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

NickE wrote:You have done a great work on this as always and you are right everthing in this case is possible and it has beem 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.
To get some kind of answer to these questions is very important to understand what happened.

This mutual admiration is all very well but it doesn't answer any questions does it? In the words of the age old saying ... 'fine words never buttered no parsnips'!

A subject such as the creche records can never be definitively resolved - it's impossible without questioning the participants through an official police investigation and having the available evidence forensically examined by specialists in whatever field. The witness statements and indeed the creche records, released by the Portuguese authorities back in the summer of 2008 are useless as stand alone evidence, they only show contradictions and discrepencies. Internet armchair detectives are in no position to re-interview witnesses, without which one can only flounder in the soup terrine of false information - to determine which words were spoken in truth and which were not is but another impossible task.

By all means examine every aspect of the files released into the public domain in an attempt to make some sense of the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, even make positive strides forward in determining areas worthy of official investigation but trying to prove something that's beyond reach is a total waste of time.

To be fair to HideHo, I guess it’s no different than the thermometer on the wall discussion recently that seemed to go on ad infinitum but has seemingly abated (for now).

Someone comes up with a reasonable suggestion, the forum members kick it around, to & fro, and more often than not, a consensus of opinion is reached.

Verdi, I know you strive for the evidence and that is admirable and, should we be a jury, it would be essential however, as with so many aspects of this case, we are faced with layer upon layer of obfuscation, anomalies and downright lies and trying to make sense of it can be frustrating.

And I sense from HideHo, their frustration at their stated years of research being summarily dismisses quite quickly by a few, including you. Now, that is your prerogative but I think others should be allowed the chance to pick this over and offer their own take, however left-field some of the suggestions may be.

It will undoubtedly take many heads to unravel this sad tale, if it ever is unravelled, but we must keep striving for the same goal.

CMoMM prides itself on being an investigative forum that supports only consideration of the evidence available and informed comment.  It is not an off-shoot of twitter or facebook where anything goes, no matter how ridiculous.

Begone nonsense theory and enter reality!

Fact - Madeleine McCann left the Midlands on Saturday 28th April 2007, with her parents, en-route for a weeks holiday on the Algarve
Fact - Madeleine McCann and her family arrived at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz in the afternoon of  Saturday 28th April 2007.
Fact - Madeleine McCann shared apartment 5a at the Ocean Club Praia da Luz, with her parents and siblings.
Fact - Madeleine McCann was photographed at the Ocean Club playground.
Fact - Madeleine McCann was photographed sitting at the Ocean Club swimming poolside with her father and sister Amelie.
Fact - When the photographs of Madeleine McCann were taken, she can be seen to be a normal happy lively child.

Unaware of a pending tragedy, Madeleine McCann's parents booked her in the childcare facilities for her age group and her siblings in the facilities for their age group.  Following the initial child registration with the respective groups, there is no evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Madeleine was seen or heard after the childcare registration.

What would be the most simple straightforward way to proceed?  Continue using the creche to give the impression that Madeleine was alive throughout the entire week or  parade the siblings around the Ocean Club for the week without  Madeleine?  What option would arouse more suspicion?  The latter I feel - even that tricky option required a diversion by Gerry McCann leaving the apartment by the front door and Kate McCann leaving by the rear patio door, negotiating the stone stairway with two/three very young children.

Enter Catriona Baker, the enigmatic player along with her fellow childminders most of which have proved themselves to be less than believable.  Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children in her care, no ifs no buts no maybes no what ifs - any alteration to that contractual stipulation is pure supposition.  Supposition will never move this case toward the truth - stick to available evidence and informed comment - you know it makes sense.

Let's not give reason nor encourage to cesspitarians to mock!

Discussion stifled, thread closed ??

