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

by **HiDeHo** 28.03.16 17:09

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

The question is often asked about how could Catriona have NOT seen Maddie in creche?

During the week, (the uneventful part of the week) IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was only looking after Ella?

Thursday arrived and the 'abduction'

IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was TOLD that she had been looking after Maddie that week after the abduction?

IS IT POSSIBLE that she second guessed herself?

IS IT POSSIBLE she thought to herself 'Oh...I must have been calling that little girl Ella all week when it was Maddie'?

IS IT POSSIBLE she didn't recall seeing Maddie but was INTIMIDATED to believe she had and didn't want to challenge?

IS IT POSSIBLE that GM or KM and ROB arrived at the same time but only one signed the register?

IS IT POSSIBLE that CAT filled in the blanks before the records were passed to the police to appear efficient (after all she had NO IDEA that the creche would be involved. It was an abduction from the apartment)

IS IT POSSIBLE that the register was not always within view of the nannies?

IS IT POSSIBLE the children were dropped off randomly without the register available?

We know that the Kids Club creche was shared by BOTH groups Lobsters AND Sharks as well as the babies.

IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, IS IT POSSIBLE that it was unnoticed but after being TOLD she was there, everyones memories 'forced' them to remember her?

For lots of info and creche documents visit here...

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

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

ALSO.... As this is new research, PLEASE be aware and let me know if there are any corrections needed

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

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 28.03.16 18:00

I thought Cat Baker had been to Rothley and was a friend of Jon Corner's daughter? Is it likely she wouldn't know who Madeleine was?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.16 18:42

HiDeHo wrote: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?

Now to my replies:

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

ANS. Not if you believe (a) that Cat Baker's crèche records are accurate and (b) that some at least of the sightings of Madeleine on and after Monday are true.

The question is often asked about how could Catriona have NOT seen Maddie in creche?

During the week (the uneventful part of the week), IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was only looking after Ella?

Thursday arrived and the 'abduction'...

IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was TOLD that she had been looking after Maddie that week after the abduction?

ANS. NO. See below.

IS IT POSSIBLE that she second guessed herself?

ANS. NO. See below.

IS IT POSSIBLE she thought to herself: 'Oh...I must have been calling that little girl Ella all week when it was Maddie'?

ANS. Absolutely not. No way would Ella be called 'Maddie' for any part of that week in the creche.

IS IT POSSIBLE she didn't recall seeing Maddie but was INTIMIDATED to believe she had and didn't want to challenge?

ANS. NO. Let us assume (as I do) that she and the McCanns and Madeleine were either in introduced to each other on the Saturday 'welcome meeting' or on the Sunday morning 'meet the nannies' session (or may be both). Then there is absolutely no way that Cat Baker would not know who Madeleine was.

Further, 'Google.Gaspar.Statements' makes a valid point, viz...Chloe Corner and Cat Baker being FB Friends in 2006...Jon Corner's 'frequent' visits to Praia da Luz...Cat Baker staying in Rothley with the McCanns in November 2007 (around the time of the secret Rothley Court 'meet-up')...all of this suggests that the McCanns and Cat Baker may have known each other before April 2007.

IS IT POSSIBLE that GM or KM and ROB arrived at the same time but only one signed the register?

ANS. Pass

IS IT POSSIBLE that CAT filled in the blanks before the records were passed to the police to appear efficient (after all she had NO IDEA that the creche would be involved. It was an abduction from the apartment)

ANS. She would 100% know whether Madeleine was in the crèche from Monday onwards - or not.

IS IT POSSIBLE that the register was not always within view of the nannies?

ANS. Yes.

IS IT POSSIBLE the children were dropped off randomly without the register available?

ANS. Pass.

We know that the Kids Club creche was shared by BOTH groups Lobsters AND Sharks as well as the babies.

IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, IS IT POSSIBLE that it was unnoticed but after being TOLD she was there, everyone's memories 'forced' them to remember her?

ANS. NO. If any child was missing from Monday onwards, of course the creche nanny would notice the absence. Whether, if Madeleine did go missing earlier than Thursday 10pm, anyone on the Ocean Club staff was required to lie or fabricate stories is a question often raised, but it would be doubtful if very many could be persuaded to do so.

If Madeleine (or any other child for that matter) was absent from the crèche from Monday onwards, it only would need that crèche nanny to co-operate with that child's parents and then (a) arrange the creche records so that it looked like the child was there, and (b) then lie to the police about whether she was present on those days or not.

by **HiDeHo** 28.03.16 19:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote: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?

