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

by Julie R 30.01.18 10:04

Personally I can't fully trust most of the 'Nanny' PJ statements given that they were translated by Robert Murat.

by Equity 30.01.18 11:40

Verdi wrote:
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.

Here's an example of the press reports you mention Verdi - nothing more authoritative unfortunately...

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

"The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.”

.

by Equity 30.01.18 11:52

Then this in the Express, September 2007:

"She was sacked from another Mark Warner complex, in San Agostino, Greece, 10 weeks after the drama for failing to turn up for work after a night out.

She claimed that her drink had been spiked.

Yesterday, a Mark Warner spokeswoman confirmed she had been sacked in July. She had been transferred to Greece days after Madeleine vanished."

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

by Equity 30.01.18 12:41

Charlotte Pennington actually included working in San Agostino (Kalamata) on her CV:

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

I think it highly likely all the nannies were dispatched post haste away from PDL.

.

by **Jill Havern** 30.01.18 12:52

Equity wrote:Charlotte Pennington actually included working in San Agostino (Kalamata) on her CV:

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

I think it highly likely all the nannies were dispatched post haste away from PDL.

.

She hasn't mentioned working in Praia da Luz in 2007 on her profile.

by Guest 30.01.18 13:14

01-Processo 86 to 103

KIDS CLUB STAFF interviewed 4 May 2007 by Inspector M.Pinho

Processo Vol I pages 86 to 90; pages 91-103 being passport photocopies.

Today we, I and my colleague L.Madeira, spoke with Mrs Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista., director of maintenance and services for the company "GREENTROUST", which manages the "OCEAN CLUB" company, contactable by mobile phone 964....
Through her, we contacted, Donna_Louise_Rafferty_Hill (contactable by mobile phone number 964...) manager of the creche staff for the "MARK WARNER" company, [who were] responsible for Madeleine and the twins for several periods each day after the McCann family arrived in Portugal.

The latter advised us that all these employees are English nationals and that they came to work in Portugal from
March/April until November; that there are 13 people who work in the creche, their names and telephone numbers being as follows: [NOTE: Phone numbers withheld]

1. - Pauline Francis M.
2. - Emma Louise W.
3. - Sarah Elizabeth W.
4. - Susan bernadette O.
5. - Leanne Danielle W.
6. - Shinead Maria V.
7. - Jacqueline Mary W.
8. - Kirsty Louise M.
9. - Lynne R.F.
10. - Catriona Treasa Sisile B.
11. - Stacey P.
12. - Lyndsay Jayne J.
13. - Amy Ellen T.

[Thirteen excluding Sarah W and Charlotte Pennington]

--- It was determined further that all these girls live outside the complex [resort], although quite close to it, and that Catriona B. was responsible for Madeleine during the day yesterday.
--- Stacey P. was the staff member responsible for the McCann twins.
--- Usually, it is always the same young woman who cares for the same child.
--- The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. [Williamson] and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007. --- The informant, responsible for coordination, distributed the children between the various girls, taking care that each child was unknown to their carer.
--- The informant noticed nothing abnormal up to today and that no one was absent from work except those who were on their day off.
--- All the carers have made themselves available to speak with the police.

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

by Phoebe 30.01.18 13:57

--- It was determined further that all these girls live outside the complex [resort], although quite close to it, and that Catriona B. was responsible for Madeleine during the day yesterday.
--- Stacey P. was the staff member responsible for the McCann twins.
--- Usually, it is always the same young woman who cares for the same child.
--- The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. [Williamson] and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007. --- The informant, responsible for coordination, distributed the children between the various girls, taking care that each child was unknown to their carer.
--- The informant noticed nothing abnormal up to today and that no one was absent from work except those who were on their day off.
--- All the carers have made themselves available to speak with the police.

"Stacey P was the staff member responsible for the McCann twins" -

Sinead must have had the 3rd May off (at least the afternoon) as the records also show Stacey stepping in for Sinead who had had them in her charge all week.

