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

by **sharonl** 02.02.18 20:55

MayMuse wrote: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 ?

Neither of them are nannies now. Charlotte Pennington is an actress, the last I heard was that she was working for a hotel that ran murder mystery weekends.

She was on the same transport bus as Jane Tanner.

Cat Baker, a 20 year old student, came back and travelled to Paris and New York. Student loans? big grin

I don't think so.

by **sharonl** 02.02.18 21:06

polyenne wrote: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 ?

Sadly yes, but I don't believe that Madeleines' death was pre-meditated. But, given that Gerry wasn't there to f****** enjoy himself, I suspect that there was a plan of some sort in place. Could this have gone wrong and resulted in Madeleines' death? after all, Gerry did phone home to say that it was "a disaster". What exactly did he mean by that? What was the disaster?

by Phoebe 02.02.18 21:12

Curiouser and curiouser! In Cat. B's rogatory interview she implies that there were 3 trips to the beach. One, she alleges, took place on Thurs. a.m. (for the mini sail) another was in the afternoon to buy ice-cream and yet another was to play on the sand. No mention of any "build a city" activity, but she mentions that they brought buckets, spades and hula hoops. Note, she clearly implies the ice-cream trip was a separate outing to the "play-on-the-beach" trip -

"During the week which Madeleine stayed in the club there were THREE events organized that included a trip to the beach. One of these events took place on Thursday in the morning, as referred to previously. Another of these events consisted of a trip to the beach with "hula hoops", shovels and buckets, etc, and THE OTHER trip to the beach was in order to eat ice cream. Together, the TRIPS to the beach took place in the afternoon but I cannot state precisely which DAYS. There should be a recording of this in the Mark Warner registers." (my capitals)
Now according the the schedule the beach-trip to buy ices immediately preceded the playing on the beach session. If Cat had been there surely she would have remembered this and referred to ONE trip for ices followed by beach play. If there were three trips when did the third occur and what did it replace on the timetable?

editing to add that in her May 10th P.J. statement she claims they went to the beach at 3.30 p.m. on Tues. AND Wednesday (On Wed. they should have been at "grass Olympics"). For some reason it appears the "Olympics" went by the wayside! If we believe the ice-cream trip took place on Tues. as scheduled, then logically, she had only 4 children she could have brought to the beach for beach-play on Wednesday afternoon - Jessica, Ella (in her slipper with her sore foot) Alexander and Madeleine. Are we to believe that she marched just four children, one hobbling, all the way to the beach to make sand-castles? She must have been clock watching since the activity was from 3.30-4.30 p.m. yet Jessica was back in time to be signed out at 4.30 p.m.

by Doug D 02.02.18 21:18

Sharonl:

‘Neither of them are nannies now’.

According to her FB page, Cat is back at it after a stint at the helm of ‘Posh Kids’ magazine:

‘Founder and CEO of NYC Elite Nannies’

by **sharonl** 02.02.18 21:27

Doug D wrote:Sharonl:

‘Neither of them are nannies now’.

According to her FB page, Cat is back at it after a stint at the helm of ‘Posh Kids’ magazine:

‘Founder and CEO of NYC Elite Nannies’

So no longer with Posh Kids then?

Do you know what she was supposed to be studying at university? Did she take time out?

by Phoebe 02.02.18 22:17

Oh dear! Poor Elizabeth N.! You see, on Tuesday May 1st p.m. all of her group were brought to the beach between 3.30- 4.30p.m. -

Date: 2007.05.10

Place: Praia da Luz, Lagos
Officer responsible: Manuel Pinho, Inspector
Description and result of diligence

Today (10 May 07), accompanied by Joao Barreiras and Catriona Baker, the 'nanny' responsible for the missing minor, retraced the places and times at which they left the resort area to go to Praia da Luz. A photographic report [of this journey] is attached:

- We were told by Catriona that the only days they went to the beach were Tuesday afternoon (1 May 2007) between 15:30 and 16:30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock (see attached table [of creche activities])

On Tuesday they were scheduled to get an ice-cream treat. But Elizabeth's mummy somehow signed her out at 4 p.m. half an hour after she had left for the beach! (Cat. says the trip was from 3.30 -4.30 pm.) Did her mummy have to collect her from the beach? Where did she sign the register at 4 p.m.? At the beach?

by polyenne 03.02.18 7:06

There’s been some previous interest in the Ns.

The Ns flew out of Gatwick on the same day & flight as some of the Tapas group.

