The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.18 9:44

@Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett, You state above  -

[SNIPPED]

I was not referring to High Tea on Thursday. I meant High Tea on all the other days. If the nannies (not just Cat) who claimed to have supervised Madeleine at tea each day were liars or wrong - who was the little girl they were minding each evening whom they believed to be Madeleine.
@ Phoebe

First of all a polite reminder to you that one of the Forum headers states: "We can only support posts based on the available evidence" (not the exact words but something similar).

Now in my post upthread, I wrote this:

----

QUOTE:  "One other point. Phoebe spoke about 'the kids' all having tea with their parents late afternoon every week.

The alleged high tea on Thursday is so full of contradictions between the four witnesses that one cannot rely on any of their accounts. As for there being a 'high tea' on any of the other days of the week, please be kind enough to show us the evidence for that statement, Phoebe".
    UNQUOTE

----

Now, if you re-read that, you will see that I was unmistakably seeking from you evidence of there 'being a 'high tea on any of the other days of the week'.

You have provided NO such evidence.

I am quite prepared to take the charitable view that you simply overlooked the precise question I asked of you and went on to answer a completely different one that I had not asked.  

This is an evidence-based forum and an investigative forum and as the forum-owner has said we can only proceed in our work if members post evidence, and theories based on evidence, rather than on uninformed speculation and guesswork.

I challenge your claim that there is adequate evidence to support the idea that there was high tea every day of the week. I am not saying that there isn't such evidence. As you assert that there is such evidence, I would just like you to find it for me.

I'd be grateful if you could find the evidence for your assertion, lay it out here on the forum, and then we can all discuss whether it stands up or not.

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15205
Reputation : 3110
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.18 9:50

@skyrocket wrote:@polyenne - the cleaner sighting was at lunchtime on Sunday 29th.

@Phoebe - although it is difficult to believe that there was a concerted cover up being carried out from early on in the week, which included the nannies, I am convinced of it. If you compare the nanny statements they appear contrived and there are glaring (GLARING) irregularities.

For example, Shinead, who was responsible for the twins in Toddler2's, states:
She affirms that she saw Madeleine McCann once when she arrived during the week, but that she did not know, as the deponent was working only with the Toddler group;
. She did recognise the family, as she was responsible for the twins, children of the couple and siblings of Madeleine McCann;



And yet, we have Stacey, who was in charge of both Toddler groups stating this:
Knew the McCann family since 29th of April as they would drop off their toddlers, Sean and Amelie, in the Toddler Club;
--- From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day.
--- She also knew Madeleine as she would frequently come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;



If someone can explain to me how that is possible I will listen.



Based on the statements (and Mark Warner website info from 2007), the creche workers were responsible for their afternoon groups until 5.30pm at high tea when the nannies signed the children back over in to the parents care (i.e. their shifts ended). Shinead took the Mc twins to the covered area next to the tapas daily for their tea and remained with them. Similarly, the Minis (3-5 year olds) were taken to high tea in the same location, at the same time, by their nannies. Irrespective of whether Stacey is referring to the end of the morning or afternoon creche sessions, whatever she saw Shinead should have seen (particularly as Stacey states 'frequently'). Simple as that, and if you study the nanny statements carefully they are full of other apparently impossible/conflicting scenarios regarding Madeleine 'sightings'.



Then we have statements like this one from Stephen Carpenter:

DCF: Oh yes, not from there, it was even before Madeleine disappeared. Did you see them with Madeleine and the other two children'
.
SC: Humm...I don't remember what I said in my statement, I am not sure about this because when I think about the past, and I know that he was playing tennis and I imagine something different, that's why...humm I can't specify hours and dates.

DCF: Ok. If you can remember the occasion upon which you saw them, how was the children's behaviour'.

SC: Humm. I can't reply because I was not concentrating on this type of thing, that's why...hmmm, I cannot even reply to this.

DCF: No, but I was thinking from the point of view of common sense, after the disappearance of Madeleine, any doubt that you could have had.

SC: Oh, after the disappearance'

DCF: No, what I was thinking here was that after her disappearance, you would probably have reflected upon whether you saw anything.

SC: Hummm... I remember talking to Gerry, because I had to go and fetch I*** and they were playing in the small garden and he was (inaudible), I***** and I thought it was Maddie, I am not absolutely sure but
,


I find this a strange thing to say. He certainly isn't sure now (rogatory April 2008) and it sounds to me that he only assumed it was Madeleine at the time because she was with Gerry. Recognition by association - I do it all the time with children/parents/etc.

My opinion, for what it's worth but after multiple readings of the statements in question, is that as @HiDeHo/Tony and others have pointed out on many occasions, there is very little reliable evidence that Madeleine was around after the Sunday 29.

Getting back on topic - I believe that the alarm was raised twice. A false start at around 9.15pm just after the Carpenters had left the tapas restaurant, leaving no more witnesses to the proceedings there - the executive chef arriving moments later to see
only 3 couples sitting (together) on the tapas esplanade. Carolyn Carpenter thought she'd heard shouts of 'Madeleine' just before she entered her apartment across the road. At 9.40pm the exec chef sees an empty table but belongings still in place.