"USUALLY it is always the same woman who cares for the same child"

suggests that in unusual circumstances (such a low attendance) this practice went by the wayside. Also on days off it appears another nanny took over. I wonder when Cat's day off was and if she unofficially swapped it? Could it have been Thursday as she seems to have no clue what actually went on that day regarding the mini sail and high tea?

"Taking care each child was unknown to their carer" - what a strange thing to concern oneself about. In the unlikely coincidence of a nanny encountering a child she knew (what were the chances!) there is a policy not to pair them? Why? What possible harm could it do? Teachers regularly teach and even grade children of neighbours, friends, relatives, in some cases even their own kids, without the slightest problem. Why stress that the children must be unknown to the nannies in a holiday club? It seems unnecessary. Are they suggesting these professional child-minders would show some kind of favouritism?

by Doug D 30.01.18 15:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Cat Baker was certainly a M.W. nanny in PdL in 2006

Certainly?

Was she? Rogatory says 2006, but May 2007 statement says ‘first time in Portugal’ or something similar.

Personally I think the year in the rog’s is wrong.

Sorry, struggle to post links from phone.

by **sharonl** 30.01.18 20:27

Doug D wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Cat Baker was certainly a M.W. nanny in PdL in 2006

Certainly?

Was she? Rogatory says 2006, but May 2007 statement says ‘first time in Portugal’ or something similar.

Personally I think the year in the rog’s is wrong.

Sorry, struggle to post links from phone.

Wasn't Cat still in university in 2006? She was 19 at the time.

by NickE 30.01.18 21:06

Cat Baker in Daily Mail Oct 2007:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The first feeling I get when I read this is that she feels some form of guilt or anguish or a combo.

by Guest 30.01.18 21:23

Catriona Baker one month later - November 2007 Rothley, Leicestershire..

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

by **HiDeHo** 30.01.18 22:16

For those of us that think it possible that Catriona was mistaken which child was Maddie... (as she was likely only there for a day or so)

I was always curious why she claimed that she doesn't remember Maddie being at the creche on Sunday morning....

What reason would she have for saying that?

Interesting to note that it was ELLA who was not in the creche on Sunday morning... (No creche records for the twins am)

Could she (at that point) be thinking it was the child that was in the creche on Thursday? Ella?

Worthy of a thought.

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

(i will be responding to all the other posts as soon as I can)

by Phoebe 30.01.18 23:41

I recall a particular holiday in Lanzarote when my daughter was aged four. The kiddies club was a joke! All of the children of a certain age were lumped together for "activities"- dancing, sport, action songs, story time, puppet shows, who could stay asleep the longest! etc. I don't believe they were ever individually addressed! My daughter only went because she is considerably younger than her siblings who are all boys. We thought it might help her to make some little friends and so it proved. Within a few day she was chattering away about Anna and Sarah and would play with them in the kiddies pool etc. The staff however, had the most lax attitude to who was there and who wasn't. I say this because my daughter has a rather unusual Christian name (which her little friends and their parents soon learned) yet on one occasion when we went to get her (having decided to go to Teguise for a trip) I had to call her over from the circle myself as when I explained who I wanted I was met with a blank look. This was the only shoddy experience of kids clubs we ever had on holidays but it does make me wonder if the Ocean Club was similar. We also have never heard of Madeleine making friends with any of the other little girls in her group, for example wanting to stay on after tea to play with them. If she was the ring-leading, sociable type we are lead to believe, then that, to me, is rather strange. My child usually pestered me to spend time with her "new friends."

by Guest 31.01.18 1:56

Phoebe wrote:We also have never heard of Madeleine making friends with any of the other little girls in her group, for example wanting to stay on after tea to play with them. If she was the ring-leading, sociable type we are lead to believe, then that, to me, is rather strange.

Because Madeleine wasn't there perhaps?

by JRP 31.01.18 9:05

Phoebe,

"I had to call her over from the circle myself as when I explained who I wanted I was met with a blank look. This was the only shoddy experience of kids clubs we ever had on holidays but it does make me wonder if the Ocean Club was similar".

I notice Phoebe that you had to explain to a nanny which child you wanted to pick up. so despite being shoddy they didn't just let you take a child without them knowing.