IIRC it was RNs written letters and numerals on the crèche sheets that were likened in many respects to those of GMs.

Does anyone know if EN was one of the “pretty little blond girls” and if her father RN had a passing resemblance to GM or ROB ?

by plebgate 03.02.18 8:51

Very good debate and some good posts giving food for thought from Phoebe and also hope that Hi-D-H keeps posting her excellent work. thumbup

by roz 03.02.18 8:55

My thoughts exactly Plebgate.

by **HiDeHo** 03.02.18 15:21

plebgate wrote:Very good debate and some good posts giving food for thought from Phoebe and also hope that Hi-D-H keeps posting her excellent work.

Thanks so much to everyone for the encouragement to continue researching this possibility.

I m currently working on trying to put together a timeline of the creche but it involves revisiting and scrutinising all the creche records, tennis records, activity sheets, guest rogatory statements, and T7 rogatory statements and Nanny statements as well as trying to make sense of the MANY Diagram of Events for each day (and more). I need to have ALL the links to 'prove' my scenario is possible, for others as well as myself....

I am trying to get the perspective of what happened around the creche entries and whether (as I believe) there was a way that the McCanns were able to 'pretend' (fpr want of a better word) that Maddie attended all week.

Here is the basic start of my effort...the VERY beginning... BEFORE I believe something happened...

It's likely going to take quite a few days before I establish the whole 'picture' so I may appear MIA from this thread for a while but believe me, this is SO important to me that I would be doing it only for myself (as I originally did all the timelines)

I believe they managed to deceive everyone into believing Maddie was in the creche and in the OP I have suggested what may have happened...

This timeline will, hopefully, give details of how they achieved it... BASED ON FILES.

Please bear with me.

Timeline of creche wrote:Thank you for the encouragement to continue this thread...

I would like to do a SUMMARY of what I compiled in the OP by offering a POSSIBLE SCENARIO using the details from the original OP

I will base it on something happening to Maddie prior to Tuesday morning and using details from the files....

I have established that it was ENTIRELY probable that the creche room for Minis Kids Club was shared by ALL the children allocated to the two nannies (Catriona and Emma).

The was NO Minis 1 and Minis 2. It was a room for approximately 14 children.

SUNDAY MORNING
Family and friends go to Millenium for Breakfast.
9.45am - Kate enters Maddie into creche at main reception after 10 min walk.
Ella was not taken to creche that morning possibly because of her foot?.
No record for the twins creche
Families went to a meeting at the tapas to arrange tennis lessons.
12.15pm - Gerry picks up Maddie from creche

MINI CLUB ROOM SUNDAY MORNING
3 girls + 2 boys Catriona
Unknown (up to 7) Emma

SUNDAY AFTERNOON
Family spend time at the pool
2.35pm Kate takes Twins to creche
2.45pm - (10 min walk with Russell?) Gerry signs Maddie into creche
2.45pm Russell signs Ella into creche
3.30pm - Russell picks up Ella after 45 mins before Splish Splash pool time.
5.30pm - Gerry and Kate pick up Maddie and Twins from High tea

SUNDAY AFTERNOON MINI CLUB ROOM
4 Girls + 2 Boys Catriona
Unknown (up to 7) Emma

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

MONDAY MORNING

Breakfast in apartment
9-9.15am - Kate starts tennis
9.15am Russell signs Ella in creche
9.20am Twins signed into creche
9.30am Gerry signs Maddie into creche

by **HiDeHo** 03.02.18 15:35

Thanks to Anna Esse for the translation from (Police Association?) Enfants Kidnappes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Maddie related posts with Google Translation http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/WELCOME-to-HDH-Controversy-Info/Enfants-Kidnappes-Police-Association-Maddie-1-2511637.html

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

The McCann case: anomalies in the case file.

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

22/11/08

Since a small part of the case file - the DVD version was made accessible to the public, a great deal of ink has flowed. We note that it is necessary to be cautious as to its contents. In fact, it is only 17% of the complete case file and certain details are only of interest in relation to the complete file and not taken out of their context.

You probably know that our team, at the association, is comprised mainly of professionals from the field of police work. As such, we have analysed the case file and from the first pages, we have identified a few anomalies. Thus, the registers from the Kids Club appeared to be incomplete. Certain gaps have not been explained.