Lily was in the same creche as the twins and her times can be seen in the graphic in the OP

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

Now to my replies:

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

ANS. Not if you believe (a) that Cat Baker's crèche records are accurate and (b) that some at least of the sightings of Madeleine on and after Monday are true.

So it WAS possible

The question is often asked about how could Catriona have NOT seen Maddie in creche?

During the week (the uneventful part of the week), IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was only looking after Ella?

Thursday arrived and the 'abduction'...

IS IT POSSIBLE that Catriona was TOLD that she had been looking after Maddie that week after the abduction?

ANS. NO. See below.

IS IT POSSIBLE that she second guessed herself?

ANS. NO. See below.

IS IT POSSIBLE she thought to herself: 'Oh...I must have been calling that little girl Ella all week when it was Maddie'?

ANS. Absolutely not. No way would Ella be called 'Maddie' for any part of that week in the creche.

As mentioned... the possible ONE CHILD was called Ella, it was maybe only when the abduction happened that she thought she may have been wrong calling her Ella (though it WAS Ella) instead of Maddie. Prior to the abduction moment Catriona had no reason to be aware of whether the child she was calling Ella, was (after second guessing) Maddie. Once the abduction happened and she discovered the child was one that was in her group, she is unlikely to challenge that, and second guess her own memory knowing it MUST have been Maddie... (not sure if I am explaining myself there )
-----------------------------------------------------------

IS IT POSSIBLE she didn't recall seeing Maddie but was INTIMIDATED to believe she had and didn't want to challenge?

ANS. NO. Let us assume (as I do) that she and the McCanns and Madeleine were either in introduced to each other on the Saturday 'welcome meeting' or on the Sunday morning 'meet the nannies' session (or may be both). Then there is absolutely no way that Cat Baker would not know who Madeleine was.

There were likely a lot of children there that day. Would Catriona have met Maddie AND remembered visually which child she was during the week ?

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

Further, 'Google.Gaspar.Statements' makes a valid point, viz...

Chloe Corner and Cat Baker being FB Friends in 2006... I haven't seen the proof of that.. could you post it for me :) Thanks

Jon Corner's 'frequent' visits to Praia da Luz... - Again, is it possible to post the proof, though I'm not sure where it is relevant to post.

Cat Baker staying in Rothley with the McCanns in November 2007 (around the time of the secret Rothley Court 'meet-up')... Yes, that was after all this happened so not sure on relevance.

all of this suggests that the McCanns and Cat Baker may have known each other before April 2007. I would have to see some kind of proof before I could comment on that.

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

IS IT POSSIBLE that GM or KM and ROB arrived at the same time but only one signed the register?

ANS. Pass

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

IS IT POSSIBLE that CAT filled in the blanks before the records were passed to the police to appear efficient (after all she had NO IDEA that the creche would be involved. It was an abduction from the apartment)

ANS. She would 100% know whether Madeleine was in the crèche from Monday onwards - or not. I'm not sure I understand the 100%. Nothing was happening during the week..She had a few children, many of them looking similar (Ella was 3 months younger than Maddie with similar colour hair)

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

IS IT POSSIBLE that the register was not always within view of the nannies?

ANS. Yes. Glad we agree

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

IS IT POSSIBLE the children were dropped off randomly without the register available?

ANS. Pass.

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

We know that the Kids Club creche was shared by BOTH groups Lobsters AND Sharks as well as the babies.

IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, IS IT POSSIBLE that it was unnoticed but after being TOLD she was there, everyone's memories 'forced' them to remember her?

ANS. NO. If any child was missing from Monday onwards, of course the creche nanny would notice the absence. Whether, if Madeleine did go missing earlier than Thursday 10pm, anyone on the Ocean Club staff was required to lie or fabricate stories is a question often raised, but it would be doubtful if very many could be persuaded to do so.

If Madeleine (or any other child for that matter) was absent from the crèche from Monday onwards, it only would need that crèche nanny to co-operate with that child's parents and then (a) arrange the creche records so that it looked like the child was there, and (b) then lie to the police about whether she was present on those days or not.

The creche records were not like a school register to check children were there and have them all arrive at similar times. It seemed to be less about which children were there and more about where the parents could be located if needed. More of a formality maybe?

Thanks for the responses Tony... Have tried to reply to them

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.16 20:18

@ HideHo     Thank you for the replies.

