Illustrated Holiday Timeline, Discrepancies and Videos

Dr. Amaral must have taken the creche sheets into account, which place Madeleine alive and well up to Thursday, the sheets being the responsibility of Madeleine's nanny for the week, Cat Baker.
He must have also believed Cat Baker about Madeleine being at high tea on Thursday, that's where he got his timing from.

It would be interesting to know if he's revisited this evidence over the years and changed his mind.

sar wrote:+1 HiDeHo, amazing collection of work, a personal fave is Chaplins!

+2 Chaplins, just like being in your back garden.

JRP wrote:Dr. Amaral must have taken the creche sheets into account, which place Madeleine alive and well up to Thursday, the sheets being the responsibility of Madeleine's nanny for the week, Cat Baker.
He must have also believed Cat Baker about Madeleine being at high tea on Thursday, that's where he got his timing from.

It would be interesting to know if he's revisited this evidence over the years and changed his mind.

IMO the time has come for someone to ask him if he is fully satisfied that Madeleine was alive up to that Thurs., to point out concerns re the apparent lack of verification for this and to hear his response.

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting.

Yep, I agree with skyrocket 

JRP wrote:

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - please don't take a break on anybody's account. You'll appreciate that it's difficult to say more than that! The more opinions the better as far as I'm concerned. Keep digging and keep posting.

Yep, I agree with skyrocket 

+1

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood you, the timetables and timelines that I have compiled are of great importance in my opinion...

I refer only to the PJ's analysts charts in Portuguese, produced I think early 2008.

Time is of the essence - I will elaborate later .

To continue..

It's taken me forever to find this again - a synopsis of the PJ analysts charts.  [Snipped]

After this phase, Excel tables were created based on the depositions of the different intervenients, the maps with the registry of the entrance and exits of the creches, the R.D.E. and other information. From these maps charts were created (in annex).

On these charts we find:
- Timelines of entities

- Boxes of events

[Note: figures are not exhibited here for difficulties with edition]

As the Analyst Notebook executes automatically the correlations that it finds on the tables with the data, it's up to the analyst to read it, and according with the results, to enunciate one or more hypothesis.

So, apart from the traces recovered on that occasion and on others, both from the apartment 5A, as from the residence of Robert Murat, and from its analysis, this report is based on the statements of the several intervenients that are translated on the annexed charts.

These are separated by the following types: first declarations; second declarations; third declarations; R.D.E.; Registry pages from the creches; telephone contacts; and others.

This categorization was made in order to find any discrepancy on the depositions of the different witnesses and arguidos. That is, we aimed to check if there were significant changes in their statements.

The statements were then reproduced on a graphic form, being the personal or group routines represented on daily graphs. For instance, if a witness declared that on the 29th had lunch at home, and that was their routine until the 3rd, that event will appear on the graphs for those days. Those situations can be observed when on the 'event's boxes' the word ROUTINE appears.

This procedure was adopted for the graphs based on the first depositions and Rs.D.E. The graphs for the second and second statements this method was not used, because we chose to make graphs for the new elements supplied by the witnesses, avoiding, this way, to repeat everything that had been done for the first depositions.


DEVELOPMENT

From the declarations of the various intervenients, it was clear that when the GNR arrived at the place, several persons had already handled the window and entered the room of Madeleine and her siblings, which means that the space had been occupied by other individuals. It possibly explains the scarcity of probational elements recovered on the first phase. It's a fact that the only latent fingerprints recovered, with the necessary elements for a positive identification belonged to the mother of the missing child and to a member of the GNR (pag. 885 and 1520).

One of the fundamental principles of the investigation is connected with the data recovered on the crime scene since the first moment. If that place had already been visited by third parties, the elements that eventually could be recovered, may lead to the construction of scenarios quite different from what really happened. Most of the times that 'change' is such that it compromises, or at least, limits the recovery of eventual traces that might exist on the crime scene.