Incidently both Carpenter and the chef state that there were cars parked up from the reception - something Jane Tanner failed to mention (or draw) in her statement when describing how she had somehow managed to squeeze past to the left of Gerry on the pavement, or was it Jez
(depending on which dated statement you read), without either man seeing her. Let's be clear - Tanner says that on a pavement of about 1 metre (3 feet) width, she walks past a man (ON the pavement) and he doesn't see her approaching, passing or walking away. Not only that, but the man talking to the man on the pavement (and therefore one would have thought facing the pavement in some way) didn't see her either. What's the chances? Or perhaps the question should be: Why this storyline? The 'passing' was supposedly at around 9.15pm.

For some reason, whether it was the Wilkins encounter (who makes it clear that he isn't sure what time he met Garry between 8.45pm and 9.15pm) or something else, it appears from the statements(!) that the second alarm was then raised almost exactly an hour later. I do believe that there were 2 timelines running - hence the confusion with the reported times of witnesses hearing that a child was missing. Perhaps this confusion from the word go was also planned.


Praise be!

For once on this thread we have a poster who presents a mass of detailed evidence!

And that makes it all the more credible, over those that are full of speculation and with little or no evidence provided to members and guests.

Well done! - and THANK YOU. I wish you could help us with more of your research, I think it is excellent.

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15205
Reputation : 3110
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 12.10.18 10:10

Thanks for that Tony. 

I've actually just noted that the thread asks why the alarm was raised when it was. I can only speculate and agree with others that time was needed to plan and cover tracks. I also think that perhaps Thursday gave less time for the investigation to get going before most guests returned home on the Saturday, but enough time to reduce the risk that the PJ didn't ask guests to stay on to be interviewed in more depth. Who knows!
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 714
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Jill Havern on 12.10.18 10:26

@Verdi wrote:There are documented heinous crimes committed throughout history where the perpetrator has continued with life as if nothing had happened.

It's human coping mechanism. 

Whichever way you look at it, whether Madeleine 'disappeared' any time on any day between Saturday 28th April and Thursday 3rd May - the parents and their friends showed no sign of raw emotion.

The whole affair was a masquerade designed to fool the investigation and the world - it worked to perfection!!!

Hence here we are 'probing' the case eleven + years down the line.  Looking for the truth, something the UK police have never tried.

no raw emotion?

The bruises on Kate's arm were not fresh and red. They were blue - brown. Some days old.  (Need to check the date of the photos)
Mrs Fenn hearing crying for hours (Maddie Maddie) ? ? ?    unproven but possible

But yes, there are many documented cases .  Dr Harold Shipman for one. (215 victims).   Dr Bodkin Adams for two. (160 victims)  Dr Hawley Harvey Crippen for three, 
Dr HH Holmes (USA) . (200 victims) .     and that's just the doctors !
It is the genuine victims who fold up. Mrs Needham,  Winnie Johnson (mother of Keith Bennett) et al.

And if 'everyone' was there for high tea, the nannys would no longer count the children. They might assume that the parents could do this for themselves !
avatar
Jill Havern


Posts : 13261
Reputation : 5915
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Doug D on 12.10.18 12:30

OT as such, but Jill mentions KM’s bruises above and there only appears to be one thread on these, which is not very informative:
 
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7624-kate-s-bruises?highlight=bruises
 
I have often wondered whether PeterMac has ever discussed these with GA and whether the PJ ever compiled a timeline of any available holiday photos of KM, such as the originals of the ‘greyscale’ ones we can see in the files, to try to ascertain when this bruising first showed, or whether long sleeves were worn to cover these up from earlier in the week.
 
Surprisingly there is no mention of the bruising in GA’s book, yet the investigating officers must surely have noticed and commented on it, even if it was current and just severely red at the time.
 
You cannot see her arms in the usual T9 photo of the group taken on the Friday morning, yet other photos were surely taken. She wore a long sleeved sweatshirt in the ‘first appeal’ video made on the evening of 4th May, even though people in the background were in shirtsleeves, so it is impossible to tell how old the bruises were.
 
From the bewk (P87):
 
‘For the first time I noticed the ugly purple, blue and black bruises on the sides of my hands, wrists and forearms. I was shocked. Gerry reminded me of how I’d been banging my clenched fists on the veranda railing and the apartment walls the night before. I could only vaguely remember it.
In spite of his misgivings about the media, Gerry decided that he wanted to make a statement to them.’

So this was about 10pm Friday night. No mention of the apparent finger marks that could be seen in photos at the top of her arms.

It is also good to be told that bruises ‘appear(ed) almost immediately’ (P44 re MM on aircraft steps):

‘She handled it so bravely, letting out only a momentary whimper in spite of the large bruise that appeared almost immediately’.

so no problem there then with any ‘black and blue’ arms by the Friday evening! Visible yellowing would be a different matter though.

Doug D

Posts : 2732
Reputation : 975
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Ruffian on 12.10.18 12:37

@Tony Bennett wrote:Goodness me, there are some determined crusaders on here very deliberately determined to try and wreck, if they can, any theory which suggests that Madeleine died before 6pm on Thursday.

I think it would be a very good idea if each of them had a very good and long look at the Madeleine McCann Research Group article: "FOUR DAYS OR FOUR HOURS", and try to rebut that article, point by point, if they can. I doubt whether any of the crusaders has seen it; if they have, they are clearly deliberately ignoring it.