I will try to answer your queries later, I did find proof of Chloe Corner and Cat Baker having been FB friends before 2007; however I have not been able to find the original source for the Jon Corner quote - it was his own words, something like 'I've been to Praia da Luz many times'.

Could you please answer my question about Lily Payne. I would like to know which creche group she was placed in that week.

I wrote: ANS. She would 100% know whether Madeleine was in the crèche from Monday onwards - or not.

You replied: I'm not sure I understand the 100%. Nothing was happening during the week..She had a few children, many of them looking similar (Ella was 3 months younger than Maddie with similar colour hair)

MY FURTHER REPLY:   I think I would look at it this way. There were 7 in Cat Baker's group - not many. Quite apart from having been introduced to everyone, and their children, on the Saturday/Sunday (necessary so that the children don't suddenly get dumped at the crèche on Day 1 with a carer they've never seen before), then think about the very first day the children are in the crèche:

"Hi, I'm Gerry McCann. This is Madeleine. She usually answers to Maddie".

"Oh Hi Maddie, we have some lovely things for you to do today. Mr McCann, have you put your contact number on the crèche sheet?"

"Yes. Do we collect her at 12.30?"

"Yes, we're doing a few indoor things this morning so see you then".

"Bye bye Maddie, be a good girl".

"Bye Daddy".

"Come along Maddie, do you like drawing? We've got some paint brushes here and some big sheets of paper. What shall we draw?"

"A house".

"OK Maddie, draw me a nice house..."

The crèche nanny would simply have to know each child's name and be regularly calling them by name throughout the first day. That would be reinforced when the parents collected and returned her at lunchtime:

"How was Maddie this morning?"

"Oh, just fine, she settled really well. Tell your Mummy what you've been doing, Maddie"

"Painting. I made this picture".

"Ooh what a beautiful house you've drawn there Maddie! See you in the afternoon, Cat, we'll be back about 2.30".

IMO there is no possibility whatsoever of mistaken identity.

Not that it matters if I'm correct, but there's no way you can possibly confuse 'Ella' with 'Maddie' or 'Madeleine'.

by **HiDeHo** 28.03.16 20:57

My thoughts head more towards....

Meeting a lot of children on Saturday/Sunday..

All children from Sharks and Lobsters (maybe 14 or so) are running round the creche.

Maddie was there for maybe a day but did not show up after that, and it may not have been noticed specifically. I'm not sure they checked the records to see who was supposed to be there... Just that children entered the creche at random times...

Maybe both nannies shared the projects etc and they all went on the same trips together to the grassy area for play, or to the beach...

All the children were dealt with visually... Ella being among them but not Maddie...

That time was uneventful and with children arriving randomly they may not be missed if they were interacting with another 13 children. Even if they took their own charges for activities, none of the children may have been called Maddie and if the records were not scrutinised 'Maddie' may not have been missed. It was all about the children that were there...

Then 'Maddie was abducted' and Catriona came to the realisation that SHE was in charge of Maddie during the week, but didnt recall.

She feared for her responsibilities in her job and would not have said 'I don't recall if/when Maddie was here'... and instead thought that Maybe (judging from the photos) that the girl she had been calling Ella all week may have actually been Maddie.

I am not saying that DID happen but if she was not familiar or hadnt read the sign in sheets prior to the abduction then the real Maddie may not have been missed if she was only there for the first day or so.

I know what I am trying to explain....but I do see it as a possibility especially as Ella and Maddie seemed to be very similar in appearance and nearly same age

by **Nina** 28.03.16 21:38

I agree HiDeHo regarding recognition of a child.
We recognize our children from a distance even, because we know them, know their clothes,know the sound of their voices.We are imprinted with them.
We have lived in this house for 16 months now and there are two children who live in the house across. I know what they look like sound like but if you were to ask me to describe how they look and sound all I could say is the little boy is very loud and the little girl has the most amazing corkscrew hair and I have seen them, ok from a distance, for all this time. I am imprinted but only with sound and very unusual hair.
It was the start of the season and so getting to know children was easier as the nannies were not bogged down with months worth of memories of creche children. I would be interested to know their memories/recollections of all the other children there that week,but of course we never will.

by canada12 28.03.16 21:41

Just for reference purposes, here is Jane Tanner carrying a child who is purportedly Ella. Interesting that she's wearing a jacket that's similar to the one Amelie was often photographed wearing (Irish photos). And that she's hiding Ella's face from the camera.

