Re: "What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?"

by **HiDeHo** Sat 3 Sep - 10:58

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
I have so many discrepancies listed for that day that when you look at the complete picture you realise none of it was as we are led to believe but to compile is a huge task and before I do the discrepancies listed throughout the day I have to show the day as THEY want us to believe.
Amen to that! Good luck with the work in progress - as with all of you tenacious workaholics, I admire your relentless endeavours to uncover the truth behind the Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

I will keep a lookout on your domain but if you could give us a nudge from time to time it would be appreciated. Always seems to be something new to be read and assimilated - I can't always keep up.

Thanks Verdi...This is something I have wanted to do for more than 6 years

I have only had the list of discrepancies to pass around, but its a lot of information to take in at one time and one needs to have an overview of the week for it to start to have meaning...

I am trying to make it as user friendly as possible with all the photos associated with the 'story' to help those that havent got everything mapped out in their head and that will also help to be a reference for anyone needing photos,

Once I get to the discrepancies I KNOW that even I will be shocked at the small portion of the day that MAY be truthful...

I doubt there will be much of the day that didn't need hiding and covering up...after all it was countdown to the 'abduction.

Try and count how many discrepancies before 9am in this video! (I will be moving this topic when I have finished the 'Thursday that they want us to believe' and subsequently...how each of their activities leaves us questioning once the statements are compared and the discrepancies show)'

Verdi... I am hoping to work on a good portion over the weekend, even though I was planning an an essential video highlighting how forensics and Gaspar statements were not available...I'm having trouble finding just the right song...no song....no video as the song tells the story smilie

by **Tony Bennett** Sat 3 Sep - 14:09

roy rovers wrote:
Why bring MI5 into it?

I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

by roy rovers Sat 3 Sep - 20:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
Why bring MI5 into it?
I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

Fair enough but I think it more likely that Murat 'owed' the McCs or was sent over as a fixer by someone else who 'owed' them due to murky goings on (possibly MI5 but doesn't need to be them to add up).

by Guest Sat 3 Sep - 21:52

roy rovers wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
Why bring MI5 into it?
I was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?
Fair enough but I think it more likely that Murat 'owed' the McCs or was sent over as a fixer by someone else who 'owed' them due to murky goings on (possibly MI5 but doesn't need to be them to add up).

You have to admit this whole affair has something very double O seven about it. Dodgy units working for the McCann defence league under the pseudonym of private detectives, deploying under cover agents across the globe to arrange for cooperative members of the public (?) to have seen Madeleine - always leaning towards an Arabic connection because they thought the gullible public would readily accept the inference, us Brits are just not capable of such horrendous crimes as child abuse, prostitution and trafficking - oh no!

The mysterious absence of positive forensic analysis results from the UK laboratories. The harbouring of the Renault Scenic (important source of evidence) by a wealthy benefactor to carry out their own forensic examination, forensic technicians recommended by the Home Office (who's ever heard the like). The convenient dismissal of the dog alerts as though they are worthless and play no part in assisting criminal investigations despite the fact they got a whiff of cadavarine and blood connected to the McCann family only.

The biggest red flag for me being the range of hot lines set up for reasons I'm not entirely sure about, ostensibly for the public to call if they have information that may assist but I have my doubts about why, just like Jenny Murat's street stall. Off the top of my head the McCanns campaign HQ, Oakley International, Alpha Investigations, the CEOP, Leicestershire Police - all had hot-lines. Then there was the CEOP asking holidaymakers to send their holiday photographs to them and at some point Gerry McCann I believe, made a direct plea to the Irish to send them their holiday photographs from PdL.

All because little Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared from her bed on the night of 3rd May 2007. Does such an occurrence normally warrant this level of activity - isn't it normally just routine policing that should be left in their hands alone?

That as they say, is but the tip of the iceberg.

by Guest Sat 3 Sep - 21:58

For some unexplained reason, the McCanns were quick off the mark to raise the paedophile alarm. This message was conveniently conveyed to the UK media by the McCann faction and has since been propagated by the UK press, Oakley International, Metodo3, Alpha Investigations and Operation Grange.