LINK:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14704-planning-the-abduction-hoax-was-it-done-over-four-days-or-four-hours

The four crusaders have been extremely naive, misleading and downright stupid in much of what they have written.

I will just take Ruffian's short and silly post, where s/he claims that the 'earlier death' theory requires a substitute and all sorts of people to lie and change crèche records etc.

I have made this point many times and will make it once again:

Who, by Sunday lunchtime, knew who Madeleine McCann was?

I will tell you.

The McCanns.

The Tapas 7.

Catriona Baker, Madeleine's crèche nanny, who almost certainly was known to the McCann family already.

And who else?

Can anyone on this forum tell me with certainty of ANYONE ELSE who actually knew who Madeleine McCann was by, say, Sunday afternoon? I can think of no-one.

If Madeleine had 'disappeared' on Sunday afternoon, who, really, would know about it?

ANSWER: The McCanns,  the Tapas 7, Catriona Baker. And very possibly nobody else.


One other point. Phoebe spoke about 'the kids' all having tea with their parents late afternoon every week.

The alleged high tea on Thursday is so full of contradictions between the four witnesses that one cannot rely on any of their accounts. As for there being a 'high tea' on any of the other days of the week, please be kind enough to show us the evidence for that statement, Phoebe.
@Tony
You seem very dismissive of anyone that challenges your opinion.

I will ignore your childish reference to my post in favour of affording you some information you may have forgotten or overlooked

It was your own researchers that insists a substitute  child (Ellie) was used to fool the creche workers etc.
My point the substitue child would have to also disapear after the 3rd is a valid one..else anyone seeing her around the resort would simply take the sub (Ellie) to the PJ claiming all well Madeleine had been found
I never mentioned the creche records... is that another oversight on your part?
For the sub child to work more people would have complicit knowledge of the swap..Not to mention the child herself who would have to be schooled into answering to her friends name without question
MM body would have to be concealed somewhere on a resort none of them had previous knowledge and only been on for at least two days

If GA had the slightest inclination MM was not seen throught that week  he would have been all over it with a fine tooth comb.

Its plain GA was satisfied MM disappeared on the 3rd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEPENDANT SIGHTING 3rd May


her boss, named Steve, that a female child who was together with parents and siblings staying in an apartment of "The Ocean Club" had disappeared the previous day (May 03, 2007)

_ That when she was informed of the disappearance of such a minor she did not take knowledge of which child was treated in particular, and that later, in the television newscasts of that night, and after viewing the images of the disappeared child on television, she became aware of who it was, called Madeleine (as was mentioned by the journalists) remembering to have come to see the same during the dinners that are provided the children of the nursery of the enterprise, which takes place in the restaurant where the deponent works, as well as when they arrive at the crèche where Madeleine spend the days spends the days, which is contiguous/next to the restaurant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE- contigua- neXt or contiguous (contiguous
kənˈtɪɡjʊəs/
adjective
adjective: contiguous

sharing a common border; touching.
"the Southern Ocean is contiguous with the Atlantic"
synonyms: adjacent, neighbouring, adjoining, bordering, next-door; More
abutting, joining, connecting, meeting, touching, in contact, proximate;
near, nearby, close; vicinal

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questioned the deponent clarifies that on the day of the disappearance she worked restaurant of the touristic enterprise mentioned between 10AM to 6:45 PM. On completing her daily work she went to her residence where he stayed with his 13-year-old son until about 10:00 a.m.

of the following day (04 May 2007) ........................................ (I.e.

_____ That on May 4, 2007, by virtue of having a consultation at 10:00 am on

Lagos Health Center, as well as a hearing at the Court of Portimão to be held at 3:00 p.m., was only escalated to its service at 6:30 p.m.

dinner service, which ends at midnight)

____Regarding the facts under investigation in the present investigation, the deponent she only knows what she has heard from the media, as well as in conversations kept with your work colleagues -----------------------------------------

__Questionada refers that she remembers that the last time she saw Madeleine was at 4:30 p.m. on May 3, 2007, the same state having dinner with the other children in their own space in the restaurant where the deponent works, which happens every day of the week .--------------------------------------- ---------

As stated above, she has no element of usefulness about the facts in the investigation, adding nothing more than the one already described above, pointing out that, as she subsequently recalled, such a child accompanied his parents on vacation in the undertaking where she works, along with two other siblings ("twin babies" -sic) .--
avatar
Ruffian

Posts : 60
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Verdi on 12.10.18 12:44

The bruises on Kate's arm were not fresh and red. They were blue - brown. Some days old.  (Need to check the date of the photos)

Bruises?  Photographs?  🇪🇭

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10988
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.18 13:17

@Ruffian wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Goodness me, there are some determined crusaders on here very deliberately determined to try and wreck, if they can, any theory which suggests that Madeleine died before 6pm on Thursday.

I think it would be a very good idea if each of them had a very good and long look at the Madeleine McCann Research Group article: "FOUR DAYS OR FOUR HOURS", and try to rebut that article, point by point, if they can. I doubt whether any of the crusaders has seen it; if they have, they are clearly deliberately ignoring it.