Whatever this story of yours says about your personal experiences, Cat Baker knew Madeleine's name and she knew who Madeleine was because she made a statement to the police saying so.
Either that is a lie, or it's true. If it is a lie then where was Madeleine?

by Phoebe 31.01.18 10:56

" I notice Phoebe that you had to explain to a nanny which child you wanted to pick up. so despite being shoddy they didn't just let you take a child without them knowing."

Actually there was no system of signing in or out. We dropped our children off in a large room and they merely ran off over to the toys or later, to join a group of friends. I sincerely hope that I would not have been able to just whisk her off without a word, but could not say for certain that they actually checked which child belonged to which parent or took real notice of who had left with whom. We became very friendly with Sarah's parents and we sometimes collected her for them and vice versa. What I recall makes me think I could have stood at the door, beckoned my child and said "Just collecting her, we're off on a trip" and they wouldn't have turned a hair! There was no wristband system either. They never took the children outside or off campus and my daughter only went to the afternoon sessions, partly to get out of the heat. We were there for two weeks however, so one would have thought they would have eventually known her name. Incidentally, she, in turn, did not call or speak about any of the Camp Leaders by name. I suspect they did not always have the same one. I agree that if the O.C. creche had operated as advertised this would have been impossible, but I wonder if it did or if it was equally lax? Without doubt I believe Cat is not telling the truth, but whether that is to cover for herself or to cover for the McCanns I am undecided.

by plebgate 31.01.18 11:16

Verdi wrote:Catriona Baker one month later - November 2007 Rothley, Leicestershire..

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

Oh what a happy picture but of course six months had passed since their eldest daughter had disappeared and there are certainly photos of her parents smiling and looking happy way before November 2007, but as has been said many times - we are all different.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.18 13:28

Kate McCann meets Catriona Baker (for the first-time ever??)

Saturday 28 April - AT THE SATURDAY WELCOME MEETING

‘madeleine’, hardback, page 47

We were still shivering [NOTE: after Madeleine had dived straight into a ‘freezing’ pool, Kate had joined her in the pool ,and after they then spent ‘the best part of three hours to warm up afterwards] when we went off to a ‘welcome’ meeting with the Mark Warner team, who outlined the facilities and events on offer. These provided a wide range of activities, both indoor and outdoor, that varied from day to day: swimming at the indoor pool, ‘ice-cream’ trips, boat rides at the beach, sandcastle-building, games llke mini-tennis and the usual arts and crafts, singing and stories. Afterwards we strolled over to the Millennium restaurant for dinner.. .”

NO MENTION OF CAT BAKER

--------

Sunday 29 April - ALLEGED FIRST-EVER MEETING WITH CAT BAKER, ALLEGEDLY AT THE MINI-CLUB

‘madeleine’, hardback, page 51

“Madeleine’s group, the Mini Club for three-to-fives, was based in a light, airy room above the twenty-four hour reception. This was slightly further away and it was a few mornings before we got our bearings and found a quicker route there. Ella went too and although until the previous day the two girls hadn’t seen each other for several months, they soon became great pals. Madeleine’s nanny, Cat , I warmed to straightaway, as did Madeleine .She was bubbly, smiley, kind and bursting with enthusiasm. It was obvious that she was doing the job because she loved children, not simply as a way of spending a few months in the sun”.

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

FROM CATRIONA BAKER’S FIRST STATEMENT

“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”.

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

FROM CATRIONA BAKER’S ROGATORY STATEMENT

“I work in childcare - I was contracted by Mark Warner in June of 2006. The first time I went to Portugal was the 21st of March 2006 where I worked as a childcare worker in the Ocean Club Village, Praia da Luz. I went to a work interview and was contracted for one year by Mark Warner in June of 2006”.

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

First, dealing with the two extracts from Kate McCann's book - and for the purposes of this post, assuming everything she says is 100% true - then it is very hard to see how, after such a warm and friendly exchange between Cat Baker, Madeleine and the McCanns. it can be alleged that she somehow got Ella and Madeleine mixed up later in the week. Despite Lizzy's valiant efforts in favour of this theory, to my mind stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits.