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

And here is Ella from the PJ photo files...

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

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.16 21:44

@ HideHo and @ Nina

We'll have to agree to differ

by **Nina** 28.03.16 21:49

Tony Bennett wrote:@ HideHo and @ Nina

We'll have to agree to differ

If I may be so bold.................. friends

by **HiDeHo** 28.03.16 22:21

Tony Bennett wrote:@ HideHo and @ Nina

We'll have to agree to differ

That is what this is all about as we know :) We have to disagree to make it worthwhile discussing and with alternate scenarios it helps me second guess mine. Thanks Tony

It has stood out to me for a long time that one child was booked in and one child was booked out and often ROB and Gerry arrived at same time even though they were not together (ie coming back from beach on Tuesday)

This stood out to me about what a coincidence...

One child in...one child out...

I really have no idea what the situation was at the creche whether the suggested scenario could be correct or not, or whether thee is another explanation, but it leaves me with what I see in the files ...a coincidence that I feel may explain a lot... and it also explains after the files 'tell me' that Maddie wasn't around in the week, how it was accomplished.

Or

You could be right Tony smilie

.

How do you feel Maddie was booked into the creche if she wasn't around during the week?

I'm hoping that Catriona isnt suggested as being part of all this though.

My belief is that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I see nothing to suggest she was part of anything. Sad

by Harriet94 28.03.16 23:12

Just looking at those photos of a child being protected from publicity by Jane Tanner are really thought provoking. How hard it must be for her .

by **Hobs** 28.03.16 23:30

Another possibility is that Maddie was never at the creche in the first place.
The nannies would believe what they were told by the parents since they would not know any different.
It is also a possibility she was introduced to the staff on the first day and was never there after that.
With so many children and only a brief introduction where they are told child X is child Y who can prove different?
When the abduction charade is initiated, the creche workers will have known the child is likely to have been deposited into their care, it isn't however a certainty.

We have parents signing in late signing out early, even signing out after a few minutes.
is it possible that a switch took place, that child X was signed in as child Y and them within minutes signed out again.
The records would indicate that child Y was signed into the creche and almost immediately signed out.

Why would someone do that?

Someone would have a good reason to sign a child out after 15 mins if the child wasn't who they claimed it was and they didn't want one of the creche workers to ask where Child Y is when they have Child X in front of them?
It would prevent awkward questions as to why someone was signed into the creche who wasn't actually who it was claimed they were.

15 mins shows a child was signed in and signed out again.
Who is going to remember if a particular child was signed in and signed out again 15 mins later whilst they were getting everyone settled and organising who was playing with what.
They aren't.
They will at best remember a vague female child amongst many female children.
Were they familiar enough with Maddie to be 100% certain she had actually been signed in?

Had the evening creche been used or the mccanns had hired a babysitter, then the creche staff would probably have had a firmer memory of Maddie, seeing her in the creche during the day and then in the evening in the creche or in the apartment.
As it is, she was simply one among many, all wanting attention, running around and doing what toddlers do.

by worriedmum 29.03.16 0:10

But WHY sign a child in and then out again 15 minutes later?

by **HiDeHo** 29.03.16 0:21

I added this report just to get a sense of what creches can be like, especially at the beginning of the season, and as in the video (which was at Buttons) two nannies with 13 children and didn't appear to be overly organised.

Just to maybe highlight that OC creche register shows one child in and one child out...so COULD it have been possible it was just the one child?

BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:

- Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007. (TWO WEEKS prior to the McCanns arriving in PdL)

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

(...)

Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.
It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.

That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.

I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.

Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.

When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.

Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.

Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.

Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.

Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.

Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.

Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.
No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.

To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.
Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.

Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.

He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.

by **Hobs** 29.03.16 4:15

worriedmum wrote:But WHY sign a child in and then out again 15 minutes later?

Hi Worriedmum.
To have a written record that child X was alive on that day and that time even if she wasn't and a substitute had been signed in under her name.
More so if they suspected or learned that someone who was more familiar with Maddie would be coming into the creche to help with the group Maddie was allegedly in.

They would not want someone who knew Maddie coming in and, on not seeing Maddie, asking where she was as her siblings were in the creche in another group.
There would be awkward questions if a nursery worker said "This is Maddie" and pointing out a different child.
The first question asked would be what is her surname, especially if there was a Madeleine or Maddie x 2.