The lack of the preservation of the space, as the investigation principles demand, was such that on the several vestiges recovered, on the afternoon of the day after the disappearance of the child, by a SCI team of the Scientific Police Laboratory (page. 2307), after laboratory analysis for the identification of DNA, it was revealed the presence of non-human hair (pages. 2432, passim).

This team searched for any substance that could have been administered to the missing child in order to keep her under an unconscious state and/or the presence of blood traces.

According to the statements, the life of the group followed a daily routine. After having breakfast, at the apartment (in the case of the Mccann) or at the Millennium restaurant, they placed the children at their respective creches. Then the adults went for several sports' activities (tennis, sailing, etc).

Around lunch time, they went for the kids at the creche and had lunch with them at the apartments.
In the afternoon some of the children (McCann children and the eldest of O'Brien/Tanner) were placed at the creches, while the others were kept with the parents.

Some adults returned to their sports' activities while others went for other activities, normal for people on holidays.

After feeding the children, which happened close to the Tapas bar/restaurant, under the supervision of the nannies, they took them to put them to bed after making their hygiene.

Afterwards, with the children already asleep, the adults went to the restaurant for dinner (annexes 2 to 37, based on the statements; and annexes 57 to 67, based on the Rs.D.E. and crêche's registration).

Based on the several testimonies, it's demonstrated that we are in the presence of a group of people, in holidays, with children, with a certain routine that is completely changed after the disappearance of Madeleine.

The mobile phone contacts, made and received by the elements of the group, registered by the 3 national operators, only corroborate that deduction for the days 2 to 4. It's clear that the mobile phones did not have much use and when they use it it's to call UK (annexes 38, 39).

On the day of the disappearance, the group routine was slightly different, not for the McCann family, they had the same ritual of placing the children on the creche to dedicate to the tennis practice in the after lunch.

However, the remaining elements of the group, in the afternoon, went to the beach, where they had high tea at the bars in that area (annexes 15, 16, 17, 27, 38 and 35).

On this last day, the last time that Madeleine was seen by someone not belonging to the family group or the friends' group, was at 17:30h, when she was returned to the parents by one of the nannies (annex 66, pag 105).

According to the narrative made by Kate and Gerald, after putting the children in bed, they got out for dinner, with the children asleep.

According to an agreement, accepted tacitly by everyone, the supervision of the children was made in a way where they took turns on that task, so the children would not be unsupervised for periods longer than 15 to 30 minutes.

On that fateful night, the first one to go to the apartments was Mathew Oldfield, who made their check based on audition. He listened, and it was not possible to find out if at the windows or at the doors, if any noise was coming from the inside of the apartments.

He was followed by Gerald McCann. This one entered into his apartment, at about 21:05 h, and aw his children asleep, he got out and followed towards the Tapas. In the way he met the witness Jeremy Wilkins, with whom he maintained a small conversation.

Meanwhile, Jane Tanner, another element of the group, left the table and went to her apartment. On the way she saw Gerald talking to Jeremy ('Jezz') ' Amazingly, none of them saw her. On that occasion, at about 21:15h, Jane saw at the top of the street, a male individual crossing the road, holding a child.

Later, around 21:30h, Mathew went back to check the children, and on that occasion he entered through the window/door of the living room, in the apartment of the McCann. He saw the twins sleeping in their cots, but he didn't see Madeleine, due to the position of the bed where she was sleeping.

By 22:00h, it was Kate's turn to proceed to the verification of how her children were, and that's why it was her that noticed the absence of her daughter and gave the alert to the other members of the group.

There were several intervenients on the initial searches amongst the Ocean's employees, residents and guests.
To get the physical context f the place where the facts occurred, a visit was made. This way, it was evident that when sit at a table where the one that was used by the nine, at the Tapas restaurant, it was impossible to see the totality of the back of the apartment where the McCann stayed. It was even possible that a person entered the apartment without being seen from that position.

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


As can be seen, this is just a reiteration of information indelibly printed on most minds who have followed this case.  There is nothing new.  It's formulated on the witness statements, the subject of so much controversy, and the PJ investigation under the leadership of Snr Goncalo Amaral.