WHY ? ? ?

by sallypelt Sat 3 Sep - 22:11

I have, quickly, been going through Matthew Oldfield's 9 April 2008 rogatory and I have asked myself, would I like to be treated by a DOCTOR, who speaks like this:

[MO is being asked]: 'Did you play tennis every day''

Reply 'No, erm, no, I think, I think we tried to play tennis, because they two things, they do sort of organised lessons and we signed up for some lessons which got delayed for weather reasons later in the week, I can't remember if we signed up for those straight away, because we didn't do a group, we didn't do a group lesson which we'd done, when did we do a group lesson, I don't think we did, I think we just did, Rachael and I, erm, with, erm, with an instructor, because I think we felt we'd play sort of socially with everybody else and then we'd have, do some sort of private lessons rather than signing up all week. I'm not sure about that. I don't remember playing any organised games with anybody else, I think we just had sort of three, sort of two or three, erm, proper tennis lessons'.

what

But if one goes through the whole of the M Oldfield's rogatory, it can be seen that he is so unsure of so many things, for most of what happened through the week, but what is obvious, he keeps wanting to tell the interviewer about the Thursday 3 May, when he remembers, without being asked, "Thursday was a pretty decent day for weather" and how on Thursday, certain people played tennis, because lessons, that had been arranged for earlier in the week had been cancelled, and then took place on Thursday.

I will paste the link for others to scrutinise, but I will go over this interview, and cross-reference it with other information:

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

by sallypelt Sat 3 Sep - 22:47

Here is Matt Oldfield TELLING US, how cold the pools were, and how they were more or less empty throughout the week. Have a close look at what he says about Wednesday, and from my understanding, how Thursday was more or less the same weather as Wednesday:

4078 'What was the weather like during the week''

Reply 'Erm, it was sunny but cold, the pools were freezing, so we didn't, even though the pool was there, it was unusual for people to be in it. Erm, sunny most days, it got cloudy and it rained on the Wednesday and the Wednesday evening was pretty sort of, in the evenings it was very cold, so at the Tapas Restaurant, when we were there, we'd often, you know, you'd need a jumper if you sat outside and there was no heat particularly, erm, and I think Thursday was sort of fairly similar and quite, well certainly at night and I think the rest had been sort of maybe a little bit overcast at times but I'm not really bothered about the sunbathing and if there was a wind you could go sailing and that was'.

Again, despite his loss of memory on so many occasions, MO has a vivid memory of how cold Wednesday was (almost a year after the event) and how they had to wear jumpers. This sudden return of memory has nothing to do with Jane's statement of how cold Thursday evening was, and how that nasty parent was carrying a child in his arms WITHOUT shoes or a blanket, does it?

by **Hobs** Sat 3 Sep - 23:16

Doug D wrote:MayMuse,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
All of the available creche sheets can be found here:

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

As for a timeline, it depends who you want to believe, if anyone.

Only ‘definite’s’ are from the Paraiso CCTV footage which can be found here:

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

Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
For the twins, her signature on the jellyfish page is almost printed, especially the way the letter N is signed.
It is the same signature for signing the twins in and then out.

In the lobsters registration page, the signature signing Maddie in and out for the morning session is kate's and matches the signatures used for signing in and collecting the twins.
The signature for signing Maddie in for the afternoon session matches the previous signatures.
The signing out for Maddie is markedly different.
It is almost cursive in style and the letter N isn't remotely close to how kate signed her name earlier at sign in for Maddie or sign in and collection of the twins.
Her normal signature shows the letter N as two separate letters, almost printed, yet the signature for Maddie leaving shows the letter N as cursive and almost looking like the letter M, the letter A s also different.

The then begs the question as to who signed Maddie out that afternoon if the signee was not kate as indicated by the different signature?
If the signee was not kate yet signed out as kate why the need to fake a signature?
Where was kate then if she wasn't collecting Maddie?

If it were kate, why the change in signature?
If the signature was forged, why was it done so badly given they had a signature they could have copied?
If the signee was gerry, why not sign his own name?
If it were one of the tapas 7 why not use their own name/signature?

