might be fabricated...then Nuno Lourenco's...then Pamela Fenn's. But it was what the evidence drove me to suggest.

At least in Robert Murat's case he eventually admitted that he had lied in 17 different respects when giving his first statement to the PJ (though I thought his claim that he did so because he was 'too tired to remember the truth' was one of the most unconvincing claims in the whole case).

A 'Maddie substitute' has been suggested by Dewi Lennard/santacoloma/kikoraton, and named as 'MR' - but with weak evidence so far.

Now it's suggested that Cat Baker somehow had Ella in her creche all week, and 'didn't realise' that it was Ella but thought it was Madeleine McCann all along. I've explained my reasons for rejecting that suggestion up the thread.

But in trying to understand the issue of the creche records, I was trying to work out which group Lily Payne was in that week. I could not find any reference to which group she was in.

In my initial response to HideHo on the first page of this thread, I asked:

Before replying, can I start with what may be thought an irrelevant question, but just might be relevant to the topic: in which group (if any) was Lily Payne in that week?

I don't think I've missed the answer to this, so I would be most grateful if anyone at all could answer my question.

My grateful thanks in advance to any one who can

by JRP 02.04.16 18:44

whodunit wrote:
JRP wrote:A lot of really good investigative work has been done by Kiko, relating to the creche sheets, signature analysis and mobile phone radio pings.
His suggestion is that a duplicate child was used to fool CB into thinking Madeleine was attending. On one day, Tuesday 1st I think it was, he says that GM had to risk signing the creche sheet without any child attending, presumably because the subsituate child, called Madalene borrowed from another couple, had a prior engagement on that day... ?

So that leads me to believe that Kiko thinks CB needs to be fooled. In other words CB isn't involved. If the nanny is in on the creche scam then they wouldn't need a substitute child.

I know that some people have said there is a link between CB and the Macs.
This is mentioned on Richard Hall's last film, but there isn't proof of that link as far as I'm aware. If there is proof, post it and let's have a look.

The signature of Cat Nanny on the register proves that she was in on it?
.

No, it proves she was aware of who Ella was and it proves she was aware enough of the creche register to notice that Ella's parents had neglected to sign her in that day.

Cat Nanny signing Ella in that day does prove she couldn't have been fooled by a phantom Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. This doesn't mean she was in on it, it merely means this particular theory doesn't really fly.

The above relates to a signature "Cat Nanny" on the register on Tuesday 1st.
If as stated, this means that CB couldn't have been fooled by a "phantom" Madeleine then why did the signing in of Madeleine continue on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 18:49

TONY BENNETT wrote:In my initial response to HideHo on the first page of this thread, I asked:

Before replying, can I start with what may be thought an irrelevant question, but just might be relevant to the topic: in which group (if any) was Lily Payne in that week?

I don't think I've missed the answer to this, so I would be most grateful if anyone at all could answer my question.

My grateful thanks in advance to any one who can

Apologies Tony. I thought I had answered you or presumed that you saw the Lily entry in the creche records along with the twins.

Sometimes I write posts and 'lose' them before sending.

Here are the creche records for Tuesday am for the twins and the compilation I made which gives the times for the rest of the week.

Curiously, the jellyfish records were not available for Thursday morning which was of particular interest to me as Kate claims Gerry picked them up and he claims he picked Madeleine up..

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

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 18:54

TONY BENNETT wrote:Now it's suggested that Cat Baker somehow had Ella in her creche all week, and 'didn't realise' that it was Ella but thought it was Madeleine McCann all along. I've explained my reasons for rejecting that suggestion up the thread

.Hi Tony. I dont know if anyone has suggested that but its not something I believe. (Maybe at some point but I don't think in this thread)

What I have tried to explain is that Maddie wasn't there during the week and when Catriona was 'told' that Maddie was in the creche she may have second guessed herself and THOUGHT that she had been thinking the child was Ella but she now thought that maybe it had been Maddie and she had been calling her Ella.. (I think JRP explains it better than me) lol

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 19:03

JRP wrote:
whodunit wrote:
JRP wrote:A lot of really good investigative work has been done by Kiko, relating to the creche sheets, signature analysis and mobile phone radio pings.
His suggestion is that a duplicate child was used to fool CB into thinking Madeleine was attending. On one day, Tuesday 1st I think it was, he says that GM had to risk signing the creche sheet without any child attending, presumably because the subsituate child, called Madalene borrowed from another couple, had a prior engagement on that day... ?

So that leads me to believe that Kiko thinks CB needs to be fooled. In other words CB isn't involved. If the nanny is in on the creche scam then they wouldn't need a substitute child.

I know that some people have said there is a link between CB and the Macs.
This is mentioned on Richard Hall's last film, but there isn't proof of that link as far as I'm aware. If there is proof, post it and let's have a look.

The signature of Cat Nanny on the register proves that she was in on it?
.

No, it proves she was aware of who Ella was and it proves she was aware enough of the creche register to notice that Ella's parents had neglected to sign her in that day.

Cat Nanny signing Ella in that day does prove she couldn't have been fooled by a phantom Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. This doesn't mean she was in on it, it merely means this particular theory doesn't really fly.

The above relates to a signature "Cat Nanny" on the register on Tuesday 1st.
If as stated, this means that CB couldn't have been fooled by a "phantom" Madeleine then why did the signing in of Madeleine continue on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd

At the point of the 'abduction' and prior to the PJ taking the registrations, Catriona would not have been aware of anything connected to the creche. She MAY have felt that the records needed to be filled (to show efficiency in her job?) and did the ones she recalled from memory?

by JRP 02.04.16 19:48

HiDeHo wrote:
JRP wrote:
whodunit wrote:
JRP wrote:A lot of really good investigative work has been done by Kiko, relating to the creche sheets, signature analysis and mobile phone radio pings.
His suggestion is that a duplicate child was used to fool CB into thinking Madeleine was attending. On one day, Tuesday 1st I think it was, he says that GM had to risk signing the creche sheet without any child attending, presumably because the subsituate child, called Madalene borrowed from another couple, had a prior engagement on that day... ?

So that leads me to believe that Kiko thinks CB needs to be fooled. In other words CB isn't involved. If the nanny is in on the creche scam then they wouldn't need a substitute child.

I know that some people have said there is a link between CB and the Macs.
This is mentioned on Richard Hall's last film, but there isn't proof of that link as far as I'm aware. If there is proof, post it and let's have a look.

The signature of Cat Nanny on the register proves that she was in on it?
.

No, it proves she was aware of who Ella was and it proves she was aware enough of the creche register to notice that Ella's parents had neglected to sign her in that day.

Cat Nanny signing Ella in that day does prove she couldn't have been fooled by a phantom Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. This doesn't mean she was in on it, it merely means this particular theory doesn't really fly.

The above relates to a signature "Cat Nanny" on the register on Tuesday 1st.
If as stated, this means that CB couldn't have been fooled by a "phantom" Madeleine then why did the signing in of Madeleine continue on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd

At the point of the 'abduction' and prior to the PJ taking the registrations, Catriona would not have been aware of anything connected to the creche. She MAY have felt that the records needed to be filled (to show efficiency in her job?) and did the ones she recalled from memory?

I gave similar as an option, but you've said it better than I have ... touche

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