If the response is mccann, then natural instinct would be to say, that's not Maddie mccann.
Checks would be made asking the child who she was and then checking the sign in sheets to see who was signed in and present, who had been signed out and who had doing the signings in and out.

If it turned out that kate and/or gerry had signed in the child allegedly called Maddie, and it wasn't Maddie, questions would be asked as to why they signed someone in who wasn't who they claimed it to be.
Questions would be asked as to where Maddie was, especially if they see kate and gerry playing tennis, jogging or lounging around and no Maddie with them.
After all the mccanns had signed their children up for the creche all day.
Would Maddie have been left home alone?
If so why?
If so why were her parents , or at least one of them, not at home with her?
They would be asked to produce Maddie.
If Maddie was dead and they couldn't or wouldn't produce her, then the police would likely have been called as there was a child missing, especially if they thought the child was/ should have been in the creche.

MW would be panicking that they may have lost a child in their care and a massive lawsuit would be forthcoming.
The mccanns would be panicking because they can't produce a live Maddie and would now have to think of some off the cuff excuse, probably along the lines of she is in the apartment, we'll go get her and then feigning OMG she's not there, or having a MW representative or a police officer come to the apartment with them and then feigning the OMG she's not there moment.

When something is done, it is done for a reason.
Why would they need to sign a child out,15 mins after they had just signed her in?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 29.03.16 6:53

Harriet94 wrote:Just looking at those photos of a child being protected from publicity by Jane Tanner are really thought provoking. How hard it must be for her .

Indeed.

Pity the McCanns didn't think the same about protecting other babies and children, splashing their innocent faces all over the front pages even though they knew Madeleine was dead.

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

by canada12 29.03.16 7:00

Hobs wrote:
When something is done, it is done for a reason.
Why would they need to sign a child out,15 mins after they had just signed her in?

Let's look at the Lobster's creche sheets:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

On Sunday April 29, there is a squiggly line separating AM and PM.
On Monday, April 30, there is an empty line separating AM and PM.
On Wednesday May 2, there is a squiggly line separating AM and PM.
On Thursday May 3, there is a squiggly line separating AM and PM.

On Tuesday May 1, there is no squiggly line separating AM and PM, and no empty line.
Instead, the last child signed out in the morning is Madeleine McCann, and the first child signed in, in the afternoon, is Madeleine McCann. With no space between morning and afternoon.
It might be suggested that she had been added into the blank line between morning and afternoon after the fact, to try and prove that she was there, in chronological order.

Wasn't it on Tuesday night, May 1, that Mrs. Fenn heard the crying? "Daddy daddy"... or was it "Maddie Maddie"?

A reminder: it was Monday, April 30, that Madeleine was removed from the creche after 15 minutes.
Hobs theory above carries a lot of weight. On April 30, Madeleine was taken out of the creche at 12.10pm by Gerry. She was not returned until 3.15pm, and then taken out 15 minutes later. What went on between 12.10pm and 3.15pm?

Is it possible that whatever happened to Madeleine, occurred initially on Monday April 30, either during that long period between morning and afternoon, or afterwards, when Kate took Madeleine out of the creche after 15 minutes? If it happened during the noon break, perhaps it was something catastrophic, and Madeleine's entry of only 15 minutes was just what Hobs describes, an attempt to prove she was there and alive.
Or did something more sinister happen, after the 15 minutes? Could Kate have been angry about something or someone, and could she have removed Madeleine from the creche in an act of anger?

Why then, the lack of a blank line on the creche record on Tuesday, May 1?
Possibly Madeleine was signed in, in the morning, and not there.
Possibly it was planned that someone sign Madeleine in, in the afternoon, but someone forgot. And had to backtrack, and use the only line available to make it look authentic - the blank line.

Just my thoughts.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 29.03.16 7:03

worriedmum wrote:But WHY sign a child in and then out again 15 minutes later?

I don't understand that either.

Why go to the bother of signing a dead Madeleine in anyway? It was a creche, it wasn't a mandatory school.

No child has to go to a creche when they're on holiday.

by tinkier 29.03.16 7:35

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
worriedmum wrote:But WHY sign a child in and then out again 15 minutes later?
I don't understand that either.

Why go to the bother of signing a dead Madeleine in anyway? It was a creche, it wasn't a mandatory school.

No child has to go to a creche when they're on holiday.

An attempt to prove she was there and alive?