Verdi, above states that   "there is no evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Madeleine was seen or heard after the childcare registration." 
 However, that is not the case. There IS sworn evidence in the form of statements to the P.J. in which various people claim to have seen and interacted with Madeleine during the week, up to and including May 3rd. This, IMO, is the crux of the problem. Many do not accept this evidence, believing these claims to be mistaken or deliberate lies. Logically, one would then examine which of these who could be genuinely mistaken and which could not, and must, therefore, be lying. The nannies could not be mistaken if their description of creche is true. An explanation has been proffered that Cat. B. was possibly close to the McCanns.The evidence to support this a claim that she had been a Facebook friend of the daughter of Madeleine's Godfather. It is only reasonable to ponder  whether such an alleged relationship would be enough to lead a twenty year old girl to willingly and repeatedly commit perjury. And what of the other nannies who claimed to have witnessed Madeleine alive? What could have motivated them to become co-conspirators in perjury? There is no evidence that they knew the McCanns nor the Corners. Why would these young women lie? Why not just be vague an noncommittal about whether they had actually seen or spoken to Madeleine? What or who could possibly have induced them to deliberately give false statements to investigating officers? 

Kirsty Maryan - claims to have looked after Madeleine on the afternoon of one of the beach trips (therefore AFTER Monday) - "on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her".. 

Stacey Potz  - " Knew the McCann family since 29th of April as they would drop off their toddlers, Sean and Amelie, in the Toddler Club;
--- From 29 April until 3 May she was with those children every day.
--- She also knew Madeleine as she would FREQUENTLY come talk to her brother and sister when picked up by her parents;"


Susan Owen  -  "Relative to the facts of the investigation clarifies that in the discourse of her work in the mentioned establishment, she came into contact on some OCCASIONS with a child known as Madeleine McCann, clarifying that the contact was formal and of short duration"


Sarah Williamson -  "With relation to the facts being investigated she says that she had VARIOUS CONTACTS with the girl Madeleine McCann"


Lindsay Johnston -  "In the context of her duties which she carries out for the company mentioned, she has had contact on SEVERAL OCCASIONS with a child called Madeleine McCann, observing from a distance........The informant tells us that on a date which she cannot be precise about but which was some time last week, Madeleine McCann participated in a boat trip, organised by the company's crêche."

 Emma Wilding - "When questioned she states that on May 3, 2007 it was the father that took Madeleine, as was customary, between 0900 and 0930; she remembers that she just said 'hello' to him, because as Madeline (sic) did not belong to her group she did not talk to him very much.

She only noticed Madeleine and not her father, and nothing seemed abnormal or unusual.

She is not sure whether during the morning Madeleine's group had outdoor activities, mainly at the pool; she does remember that around 1230 Madelew's (sic) father went to fetch her for lunch...

She remembers that during the afternoon of May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary."


Amy Tierney  -  " She confirms that Madeleine is known by her as frequenting the Mini Club, as she was aged almost four.

When questioned about Madeleine's behaviour, the witness says that she is a shy girl but very intelligent for her age, she tended to play with older children, the witness describes her attitude and behaviour as perfectly normal.

The witness confirms that she also knows Madeleine's parents as they would go to fetch her from the club, but she adds that it was normally Madeleine's father who did this.

When questioned, the witness states that she has not noted anything abnormal in the relation between the child and the parents."


Not one of these nannies claims to be at all unsure of their seeing or interacting with Madeleine. Not one went down the route of "I can't really remember". Therefore they must be sure they believe they saw Madeleine and are mistaken or are lying. To sum it up, that's  - 1) Kirsty,    2) Stacey,   3) Susan,   4) Sarah, 5)Lindsay,   6) Emma,   7)   Amy, 8)   Charlotte, 9)   Cat. How can so many be genuinely mistaken or else have a reason to lie?
                                                                   
 P.S. Please could you provide the names of those other nannies who you believe saw Madeleine, and links to their statements.
I have never claimed to believe these nannies saw Madeleine. I am pointing out that they stated in sworn evidence that they did.
.                        

I have SEVERAL threads on Nannies and their comments.  Sadly Photobucket have removed some of the graphics but the statements are highlighted for easy viewing.

This is from 7 years ago.

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

I have done a LOT of research on the subject since then.

polyenne wrote:Discussion stifled, thread closed ??

Sadly that seems to be the case.... 

In all my years of posting here I have never felt as I do right now.  I feel my YEARS of research has been disrespected and minimised and not worthy of member input and discussion.  Never mind, what I take to mean, as insinuations of not being worthwhile.