As you well know, a lot of water has passed under the bridge (pity it didn't take a few trolls with it) since September 2007.  Hence my view that the PJ's analysts charts are of no value.

Thanks Verdi.

I REALLY appreciate you finding that page.  I have read it before but at that time, although interested, I wasn't prepared to scrutinise the details.

Although I believe I understand what you are saying, and you may be correct in your assumption that they are of no value, I always need to confirm for myself, no matter the effort involved.

I am in the process of translating each box...and only then can I put it all aside.

I am never concerned about whether my effort is worth it....only that I base my opinions on what is known.  I always have to decide for myself...


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

I will do my best with those and the rest of the boxes and let you know if I agree with you....

One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

G

Phoebe wrote:One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

I believe the 5.30pm sighting is significant because it is independent of the parents and all the Tapas friends, maybe that's why Paynes isn't mentioned/ taken into consideration?

MayMuse wrote:G

Phoebe wrote:One of the last paragraphs of the P.J. final report of June 20th 2008 reads as follows 

  "What happened during the time-lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which Madeleine was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy (at around 10p.m.)"

It appears that David Paynes's statement(s) re. his visit to 5A has been completely ignored. Is this not strange? One would expect that if the P.J. doubted same, this "sighting" would be mentioned and some comment made on why it is discounted as happens with other "sightings". While these are dismissed in the report they are at least mentioned first. Did Payne withdraw this claim?

I believe the 5.30pm sighting is significant because it is independent of the parents and all the Tapas friends, maybe that's why Paynes isn't mentioned/ taken into consideration?

Yes I get that. It's the wording that caught my attention. It says that 5.30pm was the last time Madeleine was seen by anyone other than "HER PARENTS AND SIBLINGS". one would have thought that for accuracy, seeing as this is a final report before archiving, the same paragraph would have mentioned Payne's sighting, a) since he is neither a parent nor sibling as mentioned and b) as it actually asks the question "What happened between 5.30 pm and approx 10pm." Payne has given them a story which should help fill in this time, yet there is no mention of it, even to discount it. Although we know the P.J. had doubts about Tanner's sighting of Tannerman, her claim is mentioned in the final report along with some doubts about it (re. the description matching other suspicious men "sighted", since they note she could not describe the face in her first accounts.) I just wonder why, in this official report, it's as if Payne never mentioned his visit to 5A. One would have expected it and the ensuing contradictions arising from same, to be mentioned?

Letter to Attorney General regarding investigation details  -  21st July 2008

17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;


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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Perhaps it isn't believed or any valid relevance placed....?  I understand what you are saying, ie parents and siblings and the missed reference/ time of Payne at 5a, and have not seen anywhere whereby Paynes or KM account of the "visit" has been withdrawn. 

As an add note I find it difficult to believe that this "event" actually happened and over the years have not placed a huge amount of relevance to it, as came to conclusion that Madeleine had long since "disappeared" prior to the 3rd.


Edit... thanks to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it seems Payne is mentioned after all so there you are...

Over and over again I've questioned why David Payne wasn't formally interviewed as a witness during the second round - 10/11th May 2007.

So far no one has come up with an answer.

Verdi wrote:Letter to Attorney General regarding investigation details  -  21st July 2008

17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;


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

Yes, this is the legal letter from Jose Melchior Gomes to the attorney general in July 07. Its a strange read, describing Wojciech Krowkowski as being dressed "in immaculate white" with a pony-tail (completely unlike Tannerman or Smithman) and pointing out that the parents behaviour before and after the disappearance were normal and gave no cause for suspicion! It also states that they could not have been charged with child neglect under Portuguese law as there was no intent to neglect, that they had no reason to be fearful in the resort, and that they were actually checking on the children!! I was more interested in The P.J's final report.

"....no intent to neglect....."  yeah......but the outcome was the same????  Sorry, not quite getting this??