ETA Hobs stated further up the thread, "when something is done, it's done for a reason"

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 29.03.16 7:52

tinkier wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
worriedmum wrote:But WHY sign a child in and then out again 15 minutes later?
I don't understand that either.

Why go to the bother of signing a dead Madeleine in anyway? It was a creche, it wasn't a mandatory school.

No child has to go to a creche when they're on holiday.
An attempt to prove she was there and alive?

ETA Hobs stated further up the thread, "when something is done, it's done for a reason"

Yes, of course, sorry - should wake up and take more coffee

before I post!

The hoax started way before the faked abduction.

What a lousy holiday.

Although becoming celebrity millionaires who got away with the crime of the century was decent compensation, I suppose.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

by skyrocket 29.03.16 9:19

Don't forget Cat Baker's comment in her 6 May statement:

'When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th 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.'

MBM was shown as attending on Sunday morning, whereas Ella is shown not attending. Jane huffs and puffs a lot when asked about Sunday in her rogatory, and seemingly the only thing she does remember (or knows she's supposed to remember) is that Ella didn't attend in the morning:

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

I've always found - the more waffle, the greater the deception. So, IMO, it's quite feasible that there was something going on involving MBM/Ella that week. Not necessarily from the very start, although again feasible, but also possible that any deception started after a day or two but that the whole subject of Ella at the creche is a highly sensitive area for Jane.

Head count bothers me though - although admittedly, Cat Baker seems scarily vague about how many children she took sailing on the Thursday morning (May 10 Beach Outing Statement):

'then Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach. The distance is about 100 metres but not in a straight line;'

So she obviously wouldn't have missed one if she'd gone with 6 and returned with 5!

You would have thought that the sailing trip on which MBM and Ella were both said to have gone, and/or the mini tennis session, would have thrown up that one of the girls was missing. However, we don't know Cat Baker well at all - she might be wonderful with children on an individual basis but c*** with groups. There's a massive difference between working with one or two children and working with groups - different skill set altogether.

The more you study the creche sheets for the Lobsters, the more jumps out at you and the more contrived they appear. IMO, someone has added to them or changed them - who did this and whether it was to cover up glaring inefficiency or something way more sinister is the question.

Re: the sheets, just noticed that the a.m. book in time for MBM on Sun 29th (undated sheet) seems to appear as 9.45 a.m. In GM's 10 May statement he states that MBM was dropped off at 9.50 a.m., which is an acceptable discrepancy, however, I would wager a considerable amount that the time initially registered was 9.15 a.m. The 1 has been changed to a 4, I wont hypothesize why this might be. Nowhere else do KM or GM write a french 4 (both took MBM, according to GM's 10 May statement, and KM signed MBM in).

by JRP 29.03.16 10:46

Didn't KM state that she became Kate McCann after the 3rd... prior to that, even though married, she called herself Kate Healy. So why sign the creche register as Kate McCann?
It's not an official document after all, and lots of parents don't have the same surname as their child, so a childminder wouldn't think it was strange.

The "substitute" child theory begs the question why... because if a sub was used on Sunday, then some sort of premeditation is suggested, is it not?

by Doug D 29.03.16 11:23

Cat Baker’s rogatory, 18^th April 2008:

‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with Ella, daughter of Jane Tanner.’

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

No mention of the bracelets in her previous interview.

A bit of local knowledge/confirmation would be useful, as we assume these are the plastic self-lock type we know from theme parks, festivals, etc which once attached would be worn with pride by most kids and stay on for the whole week, not replaced every day and certainly not every session.

No evidence of bracelets in any photos of course, with at least one arm or wrist covered up or hidden in every case I believe and with the ‘tennis’ photo published in both a left and right handed version, a ready made excuse if the question of ‘where’s her bracelet’ was ever asked, as she shows her right arm and wrist in this one and her left arm and wrist in the 'last' photo, which is cut off just at the point where you could just about claim it had slid down at little bit out of picture.

by **HiDeHo** 29.03.16 13:04

Why was it only the OC staff that describe Maddie as shy etc?

Although Ella and Maddie were similar in appearance, (similar age and hair colour) Jane describes Ella as very shy as opposed to Maddie being very lively....

JANE TANNER DESCRIBING ELLA & MADDIE wrote:4078    “Madeleine, how much of Madeleine did you see?”
Reply    “Not that much really because only really because she didn’t come to breakfast, so we saw the other children at breakfast and their lunch, but because they tended to have breakfast and lunch separately, the only time I really saw her was at, erm, after high tea when we were playing in the play area, was the main times that I probably saw her during the week”.

