Re: PLANNING THE ABDUCTION HOAX. Was it done over four days, or four hours?

by Guest 13.01.19 0:28

Roidininki wrote:Do you think Miss Baker was coerced , by the power of suggestion , it was Madeleine she saw at high tea ?

Catriona Baker had responsibility for a handful of children every day during the week 28th April - 5th May 2007, less in the afternoons.

The crèche register shows the time of arrival and time of departure of the children as signed in and out by the child's parent or guardian. It was said to be Warners policy for the children to be collected from the Tapas area where the register would have been signed.

There can be no excuse for Catriona Baker not knowing who was in her care and where they were at any one point of time during her working day.

In short, Catriona Baker would have known beyond a shadow of doubt whether or not Madeleine was present at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007. She doesn't at any time state, at least not that I'm aware of, that Madeleine was with her and the rest of the children at high tea on Thursday 3rd May 2007 - she's evasive, she skirts around the issue.

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

That in itself raises questions as to Catriona Baker's veracity. It's not so much what you say - it's what you don't say that matters.

by **Hobs** 13.01.19 0:46

"Valerie Armstrong, landlady of Rothley’s Royal Oak pub, where the McCanns sometimes go for lunch or dinner, said: “They are lovely, gentle, caring people.” She said that they would let only their nanny or relatives babysit the children, and chose the Mark Warner resort precisely because they thought that it was safe."

Who decided they needed a nanny?
What was/is the mccann definition of a nanny?
What did the role of nanny entail?
How did they obtain the nanny?
What jobs did the nanny do?
Was this nanny live in or live out?
How long had they employed their nanny?
Was their nanny full time or part time?
If part time what hours and days did they work?
What was their salary?
Since kate was only working p/t one and a half days a week why was a nanny needed given they would be at a creche?
Was their nanny known prior to the family before becoming a nanny to them?
The mccanns referred to the person as a nanny in public, how would they describe themselves and their role?
Did they just babysit the children as and when required?
Did they have other jobs to do in the house?
Were they paid for the extra work required as a nanny or did they do any extra work pro bono?
Did they fly to Portugal with the family?
If not, what did they do whilst the mccanns were away on their vacation?
Once the mccanns returned sans one child, did they keep their nanny on?
If yes, what did the role now entail?
If no, did the nanny refuse to work for them in whatever role they had previously used?
If no, did the mccanns tell them their services were no longer required?
Given that we have heard so little from family and friends let alone those who went to school/uni with them, neighbors and locals who knew them, staff and patients who had contact with them, why have we heard little to nothing from the creche the children went to and their nanny?

Are we talking about a super injunction hear which prevents anyone unauthorized speaking about them or even revealing their is an injunction in place?
It would explain why we have heard so little about the mccanns except for what kate wrote in her autobiography when she spoke of writing AN account of the truth and not MY account of the truth thus taking ownership of what she is writing.

by Guest 13.01.19 1:18

Or of course the tabloid report could be a load of old cobblers - like the customary source close to something or the other.

The landlady of the Rothley (pronounced Roafley) Royal Oak pub, where the parents McCann occasionally lunched or dined, seems to know a lot about the private lives of family McCann.

Enter stage right left or centre - every which way but loose .... the chimp Clarence Mitchell.

by Roidininki 13.01.19 21:06

Frankly I would take what a pub landlady said about clients who visited only occasionally with a pinch of salt unless it was within a sworn stwatement .
I could answer some of Hob's questions about the duties of a nanny as I was employed in my teens as a live in one to two doctors but fail to see the relevance of what one in the McCann 's home situation has to do with Madeleine's disappearance on holiday

by **Hobs** 13.01.19 22:32

Roidininki wrote:Frankly I would take what a pub landlady said about clients who visited only occasionally with a pinch of salt unless it was within a sworn stwatement .
I could answer some of Hob's questions about the duties of a nanny as I was employed in my teens as a live in one to two doctors but fail to see the relevance of what one in the McCann 's home situation has to do with Madeleine's disappearance on holiday

It could have every relevance to what happened to Maddie.