Tony and I have often disagreed but he has always treated me with respect and willing to recognise topics I bring up, knowing that I have an overall knowledge of the case (timelines etc)  not held by many. I continue to respect our differences also

To have someone be so negative towards my efforts (and many others) is not something I am comfortable with, especially when their knowledge is limited, and I'm sure many members may feel the same.

I have NEVER claimed to be right, but I have taken the time and trouble to offer suggestions that MAY be very credible and at the very least worthy of discussion and gathering more input.

I base ALL my topics on the FILES and what the 'files' tell me.  I'm not willing to have peoples perception of my work looked on as, what has been insinuated, not worthy of discussion.

It's never happened to me before and it's not going to happen again...

So VERY sad...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -
In all my years of posting here I have never felt as I do right now. I feel my YEARS of research has been disrespected and minimised and not worthy of member input and discussion.  Never mind, what I take to mean, as insinuations of not being worthwhile.
 
Please believe that one member’s words are just that – one member’s words.
 
On that point – stating things as fact in this case is brave.
 
Fact – I don’t believe it is a fact that the Mcs arrived in the afternoon, I believe it would be more accurate to say late morning onwards. May seem pedantic but may be significant. There is considerable variation in the Mcs/Payne’s statements about arrival time.
 
@HiDeHo- I have been sitting back and been mulling over your theory for a few days, and that is the power of research (your research) – you have made me (and no doubt many others) look at this again in close detail. I haven’t finished, but I just wanted to say, don’t think for a nanosecond that any/all of the work you’ve done has been worthless or unappreciated .

Remember, one member’s words only.

Verdi:
 
‘Unaware of a pending tragedy, Madeleine McCann's parents booked her in the childcare facilities for her age group and her siblings in the facilities for their age group.  Following the initial child registration with the respective groups, there is no evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Madeleine was seen or heard after the childcare registration’………………
 
Supposition will never move this case toward the truth - stick to available evidence and informed comment - you know it makes sense.'
 
As Phoebe says at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], there is sworn evidence from the girls, so if we are going to stick to the available evidence, we should throw out what must therefore be the ‘ridiculous’ theory that Madeleine went missing before the 3^rd.
 
The trouble is the statements do not stand up to scrutiny and as we cannot cross examine them, we are only left with supposition and theorizing and based on what seems to be a fairly widely accepted theory that M. went missing earlier in the week (although not by all obviously), HiDeHo’s thread question is perfectly legitimate.
 
Whether anything different in most of our views comes out at the end remains to be seen.
 
PeterMac’s ‘weather theory’ has been bashed around, other inputs discussed and has ended up being accepted by many as pointing to the likely ‘true’ photo date, yet even on a generally rainy and wet day, a short break in the clouds can occur, not reflected in any weather forecast, the ground dry up and a short ‘sunny’ photo opportunity can arise. We can think that something happened and accept it into our personal beliefs, but at the end of the day based on available evidence we cannot say we know for certain. None of us on here have ever been party to other holidaymakers timed photo's from the OC on the 3rd, which could actually confirm the theory. 
 
Anyway to add to the discussion, complete supposition of course, but take a bunch of young, poorly trained 'child carers', out for a summer in the sun in Portugal, with a bit of spending money coming in, probably little knowledge or interest in what's going on around them that doesn’t directly affect them.
A child goes missing.
It would only take one of the nannies to start an unintentional sort of 'chinese whisper' – ‘the little blond one in Lobsters, usually dropped off by her dad, brother and sister in the baby creche etc’ and the others would soon take it on board and it would spread, as they would feel that they would look negligent if they didn't say that at least they knew who she was and had seen her around.
MW then ship them out quick, so it's not easy to get them to clarify their statements. That in itself must show there was something to hide.
 
Do we know how many of the girls were actually shipped out?

@DougD - I’ll add to your point about the nannys being whisked away.