Thus we note that on May 1st 2007, Madeleine McCann's name is on the Kids Club regsiter. She arrived at 9.30am, dropped off by Gerry. According to the register, Gerry spent the morning playing tennis. He went back to fetch Madeleine at 12.20pm. Where things seem stranger to us is in the entries for the afternoon. Gerry drops Madeleine off at the Kids Club at 2.30pm and he spends his afternoon, again according to the register, playing tennis and at the swimming pool. Oddly, no one went back to fetch Madeleine in the evening! No signature for the evening of May 1st 2007. Why? Why did no one sign the register that evening?

Various explanations are possible.

It could be imagined that the parents arrived late to pick up Madeleine and that they didn't take the time to sign the register. In that case, why isn't that made clear in the case file? Why is there no mention of this possible lateness? And above all, why were they late? Right in the middle of an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of a little four year-old girl, these details are important. But the anomalies continue the following day.

According to the register for May 2nd 2007, the day before Madeleine's disappearance, Kate dropped Maddie off at the Kids Club at 9.20am. Madeleine was picked up at 12.30pm but it's not Kate or Gerry's signature on the register. Someone else has signed the register in the space for parents. The signature of Cat nanny, in other words, CATRIONA BAKER is found there.

Here too, you could imagine various explanations. The parents arrived late (once again?) and in a hurry (why?), they didn't sign the register. You could think that they forgot, for the second time, to sign the register. You could imagine that Catriona had finished her shift and as the parents had not yet come to fetch Maddie, Catriona signed the register then took Madeleine to her parents. You could imagine lots of things. But no explanation is provided in the case file. Catriona didn't mention it in her interview, the parents neither. But this kind of detail raises questions that need to be resolved. Too many unanswered questions, too many whys, too many gaps, not enough explanation.

These explanations could go in both directions. Thus, the investigators must wonder if Maddie didn't disappear sooner than May 3rd? If she was indeed present present at the Kids Club on the afternoon of May 1st? Why didn't anyone sign the register? Was she actually present at the Kids Club on the morning of May 2nd? Why did Catriona sign in the space for parents? Why does Kate's signature on the register for May 2nd seem different from Kate's other signatures? Where were the parents if someone else signed for them?

Certainly, these anomalies may only be trivial details, but these details could equally be significant, even fundamental to the investigation. Don't forget we are talking about the disappearance of a little four year-old girl. We cannot allow ourselves to leave these questions unanswered.

These anomalies, which are the first of a long series, were communicate to whom they may concern. And it is in referring to the article on SOS Madeleine of November 19th, we discover that a hand-writing report would be necessary. This confirms our suspicions and implicitly confirms certain rumours mentioning forged pieces of writing, forged signatures....manipulated documents...signatures added several days after the date indicated...etc.

If this report, that SOS Madeleine speaks of, confirms our our suspicions (and the rumours) these details which we have officially revealed, are then clearly less "trivial" !!!!

by **sharonl** 03.02.18 16:25

If the crèche records had been forged, manipulated, tampered with, it could hardly be the work of Kate and Gerry McCann, not without assistance from someone on the inside. If the Ocean club and the nannies were 100% innocent inn this matter the records would not be suspect and if they were, surely the management would want to know why and who was responsible.

by Phoebe 03.02.18 16:29

Well done to HiDeHo for the volume of research done so far and that now being undertaken. bravo

Just a small point. There may have been even more children in the mini club than Cat's and Emma's combined charges. Remember, Kirsty Maryan claimed that her group (juniors) were also combined with the mini club. -

"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;"

By my count there were four other potential children aged 6-9 years. The three Edmonds boys and a six year old Hyne girl. They may not all have attended, but some have, hence Kirsty's explanation.

by **HiDeHo** 03.02.18 17:22

sharonl wrote:If the crèche records had been forged, manipulated, tampered with, it could hardly be the work of Kate and Gerry McCann, not without assistance from someone on the inside. If the Ocean club and the nannies were 100% innocent inn this matter the records would not be suspect and if they were, surely the management would want to know why and who was responsible.

Two weeks prior to the McCanns visiting PdL there were the results of the MW creche in Egypt showing signs of not being adequately responsible.

At the point Maddie disappeared, it would not have been obvious at the time that the creche was involved before Friday when the PJ were given the creche records.

John Hill and his wife Donna (Donna Louise Rafferty Hill - manager of the creche staff?) would likely have been aware of the BBC Whistleblower investigation and may have advised the creche staff to ensure their records were in good standing... OR....

Maybe Catriona was concerned about her job and filled in all she could.

We don't know, but its POSSIBLE.

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

1. BBC undercover reporters Imogen Willcocks and Ashley Kennedy were CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked by the BBC prior to their undercover work for the programme but none of the companies that feature in the programme were aware of this.

2. BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:
- Just Learning in Cambourne from 7 to 27 November 2007.
- Buttons nursery in west London from July to August 2007.
- Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.

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.

(...)

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."

This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.
Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.
Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.
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.
No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.
To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.
Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.

by Crackfox 03.02.18 18:21

I just wanted to echo the sentiments up-thread and say this is a really interesting discussion with some great insights. IMO one of the reasons this issue wasn't resolved by the PJ was because of cultural differences - I simply think they did not understand the set-up well enough and were unable to pick up on some of the issues raised above such as lack of evidence that Madeleine participated in the scheduled activities. Great work!

by **HiDeHo** 03.02.18 19:47

Crackfox wrote:I just wanted to echo the sentiments up-thread and say this is a really interesting discussion with some great insights. IMO one of the reasons this issue wasn't resolved by the PJ was because of cultural differences - I simply think they did not understand the set-up well enough and were unable to pick up on some of the issues raised above such as lack of evidence that Madeleine participated in the scheduled activities. Great work!

Thank you Crackfox for an inspiring comment.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that this issue is one of the most important topics, which is needed to support the belief of something happening earlier.

We do have the theory that Catriona was involved, but I'm uncomfortable with that and I prefer to find an alternative possibility before accusations against her. (not saying she wasn't manipulated after the disappearance)

This is not an effort to discredit any previous research theories, ANY theory or thought process may be viable, but I have to go with my own feelings and only offering an alternative possibility.

It's what CMoMM is about.

by sallypelt 03.02.18 21:26

The crèche records have always puzzled me. Cat Baker said, in her first statement, given on 6 May 2007 that she is "unable to specify" if she saw Madeleine on the Sunday (29th April?)

Here is the paragraph from her first statement:

“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”. (my emphasis)

Moreover, there doesn't appear to be a crèche record for Madeleine for the 29th of April, but there is one for the twins. However, even that record doesn't appear to be correct. because according to that record, the twins were signed in at "14.35" and signed out at "12.30". As for the signature of the person who signed the twins out, is anyone's guess.

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

It was only in her first statement did Cat Baker say that she can't recall seeing Madeleine on the Sunday. In all other statements she says that she looked after Madeleine, every day, from the 29th April.

by MayMuse 03.02.18 21:35

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.

? Is that referring to the crèche or mini tennis?

Could the tennis photo have been taken on the Sunday?

by sallypelt 03.02.18 21:44

MayMuse wrote: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.

? Is that referring to the crèche or mini tennis?

Could the tennis photo have been taken on the Sunday?

MayMuse, thinking about it, she may well be referring to the mini tennis. I told you the crèche records puzzle me spin

.

by Phoebe 03.02.18 23:52

Having gone through the records again this is what emerges. There were fourteen nannies employed at the O.C. that week. (Including Charlotte P).
The breakdown of potential children who might have attended creche is as follows -

Mini Club - Fourteen children aged between 3-5 yrs, (two groups of seven with one nanny per group)

Toddlers group - Eight children aged over two but under 3 yrs.Two nannies, each minding group of four, could easily handle this (although the records show Susie, Sarah and Sinead all rostered) and records from "Jellyfish" show attendance was very low with often only 3 children out of eight attending. One nanny would be more than adequate to care for three toddlers!

Juniors - four children aged between 6 and nine. One nanny, Kirsty, looking after them in the mini club area. If the Edmonds boys did not attend this left Kirsty minding one child. Therefore a ratio of 15 children to three nannies in mini club.

Babies and Infants under 2 - a potential twelve children, but not to worry, there were nine nannies available to look after them. However, it is unlikely all were put into creche for both morning and afternoon sessions. In fact according to Fiona there were only a couple of babies ever present -

Fiona P. rogatory
Reply
'Well Lily, yeah, I don't know who her, I don't, the, you know, key workers were any more, I can't remember the names. Erm, yeah, Lily went to the toddler club and Evie and Grace and Sean and Amelie were, were all in the same room. Erm, you know, I knew some of the names of the Nannies there but I don't who her key worker was. Erm, and Scarlet, again, I can't remember the name of the girl who was, who was looking after Scarlet. Erm, there was only kind of two babies in the baby room and about three, huh, carers, again, it was very quiet"