If kate was having to look after the three children on her own with occasional help from family members, especially given we know kate resented Maddie once the twins were born (subtle demeaning language and distancing before and after Maddie vanished read was killed)
If a nanny was employed then it would have given kate help and also stopped kate being left alone with the children, something hinted at with the family flying down every time they had a spare moment to help kate with the children and also payne allegedly being sent to help kate with the children the evening payne popped in and saw kate in a towel, her having just showered and later kate telling us she had a bath before going down to the tapas bar.
Giving that introducing water, bathing, washing can be indicative of sexual activity taking place, why did kate have both a shower and a bath with a couple of hours of each other?

The roles of a nanny can vary job to job and person to person, anything from a general help for a couple hours a day right up to full time caring for children, driving them everywhere, trips etc and also nannies can be required to have certain skill sets.
Premium nannies such as those trained by Norland can have salaries in the 10's of thousands and live an exotic lifestyle with all sorts of perks.

Given how tight money was for the mccanns with their family stating such and them needing to bail the mccanns out for at least 2 months mortgage payments that we know of, could the mccanns really afford a nanny or more likely is their version of a nanny one of the creche workers helping out with bathing etc as a favor or for a small fee, basically a baby sitter rather than the posher and more expensive nanny.

by Roidininki 14.01.19 13:57

I don’t think Madeleine’s mother resented her . More she found her hard work after the twins arrived.
Your idea “ bathing ,washing can indicate sexual activity “ amazes me too .
Are you trained to form a speculation such as that or have you just read up on what others in that field might have suggested ?
I don’t have a liking for Kate McCann in any shape or form whatsoever but relieved after reading what you’re indicating that I don’t harbour such thoughts as you present in here .
I can give her the benefit of the doubt that she got mixed up which she took .
As I said previously take what publandladies say about their customers without proof with a pinch of salt .
There’s no evidence of the couple employing a nanny at home is there ?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.01.19 15:54

Roidininki wrote:I don’t think Madeleine’s mother resented her. More she found her hard work after the twins arrived.

Are you ['Hobs'] trained to form a speculation such as that... ?

There is a clue that Madeleine was the 'odd one out'. Some of the family photographs suggest this. The airport bus video is another clue. There, Kate sits warmly cuddling the beloved twins.

But Madeleine, quite on her own, and swinging her legs, while to her right her disgruntled, frowning father barks swear words into a video camera, hardly seems to be one of the family.

Also, why are Kate and Gerry so far apart?

I think 'Hobs' may have been slightly misunderstood. She can of course speak for herself.

If the references by David Payne and Kate McCann to 'showers', 'baths' etc. mean anything at all, they indicate that the meeting, supposedly at about 6.30pm on Thursday 3 May, never happened. As we've noted on here many times, there are at least 20 discrepancies between their two accounts, virtual proof IMO that both were fabricating their evidence.

The best statement analysts in the world are routinely used by the police. They have built up a body of knowledge, though of course this is not pure science, interpretations have to be made. I have read some of the literature. It is a fact that a number of experienced statement analysts believe that speaking a lot of water does indicate a reference to sexual activity.

by Roidininki 14.01.19 16:57

Thankyou Tony , I know how desperately you need to enforce your belief that Madeleine wasn’t alive on May 3rd but to introduce the connection between mentioning water and sexual activity is a step too far imo . Coupled with the Gaspar statement the whole thing becomes a salacious talking point and I can well understand why some out there dismiss and in fact disrespect members who suggest some of the ideas put forward in this forum . Hobbs makes no bones about her belief that Kate was indicating sexual activity so far as I interpret it but as you say she can speak for herself .