I've seen a few episodes of Matlock, or LA Law in my time, appreciate it's not US law, but isn't there such a thing as "Reckless Endangerment" or similar?   You know what I mean,... sort of like "Ignorance is no Defence"   basically responsibility / culpability lies with you irrespective of intent?   Its a bit like saying "I didn't mean to crash my lorry Your Honour" [ causing a 5 car pile up and terrible injury] It was an accident......"  "Okay Son, we understand, you didn't mean it.  Case Dismissed"


Sorry for legal ramblings, maybe someone who knows better can set me straight?  Thanks Sar 

From Snr. Gomes' letter to the Portuguese A.G.

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments. 

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children"

Phoebe wrote:

 Its a strange read, describing Wojciech Krowkowski as being dressed "in immaculate white" with a pony-tail (completely unlike Tannerman or Smithman) and pointing out that the parents behaviour before and after the disappearance were normal and gave no cause for suspicion! It also states that they could not have been charged with child neglect under Portuguese law as there was no intent to neglect, that they had no reason to be fearful in the resort, and that they were actually checking on the children!! I was more interested in The P.J's final report.

The document  is a very comprehensive analysis of the PJ investigation as summarised in the PJ's final report, prepared for the process of archiving the case.  It is a document structured from the perspective of Portuguese law - nothing more nothing less.

The entire document needs to be read in context, to select specific text in order to imply something conspiratorial or inaccurate is at best misleading - at worst mischievous and irresponsible.  As requested..

The PJ's Final Report

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

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

Wednesday 2nd May 2007

Tonight it was Rachael’s turn to be feeling a bit under the weather and she gave dinner a miss, remaining in her apartment next door to ours. The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area – where it was, to my relief, warmer – for a liqueur. As a result we went back to our apartments a little later than normal. It also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to forty-five minutes.

At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, ‘Right, I’m off to bed. Goodnight.’ As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, ‘She’s not that bad, Gerry!’ I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave’s remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive. Let me tell you something about Gerry. His honesty and openness make him very direct, often to the point of bluntness, and he’s not a touchy-feely guy. Like many men, he assumes I take his feelings as read and doesn’t see any need to express them with soft-soaping,flowers or cards. And  although, like most women, I would appreciate the odd romantic gesture, the fact that he has always been loyal, solid and loving deep down, where it really matters, is far more important.  It’s just Gerry, I’m used to his foibles and generally any deficiencies in gallantry simply go over my head.

As far as Gerry was concerned, it was late, he was tired, and he was going to bed. End of story. I am not sure why I was miffed by his lack of social graces that particular evening. Perhaps because the other guys in the group were all attentive ‘new men’, compared with Gerry, at least, and I was a bit embarrassed. Anyway, I followed him a few minutes later. He certainly was tired, because by the time I got into the apartment, he was asleep – snoring, in fact. Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented, even: the only occasions when we ever slept apart were when our jobs and on-call duties dictated it. I wasn’t the type to flounce off to the spare room and never would have done so at home.

I suppose it was because there was a bed made up and ready in the other bedroom and at that moment my peaceful, slumbering babies were more attractive room-mates than my snoring husband. It was a storm in a teacup, and I’m loath even to mention it as it was such an isolated incident and not at all representative of our relationship. However, since every scrap of information was shortly to become potentially crucial, I feel it is necessary to state for the record that I was in that room that night.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Verdi wrote:Wednesday 2nd May 2007

Tonight it was Rachael’s turn to be feeling a bit under the weather and she gave dinner a miss, remaining in her apartment next door to ours. The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area – where it was, to my relief, warmer – for a liqueur. As a result we went back to our apartments a little later than normal. It also meant that the time between our last check of the children and our return was longer, closer to forty-five minutes.

At about 11.50pm, Gerry abruptly announced, ‘Right, I’m off to bed. Goodnight.’ As he turned to leave, Dave said jokingly, ‘She’s not that bad, Gerry!’ I must admit I was slightly hurt that Gerry should just go off without me, as if I was unimportant – irrelevant, even – and Dave’s remark was an indication that it wasn’t just me being over-sensitive. Let me tell you something about Gerry. His honesty and openness make him very direct, often to the point of bluntness, and he’s not a touchy-feely guy. Like many men, he assumes I take his feelings as read and doesn’t see any need to express them with soft-soaping,flowers or cards. And  although, like most women, I would appreciate the odd romantic gesture, the fact that he has always been loyal, solid and loving deep down, where it really matters, is far more important.  It’s just Gerry, I’m used to his foibles and generally any deficiencies in gallantry simply go over my head.