A child care nanny who has a warm introduction to Madeleine on Sunday and then can't remember her on Thursday? - No way.
Then there is the vagueness of Cat Baker's comments about Madeleine - little description by Cat of Madeleine's personality, and no real account of her activities during the week, what she enjoyed, what she didn't etc.

It appears she was asked about whether Madeleine was at the famous 'high tea' on Thursday tea-time - and basically was unable to confirm that she was.

If Madeleine wasn't present at any 'high tea', maybe rather than tell I lie and say that Madeleine was there when she wasn't, she opted for the familiar ploy in such situations, i.e. saying: "I can't remember".

---

Dealing with Doug D's point above that this was Cat Baker's first employment at Mark Warner, I agree that the MMRG analysis was almost certainly wrong in asserting that she was.

However, even in these two statements, it seems she gets muddled up about when she was contracted to work for Mark Warner.
In her first statement, it is 21 March 2007, and she is 'contracted until November 2007', but in her rogatory, it is 'June 2006' and she is 'contracted for one year'.

Quite a difference.

It just seems to be one further indication among so many that one can place little or no reliance on anything Cat Baker says.

by Phoebe 31.01.18 14:37

Kate must have been very conscious of the numerous raised eyebrows that followed the public revelations about their "family holiday". It certainly appeared to many that the McCann children spent their days out of their parent's way as much as possible - at creche or rushed off to sleep. I think Kate became defensive about this, hence her emphasis on what a terrific time Madeleine was having in creche -"The best day of my life". Naturally, she would go into raptures describing her instant recognition that Cat was wonderful and " It was obvious that she was doing the job because she loved children, not simply as a way of spending a few months in the sun" Now why would she feel the need to say that? Cue to Charlotte P., allegedly sacked later elsewhere for being hung over at work and the pictures of the Mark Warner nannies in various states of undress during a night on the town! I don't believe a word from Kate, especially her almost "job reference" for Cat. (nice reward) Sane parents wait for feedback from their offspring before deciding that a childminder is getting along well with their child. Madeleine warmed to her instantly? Baloney! Even the most outgoing 3 year old is concerned at first when her parents leave her with a total stranger. Cat's P.J. statement supports this -" Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group." IMO Kate is trying to deflect the criticism which followed her description of how little time they spent with their children. No mention of Cat's professionalism in checking for medical history or allergies. to include on identity bracelets. Kate's story smacks of rose tinted fantasy.

by **HiDeHo** 31.01.18 15:33

Tony Bennett wrote: Despite Lizzy's valiant efforts in favour of this theory, to my mind stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits.

A child care nanny who has a warm introduction to Madeleine on Sunday and then can't remember her on Thursday? - No way.

I am still only partially through responding to the VERY LONG post.

We have always respected each other for having a difference of opinion and I FULLY stand by my thoughts in this thread, and for VERY GOOD REASON, but I am uncomfortable being patronised in favour of a defence of another 'theory' as opposed to being considered having an alternative suggestion that is worthy of consideration.

Please keep in mind I considered the thread a RESEARCH opportunity which members have helped contribute to, but to feel its being classified as a 'Despite a valiant effort' indicates to me it's not worthy of consideration.

I'm sorry, I have a response/alternative for ALL the comments from the other thread and this one, but its a major effort with the volume involved, so I need time to post.

In response to the effort to claim there is NO WAY Catriona could have been mistaken and not known all the childrens names (remember it was in a room of approx 13 children) I have been in touch with several caregivers asking of the possibility. Phoebe has even offered her input BUT it is immediately discredited.

EVERY caregiver I spoke to, admitted the names are not necessarily retained unless there is a reason the child stands out and one mother has been taking her child to the same nursery for two years and they still don't remember his name.

My point is that I DON'T KNOW if this scenario happened, but I would like it to be recognised that it MAY BE POSSIBLE and a viable alternative to what I understand is the only other accepted theory!

I will continue working on the response to the multitude of comments on the other threads.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.18 16:13

HiDeHo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Despite Lizzy's valiant efforts in favour of this theory, to my mind this stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits.

A child care nanny who has a warm introduction to Madeleine on Sunday and then can't remember her on Thursday? - No way.

We have always respected each other for having a difference of opinion and I FULLY stand by my thoughts in this thread, and for VERY GOOD REASON, but I am uncomfortable being patronised in favour of a defence of another 'theory' as opposed to being considered having an alternative suggestion that is worthy of consideration.

I'm sorry, I have a response/alternative for ALL the comments from the other thread and this one, but its a major effort with the volume involved, so I need time to post.

In response to the effort to claim there is NO WAY Catriona could have been mistaken and not known all the childrens names (remember it was in a room of approx 13 children) I have been in touch with several caregivers asking of the possibility. Phoebe has even offered her input BUT it is immediately discredited.

My point is that I DON'T KNOW if this scenario happened, but I would like it to be recognised that it MAY BE POSSIBLE and a viable alternative to what I understand is the only other accepted theory!

Lizzy, all points duly noted. And for me, the mutual respect we have for each other remains undiminished, although I do disagree with your theory about Cat Baker (and for that matter the actions of some of the other nannies notably Amy Tierney and Charlotte Pennington).

I actually thought that 'valiant efforts' was a compliment - as you clearly have put your heart and soul into trying to persuade us that all Cat Baker's comments, vagueness, inability to remember etc. etc. is all down to her not being able to distinguish Madeleine from Ella (or anyone else) - if I have understood your theory correctly.

What the MMRG articles do is precisely what you were seeking from Verdi and others - you were pleading for an alternative theory which explained Cat Baker's conduct. I think the MMRG theory for Cat Baker's conduct is far more likely, therefore we disagree. And as always on CMOMM, as we are an 'investigative' forum, may the best-supported argument win; it's not a case of who's right, but what's right.

I hope neither you nor Phoebe think I was in any way 'discrediting' her. Phoebe is a very good poster here who has put a lot of research and thought into her posts, and I appreciate what she writes.

In evaluating the many comments made on this thread as to whether Cat Baker could have 'forgotten' who Madeleine was, as it were, I note that the clear majority were emphatic that in a small group of seven children, sometimes down to six or five, there is no way that she would not be wholly familiar with who each child was, even after just one day caring for them.

I also gave extra weight on this matter to those who had actually been carers of children - and IIRC every one of them said that in a group of seven or less, they would definitely remember who was who.

by polyenne 31.01.18 16:51

Sunday 29/4.....”Ella went too”.

Well, she did but, according to the log, only in the afternoon

by Phoebe 31.01.18 17:12

@ Tony Bennett. No offence taken at all. yes

I appreciate all of us are genuinely trying to tease out the most likely truth from the lies.

According to Kate's account, the first meeting between Cat, Madeleine and Kate was very positive, with both mother and child warming to Cat. Logically, the first real interaction would have occurred on the Sunday morning, with the group's first ever scheduled activity being Lobster pictures. According to the sign-in sheet (widely accepted as referring to that Sunday a.m.) Madeleine was the last of the 3 girls in her group to arrive. That should have made her stand out. The other two signed in at 9.10 a.m. with Madeleine arriving at either 9.15 or 9.45 (the 1 could be a 4) In any case, one would expect her to be introduced by the nanny to the rest of the group. Then I'd expect the nanny to have had a little chat to put her at ease before her parent left, something along the lines of -

" Hi Madeleine, Do you know what we're going to do this morning - we're going to draw some pictures, you'll like that won't you? They're going to be "lobster" pictures because our group is called the Lobsters. Have you ever seen a lobster? What's your favourite colour?" etc.