This begs the question, what were the "surplus to requirements" doing and where were they doing it? If there was only two babies did nine nannies really sit with them? If these babies had a nanny each what did the other seven do when not needed?
Did it really take 3 nannies to read a story to a maximum of 15 children during circle time?
When toddlers group was down to three children where did the surplus nannies go?
I believe this is at the crux of the creche shambles. nannies chopped and changed, gave each other time off and there was precious little continuity of care. No wonder they waffled about which children attended and at what times? I believe this chopping and changing meant the children were sometimes with nannies who did not know one from the other!

by **HiDeHo** 04.02.18 0:28

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

by MayMuse 04.02.18 0:55

These crèche workers are worrisome, did they mistake Ella for Madeleine as they describe her personality and not Madeleine's "ring leader" type her parents attribute to her.? always wondered this especially the use of the younger photo initially released as her hair looks the same length as Ella's. More and more I'm leaning towards Maddie never attending the crèche that week, as I've said previously.
What if Sunday was indeed the last day of Madeleine's holiday? Would make a lot of sense for many of the other anomalies and strange goings on in this sad and sorry case, and give time for a pre planned abduction scenario?

Where did Gerry and Kate say they were Sunday evening does anyone recall?

Edit... Tapas restaurant ...just checked.
Odd thought the crèche was closed Sunday's wasn't it?

On searching found this thread I've not seen before, interesting https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1543-how-maddie-s-creche-attendance-was-arranged?highlight=Saturday+evening

by **HiDeHo** 04.02.18 1:15

I have just added a thread for easy viewing

EXTRACTS FROM NANNIES STATEMENTS REGARDING WHO SAW MADELEINE

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

by **HiDeHo** 04.02.18 1:19

MayMuse wrote:These crèche workers are worrisome, did they mistake Ella for Madeleine as they describe her personality and not Madeleine's "ring leader" type her parents attribute to her.? always wondered this especially the use of the younger photo initially released as her hair looks the same length as Ella's. More and more I'm leaning towards Maddie never attending the crèche that week, as I've said previously.

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

by **HiDeHo** 04.02.18 1:27

MayMuse wrote:
On searching found this thread I've not seen before, interesting https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1543-how-maddie-s-creche-attendance-was-arranged?highlight=Saturday+evening

Kiko is a very well respected researcher who offers his own thoughts regarding HIS theory about the creche.

by Guest 04.02.18 1:29

sallypelt wrote:MayMuse, thinking about it, she may well be referring to the mini tennis. I told you the crèche records puzzle me

Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007

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.

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.

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

by mezzyd 04.02.18 8:39

Thinking about the staffing of all the childcare, I wonder what sort of contracts MW issued. From a business point of view, it wouldn't make sense to have to pay all the nannies the same throughout the season, when there would not always be the same need for staff at times of lower occupancy. Perhaps they were on zero hours contracts, operating as a pool, available as & when needed, which gives less continuity of care? Cat says a key worker was nominated for the week, but for some nannies that system might mean no work for the week if they were not needed, so how would that have worked out in practice? Sorry if this is too much conjecture rather than evidence, but maybe someone else with more knowledge of the files can throw some light?

by **Cammerigal** 04.02.18 9:37

HiDeHo wrote:
Crackfox wrote:I just wanted to echo the sentiments up-thread and say this is a really interesting discussion with some great insights. IMO one of the reasons this issue wasn't resolved by the PJ was because of cultural differences - I simply think they did not understand the set-up well enough and were unable to pick up on some of the issues raised above such as lack of evidence that Madeleine participated in the scheduled activities. Great work!

Thank you Crackfox for an inspiring comment.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that this issue is one of the most important topics, which is needed to support the belief of something happening earlier.

We do have the theory that Catriona was involved, but I'm uncomfortable with that and I prefer to find an alternative possibility before accusations against her. (not saying she wasn't manipulated after the disappearance)

This is not an effort to discredit any previous research theories, ANY theory or thought process may be viable, but I have to go with my own feelings and only offering an alternative possibility.

It's what CMoMM is about.

The deconstruction of the nanny statements and crèche pick up arrangements is critical to exposing the conspiracy surroundings the abduction hoax. It is imperative that CMOMM and especially HiDeHo continue this analysis.
I myself have advised that sign-in sheets are often false testimony of attendance to an investigator and that they are often back-filled to puport a story. We have testimony that the blond’ maddie’ child known to the nannies was not assertive, but shy and retiring. We have no proof of the use of child ID bracelets.
I note that there is only one Kate Healy crèche signature; Kate Healy being the professional doctor name and documented passport name UNTIL the abduction. Kate states she is now called Kate Mccan as she is known as this by the press (backfill story Kate). The use of the other Kate Mcann signature should Be regarded as false. May I suggest we please differentiate in our analysis on the 2 Kate surnames from this point onwards?