As far as Gerry was concerned, it was late, he was tired, and he was going to bed. End of story. I am not sure why I was miffed by his lack of social graces that particular evening. Perhaps because the other guys in the group were all attentive ‘new men’, compared with Gerry, at least, and I was a bit embarrassed. Anyway, I followed him a few minutes later. He certainly was tired, because by the time I got into the apartment, he was asleep – snoring, in fact. Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented, even: the only occasions when we ever slept apart were when our jobs and on-call duties dictated it. I wasn’t the type to flounce off to the spare room and never would have done so at home.

I suppose it was because there was a bed made up and ready in the other bedroom and at that moment my peaceful, slumbering babies were more attractive room-mates than my snoring husband. It was a storm in a teacup, and I’m loath even to mention it as it was such an isolated incident and not at all representative of our relationship. However, since every scrap of information was shortly to become potentially crucial, I feel it is necessary to state for the record that I was in that room that night.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Indeed!

A couple of things.

"The only other difference was that after dinner we ventured into the enclosed bar area"

So presumably they could no longer see the open patio doors of 5A... (not that they could anyway).

"Still feeling a bit offended, I decided to go and sleep with the children. This was highly unusual; unprecedented"

"First time we/I..." stories are always a big red flag in any investigation.

There is some reason she needs to explain why she slept in the other room.  I personally think that Madeleine was very poorly and she was keeping an eye on her.

" Let me tell you something about Gerry "  Excuse me is this book not supposed to be about Madeleine , your daughter ? Tell us " something about Madeleine " !

The amount of fine detail she goes into regarding sleeping in the other room is strange when " every scrap of information was shortly to become crucial " , yet every other " scrap " is glossed over , bypassed or ignored !

Look at what I'm telling you , Don't look at what I'm Not telling you

From everything I've read, the action started on Tuesday 1st May 2007.  Here's a reference to the shortcut they used between the childcare rooms and apartment 5a.  The shortcut I think was used so they were less likely to be seen.

Gerry McCann's witness statement 10th May 2007

>>  From memory, on Tuesday, 1 May 2007, being shown by RUSSELL, he went to pick up MADELEINE at creche using a short-cut that began at the car park opposite the secondary reception and went between the buildings, which he used to fetch and carry his daughter. <<

This next bit has never been explained or clarri-fied - I believe it's the only reference made to David Payne checking the McCann children whilst they were at the Tapas restaurant.  Why on this day did Gerry McCann and his wife leave the patio door unlocked - so David Payne (or anyone else) could enter?  The curious thing being of course, that David Payne strenuously denies checking any other of the groups children - nor indeed his own.  It has long since been assumed (not by me I hasten to add) that the patio door was unlocked every night but here we have direct reference by the man himself, that 'on this day' they left the door unlocked !!!  He also gives a somewhat diluted version of the nights sleeping arrangements.

>> On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007,  as well as he and his wife,  he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key. He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside. Still on this night, KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring. <<

Oh what a tangled web they weave - I smell a rat.

From Gerry's first statement to the P.J the family's sleeping arrangements altered, perhaps as early as Monday night. Gerry claims that
  "He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise."  
Why does he describe Madeleine as sleeping with KATE, given that they had pushed the parents two single beds together to form a double-bed immediately after arrival? If he was in the room, even having slept through the crying and interruption surely he would have described it as "Slept with US"? Did he sleep elsewhere? He makes no mention of him using/moving to the spare bed in the children's room. However, he is keen to explain that on Wed Kate slept in the children's room (according to her because she was miffed at Gerry).This suggests that on at least two nights the McCann parents slept apart in different rooms. Were they rowing or had something else occurred?

Apologies if this has been raised before............

