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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by whodunit 03.04.16 18:30

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."

If this were Cat Nanny being questioned, a good prosecutor would also ask: "If you weren't monitoring the register how did you know Ella needed signing in on May 1st?" And for the purposes of this thread: How is it possible that Cat noticed Ella was physically present and needed signing in but failed to notice that a child who had been signed in was not physically present?

by JRP 03.04.16 18:52

whodunit 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."

If this were Cat Nanny being questioned, a good prosecutor would also ask: "If you weren't monitoring the register how did you know Ella needed signing in on May 1st?" And for the purposes of this thread: How is it possible that Cat noticed Ella was physically present and needed signing in but failed to notice that a child who had been signed in was not physically present?

Yes as I've written today, and I think you have missed. Nanny being duped isn't feasible.

by whodunit 03.04.16 19:11

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Yes as I've written today, and I think you have missed. Nanny being duped isn't feasible."

I think it is feasible she was duped but not, as the creche register demonstrates, by a 'phantom' Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. Cat's signature on the register very effectively rules out any phantom children. The only other choices are a substitute Madeleine or Madeleine herself. Given the abundance of evidence that MBM did not make it past April 30, I'll go with the sub. This is where the evidence leads me since the other options are ruled out. [ eliminated the impossible] This remains the case even though I cannot pinpoint who the actual child might have been. I think kikoratton's candidate is very feasible as it would have ruled out the problem of confusing the child with a different name from her own and would also explain why there was a controversy over the Maddie/Not Maddie issue. [some moms, including myself, are very adamant that their child's name not be shortened and hence the child, including my own, can be very emphatic when people do it] However, I have yet to see proof that this particular child was present in PDL at the time. I mean, come on. No matter how improbable it seems, there IS evidence that GM was signing in two children, one of them named 'Madeleine'. Cat Nanny may have been in on it but then why would GM go to the trouble?

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

by splurgegun 01.05.16 19:08

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

by **Nina** 01.05.16 23:46

I recall that the children in Madeleine's group were practising a dance routine for a show for the parents on the friday. Now that for me means maybe a bit of choreography which would require numbers and set pieces and regular attendance.

by MayMuse 02.05.16 4:01

whodunit wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Yes as I've written today, and I think you have missed. Nanny being duped isn't feasible."

I think it is feasible she was duped but not, as the creche register demonstrates, by a 'phantom' Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. Cat's signature on the register very effectively rules out any phantom children. The only other choices are a substitute Madeleine or Madeleine herself. Given the abundance of evidence that MBM did not make it past April 30, I'll go with the sub. This is where the evidence leads me since the other options are ruled out. [ eliminated the impossible] This remains the case even though I cannot pinpoint who the actual child might have been. I think kikoratton's candidate is very feasible as it would have ruled out the problem of confusing the child with a different name from her own and would also explain why there was a controversy over the Maddie/Not Maddie issue. [some moms, including myself, are very adamant that their child's name not be shortened and hence the child, including my own, can be very emphatic when people do it] However, I have yet to see proof that this particular child was present in PDL at the time. I mean, come on. No matter how improbable it seems, there IS evidence that GM was signing in two children, one of them named 'Madeleine'. Cat Nanny may have been in on it but then why would GM go to the trouble?

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is that snippet a copy of the actual 'signing in' record or a 'sliced' copy to compare side by side. The reason I ask is why would Robert Naylors name be in the same section as Madeleine's, as isn't that the 'line' for the child's name & then the parent just puts a signatory?

Wonder if the 'writing' was ever analysed?

by NickE 02.05.16 7:01

whodunit wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Yes as I've written today, and I think you have missed. Nanny being duped isn't feasible."