LINK:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14704-planning-the-abduction-hoax-was-it-done-over-four-days-or-four-hours

The four crusaders have been extremely naive, misleading and downright stupid in much of what they have written.

I will just take Ruffian's short and silly post, where s/he claims that the 'earlier death' theory requires a substitute and all sorts of people to lie and change crèche records etc.

I have made this point many times and will make it once again:

Who, by Sunday lunchtime, knew who Madeleine McCann was?

I will tell you.

The McCanns.

The Tapas 7.

Catriona Baker, Madeleine's crèche nanny, who almost certainly was known to the McCann family already.

And who else?

Can anyone on this forum tell me with certainty of ANYONE ELSE who actually knew who Madeleine McCann was by, say, Sunday afternoon? I can think of no-one.

If Madeleine had 'disappeared' on Sunday afternoon, who, really, would know about it?

ANSWER: The McCanns,  the Tapas 7, Catriona Baker. And very possibly nobody else.


One other point. Phoebe spoke about 'the kids' all having tea with their parents late afternoon every week.

The alleged high tea on Thursday is so full of contradictions between the four witnesses that one cannot rely on any of their accounts. As for there being a 'high tea' on any of the other days of the week, please be kind enough to show us the evidence for that statement, Phoebe.
@Tony

You seem very dismissive of anyone that challenges your opinion.

It was your own researchers that insists a substitute  child (Ellie) was used to fool the creche workers etc.

You seem very dismissive of anyone that challenges your opinion.

REPLY: I am dismissive of anyone who challenges my opinion without producing good evidence to counter my opinion  

It was your own researchers that insists a substitute  child (Ellie) was used to fool the creche workers etc.

kikoraton / santacolomoa /dewi was, in line with forum policy, allowed free rein to advance his 'substitute child' theory on here. He spent a long time promoting it. Most people on CMOMM spotted obvious flaws with his theory and after that he left here, trying to promote his views on Twitter. The 'substitute child' theory does not find, and never has found, favour with the Admin & Mods Team here.

(To that I will add that I personally believe that some people may on some occasions have confused Ella O'Brien for Madeleine)

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15205
Reputation : 3110
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

High Tea?

Post by Doug D on 12.10.18 14:09

MM’s Lobster Group Crèche Records
 
Undated (but must be Sunday 29/4/07)
 
Ella O’Brien out 3.30
Jessica Berry & Elizabeth Naylor out at 5.20
MM & Alexander Mann out at 17.30
 
Monday 30/4/07
 
Tia Patel, William Totman, Russell O’Brien (s/b Ella?), & Alexander Mann not signed out.
MM signed out at 15.30 (or 5.30?)
 
Tuesday 1/5/07
 
Elizabeth Naylor 4.00
Jessica Berry, Tia Patel, Ella O’Brien, William Totman, Richard (s/b Alexander?) Mann signed out at 17.30
MM not signed out
 
Wednesday 2/5/07
 
Jessica Berry 4.30
Ella O’Brien, MM & Alexander Mann signed out at 17.30
 
Thursday 3/5/07
 
Ella O’Brien out at 16.30
Alexander Mann & MM signed out at 17.30
William Totman signed out at 5.13


....................................................................
 
Based on the crèche records, for what they are worth, anyone not signed out before about 17.00 could potentially have been taken to the Tapas for ‘high tea’ if such an event happened, but how would the childminders know who to take and who not to, as the parents may be just about to arrive to collect their child?
 
If such an event did happen, there must be other records, to not only stop this from happening, but there would surely also be an additional cost involved for feeding the children.
    
Of the other parents, no PJ or rogatory statements are on file, except Neil Berry’s rogatory from April 2008, where he states that he has already made two statements (which are not on file) to the police and he says nothing of any use about teatime, other than Jessica was not in childcare on the afternoon of 3rd.

Doug D

Posts : 2732
Reputation : 975
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Ruffian on 12.10.18 14:16

@Tony Bennett
To refresh your memory. Liz taylor is part of your research team
The anomalies in the creche records are not eclusive to the McCanns and Tapas group but that fact is denied or over looked  in favour of the theory being pushed

Its a nonsensical to think so many were duped or were complicit in a child swap/substitution . Confirmation bias is like a bacteria that spreads and grows once a person has lost sight of common sense and the real facts

You may think my thoughts and research on the case is silly but  at least i take into account the fact the  files we see are a fraction of the original files and are not professionally translated.
Old news articles are riddled with speculation many of which were retracted


This forum was once a place to challenge ones thoughts and theory.
Of late it seems to have become stifled by the egos that feel only their research is of any value Nevertheless I will hang around  in order to challenge myself on what I think i know

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



DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE BEFORE 5.30PM MAY 3RD?
 
If so, that would mean that she did not attend the crèche during May 3rd or earlier.

Have you considered how this could be explained?  Catriona, her nanny, claims Maddie was in the crèche during Thursday (and before).  For the record, I DO NOT believe Catriona was lying.
 
Is the following scenario possible?
 
Suggesting that something happened to Maddie before Tuesday morning (when the major discrepancies/contradictions/lies started…likely to hide the truth) then Maddie would have only visited the crèche for a day or two.