Did the adults collecting the children have to prove they were the parent or approved to collect said child from the creche?
If so, what proof was required, especially since the creche workers would not have been that familiar with the parents of the children, particularly at the beginning of the week?

If the signee was not kate but one of the tapas group would the staff have noticed the sex of the collecting adult and, if spotting the signature was supposedly that of the mother and yet it was a male that had collected Maddie, was anything said?

Did anyone watch the registration being signed whilst dropping off or collecting a child?
If so, did they not ask why the signature did not match the gender of the name, ie a male signing as kate?
If it was a female would they have been recognized as not being kate and asked why they were signing as kate?
Were arrangements in place to allow members of the tapas to collect any of the children from the group?
If so, was this a usual practice?
If not, why was it allowed?
Who allowed it?

If the signature was added later as the collecting parent had forgotten to sign out, who signed as kate?
Why was it added?
When was it added?

The page was supposedly registration for 3rd May, the day Maddie was allegedly abducted, was Maddie even there?
Since i believe Maddie died earlier in the week allowing time for the almost forensic clean up of the apartment and removal of her body, did any of the creche workers actually remember with certainty seeing Maddie and interacting with her on 3rd may?
If the registration page was signed with a creche worker as a witness are they 100% certain it was Maddie being signed in?

If Maddie died earlier in the week as indicated by the sensitivity in language regarding the beginning of the week, the change in breakfast and lunchtime routines with the mccanns eating away from the group, who was being presented as Maddie?

Would the child have not told the creche workers they were not called Maddie/Madeleine at some point during the session?
If the child was already named Maddie/Madeleine, and since we know none of the other children in the tapas 7 group was called Maddie/Madeleine, why would they join the conspiracy to conceal Maddie's death?

Were the creche workers involved in the subsequent cover up?
If so why?
How would they benefit?
What could they have lost?

So many questions, so few answers.
When a question does get an answer, it only leads to more questions.

by sallypelt Sat 3 Sep - 23:19

Hobs wrote:
Doug D wrote:MayMuse,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
All of the available creche sheets can be found here:

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

As for a timeline, it depends who you want to believe, if anyone.

Only ‘definite’s’ are from the Paraiso CCTV footage which can be found here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
For the twins, her signature on the jellyfish page is almost printed, especially the way the letter N is signed.
It is the same signature for signing the twins in and then out.

In the lobsters registration page, the signature signing Maddie in and out for the morning session is kate's and matches the signatures used for signing in and collecting the twins.
The signature for signing Maddie in for the afternoon session matches the previous signatures.
The signing out for Maddie is markedly different.
It is almost cursive in style and the letter N isn't remotely close to how kate signed her name earlier at sign in for Maddie or sign in and collection of the twins.
Her normal signature shows the letter N as two separate letters, almost printed, yet the signature for Maddie leaving shows the letter N as cursive and almost looking like the letter M, the letter A s also different.

The then begs the question as to who signed Maddie out that afternoon if the signee was not kate as indicated by the different signature?
If the signee was not kate yet signed out as kate why the need to fake a signature?
Where was kate then if she wasn't collecting Maddie?

If it were kate, why the change in signature?
If the signature was forged, why was it done so badly given they had a signature they could have copied?
If the signee was gerry, why not sign his own name?
If it were one of the tapas 7 why not use their own name/signature?

Did the adults collecting the children have to prove they were the parent or approved to collect said child from the creche?
If so, what proof was required, especially since the creche workers would not have been that familiar with the parents of the children, particularly at the beginning of the week?

If the signee was not kate but one of the tapas group would the staff have noticed the sex of the collecting adult and, if spotting the signature was supposedly that of the mother and yet it was a male that had collected Maddie, was anything said?

Did anyone watch the registration being signed whilst dropping off or collecting a child?
If so, did they not ask why the signature did not match the gender of the name, ie a male signing as kate?
If it was a female would they have been recognized as not being kate and asked why they were signing as kate?
Were arrangements in place to allow members of the tapas to collect any of the children from the group?
If so, was this a usual practice?
If not, why was it allowed?
Who allowed it?