4078    “And how would you describe Madeleine?”
Reply    “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because, probably a bit of, 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, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing and. But, I mean, they did, they got on and they had a whale of a time. But, yeah, very, very lively, chatty, a chatty little girl. I mean, to be honest, I know Madeleine probably less well than I know Kate and Gerry, because often, with Kate and Gerry, we saw them, it was like at fortieth birthday parties and that sort of thing. So, Madeleine herself, I wouldn’t say as, I didn’t know her as a little girl, whereas, you know, the other children, Millie and the other ones, you know, I saw very regularly”.

4078    “So your impressions of Madeleine is that she is confident, happy?”
Reply    “Umm”.

4078    “Intelligent?”
Reply    “Yeah, very, yeah, you know, very”.

4078    “And is there anything about her that would make her stand out from the rest of the children in that group?”
Reply    “I think just the fact she is very outgoing, you know. As I say, Ella, in her nature, is a bit more, you know, quiet and, erm, a bit more probably reserved. Well, again, I don’t know whether you’d call a child reserved, but more, you know, not quite so”.

4078    “Hangs back and sees what is going on?”
Reply    “Yeah, she’s, yeah, whereas, I think Madeleine would be, she would always be in the centre, anything that was going on she would be, I don’t mean to say the ring-leader, but she would be at the centre of it, so”.

4078    “I don’t want to put words in your mouth and I don’t want to ask inappropriate questions either”.
Reply    “No, just ask”.

4078    “How you described Madeleine, up to what point was she sort of the leader, if you like, was she verging on the, because some children can be downright annoying”.
Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “When they’re over confident?”
Reply    “No, again, I think this is what I was almost wondering, whether, with Ella being sort of the stand-back type, whether, but, no, she wasn’t like that at all, she was just”.

4078    “In a nice way?”
Reply    “Just happy. In a nice way, yeah. No, she wasn’t, erm, she wasn’t a brat, no, I mean, that’s you could describe, she wasn’t, no, bratty or sort of, I can’t remember the word I’m trying to look for, precocious”.

4078    “Yeah”.
Reply    “No, she was just very, and she was obviously, you know, they were enjoying themselves, they were running around screaming, you know, sort of chasing them round the play area, you know. That’s my main memory of Madeleine from the holiday, is in the play area, you know, we were sort of chasing them around and, you know, just being, just running around, quite happy”.

4078    “Just fun?”
Reply    “Yeah, yeah”.

Not specific for the creche but in general it seems VERY ODD that everyone describes Maddie as lively etc EXCEPT THE OC STAFF...

They describe a child more like Ella

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

by **Hobs** 29.03.16 18:43

skyrocket wrote:Don't forget Cat Baker's comment in her 6 May statement:

'When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th 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.'

MBM was shown as attending on Sunday morning, whereas Ella is shown not attending. Jane huffs and puffs a lot when asked about Sunday in her rogatory, and seemingly the only thing she does remember (or knows she's supposed to remember) is that Ella didn't attend in the morning:

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

I've always found - the more waffle, the greater the deception. So, IMO, it's quite feasible that there was something going on involving MBM/Ella that week. Not necessarily from the very start, although again feasible, but also possible that any deception started after a day or two but that the whole subject of Ella at the creche is a highly sensitive area for Jane.

Head count bothers me though - although admittedly, Cat Baker seems scarily vague about how many children she took sailing on the Thursday morning (May 10 Beach Outing Statement):

'then Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach. The distance is about 100 metres but not in a straight line;'

So she obviously wouldn't have missed one if she'd gone with 6 and returned with 5!

You would have thought that the sailing trip on which MBM and Ella were both said to have gone, and/or the mini tennis session, would have thrown up that one of the girls was missing. However, we don't know Cat Baker well at all - she might be wonderful with children on an individual basis but c*** with groups. There's a massive difference between working with one or two children and working with groups - different skill set altogether.

The more you study the creche sheets for the Lobsters, the more jumps out at you and the more contrived they appear. IMO, someone has added to them or changed them - who did this and whether it was to cover up glaring inefficiency or something way more sinister is the question.

Re: the sheets, just noticed that the a.m. book in time for MBM on Sun 29th (undated sheet) seems to appear as 9.45 a.m. In GM's 10 May statement he states that MBM was dropped off at 9.50 a.m., which is an acceptable discrepancy, however, I would wager a considerable amount that the time initially registered was 9.15 a.m. The 1 has been changed to a 4, I wont hypothesize why this might be. Nowhere else do KM or GM write a french 4 (both took MBM, according to GM's 10 May statement, and KM signed MBM in).