What I feel is important to remember, is that the crèche did not follow the strict guidelines of a school, where children were expected to be present and accounted for during the full day.

Children were dropped off and picked up randomly and the register was likely used as a record of where to find the parents if needed  as opposed to a record of their use of the crèche (which was free, so no need to establish cost) There were approximately 13 children that used the kids club (3 – 5 yrs old) and were divided into two groups. Lobsters and Sharks. However they all shared the same crèche room and although assigned to specific nannies, were likely interacting together.








We are told that there were several little blonde girls and  I doubt for the first day or two the nannies were able to distinguish between them or notice if one or more of the young children were missing for the rest of the week.

Children arrived and left randomly, and were the records strictly kept where each nanny greeted the parents at the door as they arrived and signed the register, or was the register a requirement to locate the parents and was left‘on the side’ for them to responsibly sign in case the nanny needed to contact them?

Would the nannies scrutinize the register and take special note of who should be there at any specific time during the day? Likely  not.  Once children arrived and doors were closed, the nannies, at the beginning of the season when everything was new and lprobably not all in place, would likely be focused on keeping the children’s attention and dealing with minor issues between the children.

Catriona claims there were bracelets issued to each child and whether used or not, in a room of approximately 13 children, that were only going to be there for less than a week, and sometimes only a couple of hours, remembering their names would likely be secondary to keeping them occupied.  There was no expectation for every child to be in attendance every day and so if one or more was missing, I can’t imagine it being of importance.

Is this the reason that, whether during the week or only Thursday, it may not have been apparent that Maddie was not there?



How could the McCanns have accomplished this deceit? 
How could Catriona claim to have seen Maddie, even though she was not there?


Is it possible that this following scenario explains how the McCanns deceived everyone into believing Maddie was attending the crèche?


JaneTanners daughter was similar in appearance to Maddie. She was only 3 months younger and had similar hair colour..  Her shy personality was very different from what we have been told about Maddie but is it possible that Catriona was 'intimidated' by the knowledge, once Maddie disappeared,  to learn that SHE had been looking after Maddie until that afternoon.  










Did she SPECIFICALLY remember Maddie (by name) as being there or KNOWING (according to the McCanns) that she had been with Maddie that day maybe she was thinking she didn’t recall the name of the child that day (or before) but as far as she was told, Maddie WAS at the crèche and she could have second guessed herself and felt the child that had disappeared must have been the child that resembled who she later learned was Maddie.

If she couldn’t remember EXACTLY the child named Maddie was there that day, (or earlier) there is no way she could have jeopardized her job by claiming shedidn’t remember.

She had been TOLD Maddie was at the crèche that day and as the ‘abduction’happened from the apartment, the crèche was not involved.  However there WAS a BBC Whisteblower program that had criticized a Mark Warner crèche in another location only three weeks prior.  Admitting to not SPECIFICALLY remembering Maddie could jeopardize her credibility for the job




.

She presumed that Maddie was the child that may or may not have been called ‘Ella’.  Is this the reason that Catriona and many of the other OC staff described ‘Maddie’ as being shy and had the personality of Ella?

It goes without question that,  even though she may not have remembered Maddie specifically, (especially if Maddie was actually only there during the first couple of days) she would give her statements about the child she now believed must have been Maddie.

Once acknowledged Maddie was there she could never retract her statement. There was no turning back. Was this the reason she went through a depressing time a few weeks later (as described to a friend) when she inwardly realized the scope of the case?

This brings us to HOW could the McCanns achieve their deceit of Maddie attending the crèche?

 
 
After scrutinizing the crèche records, and guided by the discrepancies/contradictions starting on TUESDAY MORNING, so with the possibility that they were trying to hide something at this point, Monday MAY have been the day something happened.

MONDAY AFTERNOON - Oddly, Maddie was signed into the crèche at 3.15pm and signed out after 15 mins.

Approximately half an hour later, Ella was signed in at 4pm, but not signed out.
avatar
Ruffian

Posts : 60
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by polyenne on 12.10.18 15:26

All guesswork......if (and it's a big "if"), there was indeed high tea, it would make sense for that to be an integral part of the creche day such that, say at 16.30, all the children were taken to high tea and it is from there that the parents had to collect their particular child, perhaps anytime between 17.00 and 17.30.

Not based on any hard facts or evidence.....because there aren't (m)any

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 12.10.18 15:35

@DougD/@polyenne - actually, every child place booked with MarkWarner entitled the child to a meal in the evening. Small children were encouraged to be taken to the high tea meal, irrespective of whether they were attending creche or not - MarkWarner stating in their blurb that the later evening meal was really for grown ups! If children were taken to high tea by the parents, they were responsible for looking after them during the meal; if they were taken as part of the creche day, the nannies looked after them until 5.30pm only. Children couldn't attend both high tea and the later meal. The high tea was described on the 2006/07 website and I do believe that it took place. 

As I've said before, you would have thought that if Madeleine had attended high tea from Sunday through Thursday everyone (and specifically the child aware nannies) spoken to would have clearly remembered the 3 little blonde siblings (even if they didn't sit together), and therefore Madeleine - the little blonde girl with the twin siblings. Particularly as they apparently all played in the play area after each high tea, and we are constantly told that Madeleine always wanted to be the centre of attention. 