I'm reading "madeleine" by KM (it was bought for me so I've relented) and of course I have highlighter in hand.

One thing that's mentioned is that the nannies allegedly bought the children down to high tea in the Tapas zone between 5pm and 5.30pm each day. If that's the case, how could parents sign out the children in the crèche register at the end of each day unless each register was brought to the Tapas zone for them to sign ?

polyenne wrote:Apologies if this has been raised before............

I'm reading "madeleine" by KM (it was bought for me so I've relented) and of course I have highlighter in hand.

One thing that's mentioned is that the nannies allegedly bought the children down to high tea in the Tapas zone between 5pm and 5.30pm each day. If that's the case, how could parents sign out the children in the crèche register at the end of each day unless each register was brought to the Tapas zone for them to sign ?

Excellent point. I believe the whole creche set up was an ad hoc shambles with the creche records not properly maintained and filled retrospectively to fit claims. Looking at the "Jellyfish" records - on the p.m of April 29th Sean and Amelie are in the "jellyfish" group (the a.m. record of 29th not in files). Three nannies Sinead, Susie and Sarah are on duty. Sinead is in charge of Sean, Amelie and Otis, (signed in) Susie has Roman, Alex and Atticus (signed in) while Sarah  has no children signed in as present. four children are assigned to her Isabelle, Lucy, Matthew and K Hessleton. A note beside Isabella (Bella) reads "Playing with mummy and daddy this afternoon." Lucy is signed in but the signing out column reads "Came back in mins later" - no sign out time. Bizarrely, K Hessleton, who is presumably a similar age to the twins, has managed to write "I am playing with mummy and daddy today"!! Did the parents really tramp all the way to creche to explain why their children would not be turning up for a non- compulsory creche session? I suspect this was filled in retrospectively, perhaps the next day. What did Sarah do all afternoon when none of her charges needed her? Did she really hang about the creche - 3 nannies for only six children? Then lo and behold, the following a.m. (April 30th) Sean and Amelie now belong to a group named "Starfish" not  "Jellyfish" minded by the same 3 nannies. In the afternoon, only 4 children need minding - Sean, Amelie, Alex and Lucy. Did this really require all 3 nannies were present? I doubt it. And why are children's names listed when they did not attend? It seems to me that it was creche practice to write in the children's names in advance and then fill in their attendance retrospectively. This could be important. By the next day (May 1st) the group is being called "jellyfish" once again and on that p.m. Sinead minds Sean, Amelie and Otis, Susie minds one child- Alex, and Sarah again has no one turn up to be minded, despite her charges' names being on the p.m. sheet. On the morning of May 2nd nanny Sarah must have felt terribly rejected - only two of her four charges turns up for her, not properly signed in or out. Sinead has only Sean, Amelie and Lily, and Susie has only Roman and Alex, also not properly signed in. Still, things got busier in the p.m. (May 2nd) with 6 children turning up. Sarah suddenly had 4 to mind. No  wonder nannie Leanne W. had to come to help by signing out Bella. On the p.m. of May 3rd (no a.m. records) none of nanny Susie's kids showed up. Sinead pawned off her 3- Sean, Amelie and Otis, to Stacey Portz- why? and Sarah had only 3 kids for the p.m. session. Apologies if this is tedious reading but I am trying to show the shambolic nature of the creche, with idle nannies, children listed regardless of whether they attended and non designated nannies stepping in to cover. Small wonder Madeleine's creche log attracts scepticism. I suspect high tea sign out was also filled retrospectively.

I have brought this over from another thread where it was slightly off topic but is related to this thread...

HiDeHo

Ruffian wrote:

Ruffian wrote:With respect Verdi my previous answer was in relation to a members comment.
Staying on topic, as requested  

 On the point that the resort was busy, the creche was not. The ratio of nannies to children in the toddler age-group was extremely low.

If that is true then that would make the claim a substitute child was used harder to believe.