If the signature was added later as the collecting parent had forgotten to sign out, who signed as kate?
Why was it added?
When was it added?

The page was supposedly registration for 3rd May, the day Maddie was allegedly abducted, was Maddie even there?
Since i believe Maddie died earlier in the week allowing time for the almost forensic clean up of the apartment and removal of her body, did any of the creche workers actually remember with certainty seeing Maddie and interacting with her on 3rd may?
If the registration page was signed with a creche worker as a witness are they 100% certain it was Maddie being signed in?

If Maddie died earlier in the week as indicated by the sensitivity in language regarding the beginning of the week, the change in breakfast and lunchtime routines with the mccanns eating away from the group, who was being presented as Maddie?

Would the child have not told the creche workers they were not called Maddie/Madeleine at some point during the session?
If the child was already named Maddie/Madeleine, and since we know none of the other children in the tapas 7 group was called Maddie/Madeleine, why would they join the conspiracy to conceal Maddie's death?

Were the creche workers involved in the subsequent cover up?
If so why?
How would they benefit?
What could they have lost?

So many questions, so few answers.
When a question does get an answer, it only leads to more questions.

Also, how many mums forget how to spell their own child's name? Madelene????

by Grande Finale Sat 3 Sep - 23:24

This is a great effort well done to all involved thanks

I don't think the makeup photo is from the same week though !

As Maddie looks a bit younger IMO

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 0:26

Hobs wrote:
Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?

I don't put much emphasis on differing signatures - you should see mine! It used to be reasonably consistant but not so these days now I don't need to sign anything very often. With the advent of email and plastic cards signed documents are becoming a thing of the past.

Besides, doctors have a well earned reputation for not being able to write legibly big grin

.

I am however curious to learn why on Wednsday 3rd May, Madeleine was was signed in at 14:45H by Kate McCann but signed out at 17:30H by Kate Healy. Only at a later date to come out with some garbled nonsense about always using the name Healy until Madeleine disappeared when things changed forever - eh ??? No evidence of that either.

by **HiDeHo** Sun 4 Sep - 4:02

Verdi wrote:
Hobs wrote:
Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
I don't put much emphasis on differing signatures - you should see mine! It used to be reasonably consistant but not so these days now I don't need to sign anything very often. With the advent of email and plastic cards signed documents are becoming a thing of the past.

Besides, doctors have a well earned reputation for not being able to write legibly .

I am however curious to learn why on Wednsday 3rd May, Madeleine was was signed in at 14:45H by Kate McCann but signed out at 17:30H by Kate Healy. Only at a later date to come out with some garbled nonsense about always using the name Healy until Madeleine disappeared when things changed forever - eh ??? No evidence of that either.

Lets presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened

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

by **Tony Bennett** Sun 4 Sep - 5:10

HiDeHo wrote:
Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...

...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

by **HiDeHo** Sun 4 Sep - 5:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...
...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

So whether one believes something happened Monday or Thursday...she was not Kate Healy on Sunday so that proves her lie

by **Jill Havern** Sun 4 Sep - 5:32

HiDeHo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
Let's presume Sunday was for real... She signed it McCann...so that was BEFORE anything likely happened...
...er...but...according to her book, she was Kate Healy - until Madeleine went missing - and then changed to Kate McCann

So whether one believes something happened Monday or Thursday...she was not Kate Healy on Sunday so that proves her lie

Kate said it was the media who called her Kate McCann after Madeleine disappeared, just as she said it was the media who called Madeleine 'Maddie' - that was also a proven lie when Gerry called her Maddie on Friends Reunited, when he deleted the reference to 'babysitting'.

by NickE Sun 4 Sep - 6:19

Tony Bennett wrote:QUOTE

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange.

REPLY: This may not have sounded 'viable' or 'logical', and may have been thought 'very strange', back in 2007 - but now that we have uncovered the Krokowski/Lourenco deception & fabrication, hairs of Jane Tanner and Robert being found in the Krokowskis' apartment seems

...viable...

...logical...