As far as asking why Kate and Gerry are so far apart on the bus words fail me almost . This is no lovestruck couple ,they’re part of a holiday group with kids to look after as a priority . So Gerry doesn’t want to play happy families it seems and he’s grumpy and swearing like that seems as if he doesn’t mind other member’s children hearing him which is typical of his personality probably , but reading something more into it than it is is opening yourself up to ridicule imo.
Likewise reading something into Madeleine distanced apart from her siblings in photos . You don’t mention the ones where they’re all grouped together?
I have never believed in an abduction nor do I now despite my disagreements with some posted points in here .

by **Tony Bennett** 14.01.19 19:49

Roidininki wrote:Thankyou Tony, I know how desperately

REPLY: What a very strange way of putting it...'desperate'. No way am I anything approaching 'desperate', but then I do like to draw people's attention to the evidence that points a certain way.

you need to enforce your belief

REPLY: Oh dear! Now I am an 'enforcer'. I'm struggling to see how you work that one out based on my post above. Do you have a bee in your bonnet, perhaps?

that Madeleine wasn’t alive on May 3rd but to introduce the connection between mentioning water and sexual activity is a step too far imo. Coupled with the Gaspar statement the whole thing becomes a salacious talking point

REPLY: If you look at my post, I clearly stated that the real point about the David Payne/Kate McCann alleged encounter is that it never happened. Nothing to do with anything else.

and I can well understand why some out there dismiss and in fact disrespect members who suggest some of the ideas put forward in this forum. Hobs makes no bones about her belief that Kate was indicating sexual activity so far as I interpret it but as you say she can speak for herself.

REPLY: So far as CMOMM is concerned, I think over the years it has avoided many of the wackier theories about what happened to Madeleine, and when they are raised, other members soon knock them down. There can be no doubt that Peter Hyatt is a respected statement analyst, frequently used by the police in the U.S. as you know. There is also no doubt that he regards frequent mentions of water as a POSSIBLE indicator of sexual activity. Just to make things clear, my support for 'Hobs' was limited to pointing out that she is not alone in claiming that suspects talking about water may be an indication of sexual activity. I did not support what she said in relation to this fictitious meeting they were supposed to have had.

One further point. The 'disrespect' towards CMOMM which you mention that is certainly out there seems, unless I am very much mistaken, to be limited mostly to a handful of rather nasty trolls on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag on Twitter. Their rather noisy and angry (and sometimes frankly both vindictive and obscene) opposition seems, from where I am sitting, to stem from a steely determination to keep us focused on Thursday 3 May as the day everything happened, and not an earlier date.

As far as asking why Kate and Gerry are so far apart on the bus words fail me almost. This is no lovestruck couple, they’re part of a holiday group with kids to look after as a priority. So Gerry doesn’t want to play happy families it seems and he’s grumpy and swearing like that seems as if he doesn’t mind other members' children hearing him which is typical of his personality probably but reading something more into it than it is is opening yourself up to ridicule imo.

REPLY: Yes, I think there must be a big bee in your bonnet. Look at my post. I asked this question: "Why are Kate and Gerry so far apart?" I didn't read anything into it, did I? I merely asked the question. Frankly it looks as though YOU might be reading too much into this, speaking of 'desperation' and 'enforcement'. Others will judge for themselves.

Likewise reading something into Madeleine distanced apart from her siblings in photos. You don’t mention the ones where they’re all grouped together?

REPLY: There is one family photo in particular where Madeleine IIRC is seated on the floor and looks, to my eye, somewhat 'apart' from the other four. I concede I may be wrong.

I have never believed in an abduction nor do I now despite my disagreements with some posted points in here.

REPLY: So, returning to the title of the thread, you believe Madeleine died after 6pm on the Thursday and that the entire abduction hoax and hiding of the body was executed between then and 10pm that night? That is what I extract from your post.

.

by Roidininki 14.01.19 21:46

No bees in my bonnet whatsoever but I will , to show no hard feelings , change desperate to your oh so much lighter description if it so pleases you , tho “to enforce “which I’m sure I have no need to explain , still holds against your choice of “enforcer”which suggests a Dirty Harry type of person.
I know nothing of the trolls on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ,just ordinary interested people whose comments I’ve read along my way .

As for vindictive it’s my own opinion that Hobs comes across as extremely so herself towards the McCanns in general .

Your suggestion that I’m reading too much into points you’ve raised have fallen on stony ground I’m afraid Tony ,but then you would have to say that .
Finally to your last paragraph . You are so wrong .

by Phoebe 15.01.19 1:52

"Valerie Armstrong, landlady of Rothley’s Royal Oak pub, where the McCanns sometimes go for lunch or dinner, said: “They are lovely, gentle, caring people.” She said that they would let only their nanny or relatives babysit the children, and chose the Mark Warner resort precisely because they thought that it was safe."

Valerie Armstrong's claim (above) allegedly appeared in The Times in 2007. If she did indeed make said comment I see a much more straightforward reasoning behind it.
The McCanns had been severely criticised for not hiring a baby sitter during the week of their fateful holiday. The excuse they proffered was that they were loathe to leave their children with strangers. Ms. Armstrong's statement seems, IMO, to be an obvious attempt to bolster this argument and reinforce the notion that they would not entrust the care of their children at night to anyone other than a trusted family member.
I don't believe the McCanns had a full-time "Mary Poppins". Didn't Madeleine's playschool teacher give evidence that she sometimes went to the Mccanns' home outside of her normal work to help Kate - perhaps this is the "Nanny" in question. In any case, I believe the motivation behind this piece was to lend weight to their pathetic excuses for no baby-sitters being hired on that holiday.

by Guest 15.01.19 14:26

Phoebe wrote:Didn't Madeleine's playschool teacher give evidence that she sometimes went to the Mccanns' home outside of her normal work to help Kate - perhaps this is the "Nanny" in question.

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

by Roidininki 15.01.19 17:28

So that's two Nursery School teachers and a friend Kate made who gave statements to the effect that they were called upon sometimes to look after Madeleine at their home?
Hardly nannys ?

by Guest 15.01.19 20:20

If members wish to continue discussion about the McCanns domestic childcare arrangements back in the UK, would you please do so here..

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

The subject really has no relevance to the purpose of this thread.

Thank you.

by tiki 01.11.19 19:20

I don't buy it being pre meditated or anything other than an accidental death that they covered up at the last moment and they got very lucky. All the confusing discrepancies both made them look guilty but also acted in their favour as nobody can discern what's yet another red herring and what is absolute fact. They got over it so quickly because they are not the doting parents they try so desperately to persuade us of. Actions speak louder than words after all - what parent goes on a family holiday then dumps the kids in a creche all day and every day then neglects to get a baby sitter and goes out on the lash every night leaving not one but 3 under 4s to fend for themselves. It's outrageous to say the least. The McCanns are despicable in my opinion and to go after Goncalo Amaral the way they did is downright spiteful. They ruined the poor mans life just because he was doing his job for Gods sake. Christians they most certainly are not, that's another ploy to portray themselves as some sort of saints. Pity so many people fell for it.

by Guest 02.11.19 0:52

I think you are spot on tiki thumbsup

but with one major question .... they got very lucky?

An 'accident' can encompass any number of possible fatalities. The question that remains unanswered is what caused the premature demise of a three year old child - there is little doubt that Madeleine McCann is no longer of this world, and why, after well over twelve years the case is still a mystery.

Whatever that answer might be, in my view it goes way beyond a lucky strike.

yes

by ROSA 02.11.19 1:26

I don't think it was an accident more like a sudden impulse to me I think her body was cremated and her ashes kept .There will be no chance of finding her body because of this.

by **crusader** 02.11.19 22:37

I think it was an accident, it could have happened around 6-30, around the time of D. Payne visit.

Kate was in the shower, (big no no leaving kids on their own with an open patio door).

Payne could have found Maddie unresponsive and yelled to Kate, who appeared in towel.

Payne then went for Gerry, who according to his statement, stopped playing and went back to his apartment.

So I think it could have all been planned between then and 10pm.

by Guest 03.11.19 0:59

Well yes but that would all depend on the time, as in day, of Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance'.

Maybe the scab pickers could fill in the detail.

Meanwhile .... keep up the momentum!

by **PeterMac** 03.11.19 8:15

crusader wrote:I think it was an accident, it could have happened around 6-30, around the time of D. Payne visit.
Kate was in the shower, (big no no leaving kids on their own with an open patio door).
Payne could have found Maddie unresponsive and yelled to Kate, who appeared in towel.
Payne then went for Gerry, who according to his statement, stopped playing and went back to his apartment.
So I think it could have all been planned between then and 10pm.

But that gives a very narrow "window" for whatever you think may have happened.
Death is not an event, it is a process. It takes time.
Two doctors (or in fact anybody) would have made immediate resuscitation attempts.
Ditto Gerry when he came back.

The death must have been so final, so conclusive, that no resus. was possible.

The discovery of the body down the back of the sofa on Monday morning, where it had been overnight,
and was now cold and stiff and 'leaking' bodily fluids onto the tiled floor where eventually the dogs would alert,
fits this slightly better.

by Guest 03.11.19 11:44

I can't decide between accident/not accident, but I think they were altogether too composed - the shock of something unexpected occurring didn't faze them at all. I think they had plans in place. Where the rest of the horrible bunch they were on holiday with fits in, I can't begin to understand.

by **Jill Havern** 03.11.19 12:06

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

If your three year old child had just had a sudden and fatal accident could you really go for a stroll like this?

For the past 12 years I've tried to imagine my daughter and son in law doing this...and it just wouldn't happen.

It just would NOT happen.

by Guest 03.11.19 12:15

No, looks more like they've just rid themselves of a troublesome burden.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
That's the way to do it ....

by **crusader** 03.11.19 12:19

I absolutely agree, whatever happened to Madeleine, abduction accident etc, she was totally removed from her parents.

I was shocked when I first saw the news, at how they, Kate in particular, was washed, dressed,hair brushed and most shocking, up and about.

I would not have been able to breathe properly.

by Guest 03.11.19 12:53

They are 100% confident that they have got away with it.

by **sandancer** 03.11.19 14:21

Jill Havern wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If your three year old child had just had a sudden and fatal accident could you really go for a stroll like this?

For the past 12 years I've tried to imagine my daughter and son in law doing this...and it just wouldn't happen.

It just would NOT happen.

They look relaxed and those smiles , like the smiles in the Punch and Judy photo are genuine , not forced for a camera forced smiles don't reach the eyes , these do !

Accident or " abduction " , ( or something else ) their attitude , don't care , got away with it , relief , brilliant actors , I cannot comprehend .

I've only met one person who thinks they're not involved , that was on the basis of the Netflix documentary and nothing else . She shut me down when I tried to direct her to the files etc , didn't want to know .

According to Kate though we are obviously NOT " inherently good people " . There's a lot of us around my dear , those of us who cannot understand your behaviour , your actions and your lies .

by **PeterMac** 03.11.19 16:25

Tapas 7 movements between 2110 and 2155
Remember it takes 2 minutes to get into 5A from the Tapas bar
It takes 3 minutes to get round to 5C and 5D
add a little time to actually look at the children, tuck them up,
use the facilities - rather then the ones at the restaurant -
and ask yourself how many minutes there were
WITHOUT a foot patrol outside 5A . . .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 03.11.19 16:42

PeterMac wrote:Tapas 7 movements between 2110 and 2155
Remember it takes 2 minutes to get into 5A from the Tapas bar
It takes 3 minutes to get round to 5C and 5D
add a little time to actually look at the children, tuck them up,
use the facilities - rather then the ones at the restaurant -
and ask yourself how many minutes there were
WITHOUT a foot patrol outside 5A . . .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hammer.

Nail.

Head.

Remind me why they wouldn't do a reconstruction?

You know... if a real genuine policeman was in charge of Operation Grange...

by **crusader** 03.11.19 17:29

I'm sorry Petermac, I don't understand the question. Do you mean there was too much activity around 5a for an abduction to take place?

by Guest 04.11.19 0:46

PeterMac wrote:Death is not an event, it is a process. It takes time

The discovery of the body down the back of the sofa on Monday morning, where it had been overnight,
and was now cold and stiff and 'leaking' bodily fluids onto the tiled floor where eventually the dogs would alert,

Depends on the circumstances. If someone sticks a gun at your head, pulls the trigger and blows your brains out, death is an event - a certainty, not a process.

If a corpse had laid dormant in the same location for a number of hours, overnight for example, I would expect to see a more conclusive forensic report than .... 'is too complex for meaningful interpretation'., as documented by the UK's Forensic Science Service.