Nothing is set in stone - did Madeleine ever attend creche in any guise? Did she ever attend high tea?

I think it has already been reasonably well established that the majority of people outside of the group of friends and the immediate creche workers, would not have to be involved in any sort of mass cover up - all that was needed was the creation of doubt/confusion. I know that @HiDeHo is very reluctant to implicate Cat Baker but I believe that both her and Charlotte the fairy, in particular, have questions to answer.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 714
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 12.10.18 17:40

I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue with regard to establishing when Madeleine disappeared (and that involves when the alarm was raised re. relevance to thread)

There has been a persistent effort on the part of some to promote the theory that Madeleine died much earlier in the week.

 Now, lets look at the scenario which would inevitably  result from the P.J. (who have the primary investigation) announcing their acceptance of this theory - eleven and a half years after the the crimes (cadaver concealment, abduction simulation) occurred.

The investigation would have to try and prove WHEN Madeleine did  disappear. After all this time, I doubt this would be possible. Even if any of those witnesses who testified to having seen Madeleine during that week now admitted being mistaken, how would this help to establish WHEN the crime occurred in the face of persistent denials by the McCanns and other McCann-supporting witnesses.
Should the police decide to proceed with pressing charges, this would involve going into court to claim a crime occurred -

 "on or about the week of April 29th - May 3rd".

 This hardly inspires confidence in the police having any firm idea of what actually happened, given that they admit not even knowing when "it" might have happened! 
In court, the McCanns and their supporters would undoubtedly stick to their version of events, up to and including Thurs. May 3rd. In this they would have no choice.
 The prosecution would be forced to seek to disprove, not only the Tapas 9's version and that of those witnesses who stick by their original claims re. that week, but would also have to admit in court that the P.J. got their investigation dramatically wrong. 

The Defence would have a field day!!!! After all, if the P.J were so incompetent that they are forced to admit that they got the date of the crime wrong, how could anyone trust ANY other evidence proffered by them (which the Defence will attack with full vigour) In such a scenario the entire police case against the McCanns would be laughed out of court.

If the only place the McCanns are ever tried is in the court of public opinion (as I suspect will be the case) how would acceptance by the P.J that they were "duped" about the date affect public opinion.

Much has been made of P.J. "incompetence" by the McCanns and the 
media. If the P.J were now to admit to being "duped" by the McCanns, and to having made a mistake over the date - would this increase confidence in the P.J's assertion that there was no abduction.
 I believe it would have the polar OPPOSITE effect and, instead, would increase the numbers of those who believe in the McCanns tale of an abduction, poorly investigated by bumbling police.

Accepting and promoting the idea that the P.J were easily misled in this case can benefit only Team McCann, and theerfore hinder achieving justice - either in a real court or in the court of public opinion - for that lost child!

If anyone can show me how changing the date of the crime can, at this juncture, have a positive effect on the investigation and the pursuit of justice for Madeleine - I'm all ears!

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.18 18:18

@Phoebe wrote:I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue


REPLY:

A classic evidence-free Phoebe post:

Now, lets look at the scenario which would inevitably  result.
The investigation would have to
I doubt this would be possible.
Even if
how would this
Should the police decide
this would involve
would undoubtedly stick to their version of events
would have no choice.
The prosecution would be forced
would also have to admit
The Defence would have
if the P.J
how could anyone trust
If the only place the McCanns are ever tried
as I suspect will be the case
how would acceptance by the P.J
If the P.J were now to admit
would this increase confidence
I believe it would have
would increase the numbers
promoting the idea that the P.J were easily misled
If anyone can show me

At least you have a few of the Benjamin Thompson clique supporting you on Twitter

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15205
Reputation : 3110
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 12.10.18 18:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Phoebe wrote:I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue


REPLY:

A classic evidence-free Phoebe post:

Now, lets look at the scenario which would inevitably  result.
The investigation would have to
I doubt this would be possible.
Even if
how would this
Should the police decide
this would involve
would undoubtedly stick to their version of events
would have no choice.
The prosecution would be forced
would also have to admit
The Defence would have
if the P.J
how could anyone trust
If the only place the McCanns are ever tried
as I suspect will be the case
how would acceptance by the P.J
If the P.J were now to admit
would this increase confidence
I believe it would have
would increase the numbers
promoting the idea that the P.J were easily misled
If anyone can show me

At least you have a few of the Benjamin Thompson clique supporting you on Twitter
@ Tony Bennett. Tony, could you please explain how YOU feel acceptance by the P.J. of being duped would play out in court and with the public, and HOW YOU believe such a change of position could ADVANTAGE any case against the McCanns
 I invite you to put forward any evidence which you have demonstrating that the P.J. publicly accepting that they were wrong about when Madeleine died would aid a prosecution against the McCanns.
 Actions have consequences, surely you must have considered the consequences for any prosecution in the event of the P.J admitting getting such a basic fact as when Madeleine disappeared wrong.