...and not so strange

Yes Tony, in Sweden we have a juridical term, "Strong circumstances evidence" and that term would fit here.

The hair was not the same haplotype as David Payne,Fiona Payne,Webster,Matt Oldfield,Rachel or Kate and Gery McCann,the hair was the same haplotype as Jane Tanner who claim she saw a man with a child and came up with the description of Krokowski.
This Krokowski stayed in that apartment where this strong circumstances evidence was found.

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 9:05

I'm not trying to play down the importance of the creche register entries for the week 29th April/3rd May 2007 as regards Madeleine McCann's mysterious disappearance (everything deserves to be under the microscope) but I do think it's important to keep things in perspective.

Attendance records kept for services and activities provided by any holiday complex are not legal documents so they don't need to be applied nor maintained with military precision. The creche register for example would only be to monitor attendance and show a contact point in the event of an emergency - no other reason. Same with a list of guests served at a restaurant - to monitor food consumption and ensure that no one is at the trough that shouldn't be. Same again with the sporting activity registers - to avoid over/under booking and make provision for replacing some unfortunate camper that injures his/her Achilles tendon so can't join the sporting group.

I once knew of a very fussy singleton of advancing years with a vitamin B complex dependence (insisted on a local doctor for daily injections), despite many visits to the same hotel over the years, she was never ever satisfied with her accommodation. In the space of a week she would change rooms about three times each visit - can you imagine the poor reception staff trying to juggle available accommodation and keep track of her whereabouts? Another instance I recall, a family group of five adults took it upon themselves to make frequent uninvited visits to the hotel kitchens because they thought the food was being recycled from one day to the next, so to speak. They got up a petition for other guests to sign with a view to suing for compensation on their return to the UK - turned out they were only booked for bed and breakfast! Who'd be in the tourist industry - a thankless task to say the least.

Whatever, be assured that the seasonal workers employed by tour companies are not there because they're dedicated to their vocation - I believe that to be the last thing on their list of priorities so don't expect a professional approach.

You don't even need to work or be around the industry to understand what goes on, you only need be a fellow camper with a wandering eye for detail - in short a nosy beggar or as I prefer to call it, an inquisitive nature.

by MayMuse Sun 4 Sep - 9:40

Everything needs to be under the microscope, yes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it does,you are correct. So,why isn't everything?
A child, a minor, a tiny innocent & vulnerable little girl has vanished without a trace, you would think to find what happened to her was priority wouldn't you? But no, her parents sue all and sundry & try and shut down anyone who dares to go against their "theory" naming them trolls! The authorities make a hogwash of the review cum investigation along with the media coining in big time!

Mark Warner/ Ocean Club seem to have slipped through the net of being sued? It appears they have not even done their own internal investigation? Wouldn't a company like that want to vet all employees, check and secure all apartments etc etc etc? No they just let those employees move on or were they pushed? Did they ever make a report for the incident? I don't recall one?
Most odd!
IMHO

by whodunit Sun 4 Sep - 9:47

NickE wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:QUOTE

Immediately, the question concerning the differentiating value of some haplotypes [haplotype (Greek haploos = single) is a combination of alleles at multiple loci that are transmitted together on the same chromosome] was raised, namely concerning JANE TANNER, page 4175, which was located in a residence in Burgau, which, in our understanding, would not be viable and logical, or to say the least, would be very strange.

REPLY: This may not have sounded 'viable' or 'logical', and may have been thought 'very strange', back in 2007 - but now that we have uncovered the Krokowski/Lourenco deception & fabrication, hairs of Jane Tanner and Robert being found in the Krokowskis' apartment seems

...viable...

...logical...

...and not so strange
Yes Tony, in Sweden we have a juridical term, "Strong circumstances evidence" and that term would fit here.

The hair was not the same haplotype as David Payne,Fiona Payne,Webster,Matt Oldfield,Rachel or Kate and Gery McCann,the hair was the same haplotype as Jane Tanner who claim she saw a man with a child and came up with the description of Krokowski.
This Krokowski stayed in that apartment where this strong circumstances evidence was found.

BOOM. Indeed.