Yet Cat has no recall of whether Madeleine was there. IMO that simply cannot be!
I also note that nanny Leanne signs out a child from Sean and Amelie's group on the afternoon of May 2nd, yet the nannies in charge were supposedly Sinead, Susie and Sarah! I truly believe that Cat was not with Madeleine for all the scheduled sessions that week and definitely not on the Thursday. I also believe fear of such discovery led to her creche attendance sheets in being totally unreliable. Madeleine's group may well have been minded by more than one nanny who did not actually know the children in her charge.

by **HiDeHo** 31.01.18 18:43

polyenne wrote:Sunday 29/4.....”Ella went too”.

Well, she did but, according to the log, only in the afternoon

Which is why I suggested that IF she was mistaken after being told on Thursday about Madeleine being 'abducted' and that she was in her group until Thursday (no nanny is going to contradict her being there with all the media attention) then her memory of the child that was there on Thursday (Ella) was that she WASNT there Sunday morning would be correct.

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

by **HiDeHo** 31.01.18 20:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Despite Lizzy's valiant efforts in favour of this theory, to my mind this stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits.

A child care nanny who has a warm introduction to Madeleine on Sunday and then can't remember her on Thursday? - No way.

We have always respected each other for having a difference of opinion and I FULLY stand by my thoughts in this thread, and for VERY GOOD REASON, but I am uncomfortable being patronised in favour of a defence of another 'theory' as opposed to being considered having an alternative suggestion that is worthy of consideration.

I'm sorry, I have a response/alternative for ALL the comments from the other thread and this one, but its a major effort with the volume involved, so I need time to post.

In response to the effort to claim there is NO WAY Catriona could have been mistaken and not known all the childrens names (remember it was in a room of approx 13 children) I have been in touch with several caregivers asking of the possibility. Phoebe has even offered her input BUT it is immediately discredited.

My point is that I DON'T KNOW if this scenario happened, but I would like it to be recognised that it MAY BE POSSIBLE and a viable alternative to what I understand is the only other accepted theory!
Lizzy, all points duly noted. And for me, the mutual respect we have for each other remains undiminished, although I do disagree with your theory about Cat Baker (and for that matter the actions of some of the other nannies notably Amy Tierney and Charlotte Pennington).

I actually thought that 'valiant efforts' was a compliment - as you clearly have put your heart and soul into trying to persuade us that all Cat Baker's comments, vagueness, inability to remember etc. etc. is all down to her not being able to distinguish Madeleine from Ella (or anyone else) - if I have understood your theory correctly.

What the MMRG articles do is precisely what you were seeking from Verdi and others - you were pleading for an alternative theory which explained Cat Baker's conduct. I think the MMRG theory for Cat Baker's conduct is far more likely, therefore we disagree. And as always on CMOMM, as we are an 'investigative' forum, may the best-supported argument win; it's not a case of who's right, but what's right.

I hope neither you nor Phoebe think I was in any way 'discrediting' her. Phoebe is a very good poster here who has put a lot of research and thought into her posts, and I appreciate what she writes.

In evaluating the many comments made on this thread as to whether Cat Baker could have 'forgotten' who Madeleine was, as it were, I note that the clear majority were emphatic that in a small group of seven children, sometimes down to six or five, there is no way that she would not be wholly familiar with who each child was, even after just one day caring for them.

I also gave extra weight on this matter to those who had actually been carers of children - and IIRC every one of them said that in a group of seven or less, they would definitely remember who was who.

We both know there is no issue about continuing respect regardless of our differences. We both agree on that. Thanks for confirming.

Despite Lizzy's valiant efforts in favour of this theory, to my mind this stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits

I took the 'Despite valiant efforts' as a negative comment because thats how I viewed it.... eg: 'Lizzy has put an incredible amount of effort into this thread but it cannot be viewed as credible'?

It certainly does appear to discredit my volume of effort for this thread (which actually took me two days to compile the creche register graphic on Page 1, and write the post, never mind the subsequent responses.)

Regarding it's credibility?

Everyone should know by now that I DO NOT try to make theories fit. I look at the files and see what it 'tells' me (an example is regarding Ella not attending creche on Sunday morning) and I think most people know that my threads are well researched and thought out BEFORE I post them. If I make a mistake I will admit to them and correct them

I believe PASSIONATELY in this suggestion regardless of comments suggesting its not credible.

As mentioned before, I started to second guess myself and asked around to different child carers to see if my sugestion was outrageous and not possible. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. I had confirmation from different sources (non Maddie related usually) that they would have difficulty remembering names within a short period of time, even in an atmosphere of careful records of admissions.

HOWEVER, after the last post I decided to call a good reputable nursery/daycare in the region I live and (without explaining the circumstances) asked how long to remember names. Initially she told me that they meet the parents beforehand and with her expertise in this are she takes the trouble to make sure she can identify all children in her care and insists that the caregivers call her to confirm the parents are identified in case they haven't yet become familiar.

Once I suggested it would be in a holiday creche situation, with 7 children allocated to 2 nannies and sharing the same space with approximately 13 children and that it was the FIRST week of the holiday period with maybe not all the protocol in place (or the nannies having been given special instruction) and with a 20 year old in a holiday atmosphere, she had no reservations in suggesting it would likely take days for them to be able to identify all the children.

She gave an example of herself at camp. It took (even with her caring and expertise) 3 days to be able to name all the children.

At this point I asked about one child being sent for one or two days (that looked similar to many of the other girls) and would they be missed (considering random pick ups and drop offs had no expectations) She then said that it would be understandable to get children mixed up if they were going by a description.

At this point I offered her the details of it being about Maddie (not a well known case here in Canada) and told her about the photo released was of a younger child. She then explained to me how that would be absolutely, not only possible, but likely!

Identifying names are not priority unless they are having special activities that nurseries use to help each child get to know each other. Keeping the children occupied would be the priority.

So I am afraid I have VERY GOOD reason to disregard the comment about the suggestion 'stretches our credibility beyond all reasonable limits.' OUR credibility? Is that referring to MMRG research group? LOTS of great work but in this case I feel a little more research into how holiday creches work would be a suggestion. Coincidentally the following may give a reason to suggest the creche may not have been as regulated as suggested.

Please keep this in mind... BBC Whistleblower exposing the troubles of creche facilities INCLUDING MW Egypt TWO WEEKS before the McCanns arrived in PdL

Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job

3. A second undercover BBC reporter, Ashley Kennedy, followed up Imogen Willcock's findings by working undercover at Mark Warner's La Plagne ski resort, in France, for two days from 17 December 2007 to see if procedures had been tightened since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Portugal in May 2007. Again, she was employed by Mark Warner and working at the resort prior to her references and a CRB check being obtained.

Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.q

I am not suggesting the nannies were incompetent or there without proper documentation, but certainly this shows proof that the training is negligible and the duties of the nannies would likely be more about keeping the children occupied.

Regarding this comment: "

I also gave extra weight on this matter to those who had actually been carers of children - and IIRC every one of them said that in a group of seven or less, they would definitely remember who was who.

Once again you are basing it on ONE ROOM with ONE NANNY but that was not necessarily the case. The likelihood it was a large room with 13 children and two nannies making head counts of your own charges difficult when in a room with another nannies charges without taking the tie to BOTH do a headcount. Highly unlikely that happened. imo

What I am saying is not to discredit YOUR theory, but to allow and have another suggestion CONSIDERED as POSSIBLE!

by mezzyd 31.01.18 21:08

Caring for a group of small children can be challenging, but far easier if confined in one room as HiDeHo describes & I can certainly see the possibility of confusion over names & numbers, especially if the crèche register is not referred to. However, if the outside activities took place as in the timetable, that increases the risk of problems eg, child falling over, child going off in a different direction without warning, so normally you would need more carers to supervise, plus closer control. That would seem to make the MMRGs theory more likely.

by **HiDeHo** 31.01.18 21:59

I would like to add to my last post...

I stand by EVERYTHING I post, and though it doesn't appear to be a popular suggestion, I would not have decided to post if I didnt feel it was 'time'.

I have been sitting on this suggestion for 8 years as can be seen here...

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

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

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

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

It has always taken time for new suggestions to be considered.

I 'fought' for 3 years before my suggestion of no neglect was considered as possible. Finally in 2010, it was accepted as something that should be considered.