The theory would need to be explained further: 
How would it be effectively achieved without raising suspicion 
How would they explain to another child their sudden name change
Who would have been put in place of the child substitute

Lizzy can you explain this part of your theory

Thanks Ruffian.  Yes... I do have my thoughts on how this COULD all be accomplished.

It doesn't rely on any conspiracy theory, only on the knowledge that the week was a normal week at the beginning of the season, where no-one was really making note of anything out of the ordinary...

Anything could have been accomplished, as the McCanns were just another family and not outstanding in any way.

It wasn't bustling with people making it difficult to remove her body unseen.

Creche records were not used in the same way as a school register would be used to keep a record of attendance, so much as having a record of where to find the parents in case of an emergency.

The children were coming and going at all times of the day...not always when they were in the creche building but when they were outside doing some of the activities.

They weren't required to be in the creche, so there would likely be nothing to alert the nannies if some of the children didn't attend.  If one child attended the first day, but did not return the rest of the week, would it be easy for any of the nannies to identify her precisely, considering there were about 13 children sharing the same creche room and several other blonde girls of the same age?

Thats the basis on how it was possible for Maddie to have not been there during the week...

She would likely not have been missed...

How this was achieved with the creche records is a different scenario, and that too, can be explained as POSSIBLE...

Did the nannies scrutinise the creche register?  Did they personally go to the door each time a parent arrived and welcome the children or did the parents access the register at the door and send their children into the room?

We know the discrepancies started to happen Tuesday morning...indicating the possibility of something having happened and attempts to hide the truth...

Curiously on Tuesday  morning Gerry and Russell (and Jez) walked together to pick up their children.

Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign his daughter out...

In the afternoon Gerry signed Maddie in but Russell did not sign his daughter in...


At 5.30pm in the tapas Russell signed his daughter out but Gerry or Kate did not sign Maddie out...

ONE CHILD IN AND ONE CHILD OUT?

I'm not saying that DID happen, only the possibility that it COULD have happened...

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

I would like to add further to this being a possibility....

IF as the above details show its possible that the creche sheet was not as 'important' as we tend to think... that it was not used to confirm which children were there as much as emergency telephone numbers and who delivered and picked them up.

Jez, Gerry and Russell arrived together at the creche Tuesday lunchtime   but only one child was signed out.. Madeleine.  Russell did not sign his daughter out at lunchtime (even though he was there) and he didn't sign her in after lunch only Maddie was signed in, but at the end of the day ONLY Russells daughter was signed OUT.  Maddie wasn't signed out...

Although they both went to the creche together only one of their children was signed out...only one of their children was signed in after lunch and only one of their children was signed out at the end of the day.....

Was it POSSIBLE that the child was Ella and not Maddie?

Maybe yes, maybe no.... but can we be SURE that was not the case...

One question this leads to is how could Catriona not know Maddie was there....

Ella was very similar in appearance, silmilar colour hair and only three months difference in age..

We can establish that children arrived randomly throughout the day, maybe with the register sheet available when they were outside or down at the beach, maybe not.  I was NOT like a school where attendance was taken every morning to ensure every child was present...

We don't know if parent signed in view of the nannies or not...but the creche room was shared with the other group of 3 year olds as well as baby group and teenage group.

Approximately 13 3 year olds, many of them 'pink and pretty'...

Any child that arrived the first day or two, would likely not be missed and with a week that nothing of any importance had happened, who were really taking note.  Could a child that only visited one or two days be remembered visually among all the other 3 year olds?

Is it POSSIBLE that Catriona interacted with all the children of both groups?  Did they all do the same crafts at the same time?

We know they went on some of the trips to the beach together.  Emma the other nanny did not remember seeing Maddie on a beach trip)

Is it POSSIBLE that MADDIE was not there after the first day or two, but attendance was not the issue as long as the children that were there were looked after?

She was looking after Ella... VERY similar to Maddie.  She even describes a trip to the beach where Maddie was scared and upset... (VERY similar to how Ella would be, knowing she was very shy and clingy)

Then...suddenly... THE ABDUCTION!

Catriona was advised it was one of the children she was looking after.  She was shown the photo of a 'younger' Maddie... not the nearly 4 year old she was supposed to be looking after...