The argument that the hair evidence is meaningless because 10% of Europe's population shares the same haplotype is thereby rendered moot. By this flawed argument the hairs should have matched every one of the Tapas.

Throw in a match to Murat and the odds it WASN'T him or Tanner must be approaching the astronomical.

by MayMuse Sun 4 Sep - 11:22

I wonder how much circumstantial evidence there is?
Would it be worth compiling a comprehensive list, the same as for all of the discrepancies and the factual evidence ?

by Doug D Sun 4 Sep - 14:43

Verdi:

‘Attendance records kept for services and activities provided by any holiday complex are not legal documents so they don't need to be applied nor maintained with military precision. The creche register for example would only be to monitor attendance and show a contact point in the event of an emergency - no other reason.’

Big difference between activity bookings/meal records and those for the crèche, whether they are strictly legal documents or not.

Little Johny is being signed in to the care of the crèche staff and then back out again to his parent or (should be) authorized responsible person.

Yes, Portugal may be different, but just imagine an OFSTED inspector walking into a nursery in this country, asking after a particular child who has been signed in and being told they didn’t know where they were. ‘He may have gone home already’ just wouldn’t wash.

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 21:23

MayMuse wrote:Everything needs to be under the microscope, yes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it does,you are correct. So,why isn't everything?
A child, a minor, a tiny innocent & vulnerable little girl has vanished without a trace, you would think to find what happened to her was priority wouldn't you? But no, her parents sue all and sundry & try and shut down anyone who dares to go against their "theory" naming them trolls! The authorities make a hogwash of the review cum investigation along with the media coining in big time!

Mark Warner/ Ocean Club seem to have slipped through the net of being sued? It appears they have not even done their own internal investigation? Wouldn't a company like that want to vet all employees, check and secure all apartments etc etc etc? No they just let those employees move on or were they pushed? Did they ever make a report for the incident? I don't recall one?
Most odd!
IMHO

You make a very good point, albeit with a hint of sarcasm I think. When you read the comments from the McCann support network about such as Warners should have told their guests about the local burglaries and displayed a notice in all rooms advising guests to keep their valuables safe duh

- it's a wonder they didn't try to sue the company for negligence.

Then again, Warners did provide them with alternative temporary accommodation, fed them and housed their extensive flow of visiting family and friends and allowed the twins to continue using the creche and other complex facilities.

smilie

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 21:43

MayMuse wrote:Everything needs to be under the microscope, yes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it does,you are correct. So,why isn't everything?

I think you already know the answer to that one!

Mark Warner/ Ocean Club seem to have slipped through the net of being sued? It appears they have not even done their own internal investigation? Wouldn't a company like that want to vet all employees, check and secure all apartments etc etc etc? ... Did they ever make a report for the incident? I don't recall one?

An internal inquiry and report by Warners/Ocean Club management would be an inevitable consequence of such an incident involving the police but not necessarily included in the PJ files published.

Let's face it, in fairness to the tour operators, when a couple of irresponsible parents openly admit they left their three very young vulnerable children at night in an unlocked apartment resulting in the disappearance of one - what can you do or say?

by bobbin Sun 4 Sep - 21:55

sallypelt wrote:
Hobs wrote:
Doug D wrote:MayMuse,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
All of the available creche sheets can be found here:

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

As for a timeline, it depends who you want to believe, if anyone.

Only ‘definite’s’ are from the Paraiso CCTV footage which can be found here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Anyone else notice the change in signature of kate?
For the twins, her signature on the jellyfish page is almost printed, especially the way the letter N is signed.
It is the same signature for signing the twins in and then out.

In the lobsters registration page, the signature signing Maddie in and out for the morning session is kate's and matches the signatures used for signing in and collecting the twins.
The signature for signing Maddie in for the afternoon session matches the previous signatures.
The signing out for Maddie is markedly different.
It is almost cursive in style and the letter N isn't remotely close to how kate signed her name earlier at sign in for Maddie or sign in and collection of the twins.
Her normal signature shows the letter N as two separate letters, almost printed, yet the signature for Maddie leaving shows the letter N as cursive and almost looking like the letter M, the letter A s also different.

The then begs the question as to who signed Maddie out that afternoon if the signee was not kate as indicated by the different signature?
If the signee was not kate yet signed out as kate why the need to fake a signature?
Where was kate then if she wasn't collecting Maddie?

If it were kate, why the change in signature?
If the signature was forged, why was it done so badly given they had a signature they could have copied?
If the signee was gerry, why not sign his own name?
If it were one of the tapas 7 why not use their own name/signature?

Did the adults collecting the children have to prove they were the parent or approved to collect said child from the creche?
If so, what proof was required, especially since the creche workers would not have been that familiar with the parents of the children, particularly at the beginning of the week?

If the signee was not kate but one of the tapas group would the staff have noticed the sex of the collecting adult and, if spotting the signature was supposedly that of the mother and yet it was a male that had collected Maddie, was anything said?

Did anyone watch the registration being signed whilst dropping off or collecting a child?
If so, did they not ask why the signature did not match the gender of the name, ie a male signing as kate?
If it was a female would they have been recognized as not being kate and asked why they were signing as kate?
Were arrangements in place to allow members of the tapas to collect any of the children from the group?
If so, was this a usual practice?
If not, why was it allowed?
Who allowed it?

If the signature was added later as the collecting parent had forgotten to sign out, who signed as kate?
Why was it added?
When was it added?

The page was supposedly registration for 3rd May, the day Maddie was allegedly abducted, was Maddie even there?
Since i believe Maddie died earlier in the week allowing time for the almost forensic clean up of the apartment and removal of her body, did any of the creche workers actually remember with certainty seeing Maddie and interacting with her on 3rd may?
If the registration page was signed with a creche worker as a witness are they 100% certain it was Maddie being signed in?

If Maddie died earlier in the week as indicated by the sensitivity in language regarding the beginning of the week, the change in breakfast and lunchtime routines with the mccanns eating away from the group, who was being presented as Maddie?

Would the child have not told the creche workers they were not called Maddie/Madeleine at some point during the session?
If the child was already named Maddie/Madeleine, and since we know none of the other children in the tapas 7 group was called Maddie/Madeleine, why would they join the conspiracy to conceal Maddie's death?

Were the creche workers involved in the subsequent cover up?
If so why?
How would they benefit?
What could they have lost?

So many questions, so few answers.
When a question does get an answer, it only leads to more questions.
Also, how many mums forget how to spell their own child's name? Madelene????

Fantastic observation sallypelt. Madelene ..... also Hobs, the signatures.

I note the difference in the M's.

Kate McCann systematically makes her M's with an 'up, down, up, down' movement. The M with the "Madelene" is an M that goes 'up, over, down, up, over down'. Rounded rather than sharp.

Clearly some fudging here, dishonesty, to say the least. IMO

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 21:56

Doug D wrote:Verdi:

‘Attendance records kept for services and activities provided by any holiday complex are not legal documents so they don't need to be applied nor maintained with military precision. The creche register for example would only be to monitor attendance and show a contact point in the event of an emergency - no other reason.’

Big difference between activity bookings/meal records and those for the crèche, whether they are strictly legal documents or not.

Little Johny is being signed in to the care of the crèche staff and then back out again to his parent or (should be) authorized responsible person.

Yes, Portugal may be different, but just imagine an OFSTED inspector walking into a nursery in this country, asking after a particular child who has been signed in and being told they didn’t know where they were. ‘He may have gone home already’ just wouldn’t wash.

I'm merely trying to point out that attendance records kept by a tourist complex are for internal administrative purposes only.

What you say about signing a child in and out of a creche is of course correct but I don't think an established registered regular daycare establishment for children in the UK (by example) can be compared to an ad-hoc service provided by a tourist establishment. I won't go into to detail as it's not really relevant but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not an authority on the subject, I only speak from personal experience. If you or others have experienced different then I can only say it goes to show there is not governing body or global policy to control services provided by the hotel industry. Thank goodness, there's enough establishment control over our lives without adding to it!

by Guest Sun 4 Sep - 21:59

MayMuse wrote:I wonder how much circumstantial evidence there is?