It took approx 6 years before my research on something happened earlier started to be accepted (2013 approx)

In 2010 I did the research on 'Who last saw Maddie' as well as offering this suggestion of how were they able to get away with everyone believing she was at the creche when its likely that she wasn't.

I don't think 8 years of sitting on this suggestion could be considered an impatient and un-researched suggestion and too early to show as a consideration.

It DOES need some understanding of the creche and the circumstances surrounding the way the creche was run for that first week (which I have explained in my last post on Page 7)

I don't want to wait another 8 years before it is considered.

by MayMuse 31.01.18 22:32

If at 2.30pm Cat signed Ella in realising she was there, but not Madeleine, would that not suggest she knew and could distinguish between the two girls?

Always admired your work Lizzy, and appreciate it all as I do this forum and any posters well thought out theories to determine Madeleine's disappearance. I also thought for a long time that Cat was duped by the McCanns etc...then changed my mind especially with her visit to the Uk to see them. I suppose as it is now I'm a fence sitter on Cat Baker so appreciate all the comments from everyone but it is one that I scratch my head a lot over. confused

by NickE 01.02.18 14:41

HiDeHo wrote:I would like to add to my last post...

I stand by EVERYTHING I post, and though it doesn't appear to be a popular suggestion, I would not have decided to post if I didnt feel it was 'time'.

I have been sitting on this suggestion for 8 years as can be seen here...

[size=58][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

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

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

It has always taken time for new suggestions to be considered.

I 'fought' for 3 years before my suggestion of no neglect was considered as possible. Finally in 2010, it was accepted as something that should be considered.

It took approx 6 years before my research on something happened earlier started to be accepted (2013 approx)

In 2010 I did the research on 'Who last saw Maddie' as well as offering this suggestion of how were they able to get away with everyone believing she was at the creche when its likely that she wasn't.

I don't think 8 years of sitting on this suggestion could be considered an impatient and un-researched suggestion and too early to show as a consideration.

It DOES need some understanding of the creche and the circumstances surrounding the way the creche was run for that first week (which I have explained in my last post on Page 7)

I don't want to wait another 8 years before it is considered.

You have done a great work on this as always and you are right,everthing in this case is possible and it has been established that something happened earlier, probably on Sunday but if that's the case, we also have to understand how and why she was signed in at creche that week and under what circumstances how and why the nannies acted as they did, especially C.B.

by Guest 01.02.18 15:49

HiDeHo wrote:
It has always taken time for new suggestions to be considered.

I 'fought' for 3 years before my suggestion of no neglect was considered as possible. Finally in 2010, it was accepted as something that should be considered.

It took approx 6 years before my research on something happened earlier started to be accepted (2013 approx)

In 2010 I did the research on 'Who last saw Maddie' as well as offering this suggestion of how were they able to get away with everyone believing she was at the creche when its likely that she wasn't.

I don't think 8 years of sitting on this suggestion could be considered an impatient and un-researched suggestion and too early to show as a consideration.

It DOES need some understanding of the creche and the circumstances surrounding the way the creche was run for that first week (which I have explained in my last post on Page 7)

I don't want to wait another 8 years before it is considered.

As a matter of interest - who is it that you've been striving to accept your 'research' as worthy of consideration? Forgive me if this target audience is social media as I'm pleased to say, I avoid it like the plague. Broadly speaking, I guess you could say that any theory could be accepted as worthy of consideration, at least until accepted as a possibility/probability or dismissed as total bunkum - in short, you can argue the toss until the cows come home but realistically it doesn't prove anything without evidence. It is but theory so where does it lead.

Your hard work and determination is to be applauded and you are a credit to yourself, I can't however quite grasp why you require acceptance from whoever the audience might be, that your theorizing is worthy of consideration. As you've repeatedly said in the past, you put the ideas out there for people to make their own minds up and I'm in no doubt they have done just that - with or without your hard graft.

I've never visited any of your social media pages but I've got a good idea of the extent of your work through CMoMM alone. Do you have a research group and a place of your own where your theories are discussed?

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