Could she have second guessed herself as to which child was which?

She was told she was looking aftr Maddie.  Gerry and Kate SAID she was looking after Maddie.  She could hardly say she couldnt be precise or it may have been the child that was only there a day or so... or maybe she was mistaken about which child was Ella.  Which child was Maddie.

At this point there was no concern about the creche...  Maddie was 'abducted' from the apartment.  Nothing to do with the creche...

She may have believed at this point that she DID look after Maddie and maybe was confused but there was nothing connected to the creche, and she would have no reason to point out her reservations... indeed it would be too intimidating to eve suggest that she was not 100% sure that Maddie was at the creche... she was signed in and out... She MUST have been there......

She told the investigation that she was there all week, and though she didnt claim specifically that Maddie was there at high tea on  Thursday in her statements, Goncalo may have reason to believe that she did see the child all week....

Hence the last time 'Maddie was seen was at 5.30pm..

I don't know if any or all of the above is likely, but it is POSSIBLE...and THAT could help explain why the creche records are so questionable and why Catriona's statements were questionable.

Not because she was lying (I refuse to believe a young girl that was in the wrong place at the wrong time was complicit)...

Intimidated, maybe...

Along with other nannies she was sent to Greece by Mark Warner within a week and unable to be questioned further until the following April.... After an invitation by the McCanns to visit Rothley in November...around the time of the 'secret meeting' prior to the rogatories....













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

On Monday 30th April Madeleine is signed out of creche early for lunch at 12.10pm, while all but one other child wait til 12.30-35 pm. Her afternoon return was delayed til 3.15 pm and she only stayed 15-20 mins.Where was she during her 3 hour lunch break? Where was she all afternoon from 3.30ish onward? Who was minding her? I suspect she acted up and refused to stay in creche. If so, no wonder the McCanns and friends have little to say about Monday's itinerary. It would look bad if they had to admit after her "abduction due to negligence" that they were so selfishly determined to have "me time" that they continued to insist on placing an upset, reluctant child in creche all day, then abandoned her again for more "me time" while dining at night! The following day (Tues May 1st) Gerry claims to have begun using the short-cut. He delivers her in the morning, collects her for lunch, returns her in the afternoon and collects her at an unknown time without signing her out. Was she still acting up and refusing to stay? I wonder if Gerry's taking the short, more hidden route could be explained by A) his haste and determination to get her to creche, no nonsense allowed and b) his reluctance to be seen hauling/carrying an upset, crying child back to creche against her wishes. Matt tells us that he so dreaded delivering Grace, who hated going to creche, that he dodged the task to his wife at every opportunity. The following day, Wed.May 2nd. Gerry again allegedly, lands Madeleine in creche in the morning but she has to be signed out for lunch by Cat. That afternoon Kate brings her, signing her in as K McCann@ 2.45 and out as KM Healy at 5.30pm. Was flustered over something or did someone else sign this? Although Madeleine is signed in and out for Thurs morning by Kate, I believe this was a faked signature added by someone else. ditto for the p.m. when whoever signed the child in could not even spell her name correctly. No parent makes that mistake! I believe Madeleine was most unhappy in creche, something her parents and the nannies/M.W.. would have reason to be untruthful about. I don't think she went at all on the 3rd and possibly not on Wed 2nd either, especially Wed p.m. I also don't believe Cat. was the only nanny who minded her group. I believe they chopped and changed among themselves consequently not really able to vouch for who was where.

Phoebe : I'd noted in a previous post the anomaly of KMHealy. Is it not a possibility that whoever signed prior was NOT Kate and assumed that "she" should sign KMcCann, after all it was Madeleine McCanns Mum who was supposedly signing.

The one time Kate really did go to sign, on the Wednesday, she correctly signs KMHealy.

I'm not actually saying they signed any child out (as I stated earlier, the nannies allegedly brought the kids down to the Tapas area for High Tea so where was the register for signing at that time ?), I think they just signed, as I firmly believe Madeleine was "gone" by this time.