A list as long as a piece of string... yes

!

by Liz Eagles Sun 4 Sep - 22:02

Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:Verdi:

‘Attendance records kept for services and activities provided by any holiday complex are not legal documents so they don't need to be applied nor maintained with military precision. The creche register for example would only be to monitor attendance and show a contact point in the event of an emergency - no other reason.’

Big difference between activity bookings/meal records and those for the crèche, whether they are strictly legal documents or not.

Little Johny is being signed in to the care of the crèche staff and then back out again to his parent or (should be) authorized responsible person.

Yes, Portugal may be different, but just imagine an OFSTED inspector walking into a nursery in this country, asking after a particular child who has been signed in and being told they didn’t know where they were. ‘He may have gone home already’ just wouldn’t wash.
I'm merely trying to point out that attendance records kept by a tourist complex are for internal administrative purposes only.

What you say about signing a child in and out of a creche is of course correct but I don't think an established registered regular daycare establishment for children in the UK (by example) can be compared to an ad-hoc service provided by a tourist establishment. I won't go into to detail as it's not really relevant but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not an authority on the subject, I only speak from personal experience. If you or others have experienced different then I can only say it goes to show there is not governing body or global policy to control services provided by the hotel industry. Thank goodness, there's enough establishment control over our lives without adding to it!

I think you'll find Verdi that Mark Warner had an insurance policy under which terms they were probably required to provide evidence of their child care service and its administration - they were hardly saying 'leave your children here at your own risk' were they?

by whodunit Mon 5 Sep - 0:01

aquila wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Doug D wrote:Verdi:

‘Attendance records kept for services and activities provided by any holiday complex are not legal documents so they don't need to be applied nor maintained with military precision. The creche register for example would only be to monitor attendance and show a contact point in the event of an emergency - no other reason.’

Big difference between activity bookings/meal records and those for the crèche, whether they are strictly legal documents or not.

Little Johny is being signed in to the care of the crèche staff and then back out again to his parent or (should be) authorized responsible person.

Yes, Portugal may be different, but just imagine an OFSTED inspector walking into a nursery in this country, asking after a particular child who has been signed in and being told they didn’t know where they were. ‘He may have gone home already’ just wouldn’t wash.
I'm merely trying to point out that attendance records kept by a tourist complex are for internal administrative purposes only.

What you say about signing a child in and out of a creche is of course correct but I don't think an established registered regular daycare establishment for children in the UK (by example) can be compared to an ad-hoc service provided by a tourist establishment. I won't go into to detail as it's not really relevant but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not an authority on the subject, I only speak from personal experience. If you or others have experienced different then I can only say it goes to show there is not governing body or global policy to control services provided by the hotel industry. Thank goodness, there's enough establishment control over our lives without adding to it!
I think you'll find Verdi that Mark Warner had an insurance policy under which terms they were probably required to provide evidence of their child care service and its administration - they were hardly saying 'leave your children here at your own risk' were they?

Exactly. Even when on holidays most people (barring the Mcs apparently ) are still very concerned with the safety of their children. Parents like to be assured that not just any old Tom Dick or Harry could amble in off the streets and sign their children out of creche.

by Guest Mon 5 Sep - 4:53

aquila wrote:I think you'll find Verdi that Mark Warner had an insurance policy under which terms they were probably required to provide evidence of their child care service and its administration - they were hardly saying 'leave your children here at your own risk' were they?

This is taking on a life of it's own!

Why Aquila, of course Warners would have comprehensive insurance cover which would include health and safety provisions within all premises under their management and no, they were not saying 'leave your children at your own risk' any more than any other public building would have a notice at the door 'enter at your peril'. I don't even understand where all this is coming from, I haven't suggested anything of the kind.

As I originally said, my comments about attendance records and the lackadaisical attitude adopted by seasonal workers are based on my personal experience. The reader can take it or leave it - it matters not.

by Liz Eagles Mon 5 Sep - 5:29

Here's a read about Mark Warner and their insurance companies - the article was written in 2009.

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