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.10.18 19:54

@Phoebe wrote:

@ Tony Bennett. Tony, could you please explain how YOU feel acceptance by the P.J. of being duped would play out in court and with the public, and HOW YOU believe such a change of position could ADVANTAGE any case against the McCanns
 I invite you to put forward any evidence which you have demonstrating that the P.J. publicly accepting that they were wrong about when Madeleine died would aid a prosecution against the McCanns.
 Actions have consequences, surely you must have considered the consequences for any prosecution in the event of the P.J admitting getting such a basic fact as when Madeleine disappeared wrong.
@ Phoebe

Usual forum etiquette and indeed common courtesy requires that you answer any reasonable and polite question posed to you by a member before you start asking any questions of that member (and you have so far asked at least two more questions without yet answering mine).

So, hoping that forum etiquette and the usual courtesies prevail, and for the third time of asking, here's a copy of the question I asked twice some way back upthread:

QUOTE

I challenge your claim that there is adequate evidence to support the idea that there was high tea [* which the McCann family and other families actually and regularly attended] every day of the week. I am not saying that there isn't such evidence. As you assert that there is such evidence, I would just like you to find it for me.

I'd be grateful if you could find the evidence for your assertion, lay it out here on the forum, and then we can all discuss whether it stands up or not.


UNQUOTE

* Bit in red added

---------

Thank you in anticipation. It will help us make progress.

I will attend to your question(s) when you have attended to mine.

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15205
Reputation : 3110
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 12.10.18 20:41

@ Tony Bennett You wrote above -

I challenge your claim that there is adequate evidence to support the idea that there was high tea [* which the McCann family and other families actually and regularly attended] every day of the week. I am not saying that there isn't such evidence. As you assert that there is such evidence, I would just like you to find it for me.




Kirsty Maryan states that she accompanied Madeleine (known as Maddie) on a return journey from the beach back to the mini-club and then on to the Tapas Bar for High Tea -

" relative to the facts of the investigation the witness clarifies that in her daily schedule mentioned she only, on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her"


The beach trips before tea are said to have occurred on Tuesday and Wednesday so, logically, Kirsty can only have been speaking about one of these days. If Madeleine was at tea on Tues- Wed she cannot have been dead before then.


According to Susan Owen -"Madeleine McCann's parents would come to pick her up, as with her siblings, between 17H15 and 17H30, at the location where all the children of the creche got together to have dinner in the Tapas restaurant...


According to Maria Jose -she saw her "during meals provided to the children at the creche which take place at the restuarant where she works" (Tapas) ....Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, AS SHE DID EACH DAY OF THAT WEEK"


Now, you might believe that all these witnesses are liars or mistaken but I don't believe it. 


Now that I have answered your question, perhaps you would be good enough to answer mine. I'll put it again more succinctly -


In what way do you expect an acceptance by the P.J. that they got the date of Madeleine's disappearance wrong to aid any prosecution against the McCanns.


 In what way would an admission by the P.J., that they got a such basic fact about when Madeleine disappeared so wrong, and based their investigation on a false premise, increase public confidence in the P.J theory of no abduction.

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Verdi on 12.10.18 21:16

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Phoebe wrote:

@ Tony Bennett. Tony, could you please explain how YOU feel acceptance by the P.J. of being duped would play out in court and with the public, and HOW YOU believe such a change of position could ADVANTAGE any case against the McCanns
 I invite you to put forward any evidence which you have demonstrating that the P.J. publicly accepting that they were wrong about when Madeleine died would aid a prosecution against the McCanns.
 Actions have consequences, surely you must have considered the consequences for any prosecution in the event of the P.J admitting getting such a basic fact as when Madeleine disappeared wrong.
@ Phoebe

Usual forum etiquette and indeed common courtesy requires that you answer any reasonable and polite question posed to you by a member before you start asking any questions of that member (and you have so far asked at least two more questions without yet answering mine).

So, hoping that forum etiquette and the usual courtesies prevail, and for the third time of asking, here's a copy of the question I asked twice some way back upthread:

QUOTE

I challenge your claim that there is adequate evidence to support the idea that there was high tea [* which the McCann family and other families actually and regularly attended] every day of the week. I am not saying that there isn't such evidence. As you assert that there is such evidence, I would just like you to find it for me.

I'd be grateful if you could find the evidence for your assertion, lay it out here on the forum, and then we can all discuss whether it stands up or not.


UNQUOTE

* Bit in red added

---------

Thank you in anticipation. It will help us make progress.

I will attend to your question(s) when you have attended to mine.
I can't believe I'm reading all this utter tripe accelerating to break point this week - is it full moon?

Someone needs to acquaint themselves with the proceedings in a court of law and common place policing.  Clearly never been in a criminal law court during a trial - have they never seen a prosecution lawyer in action?

Since Robert Peel first coshed Digger Bones over the head with his shiny new truncheon, the police have failed to solve crime for scores of different reasons - doesn't mean it's unsolvable. 

Geeez, I despair.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10988
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Verdi on 12.10.18 21:18

I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue with regard to establishing when Madeleine disappeared (and that involves when the alarm was raised re. relevance to thread)
Sarcasm noted thumbsup .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10988
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 12.10.18 21:22

@Verdi wrote:
I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue with regard to establishing when Madeleine disappeared (and that involves when the alarm was raised re. relevance to thread)
Sarcasm noted thumbsup .
Absolutely no sarcasm intended Verdi I assure you. It's the lowest form of wit, as they say. I merely want to ensure that I am not deemed off topic and have my question (which I feel is very important) deleted. I absolutely would like to hear what the long term plan is re. what would happen in the event of the P.J. admitting they were duped.

