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

Verdi wrote:

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.

aquila wrote:

Verdi wrote:

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.

Verdi, you made the following unsubstantiated comment

‘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.’

You see Verdi, it's my opinion that they are legal documents.

tnb wrote:Don't know if this has been asked before but does anyone know if Madeleine had any food alergies, such as nuts, eggs,dairy etc. Just a thought.

aquila wrote:I've snipped this from the Guardian article I posted up-thread.

Mark Warner built its firm on its claim of being one of the most child-friendly holiday companies. It is popular with middle-class parents who can relax while their children are looked after. The firm, founded in 1974, says on its website: "For over 30 years we have led the way in childcare and have kids' clubs for all ages with free evening creche service."

.................

In order to have made such a claim Mark Warner would have to have very stringent childcare policy and procedures with absolutely no room for lackadaisical, sloppy administration - people are entrusting the care of their children - not asking someone to mind their luggage.

There would also be a vetting system for creche workers and nannies surely.

What insurance company would cover any liability for even an accident whilst a child is in the care of Mark Warner without being provided with clear and precise details of their policy and procedures? Thus, the creche records are legal documents.

I do understand what Verdi is getting at but I can't accept that the creche records were just a note to
record attendance and contact numbers. No, the creche records were a legal requirement in duty of care as would be expected from any company providing these services - and we're not speaking of a tinpot company, we're speaking of a company that majored on selling its childcare - a British company selling this service to British people who expect best practice of childcare in Britain.

aquila wrote:

tnb wrote:Don't know if this has been asked before but does anyone know if Madeleine had any food alergies, such as nuts, eggs,dairy etc. Just a thought.

Well put it this way, Madeleine's parents took a huge risk for Madeleine against the advice of the PJ to highlight her eye defect as it was a good marketing ploy. The eye defect was then reduced to a fleck which was hardly noticeable.

If Madeleine had any food allergies I'm sure Kate would have mentioned it in her bewk along the lines of 'we didn't want to mention it at the time because it may have put Madeleine in danger' sort of thing.

I think your theory can be discounted.

ETA: Parents of abducted children who need medical attention/have special needs usually reveal this - Coral Jones did when April required daily medication.

ETA again: Mark Warner had a bracelet/registration policy. Any special requirements were to be declared by the parents.

aquila wrote:

Verdi wrote:

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.

Verdi, you made the following unsubstantiated comment

‘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.’

You see Verdi, it's my opinion that they are legal documents.

aquila wrote:It is a legal requirement to log the presence of the children dropped off in the creche building. It's standard procedure in case of fire isn't it?

It is a legal requirement to protect the creche employees that the children dropped off in their care are signed in and out with methodical accuracy.

Have a look at Mark Warner's holiday terms and conditions and you'll find a lot of legal stuff as to the liability Mark Warner undertake.

MayMuse wrote:KM explaining "cadaver odour" work and cuddle cat. 
I knew I'd read it somewhere;

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

By Paulo Reis

worriedmum wrote:

MayMuse wrote:KM explaining "cadaver odour" work and cuddle cat. 
I knew I'd read it somewhere;

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

By Paulo Reis

Thank you MayMuse, it's always good to see the original .

MayMuse wrote:Something else noticed whilst looking at the collected forensics in the files.
It says blue curtains and the white inner linings and armband? 
I can find no forensic report  on the "armband" and query if they meant an actual armband or the curtain tie back which has been translated incorrectly? 
An armband could mean a bracelet or a swimming armband; incidentally these are the living room curtains behind the sofa. 
Anyone have any ideas?

worriedmum wrote:

MayMuse wrote:KM explaining "cadaver odour" work and cuddle cat. 
I knew I'd read it somewhere;

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

By Paulo Reis

Thank you MayMuse, it's always good to see the original .

purple92 wrote:Avid reader here, but not much for posting.

However, as a teacher myself, and in the spirit of back to school here in the US, I had to chime in....

I think the point being made about the crèche records & signatures is not so much their validity as a legal document, but something far simpler. While I agree that holiday resorts are more relaxed than regular schools or day cares, I disagree that the record sheets are used in a relaxed manner at all. And no matter how unprofessional, inexperienced, or uninterested the holiday crèche workers may be, I am SURE the majority of them have the children's best interests at heart and know better than to be lax in their signing out procedures.

Schools need to be positive who is signing out a child or picking up a child from school. This because of custody issues where certain adults or guardians in the child's life should not be allowed to pick up the child, etc. Imagine in a tourist complex how many more issues there might be! Not to suggest that kidnappers are just lurking around. But in a resort area, there could be some unsavory characters, as there could be anywhere, and if they knew that the crèche was super relaxed in signing out procedures, well.....

The point is, children are children, and I doubt that the crèche workers were so inexperienced to allow anyone to come in and sign out any child. Even if ID was not shown, they should have SOME idea of who the parents are. I work a weekly summer camp each year where the parents change each week, and we are very strict with signing out, and I can definitely recognize some parents by the second day.

I just find it odd that these workers would not notice if a different child was being used/if a different adult was doing the pickups/ etc. Also, children of that age share all kinds of information, even things their parents wish they wouldn't. I have a hard time believing Maddie wouldn't have done the same, so to have so few details from the workers about her is odd to me, as is the lack of artwork and photos from her time at the crèche.

Again, this is all coming from a teacher perspective, but I just find the whole crèche thing odd.

Equity wrote:Superb piece of research by all contributors and makes compelling reading.

However, this would be a good place to post something that I have always found inexplicable. Something not based on hours and hours of painstaking research but just plain old fashioned human emotion.

I, and I'm sure many other forum members, have had the misfortune over the years to experience traumatic events - not just to close family, but to friends and colleagues.

Without exception, an uncontrolled outpouring of grief has always occurred and was hard to experience and witness. I've seen people pass out, make sounds you never hear in any other circumstance and others requiring heavy sedation. If a child was involved, the affect on even casual acquaintances was dramatic and long lasting.

I find it almost impossible to comprehend that not only the parents but close friends could function without anyone noticing the agonising grief and stress indelibly etched on their faces - tennis lessons, sailing, laughing and joking in the Tapas Restaurant all carried out with casual aplomb having witnessed the death of a child - really?

I've seen the look that KM had on her face the morning of the 4th May before. To me she didn't look as if she was acting. If she had been holding that in all week she would be a unique individual.

I am obviously not wishing to dismiss the outstanding research which certainly highlights the strange events of that week but simply going by my own experience I struggle to accept that 'acting normal' would be possible - doctors or not. Unless they are all borderline psychopaths of course.
.

Equity wrote:I am obviously not wishing to dismiss the outstanding research which certainly highlights the strange events of that week but simply going by my own experience I struggle to accept that 'acting normal' would be possible - doctors or not. Unless they are all borderline psychopaths of course.

Verdi wrote:

Equity wrote:I am obviously not wishing to dismiss the outstanding research which certainly highlights the strange events of that week but simply going by my own experience I struggle to accept that 'acting normal' would be possible - doctors or not. Unless they are all borderline psychopaths of course.

But they (the McCanns) did - didn't they.  Whether Madeleine disappeared at the beginning of the week, during the week or on Thursday 3rd May 2007, there has never been any sign of the raw emotion that you speak of.  Something tragic happened to Madeleine McCann during that week - FACT - still the parents carried on as if nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.

I can't dispute what you say from your own experience but there is no code of practice, guideline, law or fixed response to personal tragedy - everyone is different and will react differently in similar circumstances.  Even the world of psychology will confirm that there is no proper way to respond, no consistency in the way people grieve or react to personal tragedy.

Former generations, from which some still remain, looked at life and death more philosophically - for the most part they weren't prostrated by grief, life and death being all part of life's rich tapestry.  There will always be exceptions to the rule but again, we are all different.  I can't bear to witness anyone/thing in chronic pain, death being a blessing - no doubt others will be horrified by the suggestion.  Horrendous situations across the globe are part of everyday life, those responsible for some of the atrocities wouldn't bat an eyelid - the McCanns are no exception.  There are many examples of parents/prime carers that have abused their responsibility but perfectly capable of feigning distress or angelic innocence when in the spotlight - the McCanns are no exception.

Ashwarya wrote:This is a really interesting thread.  Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died?  I know this sounds really macabre, but the Victorians for example used to take family photos immediately after a child had died by dint of propping them up in a line up with the other children, not to convince anyone that the child was still alive, obviously, but so that they had a record of the complete family as it had been up to then.  The make up photo is taken at such a strange and provocative angle that this seems a possibility, and as you point out it is a sad picture rather than one of a child who has "raided mummy's make up box"!  I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I have always wondered about this.

NickE wrote:This was posted by Derek Spring today on Facebook.
He is a Pro McCann....but what is he talking about here?
Is he suggest that there was two Madeleine 4-5 days before May 3rd?

"IF,THE POLICE had come to see me when madeleine went missing ,as with me it started 4 to 5  days before she went missing ,why would I see a girl looked like madeleine ,got her name told it was going to happen ,holiday time ,told a friend  2 days before she is missing it was going to happen etc, what I have not told you is about the priests  what I got about 4 weeks before mc, missing .this comes right ,so all the  other things that has happened have come right ,right down to the latest photos of the couple who have her unless I am wrong .so  are you telling me all of the other things are coincidence I think not. the  QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT HER BACK"