Lying is stressful.
The brain doesn't like stress and will try to tell the truth to ease the stress.
Outright lying is unusual, people would much rather minimize or omit what really happened than create a whole new reality (approx 10% of people will create a new reality)

Tanner shows she is being deceptive>
A simple question about whether her children were at the creche on sunday produces a lot of evasion and confusing language.
It was their first full day, a parent would know if their children went to the creche on the first full day or not.
It is an easy question to answer.
They would have met the staff as they dropped the children off and the same when they collected them at lunch time before dropping them off again in the afternoon and collecting them at tea time.
It is not a once a day event which could have been overlooked whilst lots of other things were going on.
There would have been 4 points of contact which either one or both parents would have been present.

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

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

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

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

I can recall what i did, where we went on my first trip to Houston in 2006.
Why was tanner so incoherent on the first full day of her vacation in a statement taken so close to the alleged abduction?
I would imagine, given the traumatic alleged event that took place, that every member would have remembered exactly what they did and when during that week, we are talking days or weeks not years and decades here.

it doesn't answer the question asked, it lets the interviewer answer it themselves.

by skyrocket 30.03.16 7:59

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - thanks for the analysis. thumbsup

by JRP 31.03.16 9:03

I get the impression that HiDeHo believes CB played no part in a McCoverup. If a substitute child was used to cover for Madeleine's absence, then CB simply didn't notice.
CB, in her statement, said she knew Madeleine and looked after her from Sunday to Thursday. I think that is correct? So, was she looking after Madeleine or was it Ella?

If Madeleine was indeed in attendance on Sunday, and a switch was made say, on Monday, then I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have noticed.
If the switch was made from day one... and Ella took her place on Sunday and through the rest of the week, then obviously she wouldn't have known a swap had taken place.

But, I have a question. Let's just imagine a swap was made at some point during the days. And, let's also imagine that CB didn't notice.
Madeleine's face is now famous, she's been front page news on and off for almost 9 years.

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

Why?

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

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

by Carrry On Doctor 31.03.16 9:43

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

I also tend to think that the MW Nannies are innocent and were being duped throughout the week, from as soon as a plan was put in place to cover the death of a child.

In the statements I believe the nannies were simply protecting themselves from criticism, both personally and perhaps being leaned on by their employer. It would appear that they did not follow procedure and administration was slap dash, which would leave MW and perhaps them as individuals wide open. MW quickly deployed the nannies elsewhere afterwards, which is telling.

Clearly the creche register was available for self completion by the parents, but we don't know if previous days were available to be amended. I suspect they would have been so if something happened say Tuesday (I personally go for Sunday evening) then the records could be changed retrospectively.

Importantly, post 'abduction', and on the basis they were indeed innocent, the nannies would be feeling very bad and have great sympathy for TM's. This makes them extremely vulnerable to suggestion and also receptive to a plausible version of events that might also minimise criticism of them and MW. There was no suspicion put on the parents at the time so possible confusion over the identity of a child might be insignificant to them.

I do think that the nannies have a very important role to play in understanding what actually happened, but as time passes this becomes more difficult, and there would still be investigation / criticism if any charges were eventually pressed. I would expect the nannies would just want this whole thing to go away, which I think applies across the board. So many people have been hoodwinked and will be made to look very stupid when the truth is revealed.

by canada12 31.03.16 10:15

JRP wrote:I get the impression that HiDeHo believes CB played no part in a McCoverup. If a substitute child was used to cover for Madeleine's absence, then CB simply didn't notice.
CB, in her statement, said she knew Madeleine and looked after her from Sunday to Thursday. I think that is correct? So, was she looking after Madeleine or was it Ella?

If Madeleine was indeed in attendance on Sunday, and a switch was made say, on Monday, then I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have noticed.
If the switch was made from day one... and Ella took her place on Sunday and through the rest of the week, then obviously she wouldn't have known a swap had taken place.

But, I have a question. Let's just imagine a swap was made at some point during the days. And, let's also imagine that CB didn't notice.
Madeleine's face is now famous, she's been front page news on and off for almost 9 years.

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

Why?

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

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

The nannies were "strongly encouraged" to sign confidentiality agreements by MW lawyers...?

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest topics