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Verdi on 12.10.18 21:36

@Phoebe wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
I want to raise what I feel it is vitally important issue with regard to establishing when Madeleine disappeared (and that involves when the alarm was raised re. relevance to thread)
Sarcasm noted thumbsup .
Absolutely no sarcasm intended Verdi I assure you. It's the lowest form of wit, as they say. I merely want to ensure that I am not deemed off topic and have my question (which I feel is very important) deleted. I absolutely would like to hear what the long term plan is re. what would happen in the event of the P.J. admitting they were duped.
Noted nonetheless - I assure you.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14315p25-why-was-the-alarm-raised-at-the-time-it-was-any-ideas#392214

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10988
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 12.10.18 22:50

I've been trying to avoid getting involved in this discussion but I can't.

@Phoebe - I think it is pertinent to point out that Kirsty Maryan clearly states that the group she accompanied from the beach to high tea was Emma's and not Cat's. Confused employee number one perhaps. Susan Owen doesn't actually state that she saw Madeleine at high tea, only that she is aware ('That she only knows that ....') that she attended and was picked up from there. The bracketed phrase has been snipped from your quote but is essential to the meaning. Further Susan's statement is another which conflicts with Shineads i.e. both Toddler2 nannies; Shinead looked after the twins; Susan, like Stacey, states that she saw Madeleine because of the twins and yet Shinead does not back this up. Therefore, I would argue that Susan is confused (or possibly pressured) employee number two. Tapas worker Maria Jose has been covered in detail by @HiDeHo. Maria states that Madeleine attended the creche next to the tapas restaurant daily, however Madeleine attended the Mini Club which concensus has as being in the room above main reception, 5 minutes walk away. Confused employee number three.

No lying necessarily required. Not proof, IMO, that Madeleine was around at any time during the week. 

The creche statements need to be read in conjunction with each other and contrasted and compared - it is the ONLY way to pick up on the many discrepancies.
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 714
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 12.10.18 23:10

@ skyrocket - Kirsty states that the child she took back from the beach and then to tea was Madeleine, known as "Maddie".
Susan, Sinead and Sara (the latter also claims to have seen Madeleine during the week at "various" times) all were involved in the toddler group but that does not mean they all had to present at pick-up time.
Maria Jose was positive about seeing Madeleine. There was a creche group beside the Tapas. Having no need to be au fait with the exact locations of childcare facilties, nor how many there were, I don't find it at all strange that she presumed Madeleine was in the only creche facility she was aware of. 
Then this brings us to Cat Baker. I have yet to see the evidence that A) she was a friend of Jon Corner's daughter, and B) that she knew the McCanns before that holiday and therefore was willing to risk perjury  to help them.

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 13.10.18 8:51

@Phoebe - morning.

This is precisely why I avoid discussions like this. Our opinions are polar. I've read the creche statements numerous times; had them printed out alonside each other; put the nannies with the children they were looking after in the locations they state the clubs were in, with maps of PDL; and, sat back and thought about it - a lot.  There is no point arguing with you - you will not change my mind on this and I suspect that you are as equally dogged. That's fine.

My position is that there is a significant degree of doubt that Madeleine McCann, the child that is missing, attended creche all week, or even at all. There is nothing in the current PJ file release (and I have looked at all 11 000 pages!) that will change my mind on that. If further info is released which proves otherwise I am 100% fine with that also - parental statements from the other guests would be good; group club photos; photos on the catamaran; gran Susan producing the post card Madeleine made on her first day; anything concrete, but excluding Cat and Charlotte the fairy (whom I have looked in to in detail, including contacting a TV production company in NZ and administrators of Wiki).

I don't like supposition - the statements are what they are and second guessing is pointless. 

I understand there are those who believe that this is a relatively simple accident, or otherwise, and parental cover up case but there is so much to suggest otherwise (IMO).
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 714
Reputation : 689
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 13.10.18 11:16

@ skyrocket.  Good morning. I perfectly understand and respect your position. I'm in an almost mirror position, albeit with a different perspective! But that's fine and I believe a healthy sign of a group. I too, dislike supposition.
 For me, I need to see the evidence that Cat Baker was a friend of the McCanns before that holiday, and as yet none has been produced. She HAS to have lied (not been mistaken) if Madeleine was absent all week. For a young woman to jeopardise her whole future by lying to the police about the entire week-long events would, IMO, need a very special motivation! I would need to hear Kirsty Maryan (and indeed the others) admit that none of them knew "Maddie" well enough to positively identify her. I also would need to have it confirmed that the sailing instructors did not notice Madeleine on the day she allegedly kicked up a fuss about sailing with them. I'd need to see Raj Balu state that the photograph with him in the background was not taken on Tuesday as alleged. I'd need to see other parents, such as Carpenter, confirm that when they picked up their children from creche at the same times as the McCanns, they never saw Madeleine leave with her parent. If such evidence could be produced, I would definitely reconsider my perspective!

Phoebe

Posts : 1105
Reputation : 1333
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum