Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?

I can't speak with any authority as I've never planned a hoax abduction to cover-up a major crime but I would imagine you would need more than a few hours to plan and execute.  Taking everything into consideration - washing, ironing, scrubbing, removing, hiding, relocating re-arranging, coaxing, preparing a timeline, scripting, casting, eating, drinking and of course locating convenient witnesses and assuring future protection.

What better time to act than a few hours before change-over day, when the majority of guests would be departing? A degree of cunning is required if you intend to fool the world - and they did that with great eclat!

Many of us agree that something happened on Sunday and that Madeleine never attended at Creche after this day.
This is the Creche sheet from Monday April 30 and the phone pings of Kate and Gerrys phones and as you can see they wrote down their phone number on the Creche sheet, which is a very important thing to do for security and if the child hurt her self or if something else happened BUT there are no phone pings from their phones on Monday, their phones were turned off.
I believe this could be very telling that something happened late Sunday/Monday night, it's a sign of panic and that they were busy with some other things.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Phoebe wrote:On the afternoon of May 3rd Madeleine was, according to creche records, the SOLE girl remaining in the Lobsters group for the last hour of the session. She also was the SOLE girl from Lobsters who needed to be brought to high tea when session ended. There were ONLY two other little boys with her, A.M. and W.T., a total of 3 children. Cat Baker claimed to be minding these three during this period. If this were true I see no opportunity for mistaken identity.
 Earlier that day, Cat had charge of just two other girls besides Madeleine - Ella and J.B. with only 3 other boys. Furthermore, Madeleine is claimed to have drawn attention to herself by her panic at the sail. So, Madeleine was either definitely in creche on Thursday or Cat is not telling the truth. I opt for the latter.
 I believe Cat was not there on Thurs. She makes a mess of describing the "mini sail" (which bears no resemblance to reality) recounting the three year olds being brought out onto the high seas by a "launch boat", when a mini sail actually involves the children stepping aboard a plastic boat drawn up on the beach which is then pushed about in waist deep water!
 I firmly believe the creche (in May 07) was shambolic, a fact that has been diligently covered up to save M.W. blushes. There was no accurate record keeping, nor evidence of identity bracelets, I think the nannies secretly chopped and changed rotas and combined groups to give each other time off. I also believe creche records were hastily filled and forged retrospectively to try to hide this. Furthermore, it appears that there was some contact between the nannies and the McCann group after the disappearance. For me this is evidenced by Amy Tierney. On the night of the disappearance the searchers were looking for a child who had wandered out from the apt. and got lost. John Hill said so, Mark McCarrick claimed, early next morning, to have been told by Ocean Club staff that a door had been left open. It was Amy who informed Lyndsay Johnston that  night that Madeleine was missing. She in turn relayed this information to Hill. However, Hill made no reference to the open window and raised blinds which Amy stresses twice in her statement given three days after the disappearance. Why would he persist in assuming that Madeleine woke and wandered if he had immediately been informed about the open window and raised shutters? I believe that Cat was contacted by the McCanns and supported their story to save her own reputation.
 I also believe Madeleine hated creche and, on Monday, acted up so badly she had to be collected after 15 mins. I imagine Cat would have been only too grateful if the McCanns suggested there was no reason to mention any of this. I can imagine how relieved I would feel if parents of an "abducted" child (splashed all over the news) offered not to mention that the child disliked me and or had said she was afraid of me!

The bits in red seem very plausible to me. If the nannies weren't doing exactly what they were supposed to (in terms of hours, time off, combining groups etc) this to me is a reason that things are vague.

This all so irrelevant.

The creche register has been picked-over to the ninth degree, all because it's there for the world to see and question. No problem in essence but if the McCanns version of events is to be believed, the creche attendance and/or register has no bearing on Madeleine McCann's fate. Ostensibly, she disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007, at the time she was not in the care of the creche employees.

The only reason for the questioning of the childcare staff was to ascertain Madeleine's general demeanour, how she interacted with her parents and other children and if there was anything suspicious noted in the vicinity of the children in their care. In short, no one questioned the shambolic state of the creche register until the PJ files were introduced into the public domain. Why then would Warners, the Ocean Club and/or the childcare workers need to panic in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?

The children's care workers, nor Warners, nor the Ocean Club were under suspicion so why the need to fabricate or defend the childcare service provided? Why would management or the workers try to cover-up a shoddy child care service when the service wasn't in question?

The McCanns need to provide evidence that Madeleine was alive and well during the whole week is however, another matter altogether. For this to be possible, they would need an insider to assist with their plan - enter Catriona Baker.

Charlotte Pennington is another force to reckon with. She wasn't on the original list of care workers employed for the summer of 2007, yet she flew over to Portugal on the same flight as some of the McCann friends. She claims to have been privately employed as a nanny in the UK prior to her stint in Praia da Luz - was she employed by the Mcanns or their friends? Was she appointed by Mark Warner to work at the Ocean Club as a child carer, or did she travel to Portugal by private arrangement?

All these idiosyncrasies are more likely to explain the creche record anomalies than any excuses for lackadaisical staff.

The nursery staff would have believed the parents telling them which child is which, names etc.
It can take a day or so to learn the children's names and a bit about them, how they behave, their characteristics etc and if they are all lumped in one room , children of different ages, it makes it harder to learn who is who and which group they should be in , especially those at the top end/bottom of of the group (where they could be of an age to be in one or the other.
What i would like to have seen is all the work from the children during the week, the drawings etc, heck even their wristbands.
We have them telling us they were at the creche yet we see no physical proof of them being there.
The evidence in the apartment of paintings, Plasticine or play doh models, the usual stuff your children brings home.

Even the nannies can't provide definitive proof that children were present and signed in and out correctly by their parents, they can't even decide what events took place on what day.
it seems very disorganized and this helped the mccanns.


Was Maddie ever at the creche?

Hobs wrote:The nursery staff would have believed the parents telling them which child is which, names etc.
It can take a day or so to learn the children's names and a bit about them, how they behave, their characteristics etc and if they are all lumped in one room , children of different ages, it makes it harder to learn who is who and which group they should be in , especially those at the top end/bottom of of the group (where they could be of an age to be in one or the other.
What i would like to have seen is all the work from the children during the week, the drawings etc, heck even their wristbands.
We have them telling us they were at the creche yet we see no physical proof of them being there.
The evidence in the apartment of paintings, Plasticine or play doh models, the usual stuff your children brings home.

Even the nannies can't provide definitive prof that children were present and signed in and out correctly by their parents, they can't even decide what events took place on what day.
it seems very disorganized and this helped the mccanns.

Was Maddie ever at the creche?

If Madeleine died on April 29th then she would have been at the crèche that morning only, that is if the crèche was really open on Sunday, there is some doubt over that.

Not certain about Saturday being  a day off ,but have read that sunday was the day off ,when most people arrive and depart. joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Not certain about Saturday being  a day off ,but have read that sunday was the day off ,when most people arrive and depart. joyce1938

It unclear from the statements whether the crèche was open on Sunday. According to Cat Baker and Kate, it was but I did read somewhere that it wasn't .

Jane Tanner is also very unclear as to whether her daughter attended crèche on the Sunday.

sharonl wrote:

Hobs wrote:The nursery staff would have believed the parents telling them which child is which, names etc.
It can take a day or so to learn the children's names and a bit about them, how they behave, their characteristics etc and if they are all lumped in one room , children of different ages, it makes it harder to learn who is who and which group they should be in , especially those at the top end/bottom of of the group (where they could be of an age to be in one or the other.
What i would like to have seen is all the work from the children during the week, the drawings etc, heck even their wristbands.
We have them telling us they were at the creche yet we see no physical proof of them being there.
The evidence in the apartment of paintings, Plasticine or play doh models, the usual stuff your children brings home.

Even the nannies can't provide definitive prof that children were present and signed in and out correctly by their parents, they can't even decide what events took place on what day.
it seems very disorganized and this helped the mccanns.

Was Maddie ever at the creche?

If Madeleine died on April 29th then she would have been at the crèche that morning only, that is if the crèche was really open on Sunday, there is some doubt over that.

I've also thought about that.
Amy T, the Head of the kids club stated that the Kids club was closed on Sunday and if we take a look at the Creche sheets we can see there is date written on all of them except on this one.
Could it be fabricated?
There is no date or day written on it, is this because it was closed and if someone questioned it they could have get away with an explanation like "...erm.. you know...there was a misunderstanding...erm..we messed the sheets up...you know...we are new at work"
It's very odd that the 'Head' claimed it was closed, if there was anyone who should know if it was opened or closed it should been her.
Was it because of lack in communication and she slipped or was she wrong, the kids club was open and they forgot to write the date this day?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

joyce1938 wrote:Not certain about Saturday being  a day off ,but have read that sunday was the day off ,when most people arrive and depart. joyce1938

Saturday was change over day, when guests leave and a new intake arrive. I think it most likely the crèche was open on Sundays, maybe not for activities but as a sort of meet and greet arrangement.

According to Catriona Baker's witness statement, she first met the Mcanns and their daughter Madeleine on Sunday 29th April 2007. I seriously doubt she would have said anything that could so easily be disputed by the Ocean Club management.

Verdi wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Not certain about Saturday being  a day off ,but have read that sunday was the day off ,when most people arrive and depart. joyce1938

Saturday was change over day, when guests leave and a new intake arrive.  I think it most likely the crèche was open on Sundays, maybe not for activities but as a sort of meet and greet arrangement.

According to Catriona Baker's witness statement, she first met the Mcanns and their daughter Madeleine on Sunday 29th April 2007.  I seriously doubt   she would have said anything that could so easily be disputed by the Ocean Club management.

That's assuming that the management would dispute what she said if it were false. We still don't know what sort of holidays and activities were taking place over there.

Yes, odd isn’t it – Amy, Leanne and Shinead all state clearly that the clubs were closed on Sundays. Shinead looked after the twins - the Toddler2 Jellyfish afternoon crèche sheet for Sunday bears her name.
 
This is what Cat Baker has to say about Sunday:
 
PJ first statement May 2007:
‘She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning’.
 
Rogatory April 2008:
‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information’.
 
Interesting that Cat doesn’t actually state that she got to know Madeleine on Sunday morning in her Rogatory.


Last year I was in contact with 2 families who used the kids clubs in Luz in 2007 and both seemed to think that they were only open for 5 days/week, but the website from the time states a generic 6 days for all MW Med destinations.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – I agree, there is some reason for the blank dated sheet.
 
I am 100% convinced that large parts of the sheets are forged. If this was carried out by an individual/small group how could they be sure that once the sheets were handed to the PJ, the parents/nannies shown on the sheets wouldn’t be questioned closely about the entries???

Whoever did it had to have had free access to the sheets; had to have had the time to alter/fabricate them; had to have had a reason to alter/fabricate them; had to have had the confidence that they would get away with it; and, wasn’t a young naive nanny acting alone. IMO.
 
I still believe that if forgery of documents can be proved, then the abduction theory is disproved by default.

As Verdi stated above, and I tend to agree, the changeover day was Saturday. I believe the childcare facilities did not operate as such on Sunday but were open in the afternoon for parents to register their children, meet the nannies and view the facilities. That is why there are no records for the morning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - quite possible about the Sunday (the toddler2 sheet is missing for the morning) BUT how can the blank dated Lobster Club (minis/Madeleine/CAT) be explained?
 
The blank sheet can only be the Sunday sheet; it clearly isn't a duplicate of any of the other sheets. It shows 5 children attending in the morning - with Jessica Berry being signed in as early as 9.10am and Madeleine at 9.15am (9.45am?). This suggests that there was a clear hand over of children to the staff early on Sunday morning and that the club was fully up and running. But there is no way of knowing if the the content of the sheets reflects what was actually happening on each day.
 
How can nannys be so confused about club days only a few days after the end of the week in question?
 
It has already been raised that the sheets have been examined and shown to contain many irregularities, not least the signatures.
 
Confusion; irregularities; vagueness; contradictions - in other words, lies. WHY? Abducted child Thursday evening - no reason. Not even as a panic cover up of poor practise, IMO.
 
As an aside - we are told that the Mcs were at the tennis 'coffee' morning meet and greet next to the Tapas tennis courts on Sunday morning with about 15 of the other guests - very little mention of this from the Tapas 9, all of whom seem fairly vague about Sunday morning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - apologies for oversight. As no other dates are missing, it is an obvious conclusion to believe that the undated sheet is in fact Sunday 29/4.

I've tried to understand, from statements and other information, where the respective parents were on the various days. This might shed some light on whether Gerry and Russell did indeed each take 2 children (Madeleine and Ella) at certain times. However, as the PJ seemed to be solely concentrating on the movements of people on the 3/5, information for other days is sadly lacking.

I'm still hopeful that currently unreleased documents will eventually be placed in the public domain.

Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – don’t apologize! It might only be the 29 April sheet in fantasy land! I don’t have much confidence in any of the crèche sheets, which you have probably gathered. Despite that, I think it is important that they are scrutinized closely.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has done an epic amount of work in collating all the stated movements.

The activity sheet shows Sunday creche

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

The diagram of Events shows the creche was active on Sunday



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

Verdi wrote:This all so irrelevant.  

The creche register has been picked-over to the ninth degree, all because it's there for the world to see and question.  No problem in essence but if the McCanns version of events is to be believed, the creche attendance and/or register has no bearing on Madeleine McCann's fate.  Ostensibly, she disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007,  at the time she was not in the care of the creche employees.

The only reason for the questioning of the childcare staff was to ascertain Madeleine's general demeanour, how she interacted with her parents and other children and if there was anything suspicious noted in the vicinity of the children in their care.  In short, no one questioned the shambolic state of the creche register until the PJ files were introduced into the public domain.  Why then would Warners, the Ocean Club and/or the childcare workers need to panic in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?

The children's care workers, nor Warners, nor the Ocean Club were under suspicion so why the need to fabricate or defend the childcare service provided?  Why would management or the workers try to cover-up a shoddy child care service when the service wasn't in question?

The McCanns need to provide evidence that Madeleine was alive and well during the whole week is however, another matter altogether.  For this to be possible, they would need an insider to assist with their plan - enter Catriona Baker.    

Charlotte Pennington is another force to reckon with.  She wasn't on the original list of care workers employed for the summer of 2007, yet she flew over to Portugal on the same flight as some of the McCann friends.   She claims to have been privately employed as a nanny in the UK prior to her stint in Praia da Luz - was she employed by the Mcanns or their friends?  Was she appointed by Mark Warner to work at the Ocean Club as a child carer, or did she travel to Portugal by private arrangement?

All these idiosyncrasies are more likely to explain the creche record anomalies than any excuses for lackadaisical staff

Irrelevant?

This thread seems to have fallen on deaf ears..

I put an enormous amount of work into this thread

Its basically to recognised that SOMEHOW the McCanns managed to this day to have everyone believe she was in the creche every day

For those that believe something happened earlier then to be credible its IMPORTANT to justify it by explaining HOW they managed to dupe everyone.

I offered what I believe to be a very feasible suggestion, but also looking for alternatives to see how it could have been achieved


I knew that there has to be an overall knowledge of the aspects of the case involved, but have realised there are basic areas that are still not understood.

I have appreciated many of the members input by helping in this RESEARCH thread but the REAL topic has been overlooked for the most part and am certainly not happy to have it all considered irrelevant!

 I have addressed the fact that the creche records were not of any interest to the case prior to handing them into the police, because all concerned would have believed it was an abduction from the apartment and the creche was not involved and so no need to 'doctor' any of the records.  (apart from possible implications from the BBC Whistleblower results from Mark Warner Creche in Egypt)

 What IS important is how the McCanns managed to fake Madeleine being in the creche and a statement of 'The creche register has been picked-over to the ninth degree' insinuates there is no further need to scrutinise them.

FAR from the truth in my opinion.

Without an explanation or research of HOW they achieved it then to say 'something happened earlier in the week' falls flat on its face.  How can that statement be credible if it can't be explained that there is reason to believe she WASN'T in the creche?

We have had literally THOUSANDS of posts on scrutinising the anomalies of the creche records but there has NEVER (as far as I know) been an explanation as to HOW they achieved it.

It's FAR from irrelevant.

It's CRITICAL for those of us that believe something happened earlier to give reasons and to EXPLAIN why we believe it!

How they managed to get away with it may have several possible explanations.  I have asked SEVERAL times for alternative suggestions and members have added some very interesting details but keeping it off topic by focusing on minutia, or disregarding the many explanations about the 'facts' is not helpful in exploring HOW they managed to deceive everyone! 

I was hoping that scrutnising the possible 'one child in and one child out' scenario, which is VERY possible, we could confirm the credibility of believing something happened earlier in the week.

This is NOT only about the creche record anomalies... Its about how they ACHIEVED the illusion of Maddie being in the creche.

If the creche explanation is ignored, how can something happening earlier be credible?

Because I believe something happened earlier in the week, I consider it my RESPONSIBILITY to at least attempt to explain how they managed to deceive everyone.

Its not irrelevant at all.

As I have mentioned before, to understand the concept of this thread one needs a wide knowledge of the case, the creche, the timelines and the evidence behind the reasons in believing something happened earlier.

I didn't want to wait another 8 years before I could expect it to be understood

polyenne wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - apologies for oversight. As no other dates are missing, it is an obvious conclusion to believe that the undated sheet is in fact Sunday 29/4.

I've tried to understand, from statements and other information, where the respective parents were on the various days. This might shed some light on whether Gerry and Russell did indeed each take 2 children (Madeleine and Ella) at certain times. However, as the PJ seemed to be solely concentrating on the movements of people on the 3/5, information for other days is sadly lacking.

I'm still hopeful that currently unreleased documents will eventually be placed in the public domain.

All of the statements can be compared during 15 min or hourly increments on the Timetables I have prepared.


Here are SOME of the timetables...

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



Jez Wilkinns describes the visit to the creche with Gerry and Russel O'Brien Tuesday lunchtime.  The graphic of creche times for Tuesday on the OP shows all the times they were dropping off or picking up together.

Many thanks HideHo, I’ll take a look at your detailed work tomorrow when I have more time.

In the interim, I for one, agree that this is very important and should be delved into further. I mentioned upthread Elizabeth Naylor as I know there was much earlier discussion about this particular girl. Can I ask your view on EN ?

polyenne wrote:Many thanks HideHo, I’ll take a look at your detailed work tomorrow when I have more time.

In the interim, I for one, agree that this is very important and should be delved into further. I mentioned upthread Elizabeth Naylor as I know there was much earlier discussion about this particular girl. Can I ask your view on EN ?

I know there was a LOT of work by Kiko regarding Elizabeth Naylor, but I was not privy to it, and I hesitate to cast any doubt on guests on the periphery.  He is certainly to be admired for his research.

One has to be SURE before naming other children that could have been involved in a contrived manner.

I prefer to see what seems VERY possible to me... and that is the T7 children as we KNOW they could be mistaken for Maddie.

So, in answer to your question... I don't know enough and perfer to stay with children that may have been mistaken for Maddie.  Of course with approx 10 young girls (apparently/possibly)  Elizabeth Naylor MAY have been considered a child that Maddie was mistaken for.  (I believe her middle name was Maddie?)

I can't comment on details I am not fully knowledgeable on.

polyenne wrote:Many thanks HideHo, I’ll take a look at your detailed work tomorrow when I have more time.

In the interim, I for one, agree that this is very important and should be delved into further. I mentioned upthread Elizabeth Naylor as I know there was much earlier discussion about this particular girl. Can I ask your view on EN ?

I had a continuous contact with Kiko some years ago and he told me that he had phone contact with Robert Naylor and asked him if he signed in Madeleine at creche.
Kiko told me that he did not answer either yes or no and he did not deny it.
That's all I know.

CAT BAKER & CO

A message from MMRG to Lizzy HideHo - (it is a long article in three parts)


As you know, Lizzy, we seldom differ.

This thread has been productive, it has already had over 130 comments, and NickE and others have praised it as a very useful thread.

But the thread has a simple problem.

JRP touched on it when he said you were unwise to rule out flat from the start that Cat Baker could have been lying.
Your question reads:

“Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?”

You see, what you have done is to pose a question - but then give us the answer.

As you know, the vast majority on the forum agree with the view that Madeleine died either after lunch on Sunday or early on Monday.

The photographs alone tend to prove that. But so does other evidnce.

Your question then goes on to state (as a fact) that the McCanns ‘managed to deceive everyone at the creche’. Therefore all you do is to allow us to answer the question: ‘How did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the crèche?’

You have already ruled out that Cat Baker (and maybe other nannies) might have been lying. And this is despite the excellent analysis on your blog where you have basically torn to shreds any idea that Madeleine had a ‘high tea’ with Cat Baker and her Mum and Dad and the twins at 5.30pm/6pm on Thursday 3 May. You have successfully exposed the multiple contradictions and changes of story about what each of the three of them have said about that occasion.

There are, surely, only two possible explanations for such a plethora of contradictions. Either (a) they all have terrible memories about that event or (b) that event never happened and they are all making it up, probably with rehearsed lines about what they are supposed to say. But in fact they are quite unable, between them, to hold together a coherent account of that alleged high tea. Our opinion is that (b) makes much more sense. And if (b) is correct, then Cat Baker is not telling the truth. And if Cat Baker is not telling the truth there, where else is she no telling the truth?

(We appreciate the point that she doesn’t in so many words confirm that Madeleine was present. But she does endorse that there was a high tea of some sorts, which hwe reject).

In essence, your question is a bit like: “When did you stop beating your wife?”, which likewise assumes a fact that may not be true.
May we suggest a better question that you could have asked:

“Do you believe something happened earlier than Thursday May 3^rd, or even as early as Sunday 29^th April? If so, how do we account for the state of the crèche records and the actions of the nannies?

If the question had been put like that, we would have come up with the following points and possibilities:

1 It is possible that Cat Baker and one or two other nannies already knew by Sunday night that Madeleine was dead

2 It is possible that Cat Baker and one or two other nannies were actually present when Madeleine died

3 It is possible that Madeleine was sedated, that Cat Baker was baby-minding the children on the Sunday evening, and that Madeleine died as a result of over-sedation

4 It is possible that Cat Baker and one or two of the other nannies shared a common interest in some kind of activity that the McCanns were also involved

5 Even if Cat Baker and one or two other nannies were not in any way associated with Madeleine’s early death, it is possible that they were told in no uncertain terms by Mark Warner/the Ocean Club that they must lie about what had happened. They could have been bribed, or threatened, or both. In support of that, we have the admitted presence of the Director and Deputy Director of Resonate - a Bell Pottinger subsidiary – a few days before 3 May.

NOTHING should be automatically ruled out in this mystery of mysteries, as you yourself say.

If any one of the above scenarios applies, then we have a simple solution to offer, namely:.

The McCanns did not deceive anyone.

On this view, there was no ‘substitute’ child or similar-looking child or case of mistaken identity. Cat Baker and the others would know exactly which child was which after caring for them for a whole day (see also below).

INSTEAD, we suggest that Cat Baker may simply have been instructed by others (whether Mark Warner or the McCanns’ advisers, or both) to allow the McCanns, or even someone else, to enter Madeleine’s name on the creche streets each day. Likewise, we suggest that she may have been instructed to make claims that Madeleine was in her group all week and likewise that she was at a ‘high tea’ with the McCanns, Madeleine and the twins from around 5.30pm to 6pm.

This view sheds light on the discrepancies you have often highlighted about the different descriptions of Madeleine. Some saying she was shy, others saying she was extrovert.

You have suggested that maybe they were all talking about two entirely different children. We have an alternative suggestion to make.

In the light of opinions that Madeleine died during Sunday, is this a possible scenario:- namely that none of the nannies really knew Madeleine at all, therefore when the police asked them about Madeleine’s character, they simply made it up as they went along?

In other words, they fabricated the details about her supposed character?

We also think the conduct of Amy Tierney over the 6” x 4” photographs was suspicious and we doubt if she was telling the truth about them. Likewise it seems that Charlotte Pennington was easily pressed into service to speak to the media in September 2007 and give them another false account of the alleged ‘high tea’. We think that Amy and Charlotte and perhaps other nannies all knew that Madeleine had died on Sunday and that Mark Warner worked with them to allow the abduction hoax to take place on Thursday. In other words, they all lied – under orders.

On this view, the Lobster crèche sheets were not technically ‘forged’ or ‘corrected’. There is no need to postulate Cat Baker not knowing who Madeleine really was All she needed to do was to allow either of the McCanns to sign the register, even though Madeleine was already dead – as Cat Baker we may presume already knew.

Like you, Lizzy, we invite you or anyone else to shoot down all of our alternative hypotheses – if you or they want to think you can.

RESPONSES TO COMMEMTS ON THIS THREAD SO FAR

We have collected significant posts on the thread so far. We have answered where bolded. Comments that we regard as especially relevant have been bolded in red. We analyse the comments under several headings.

A ‘Cat Baker is not telling lies’

Hideho wrote: For those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then its IMPORTANT to base that belief on what we know from the files and HOW it was accomplished to deceive everyone about how Maddie was presumed to be in the creche when she wasn't. I believe something happened earlier so I am attempting to back up that thought with the research I have done.... and the POSSIBILITY of how the creche could be explained.

JRP wrote: “As Verdi pointed out up thread, Cat Baker had only a handful of children under her care. The numbers in her group ranged from 3 to 7. Surely with this small number of children, it couldn't be the same level of chaos as depicted in the BBC whistle-blower TV program cited as evidence above”.

JRP also wrote: “I think the major problem you have with this creche sheet business is your stubbornness over your position on Cat Baker. You believe Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns, and to prove it, you have to invent a stand in duplicate child”.

JRP also wrote: “The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies…I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child”.

JRP also wrote: “Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path…The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care. If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with”.

JRP also wrote: “Is it not more likely that there was no doppelganger, and that Nanny knew what was going on. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you can't simply take somebody as being truthful on a whim”.

Hideho countered: “Catriona was very vague about Madeleine and seemed to focus a lot on the TWINS (who were not in her group)…I make a note of claiming that Catriona was not complicit during that week. To suggest a young girl doing her job was involved in what the McCanns were trying to achieve is, without any 'evidence' is quite frankly something I find offensive.

JRP replied: “I find it odd that you find an opinion which is opposite to yours offensive. I can understand you not agreeing with me as that is your prerogative, but to find what I said offensive is a little strange.
With regard to mezzyd's point about it being difficult to remember names, there were only 2 to 7 children in the creche during the holiday week, perhaps mezzyd has a few more to remember in her/his workplace.
I have a shop, we see more than 7 people during a day, if somebody orders something today, I'll remember their name when they return. It's part of the job, as is remembering kids names in a creche, and I don't have the advantage of glancing at wristbands.
Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?

HiDeHo replied: “There are only two alternatives, either Cat Baker knew Madeleine was in the creche or she didn't know Madeline was in the creche, it's as simple as that”.
I maintain that I find anything suggesting Catriona was lying (indicating she was complicit) is very wrong. It's not an opinion, I see it as an accusation and regardless whether I find her rogatory statement questionable I do not for one second see ANY indication that she was complicit during that week.
I am not here to presume guilt for someone who may be innocent.... I am here to help make sense of what happened by using the files....
Firstly this is a case like no other and ANYTHING is possible

MMRG COMMENT: Taking your last point first, Lizzy, we agree. And that means looking at the possibility that by Monday all the key nannies may have known that Madeleine was dead (under whatever circumstances), and had been asked by Mark Warner to lie about it. In this deceit, the role of Cat Baker would be crucial.
Also remember that CMOMM is an investigative forum. Part of the role of a true investigator is to assess whether each witness is a ‘witness of truth’ or not. In our view, Cat Baker fails this test. That is an opinion. Admittedly it also amounts to an accusation. But as you say, ‘ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE’.

One thing you said, Lizzy, was this: “Catriona was very vague about Madeleine and seemed to focus a lot on the TWINS (who were not in her group)…” We suggest that this is exactly what we might expect from her if Madeleine was already dead by Sunday night and she was just making things up about Madeleine. Cat Baker being vague is EXACTLY what one would expect.


MORE TO FOLLOW LATER…

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD SO FAR: PART 2

B. Were there two groups in the same room? (i.e. over the Ocean Club reception)?

Verdi wrote: Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

In answer to our questions, she responds that she has been in Portugal since March 21st of this year and that this is her first visit to the country. Next, she says that she came to Portugal to work as a play leader, having obtained a contract of employment with the "Mark Warner" company. She states that her contract started on March 21st and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country. She points out that the company in question, in its turn, has a contract with the "OCEAN CLUB" tourist village to provide a child care service for parents who are clients of the village

She adds that in the tourist village, this type of child care takes place in four different places according to the ages of the children.
For children aged four months to one year it is the "Baby Club" which is close to the OCEAN CLUB's main reception. For children aged one to two years, it is the "Toddler" which is next to the "Tapas" restaurant. For children aged three to five years, it is the "Mini Club" which is also close to the Ocean Club's main reception. And finally, for children aged six to nine years and from ten to thirteen years, it is the "Junior Club" which is close to the "Millenium" restaurant.

Verdi also wrote: Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007 [Interpreter - Robert Murat]

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

When asked, the informant responds that it was always the parents who brought Madeleine and fetched her from the "Mini Club."

Mistaken identity? Bah!

Polyenne wrote: I should also like to add that I feel it slightly disconcerting that Catrions Baker spent time with the McCanns back in the UK some time after events in PdL.

A poster wrote: “The Sharks group and the babys shared the same creche room”.

skyrocket wrote: “The photo [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has posted is from one of the MW late-2007 websites The website pre-May 2007 states the early years kids clubs are housed at the childcare centre located on the tapas site; the photo from early October 2007 shows Mini Club children in the tented crèche/centre on the tapas site; the MW site map, which is only included on the website from early October 2007, shows the Minis and the Toddler 2’s in the tented crèche and the Toddler 1’s and Babies located in one of the apartment directly behind the tapas tennis courts (this location for the Baby Club has been brought up independently by another poster).

No mention anywhere at any time on the website about any of the kids clubs being above the OC 24 Hour Reception, from 2006 to when MW sold the OC, but references from other guests such as Wilkins/O'Donnell.

Phoebe wrote: “The Mini Club consisted of two groups, the Lobsters with Cat and the Sharks with Emma. I agree with HiDeHo that evidence suggests that these two groups shared a common play area and were combined for certain activities, especially when there were few children”

Kirsty Maryan also claims in her police statement -

"The deponent further clarifies that the Junior group does not find itself subdivided from the other groups, in that, at this moment, there are not enough children that permit it;"

This clearly implies that when child numbers were low (as in April May 07) the children of various groups were combined.

Hideho wrote: “I have attempted several times to explain the likely volume of children in the creche of children between the ages of 3 - 5 with Emma Wilding having SHARKS (which included Jez Wilkins daughter) and Catriona with children (5 girls and two boys)
Emma's SHARKS group played mini tennis on THURSDAY (the mini tennis that Rachael claimed to have seen Maddie)
Catriona's LOBSTER group played TUESDAY morning

I can see that the misunderstanding has led to confusion.

Hopefully it can now be recognised that there was likely (approx) 13 children in the creche room (with Baby's club in an adjoining room)

Both groups spent times together as we can see from Emma it does rely on full understanding of how many children were in the creche room with Maddie which could explain how the McCanns were able to manipulate the creche records to indicate Maddie was there when she wasn't

skyrocket wrote: I am completely in agreement that it is highly likely that the Lobsters and Sharks were treated as a single large group - far easier to look after a dozen children between 2 carers rather than 6 children on your own.

MMRG COMMENT: It is clear that Lizzy has established her point that there were two groups who shared the same open-plan area above the Ocean Club reception, 7 in Lobsters and 6 in Sharks. We do not however think that this in anyway helps the argument that Cat Baker didn’t really know which child was which (see also below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Could Cat Baker have been mistaken?

Hideho wrote: 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. 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. Maybe she was thinking she didn’t recall the name of the child that day.

Verdi wrote: “Is it really likely she would confuse one child with another? She must have known the identity of the individual children - how else could she effectively supervise them? Can't believe a child carer would be oblivious of the identity of the children in their care”.

Verdi also wrote: “Juggle kids around as much as you like, add or subtract as many as you like but fact remains - Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children, mixed sexes, at any one session. Even then according to the records, six/seven children only on one or two half days. Mostly there were only three, four or five children signed in.

If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker”.

Hideho wrote: “In a room of approx 13 children and only (possibly) seeing Maddie a couple of times wouldn't it be POSSIBLE that random children arriving and leaving at different times that each child would not necessarily be remembered specifically.
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.

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?

Jez’ daughter was in the Sharks group but sharing the same room as Maddie’s group,the Lobsters and Russells daughter was also in the Lobster group.

For the record, I DO NOT believe Catriona was lying.

How could the McCanns have accomplished this deceit?

How could Catriona claim to have seen Maddie, even though she was not there?

I welcome a suggestion of an alternative way they achieved the deception.

Julie R wrote: “I can't see any way any nursery worker could be fooled into thinking one child was another. I have worked in nurseries as a supply assistant (often going into nurseries for just one day) and by the end of the day you not only know every single child's name but their faces and personalities stick in your memory for days, even weeks. I'm talking whole classes of 20+ children, after just one day with them.

Skyrocket it is my opinion that the Lobster crèche sheets are largely (if not entirely) forged, which would suggest that CB (and others) have been drawn in to the mess”.


Verity wrote: “Was Ella seen at all with Jane Tanner by any witnesses after May 3rd?

If so then surely anyone who thought she was Madeleine would have said something like "I thought Ella was Madeleine, but she can't have been"?

Phoebe wrote: “Earlier that day, Cat had charge of just two other girls besides Madeleine - Ella and J.B. with only 3 other boys. Furthermore, Madeleine is claimed to have drawn attention to herself by her panic at the sail. So, Madeleine was either definitely in creche on Thursday or Cat is not telling the truth. I opt for the latter.

I believe that Cat was contacted by the McCanns and supported their story to save her own reputation.

Phoebe also wrote: “Either Cat is knowingly lying about Madeleine's presence in creche or the childminding was so slapdash that Cat hasn't a clue who was where, and she may not even have been there at the appointed times herself but foisted her charges onto another nanny and is lying to cover this up”.

Phoebe also wrote: According to the story, Ella was collected by her father (though signed out by Cat) at 4.30p.m. on Thurs afternoon. That left Madeleine as the only girl Cat had charge of after 4.30p.m. on Thursday. The activity that afternoon from 3.30- 4.30p.m. was "dive and find". According to Cat the child she calls Madeleine took part in this activity. Ella couldn't have, because of her foot. For Ella to have been mistaken for Madeleine she would have had to have gone in the water. Cat also knew which child was leaving with Russell at 4.30 p.m. well enough to sign her out, ergo she knew Ella and could not have mistaken her for Madeleine.

Crackfox wrote: “I agree Phoebe that CB's description of the mini sail does not sound plausible IMO and I cannot for the life of me understand why the McCanns would be watching other people's children playing tennis whilst showing no interest in what surely should have been a milestone in their own child's life worthy of attention?”

Verdi wrote: “Onus back on Catriona Baker - no extenuating circumstances, Catriona Baker was the employee allocated to supervise the Lobster club, she and she alone was accountable for the Lobster club attendees and their activities during that week.

She had a handful of children to supervise but she can't be expected to be able to identify each child? Humbug!”

sharonl wrote: “The nannies are allocated a maximum of seven children each and each nanny has her own room within the crèche. A child is allocated a nanny at the start of the week and that nanny is the childs nanny for the whole week. Also, as we can see from the crèche records the childs nanny is responsible for the crèche records.

So we have, Madeleine allocated to Cat Baker who is her nanny for the week, who signs her in and out of the crèche, and who has a maximum of five children for the week, in a private room within the crèche”

Hideho wrote: “Verdi...it's absolutely your prerogative if you don’t agree with this POSSIBLE scenario.

If you believe that something happened earlier in week, I would hope/expect you to have a possible solution as to how they managed to get away with the creche issue.

There can't be a claim of something happening earlier if there is not a reasonable solution to how they got away with the creche issue

That’s the point of this thread... It’s not the solution here... it’s the RESEARCH to maybe come to a solution.

NickE wrote: “Yes, there are two possible scenarios regarding Cat Baker as I see it.

She mistook Madeleine for someone else, Ella maybe or she knew what happened and acted as a false alibi.
We know that C.B was a shady element in this with a visit to Rothley when it was time for the "secret meeting" and prior to her Rogatory, that is not a credible and reliable witness.

What scenario can it be if she knew what happened?

Hideho wrote: I agree that much of Catrionas statements were subject to discrepancies and contradictions, relevant to the issues with 'Discrepancies' and other issues but regarding THIS thread I am trying to find how the McCanns managed to sign the creche records if Maddie wasn't there. HOWEVER, this is about the signatures and HOW the McCanns managed to have everyone believing that Maddie attended the creche.

I do NOT believe that Catriona knew ANYTHING prior to the disappearance and was likely (imo) a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have made it CLEAR that my thoughts do not head in that direction. I do NOT believe she was complicit in 'helping' the McCanns during the holiday.

As I have explained many times, I DO believe she was 'intimidated' 'reminded' and details 'suggested' to her at a later date, particularly during her stay visiting the McCanns and possibly attending the ROTHLEY SECRET MEETING.

Some have doubts about the Ocean Club’s crèche records. The doubts increase if we pay attention to the depositions from Maddie’s last nanny

by Hernâni Carvalho

“The disappearance took place during the time period between 5.35 and 10.05 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007”, reads the report from the 4th Brigade of the PJ in Portimão. A premiss that is now questioned. Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker was the nanny who worked at the crèche and was responsible for Maddie since the McCanns arrived in Praia da Luz. The statements that the nanny gave to the police raise doubts. After Maddie’s disappearance, she was heard by the PJ in Portimão. One week later, she was transferred to another location by her employers. Soon afterwards, she returned to England. At Leicestershire police, she was also heard, but corrected the statements that she had given in Portugal.

“I was allowed to refresh my memory by reading the translated version of my original statement to the Portuguese police”, one can read in the report that was taped by Leicester police. The contents of the nanny’s statements was such that she was heard three times on the same day, and had to have her memory refreshed. At Leicestershire police headquarters, Catriona Baker was heard by detective Gierc between 10.09 and 10.54 a.m. on Monday, the 14th of April 2008. Between 11.57 and 12.12 a.m. on the same day, she was heard again by the same detective and between 1.35 and 1.45 p.m. on the same day she was again questioned by the same detective.

«They Showed her the PJ's Report to Refresh her Memory»

The nanny revealed that she only met the McCanns in Portugal; she recognized that after returning to England she visited the couple upon their invitation, in November 2007. “I visited the family at their home following an invitation to see how all of us were doing.” The McCann couple is worried about searching for Maddie and about knowing how the nannies are doing. Catriona explained how the McCanns behaved in Portugal. “The twins sometimes looked tired at tea time, after a long day and maybe also because of the heat, but I never saw a reason for concern with the McCanns children or their behaviour.”

Maddie’s last nanny remembers extraordinary details about that last day, but she doesn’t remember who picked up Maddie and at what time. “On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry dropping Madeleine off at the club between 9.15 and 9.20 a.m. I don’t remember who picked her up for lunch that day, but in the afternoon she returned for a swim. We carried out activities with other children. On that day, we practiced sailing and I remember meeting friends of Madeleine’s parents on the beach, David and Jane. At around 2.45 p.m., Madeleine returned to the Minis Club above the reception, but I don’t remember who brought her. On that afternoon, we went swimming. Kate picked up Madeleine in the Tapas Bar area, and as far as I remember, she was wearing sports clothes at that time and I deducted that she had been jogging. It was around 3.35 – 6 p.m.”

At what time did the little girl leave after all?

Catriona can’t remember. She remembers Kate’s jogging suit. That’s not too bad. Coincidentally, Catriona Baker didn’t go out with her friends that day (the 3rd of May 2007). “Some of my colleagues were going out, but I was too tired to accompany them.”
Catriona Baker stated to the Portuguese and British police that on that day she went into her room to sleep because she was tired. And that’s why she only noticed that Madeleine McCann had disappeared when her colleagues from the crèche went to alert her. On that night, Mark Warner invited all the resort’s employees to cooperate in the searches for Maddie. “The director told us where to search. We searched everywhere. I walked most of the routes that Madeleine passed through and that could be familiar to her”, the nanny told the British police. Catriona Baker took part in the searches, but found neither Maddie not the McCanns. “I didn’t see Kate or Gerry that night.”

The Ocean Club crèches

There is a number of children clubs at the Ocean Club resort. The children are grouped according to their age. Clubs for 3-11 months (Baby Club), 12-23 months (Toddler Club), 24 months to 3 years (Toddler 2 Club), 3 to 5 years (Minis Club), 6 to 9 years (Juniors Club), 10 to 14 years (Kids Club) and from 14 to 17 years (Indies Club). In May 2007 there were 16 nannies at the Ocean Club. Catriona Baker is one of them. The importance of her deposition derives from the fact that she was the nanny who cared for Madeleine McCann.

Samples from the crèche records

Reports

The workings of the Ocean Club crèche was explained to the British police by Catriona herself: “Mark Warner has the usual procedure of signing a form whenever the parents leave the child in the club’s care, which they sign again with the name and the time at which the child was collected. There is a separate sheet for the morning shift and another for the afternoon shift. The sheet contains space for the child’s name, the time and the parent’s signature. Only parents are allowed to take the children, except when an agreement is made in another sense, in due time.”

In Portugal, the experts that can evaluate calligraphy are from the PJ. It was explained to Tvmais that the crèche’s reports reveal inconsistencies in the writing. One of the doubts that the analysts raise concerns the identity of the authors of the form filling and their signatures in the form. The nanny’s signature and her handwriting appear on the sheet where only the parents were supposed to sign. Did anyone notice?

Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008

MMRG COMMENT: For the very good reasons advanced by Verdi and others we prefer their opinion to Lizzy’s – so we agree that Cat Baker could not possibly have been deceived as to who was who in her small group of seven children. We agree with NickE’s comment : “She knew what happened and acted as a false alibi…What scenario can it be if she knew what happened?


MORE TO FOLLOW

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD SO FAR: PART 3

D. Amy Tierney and Charlotte Pennington

Verdi wrote: Amy Tierney is an enigma to say the least - she stands out above all others, even over and above Catriona Baker who allegedly had charge of Madeleine's day care during the holiday week…Meanwhile back to Amy Tierney. According to her witness statement, on hearing of Madeleine's disappearance she went straight to apartment 5a and undertook a thorough search - leaving no stone unturned to coin a phrase. Well, apart from the fact that no one else appears to have seen her there, what was she searching for? Kate McCann had thoroughly searched before raising the alarm, so say she; then the group of friends thoroughly searched the apartment and then a whole host of miscellaneous bods did likewise, trampling around contaminating the crime scene - and later blaming the GNR and PJ for not sealing off the crime scene - but that's another matter altogether.

Why did Amy Tierney visit, or say she visited, apartment 5a on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007? I can't see any reason - unless of course she was doing a bit of unofficial babysitting somewhere in the vicinity. Then what of the photograph/printer saga?

NickE wrote: “Good question regarding Amy T.

I brought up a theory some years ago that the (some?) Nannies babysat in the evenings and earned black money under the table from OC guests.

I do not remember exactly how many, but after this happened was some of the nannies transfered to other resorts in Europe.

What if a nannie did this on Sunday and something happened during this time?

But why did the McCann's hide what happened during a babysit?

Maybe they gave sedatives before they left and this caused the disaster?

What had happened to the McCann's if it has been revealed that something happened because they gave drugs to their child?
In this scenario:

Both MW and The McCann's had everything to lose if the truth was revealed”.

Verdi wrote: “As for Charlotte Pennington, she said a lot of things that didn't ring true. A fantasist!”

MMRG COMMENT: It is hard to regard either Amy Tierney or Charlotte Pennington as ‘witnesses of truth’. We wonder if they, too, knew by Sunday or Monday that Madeleine was already dead and were persuaded to silently go along with the abduction hoax. It is possible that other nannies also knew this guilty secret.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The strangeness of the holiday

Nglfi wrote: One thing that's always struck me about the holiday is how confusing it all is. The comings and goings of the McCann family as so convoluted, compared to my own experience holidaying as the eldest of four. We all did things together. We all went to the same places at the same time. Certainly if all the children went to a play centre, we would all be picked up by the same parent, at the same time. Anything else is just not practical. I think it's pretty clear that either this is not what happened at all, or the family were so disjointed that they hardly spent any time together, indicating other problems.

MMRG COMMENT: We agree, especially with the comment: “I think it's pretty clear that this is not what happened at all…”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. The discrepancies started Tuesday morning

Hideho wrote: “If something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, as the DISCREPANCIES started Tuesday morning, it appeared confusing because of the contradictions of probably trying to cover up the truth.

MMRG COMMENT: All our research shows that the discrepancies started on MONDAY morning. Specifically: (a) Not taking breakfast in the Millennium (b) having lunch on their own (c) Not leaving the apartment together (so the McCanns were not seen out together with the twins, but without Madeleine) and (d) No credible evidence of Madeleine being seen after Sunday lunchtime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. The nannies were shipped out

Hideho wrote: The nannies all moved to Greece

Phoebe wrote: The fact that Cat. was shipped out post-haste beyond the reach of questioning by M.W. suggests there was something to hide.

MMRG COMMENT: The nannies being moved out is virtual proof that Mark Warner had something significant to hide regarding the nannies’ conduct. In other words, they had ‘guilty knowledge’. But we don’t know what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Did Cat Baker know the McCanns prior to May 2007?

Phoebe wrote: “I don't believe Cat actually knew the McCanns prior to May 07”.

sharonl wrote: “Cat was a friend of Chloe Corner (daughter of Madeleines' godfather) since 2006 and stayed at the McCanns house in Rothley in 2007.

So apart from McCann friend Cat Baker and four other young children, some of whom belonged to the McCanns friends, who are "all these people at the crèche"?

Verdi wrote: “It was at the request of the McCanns in October 2007 that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed by rogatory. That speaks for itself - they considered her to be a key witness. She proved herself to be just what they were hoping for - after the Rothley private visit and the Rothley Court Hotel conclave of course”.

sharonl wrote: “The McCanns must have known that these people were willing to be interviewed [the list of witnesses provided by the McCanns] and therefore they must have had some contact with everyone on their list before putting it forward.

MMRG COMMENT: The evidence on this, as far as it goes, is this:

A It was confirmed that she and Chloe Corner were Facebook friends in 2006 or before

B Chloe is the daughter of Jon Corner, Madeleine’s godfather

C Some have claimed that Jon Corner had stated he had ‘been to Praia da Luz many times previoulsy’, but we have never seen proof of this comment

D Cat Baker was certainly also a Mark Warner nanny at Praia da Luz in 2006

E The extended visit of Cat Baker to Rothley at the time of the ‘Rothley Court Summit’, when she stayed with the McCanns, may be taken as confirmation that she was a key witness and is possible further evidence of an earlier relationship between the McCanns and her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Were the nannies pressurised into confirming the McCanns’ abduction claim?

skyrocket pointed out: “re Paul Gordon…Paul Gordon Statement 24 April 2008 to Leicestershire Police (Guest MarkWarner OC, departed apartment G5A on the morning of 28 April 2007):

“I want to add that since January this year I have received numerous phone calls, messages and visits from the press regarding the collector of donations, which in turn put me in contact with other people such as Brian Kennedy, Kate and Gerry McCann. I feel that this is a constraint that makes it difficult to take the more correct decision.

I tried always to cooperate with the police in every way possible, telephoning them at the first available opportunity as soon as the news broke about the disappearance of Madeleine. There are certain times when I feel like a pawn in chess”.

MMRG COMMENT: We also have evidence from an article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009 that Brian Kennedy’s men ‘intimidated some witnesses into silence’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Was the abduction meant to be staged at the beginning of the week?

NickE wrote: “I feel that the "abduction" was meant to be staged in the beginning of the week but it was postponed for some reasons, they didn't thought it was enough waterproof?

I know there are different opinions regarding the WBM debacle.

It was phone silence on the "forgotten" Monday.

What about the Zavial nudist beach trip that Mitchell confirmed happened in media? Was it only for confusion?

Was the "abduction" meant to take place on the same day they found the broken shutter in the bedroom?

Did they cancelled the "abduction" plan and got the shutter repaired instead?

Was it cancelled because someone was in need for a man inside the investigation? Did they or someone else waited for Murat to arrive?

Many? but it feels it was postponed for a reason.

MMRG COMMENT: The abduction hoax required careful planning. There is evidence of detailed plans being made in the week. Jane Tanner had to be prepared to make a statement about seeing an abductor. Nuno Lourenco had to frame Wojchiech Krokowski so that Jane Tanner’s description of the abductor exactly matched that of Krokowski by Lourenco. David Payne and Kate McCann had to get their lines right about his visit to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May. They learnt their lines so badly that we may deduce that there never was such a visit. There is evidence that many people were involved in a detailed advance plan for the abduction hoax on the Thursday night. We don’t consider that an abduction plan was ‘postponed’.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. The McCanns wrote down their ‘phone number on the Monday crèche sheet

NickE wrote: “Many of us agree that something happened on Sunday and that Madeleine never attended at Creche after this day.

This is the Creche sheet from Monday April 30 and the phone pings of Kate and Gerry’s phones and as you can see they wrote down their phone number on the Creche sheet, which is a very important thing to do for security and if the child hurt her self or if something else happened BUT there are no phone pings from their phones on Monday, their phones were turned off.

I believe this could be very telling that something happened late Sunday/Monday night, it's a sign of panic and that they were busy with some other things”

MMRG COMMENT: A very good spot and yet one more piece of evidence that Sunday was the day when ‘it happened’.


ENDS

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007 [snipped]..

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

When asked, the informant responds that it was always the parents who brought Madeleine and fetched her from the "Mini Club."

When questioned, she responds that in the course of her work, on the company's premises and outside (as described above) she has never noticed anyone in particular or suspicious watching the children with whom she was working. She did not notice anyone taking photos of the children and notably of Madeleine. She states that she never heard her colleagues refer to such things either.

The informant states that in the context of the disappearance of the minor, Madeleine, she saw nothing and was not aware of any reason which might explain the disappearance. Finally, the informant advises that in the few years that she has been working in this profession, for the same company, in various countries, she has never heard anyone talk of an event of this kind.

Charlotte Pennington..

'We get missing children all the time, and I have seen plenty of hysterical mothers. But none of them were like Kate.'

Catriona Baker..

'in the few years that she has been working in this profession, for the same company, in various countries, she has never heard anyone talk of an event of this kind.'

MMRG wrote:G. The nannies were shipped out

Hideho wrote: The nannies all moved to Greece

Phoebe wrote: The fact that Cat. was shipped out post-haste beyond the reach of questioning by M.W. suggests there was something to hide.

MMRG COMMENT: The nannies being moved out is virtual proof that Mark Warner had something significant to hide regarding the nannies’ conduct. In other words, they had ‘guilty knowledge’. But we don’t know what.

A comparatively minor point - was this claim that the nannies all moved to Greece ever officially confirmed? According to Catriona Baker's rogatory interview..

"Mark Warner moved me from the Ocean Club about one week after - 13th of May, I believe"

I've seen mention of this on many occasions in press reports allegedly quotes from different Ocean Club child care staff working during the week of the McCanns holiday but I don't recall ever reading an authoritative source that confirms the information.

Oh Golly!  May take me a while but I will get back to you :)

On the basis that the Creche was on the 1st floor above Reception, for ease, it may be that the signing in/out book was at the ground floor reception rather than the 1st floor crèche. Might that make it less likely that someone would notice a parent signing without a child ? Might the deception then not involve the guardians of the Reception ?

Lastly, let's assume that Cat Baker was known to the McCanns (and therefore Madeleine ?) prior to the holiday. Let's also assume that there was an arrangement in place, for the holiday, for Cat Baker to babysit the 3 children each evening. Might the extensive use of Cuddle Cat be a useful diversionary tool should the twins later mention "seeing Cat" ?