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

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:@Verdi
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 Verdi 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..

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 Jellyf10

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 Jellyf10

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 Creche11

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

by Verdi 02.04.16 20:56

OK, so let's say for the purpose of this exercise that Ms Baker is totally innocent. A child staying at the Ocean Club complex has been 'abducted' from her bed in apartment 5a, situated beyond the boundary of the complex. Why would it occur to her, prior to the PJ taking the creche register, that it might be necessary to show efficiency by filling in the gaps even though it didn't occur to her that anything was connected to the creche?

I will again use Tuesday 1st May record by way of example..

[img:de3e]http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01-pages-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page110-CrecheRecords1.jpg[/img:de3e]

If that's her idea of showing efficiency, I dread to think what things might be like on a bad day. Besides, she hasn't filled in the gaps has she - as I said earlier there were two other children signed in but not signed out on the same day, in addition to the Carpenter entry being crossed out.

I don't think anything positive can be deduced by these shambolic entries in the child care records - and that includes the activities schedule. Ms Baker might well be telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in her minds eye but she sure is up front with the contradictions. A good lawyer would rip her to shreds in the witness box.

ETA: I give up. The creche register is there, I click send and then it's not!

by canada12 02.04.16 21:19

If you reduce this to the simplest elements, we have:

1. Creche records which show that Madeleine was in the creche, signed in and out, each day.
2. Nannies who looked after the children in the creche.

If this went to court, and the nannies were questioned under oath, the questioning might go something like this:

Prosecutor: "We have here the creche records. (Nanny name), do you recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on (named) day?"

Nanny: "I do not recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on that (named) day."

Prosecutor: "What can then be the reason why Madeleine is noted on this creche register as being signed in and signed out?"

Nanny: "I don't know. I wasn't monitoring the creche register. It was only used for emergency purposes, in case we had to contact the parents."

Prosecutor: "Is it therefore possible that Madeleine could have been signed in and out of the creche by her parents, or by others, even though she was never there physically?"

Nanny: "Yes, it is possible, because we didn't monitor the creche records and had no need to consult them unless there was an emergency."

Prosecutor: "No further questions."

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 23:00

There seems to be three basic thought patterns which are relevant to this thread...

1) Those that believe Maddie was abducted.

2) Those that believe Maddie died but it was AFTER 5.30pm

For those with either of those beliefs this thread is irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those that believe something happened earlier..

The remainder of us believe its possible that something happened to Madeleine at some time during the week and that even if it occurred as late as Thursday afternoon, that SOMETHING about the creche records is faked/manipulated and that Catriona's statement should be questioned.

It is interesting to note that although Catriona claims to have been with Maddie sailing in the morning, she makes NO POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of Maddie being at high tea and refers to Kate as being with the TWINS!

Threads like this are an attempt to understand HOW the creche records were manipulated (they show Maddie attending until 5.30pm Thursday)

When we look at the case as a BIG PICTURE...we know there was not an abduction but are seeking REASONS WHY we have reason to believe there is no abduction....We don't necessarily have the answer HOW they accomplished it. Only that they did.

Part of that includes the creche discrepancies...we know there WAS manipulation of the records and we can only speculate as to how it may have been achieved. This thread is one suggestion...Kiko research is another. Thing is we KNOW it was manipulated so HOW was it achieved if it wasn't either of those two suggestions?

I have put together a summary of some of the points (available from the files) pertaining to Maddie NOT being around at all times during the week and how it can be justified to believe something happened to her, LIKELY during the week...

INTERIM SUMMARY OF POINTS FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADELEINE PRIOR TO 5.30PM THURSDAY AND THAT THERE WAS NO ABDUCTION

1) Discrepancies in statements started after Monday (Maybe to cover up what was happening?)

2) No credible proof of sightings of Maddie by ANYONE after Sunday lunchtime.

3) Discrepancies and questions about the validity of the dates claimed on publicly released photos.