On the 4 May, when the PJ carried out their informal interviews with Cat Baker and Stacey Portz (Head of Toddlers), Stacey tells them the following:
 
'That it was not possible to speak with the rest of the carers, notably Shinead, because most of them were absent and there exists higher priority work';
 
Why would Portz say this when the 4 May Jellyfish crèche sheet shows that Shinead is in the tented crèche with the Toddler2’s that morning (despite the sheet reading as PM)? Surely, under the circumstances, Stacey could have covered for Shinead for 5 minutes whilst the PJ had a chat with her – or had Shinead not been talked to yet?

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

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - 
In all my years of posting here I have never felt as I do right now. I feel my YEARS of research has been disrespected and minimised and not worthy of member input and discussion.  Never mind, what I take to mean, as insinuations of not being worthwhile.
 
Please believe that one member’s words are just that – one member’s words.
 
On that point – stating things as fact in this case is brave.
 
Fact – I don’t believe it is a fact that the Mcs arrived in the afternoon, I believe it would be more accurate to say late morning onwards. May seem pedantic but may be significant. There is considerable variation in the Mcs/Payne’s statements about arrival time.
 
@HiDeHo- I have been sitting back and been mulling over your theory for a few days, and that is the power of research (your research) – you have made me (and no doubt many others) look at this again in close detail. I haven’t finished, but I just wanted to say, don’t think for a nanosecond that any/all of the work you’ve done has been worthless or unappreciated [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] .

Remember, one member’s words only.

Thanks skyrocket.

I by no means wish to be perceived as criticising this forum.  

I have ALWAYS supported CMOMM and the huge amount of work and research, from many people, that is here for people to view and draw their own conclusions, without having to do the work and put the time in that some of us have freely and enthusiastically prepared and offered.

I have received repercussions myself for DARING to associate myself with this forum that  has had such negative accusations thrown at it.  It is only from people with their own agenda, because one only has to look at the VOLUME of information saved here for everyone to view.  Their accusations and name calling speak more about THEM than about this GREAT forum.

One only has to look at what is available on CMoMM in this graphic to immediately discredit those that attack.

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


However, that does not mean that we ALL will not have some issues that we may be uncomfortable with, and for myself, I just choose to focus on what IS available that inspires me in  what we are all attempting to do and that is to search for the TRUTH about what happened to Maddie and to expose the files to the UK public.

When I feel my effort being affronted I cannot sit back and be intimidated or allow it to affect my motivation.

On a personal level I do not use Facebook, but of course use it in the Maddie case.  I have often seen negative accusations from those that don't use it.  What they may FAIL to realise is the ENORMOUS influence FB has in this case.

There are more than 100,000 members in Maddie FB groups and as I have been led to understand, we were integral in spreading the word and securing enough donations for Goncalo Amaral to having the resources to win his appeal.  

Never mind the thousands of posts shared on newsfeeds to help get the files info etc out to the public.  CMoMM has a Facebook group [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and though it is VERY slow everywhere right now, we all still get a steady flow of newbies that know nothing about the case and we provide links and information to give them information not only to learn but to help them see the facts and decide for themselves.

Whether one uses Facebook on a personal level or not, there is NO QUESTION that facebook Maddie groups have made a HUGE difference in this case and it saddens me when there is negative connotations about 'social media'.

Not only is CMoMM Forum part of social media, so is our Youtube channel.  We have 9 1/4 MILLION views to date and every one of the 300 videos has links to HDH and CMoMM.

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

I have reference forum, http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy   a research forum (from 2007) Non discussion but a huge compilation of some of my early research.  http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

We have a WORDPRESS blog https://hidehocontroversyofmadeleinemccann.wordpress.com/  and many more Maddie related groups.  Jill has a very successful blog as well as other pages.  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We are ALL putting in the effort need for ONE reason.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me when I claim 'four years of intense research'  and 70 hours dedicated to each of the many of the 300 Maddie videos.  I am NOT looking for accolades but to give credence to my posts.  I take extra precaution to ensure my posts are as full of correct information as possible.  They are ALL (for the most part) based on the files (as is this thread) and to feel it all minimised by those with a limited knowledge is quite frankly disconcerting.

In my opinion this forum has ALWAYS treated my efforts with respect (not necessarily always in agreement which is OK) and I want EVERYONE to know, that though this thread may be considered not worthwhile, I disagree entirely.