I think it is feasible she was duped but not, as the creche register demonstrates, by a 'phantom' Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. Cat's signature on the register very effectively rules out any phantom children. The only other choices are a substitute Madeleine or Madeleine herself. Given the abundance of evidence that MBM did not make it past April 30, I'll go with the sub. This is where the evidence leads me since the other options are ruled out. [ eliminated the impossible] This remains the case even though I cannot pinpoint who the actual child might have been. I think kikoratton's candidate is very feasible as it would have ruled out the problem of confusing the child with a different name from her own and would also explain why there was a controversy over the Maddie/Not Maddie issue. [some moms, including myself, are very adamant that their child's name not be shortened and hence the child, including my own, can be very emphatic when people do it] However, I have yet to see proof that this particular child was present in PDL at the time. I mean, come on. No matter how improbable it seems, there IS evidence that GM was signing in two children, one of them named 'Madeleine'. Cat Nanny may have been in on it but then why would GM go to the trouble?

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

Because both were involved in one way or another maybe?
I suspect, and I said it earlier that a certain nanny may have baby-sat in the apartment on Sunday eve/night and something happened .
This babysitter may have failed and there was a disaster with a girl who maybe had some kind of drugs for sleeping in her system.
MW was in hurry to brief Resonate and the McCanns needed a plan and Monday was so busy that they didn't know what they did this Monday.
Both McCann and a few people at MW could have been in this plan together.
Does anyone knows if some people in the Government had any investments in MW?

by Latetothecase 02.05.16 8:59

If I recall, didn't Diane Webster make a comment about how she thought their performance was 'one of their games', and stayed still in the tapas, probably thinking they were on a wind up aimed at her?

For that to be her first conclusion, they may well have previously been on wind ups in her presence that week.

If the men were having bets that the nannies were too incompetent to recognise whose child was whose, and arranged to sign each other's little girls in as an arrogant game, it would answer quite a few questions:

1. Why Naylor didn't deny it when pressed by Kikoratton

2. Why Cat was extra distraught when the penny dropped about what had been happening at her expense - her upset was personal emotional injury, not about a child she hardly knew.

3. Why the nannies were whooshed abroad quickly.

4. Why KM said 'they've taken her' - maybe automatically assuming it was persons disgruntled at a previous gag at their expense getting their own back?

5. All the discrepancies on the creche records like spelling of names, apartments, Healy/McCann - makes sense if the wind up was that none of them were signing in their own kids.

6. Bridget M's subtle reference about how all the little girls looked exactly the same.

There are probably more, that's just off the top of my head.

It just feels like the sort of thing that gang would do to amuse themselves and feel superior. They may have been making fun of staff all week for all we know.

by whodunit 02.05.16 16:24

MayMuse wrote:
whodunit wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Yes as I've written today, and I think you have missed. Nanny being duped isn't feasible."

I think it is feasible she was duped but not, as the creche register demonstrates, by a 'phantom' Madeleine, ie a child who was signed in but wasn't actually present. Cat's signature on the register very effectively rules out any phantom children. The only other choices are a substitute Madeleine or Madeleine herself. Given the abundance of evidence that MBM did not make it past April 30, I'll go with the sub. This is where the evidence leads me since the other options are ruled out. [ eliminated the impossible] This remains the case even though I cannot pinpoint who the actual child might have been. I think kikoratton's candidate is very feasible as it would have ruled out the problem of confusing the child with a different name from her own and would also explain why there was a controversy over the Maddie/Not Maddie issue. [some moms, including myself, are very adamant that their child's name not be shortened and hence the child, including my own, can be very emphatic when people do it] However, I have yet to see proof that this particular child was present in PDL at the time. I mean, come on. No matter how improbable it seems, there IS evidence that GM was signing in two children, one of them named 'Madeleine'. Cat Nanny may have been in on it but then why would GM go to the trouble?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is that snippet a copy of the actual 'signing in' record or a 'sliced' copy to compare side by side. The reason I ask is why would Robert Naylors name be in the same section as Madeleine's, as isn't that the 'line' for the child's name & then the parent just puts a signatory?

Wonder if the 'writing' was ever analysed?

Here is the full copy of the creche record for the date, April 30:

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

by MayMuse 02.05.16 16:34

Thank you, the crèche records have had me in a pickle from day one.so appreciate this thread. This is the first time it's hit me how odd to see the
Parents name listed in the name of the child's section. I do think this is significant, will revisit the crèche records & ponder some more!

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