4)'Faked' creche records showing Madeleine was attending creche.

5) Descriptions of Madeleine's personality by staff resemble Ella's shy personality.

6) Catriona does not claim specifically that Madeleine was at high tea with Kate

7) No random photos of Maddie that could have been taken during the week.

8) After Sunday, McCann family did not join in with T7 lunch or breakfast

9) DNA was retrieved from UK (pillow) as none available in apartment.

10) None of her craft activities are available

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 Creche10

11) 17 Alerts by blood and cadaver dogs to areas ONLY associated with McCanns

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 17_ale10

12) Lowes suggestion that it was a MATCH to Maddie's DNA in the car rented 3 weeks after her disappearance but not proven if it was because Maddie was in the car or whether it was a blood spot with a combination of her family's DNA

Madeleine and Ella - Is it possible that ONLY ONE CHILD was attending creche? - Page 4 Match_10

by **HiDeHo** 02.04.16 23:09

If we are all in agreement with the above post then we all agree the Creche files were manipulated/faked?

So far we only have two possible methods of how the CRECHE RECORDS were manipulated /faked...

1) Substutute child according to extraordinary research by Kiko

2) One child in and one child out... Madeleine not present but Catriona intimidated and second guessed herself to believe Ella WAS Maddie (even though she had called her Ela all week?)

Are there OTHER ways to have manipulated the creche records to show Maddie being in the creche when she wasn't?

by Verdi 02.04.16 23:27

canada12 wrote:If you reduce this to the simplest elements, we have:

1. Creche records which show that Madeleine was in the creche, signed in and out, each day.
2. Nannies who looked after the children in the creche.

If this went to court, and the nannies were questioned under oath, the questioning might go something like this:

Prosecutor: "We have here the creche records. (Nanny name), do you recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on (named) day?"

Nanny: "I do not recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on that (named) day."

Prosecutor: "What can then be the reason why Madeleine is noted on this creche register as being signed in and signed out?"

Nanny: "I don't know. I wasn't monitoring the creche register. It was only used for emergency purposes, in case we had to contact the parents."

Prosecutor: "Is it therefore possible that Madeleine could have been signed in and out of the creche by her parents, or by others, even though she was never there physically?"

Nanny: "Yes, it is possible, because we didn't monitor the creche records and had no need to consult them unless there was an emergency."

Prosecutor: "No further questions."

A civil court of law hearing a case of malpractice in a nursery and I'm inclined to agree but a criminal court hearing about a missing child I think the proceedings might be a little more robust.

Anyone that's been in the dock as a witness to a serious crime will know where I'm coming from in this.

by JRP 03.04.16 12:16

I think I should say, because I seem to be the only poster who agrees with @HiDeHo that in reality... I don't, well not exactly.

I don't think that CB was duped into thinking Ella was Maddie, I simply think CB was duped into believing Maddie was present in the Creche.
Ella's presence may be essential but I'm not sure about that part.
I think she knew Ella as Ella but didn't know Maddie should have been there too.
Perhaps Ella's arrival at creche was to distract CB that 2 were signed in but only 1 arrived.

I'm also not totally convinced that CB noticed Madeleine''s name on the register, because if she did see it on the Tuesday, then she let it continue, Wednesday and Thursday.

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 12:47

JRP wrote:I think I should say, because I seem to be the only poster who agrees with @HiDeHo that in reality... I don't, well not exactly.

I don't think that CB was duped into thinking Ella was Maddie, I simply think CB was duped into believing Maddie was present in the Creche.
Ella's presence may be essential but I'm not sure about that part.
I think she knew Ella as Ella but didn't know Maddie should have been there too.
Perhaps Ella's arrival at creche was to distract CB that 2 were signed in but only 1 arrived.

I'm also not totally convinced that CB noticed Madeleine''s name on the register, because if she did see it on the Tuesday, then she let it continue, Wednesday and Thursday.