When one takes the time to actually READ and understand the OP, one can see there has been more effort to defend other theories than there has been to discuss, and understand what I have put forward in an effort to use this thread as research.  It's an ALTERNATIVE suggestion (based on the files) for consideration.

I have seen myself being 'attacked' for even SUGGESTING that I don't think Catriona Baker LIED during the week.  I have also explained that I can see (if one puts themselves in her shoes) that she could have been easily intimidated and manipulated after Maddie disappeared.  I AGREE her statements lack credibility, but to claim she outright lied is not acceptable in my opinion.  We are ALL aware of how people can be manipulated and intimidated and CERTAINLY possible in this case where MANY people are scared to talk out.

The creche was not considered to be involved at that time and the reason the records may have been filled in by Catriona, may just be about her protecting her credibility in her job and lets not forget that MW in Egypt had, just two weeks before, been targeted by BBC Whistleblower for inadequate child care.  Is it not a consideration THAT was the reason the records appeared filled in by Catriona? (Possibly after the fact)

I have also run my explanation of the child care experience, with approx 13 children (not 7) within the same room, past a professional child minder and was totally validated in her appraisal of the situation.  Why did I need to second guess my own logical thoughts?

CMoMM isn't about  stifling suggestions (or is shouldn't be) it is about us all sharing our knowledge and thoughts on each topic.

I apologise if I have 'rambled' but its important to me that other members do not feel intimidated to post.  The admin and mods do a WONDERFUL job of keeping this forum visually attractive and inspiring.  I would like to see more encouragement for members to post without fear of negative remarks thrown at them.

I don't always take the time to thank all the members that respond to me, and I apologise for that because I DO appreciate all of you.  Thank you 

polyenne wrote:Discussion stifled, thread closed ??

Don't be melodramatic polyenne. No one is stifling discussion, nor has the thread been closed.

You are all quite at liberty to continue discussion with or without my input

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

I know exactly how you feel -  you give your time freely only to get knocked in return, it can be soul destroying.  For me it's just part of the job which I have to accept and carry on regardless, that's not a problem providing the knocks are based on post content and not the poster, unfortunately the latter is so often the case.

Take heart in the fact that it is only specific aspects of your extensive work that are being questioned - not your integrity nor your years of hard slog .   Keep at it and always remember, you have a faithful following that appreciate everything you have achieved over the years - if nothing else,  that should keep you going

Onwards and upwards!

I'm going to suggest something which may seem daft, but bear with me please. After examining the Lobster's planned schedule (which has always jarred with me) something struck me. I do not believe that this was an actual, true schedule, devised by Cat and used for Madeleine's group, but rather a "borrowed" timetable template from another "Lobster" group - possibly from the previous season.
 My reasons are as follows. - Remember that we have been told  that Madeleine, at not yet four years old, was the eldest of her group. Do the scheduled activities suit a small, mixed-sex group of preschoolers? I suggest not. In fact several activities are decidedly UNsuitable for children of this age. Into this category I put "dive and find" and "mini sail". It was end of April/early May, the sea was cold and rough, the weather breezy, and many children of this age are still afraid of water. Isn't a mini-sail more suited to a warm sunny day later in the season and with older children? Next, the "beach trips". According to the McCanns, their children hated the cold, wet sand and refused to even walk on it. Yet we are to believe that Cat's group braved the weather and went as scheduled.
 "Dive and find" usually involves older children who can actually swim and are, at least, water-confident! Normally, they retrieve rubber "bricks" from the pool floor by either diving from the bank or "duck-diving" while swimming along. The more able sometimes dive for smaller objects such as coins. As a swim coach I can categorically state that I have never seen 3-4 year olds who could do this. In fact many children of this age have a terror of submerging their heads and still hate having water over their faces, even during hair-washing!
Was Cat (who claimed to have created this timetable of activities) obsessed with aviation/ space exploration? If so, she should have known that most of the little girls in her group would not share her  interest!  On Sunday there was "parachute grass time" and "planet making"; On Monday "spaceship collage" and "sand painting moon pictures"; On Tues. "salt dough rockets"; On Wed. "moving rockets" and "funky footprint aliens"; On Thurs. "alien mobiles" and "chalk space-pictures". To me, this seems more suited to a larger, older group, with a majority of boys.
Secondly, some of the other activities would be beyond the ken of a tiny group of 3 yr. old kiddies. eg. "Making postcards"; "Build a city beach play";"Crazy construction"; "Olympics grass time"; "Sand sculptures beach play"; Party masks and hats"; Would a handful of children this young understand what is meant by postcards or the Olympics? Would they have the skills and understanding to  participate in "city building, crazy construction, mask making"?

What clinches my belief is Monday's "Kym's game". Who is this Kym who has invented the eponymous game? There is no one named Kym or Kim at the Ocean Club in May '07! This leads me to suspect that the "Lobster's" (even the name, to me, suggests older children who would understand and get a kick out of it) timetable of events was not drawn up by Cat and used by Madeleine's group but hastily borrowed from perhaps the previous season's "Lobsters" - a larger, slightly older group, whose leader was named Kym.
The "grass Olympics" on Wed would have had all of 4 children - Madeleine, Jessica, Alexander and Ella (who as recovering from foot surgery!). What a damp squib that must have been! Dive and find and Mini Dance on Thurs allegedly went ahead with just Alex, William and Madeleine.  - I don't think so.
In conclusion I suspect a false timetable of events was produced (to save blushes) and the nannies were induced to fit their stories around it - which could explain the confusion over actual dates and attendance.

skyrocket wrote:

On the 4 May, when the PJ carried out their informal interviews with Cat Baker and Stacey Portz (Head of Toddlers), Stacey tells them the following:
 
'That it was not possible to speak with the rest of the carers, notably Shinead, because most of them were absent and there exists higher priority work';
 
Why would Portz say this when the 4 May Jellyfish crèche sheet shows that Shinead is in the tented crèche with the Toddler2’s that morning (despite the sheet reading as PM)? Surely, under the circumstances, Stacey could have covered for Shinead for 5 minutes whilst the PJ had a chat with her – or had Shinead not been talked to yet?

Great spot Skyrocket!!! Does this not smack of the need for the nannies to get their stories straight before speaking to the police? May 4th was Friday, so most of the nannies would have been at work. Sinead had already had her day off as I understand it, so why was she absent again? What could possibly have been higher priority that  finding a missing 3 year old? - getting stories straight, retrospectively filling creche records perhaps?

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

Maybe a misspelling ? Kim's Game :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim%27s_Game

Phoebe, as I understand it, Kim's game is a memory game, which perhaps might have been suitable for 3-5 year olds but probably not keep their attention for very long. I agree with you that many of the activities in the schedule were not suitable for little ones & it could well be that the schedule was something that was produced to look impressive but in reality was not followed. In particular I am doubtful about the activities which involved going outside because of the additional risk & need for extra pairs of hands to keep the children safe. I believe one of the nannies said that Kate/Gerry even accompanied Madeleine but don't recall that being stated by Kate or Gerry themselves (please correct me if I'm wrong). If the children were in fact kept inside the crèche room rather than being taken outside, that would certainly lend credence to HiDeHo's thoughts concerning the crèche register. Also, if 3/4 children were arriving at the same time at the start of a session, it's perhaps not necessarily the case that the nanny would personally greet each one, as they might just charge in to play.

Perhaps "Kym's " game is indeed a misspelling of "Kim's" game. Once again, it seems a rather unsuitable choice for three year olds and seems to be recommended at it's most basic level for 5-6 yr olds . It would appear that there were only four children left to playing it during its allotted half hour, with two children having been signed out by 12.10 p.m. I can't imagine it was a rip-roaring success given the numbers present and their age!

But a programme of events is planned well in advance and without knowledge of numbers in attendance !!

polyenne wrote:But a programme of events is planned well in advance and without knowledge of numbers in attendance !!

Exactly! But one would expect a professional nanny to spot the need to adapt in the event of such low attendance for some of the sessions and the fact that ALL of the children that week were at the lowest end of the 3-5 age span. The planned schedule might have been suitable later in the season for a larger group of slightly older children who were interested/understood rockets, aliens and outer space; who were confident enough to submerge themselves when diving; who would enjoy boating on the sea; who could wield a scissors etc. to make masks; who could be expected to have the coordination to hit a ball at mini-tennis; if there had been enough of them to actually make a mini-dance or athletics on the grass enjoyable. The outdoor activities on the beach and sailing might have suited 4-5yr olds later that summer when the weather was pleasant. I do believe this is a real template of activities, but not that it was adhered to by Madeleine's group that week. Perhaps Cat. did create it, but I'd bet she did not stick to it. I don't think the dive and swim, the mini-dance, or the grass Olympics ever happened, nor indeed some of the other activities described.
For example, on Monday p.m. they allegedly went on a "garden adventure" from 3.30-4.30 pm. Well, Tia and William were there by 3.30 pm, Madeleine had bailed out by 3.30 (having just arrived 15 mins previously) Ella somehow managed to find them half way through the "adventure" at 4pm and Alexander didn't turn up til 4.30 when all the "fun" was over! So, a total of TWO children were off on a "garden adventure" while Ella somehow signed in back at base half an hour into it. (if Cat was off exploring who received her at sign in?)  Some "adventure"!

BTW, a Kym O'Brien worked for Mark Warner in Europe between 2011 & 2013 !! But let's not get too carried away...........

I'm beginning to wonder if Madeleine ever attended the crèche ? 

When my children went to a similar crèche on holiday, the nannies made a point of encouraging the children to show  Mummy and Daddy what they had done and they brought whatever it was home, finger paintings, collage etc AND on a trip out we were presented with photographs taken which we could purchase, and we had to sign a form  giving permission for any photos of them which were used either in the brochure but mainly they adorned the walls of the crèche depicting  happy children and their adventures as to encourage other holiday makers with children to attend. They always wore "good quality" wristbands too which showed in every photo as they didn't take them off until the flight home! 

Something is very amiss surroundung the crèche and nannies, in my opinion for what it's worth.

MayMuse wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if Madeleine ever attended the crèche?

SNIPPED

Something is very amiss surroundung the crèche and nannies, in my opinion for what it's worth.

MayMuse: I'm beginning to wonder if Madeleine ever attended the crèche?

REPLY: I think you are getting very very close to a solution to the puzzle Lizzy Hideho posed at the beginning of this thread 

MayMuse: Something is very amiss surroundung the crèche and nannies, in my opinion for what it's worth.

REPLY: Very amiss indeed with the nannies, I agree

While I'm on this hobby-horse  ! On Sunday from 10-11 a.m. Madeleine's group were scheduled to go out onto the nearby grass for "parachute (and?) grass time. There were only 5 children in the group so the "parachute" would have needed to be quite small and the arms of 3 yr. olds tire very quickly. At best, I imagine 10 mins of actual parachute play. The bulk of the allocated hour would probably have been spent playing around on the grass. On Tuesday, they allegedly braved the rain which had driven off the McCanns to spend two hours from 2.30-4.30 pm at a wet beach, first buying ices (took an hour!) then another hour spent on "build a city beach play". Remarkably, while this tame (if damp) beach excursion took two hours, the mini sail was accomplished in half that time! So, children were brought to the beach, kitted out in life-jackets, allocated a boat to use and an "instructor", given a safety rules talk, "ferried by launch out to the open sea" (according to Cat) transferred onto a catamaran, given a sail trip, transferred back from the catamaran to the launch and returned to shore. This was then repeated for a second group including Madeleine, eager to have another sail. Then they were assembled, stripped of life-jackets and walked back to the Ocean Club to arrive in time for "Puzzle Time" at 11 a.m. All this magically accomplished in ONE hour!

Sharoni wrote
I'm beginning to wonder if Cat Baker really ever was sent to work at the Ocean Club crèche or did she descend on PDL after Madeleine disappeared, along with all the other cover up merchants. 


I've thought that about Charlotte Pennington? There for a purpose ? 

Surely if one believes Charlotte Pennington was there as “an asset”, then by virtue of her having arrived on the same Gatwick flight as some of the Tapas group, you have to accept a pre-meditated scheme ?