I think we do agree laughat

I haven't worked out a grand theory, I just believe it happened and HOW it was accomplished is still in the air, but it was based on two people bringing Ella to the creche and Catriona not being aware that Madeleine SHOULD have been there during the week. It was the first/second week and random drop of and pick up of children... Would she have noticed if ANY child that was there for a day or two suddenly not be there?

Hindsight AFTER it was brought ot the attention of everyone, maybe, but I have simply put forward a possibility of how it was accomplished. We know there WAS manipulation and that Maddie was signed in when she wasn't there so ANY explanation is worth consideration.

by JRP 03.04.16 13:35

Verdi wrote:
canada12 wrote:If you reduce this to the simplest elements, we have:

1. Creche records which show that Madeleine was in the creche, signed in and out, each day.
2. Nannies who looked after the children in the creche.

If this went to court, and the nannies were questioned under oath, the questioning might go something like this:

Prosecutor: "We have here the creche records. (Nanny name), do you recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on (named) day?"

Nanny: "I do not recall seeing Madeleine in the creche on that (named) day."

Prosecutor: "What can then be the reason why Madeleine is noted on this creche register as being signed in and signed out?"

Nanny: "I don't know. I wasn't monitoring the creche register. It was only used for emergency purposes, in case we had to contact the parents."

Prosecutor: "Is it therefore possible that Madeleine could have been signed in and out of the creche by her parents, or by others, even though she was never there physically?"

Nanny: "Yes, it is possible, because we didn't monitor the creche records and had no need to consult them unless there was an emergency."

Prosecutor: "No further questions."
A civil court of law hearing a case of malpractice in a nursery and I'm inclined to agree but a criminal court hearing about a missing child I think the proceedings might be a little more robust.

Anyone that's been in the dock as a witness to a serious crime will know where I'm coming from in this.

Yes, I think one question should be asked in this make believe court, and that pertains to whether any evening nanny service was ever carried out, the term I believe commonly known as "doin a foreigner".

by JRP 03.04.16 18:11

The creche records, form a large amount of evidence in proving that Madeleine was alive during the holiday week, up to Thursday evening.
They are very important in convincing the police and any doubters, that anything could have happened earlier than Thursday evening.
Along with nannys statement, a convincing time line exists, both placing Madeleine as being in the creche all week, and therefore alive.
Together, they hinder anyone doubting the McStory, because they can simply point at the creche sheets, the nanny, and other staff statements.

Whether the creche records are genuine or not, has been a big dilemma for me. They help piece together what happened over the holiday. Sunday though Thursday.

The duping of a nanny by using a substitute child, as per Kikos theory always seemed too risky for me. His idea also had to use a "no child" theory, or if you prefer, a "phantom child" signed into the creche on one day.
To me that is making something fit because your first idea doesn't work too well. Getting other people involved carries great risk also, and one I doubt anyone would take.
If the "phantom child " theory worked on one day, then why not use a "phantom child" every day?

However, the "phantom child" theory raises lots of questions for me. Which, as time goes on, becomes difficult, not only to answer, but also to reconcile in my own mind.

Once you move away from believing in nanny, everything becomes much clearer.

Logic says, if you don't believe in nanny.
1) You don't need a substitute child.
2) You don't need a phantom child.
3) You don't wonder why nanny didn't notice Madeleine's name on a register, when nanny signed the register herself on a number of occasions.
4) You don't wonder why after 9 years nanny hasn't come forward to say, the child in the news wasn't the child I looked after.

All you need, is the parents to turn up each day so the other nannies/staff see them at the creche. Going through the motions, shall we say.

This thread has been very important for me in understanding the weeks true events and what may have happened.

Shall I say the penny dropped...

by whodunit 03.04.16 18:21

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

Well, that is the question, isn't it? As I stated upthread, there are 3 choices: 1. a fake Madeleine was attending chreche or. 2. Madeleine McCann was alive and well and attending creche or 3. Cat Nanny was in on it and faking both the register and her memories of Madeleine's presence that week.

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