The crèche sheets were used to convince the PJ that Maddie was alive on the Thursday ( fake abduction day). Take away this crèche cornerstone, add in the diverse detection of both Mccann DNA and cadavour odour evidence in both the apartment and the Scenic hire car, the nonsensical timeline of hoax room checkings and the case really starts to unravel on an evidential basis.

by polyenne 04.02.18 10:47

Overall, the OC was very well occupied for The Algarve at that time of year and previous comment has been made about the demographic of the clientele holidaying that week.
On the basis that there may have been a “conference of likes and minds” that week, might other similar folk with babies/children have stayed “off-site” such that MW made additional provision for Nanny/child care facilities not necessarily on-site ?
Thus the need for so many nannies at that early point of the season.

by **sharonl** 04.02.18 11:59

THE NANNIES AND THE CRECHE RECORDS – A DOSE OF SHEER LOGIC

by MMRG 3 February 2018

This is a follow-up post to our much longer analysis upthread of the creche records and the role of Cat Baker. We will apply some logic to the facts that we have.
First of all, we start with two propositions, or ‘working assumptions’.

PROPOSITION 1: Madeleine McCann died on Sunday 29 April, or possibly early on Monday 30 April

PROPOSITION 2: Several nannies, after then, swore that they had seen Madeleine.
----------------------------------

PROPOSITION 1 is supported by a very great weight of evidence. It is supported by PeterMac, it is the theme of Richard Hall’s five Madeleine documentaries, and HideHo is also in broad support of that earlier date. The CMOMM forum. where much of the intense research on Madeleine McCann’s disappearance has been done in the past few years, states on its home page that this is the forum’s position on what really happened to Madeleine. Many of its leading members have publicly agreed with that proposition. Moreover a poll currently running on this issue asked the opinion of forum members on the issue. So, far, 244 have voted, with 16 declaring themselves ‘undecided’. Out of the remaining 228, 211, a massive 93%, agreed that Madeleine died Sunday or possibly Monday. Only 17 disagreed.
That is not a fact. But it is more than reasonable to take this as a working assumption.

PROPOSITION 2 has been helpfully confirmed by a post upthread by Phoebe. In her post, Phoebe noted that, during the period from Monday to Thursday:

Kirsty Maryan claims to have seen Madeleine

Stacey Potz claims to have seen Madeleine

Susan Owen claims to have seen Madeleine

Sarah Williamson claims to have seen Madeleine

Lindsay Johnston claims to have seen Madeleine

Emma Wilding claims to have seen Madeleine

Amy Tierney claims to have seen Madeleine.

And we also know that Charlotte Pennington claims to have seen Madeleine, and that
Cat Baker claims to have been her nanny all week and so seen her for many hours over those four days..

Phoebe at the end of her post asked: “How can so many be genuinely mistaken or else have a reason to lie? I have never claimed to believe these nannies saw Madeleine. I am pointing out that they stated in sworn evidence that they did”.
--------
We agree wholeheartedly with those observations.
Proposition (1) says that Madeleine died on Sunday (possibly Monday).
Proposition (2) says that at least 9 nannies swore in signed statements that they had seen her, often on multiple occasions.

We would add, as an aside, that we believe that the controversial figure of Robert Murat was responsible for most of the interpretation of these statements.

In the above situation we have to search for the most credible solution to this puzzle.
Unhesitatingly we say that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most, if not all, of these nannies were not mistaken, but were deliberately lying.
-----------
In putting forward this analysis, which we suggest is fully logical and has a very good evidential basis, we recognise that we are

(a) contradicting the views of others and
(b) making an accusation against several staff.

Contradicting another’s views and putting forward alternative, reasoned views will, we hope, not be seen as ‘negativity’ by anyone - but as part of a wholehearted attempt to solve the puzzle originally set by HiDeHo.

We do continue to suggest that the wrong question was asked in the first place as it could not be assumed that the McCanns deceived Cat Baker and maybe other nannies.

We will not be offended if someone challenges us by claiming that there is better evidence for Cat Baker and the other nannies mistaking Ella (or some other child) for Madeleine - than for our claim that they were all lying about having seen Madeleine.

It’s just that we haven’t seen such evidence yet.

We would further add that, if, as has been suggested, the crèche sheets were left downstairs at Ocean Club reception (by no means an unlikely suggestion) then it would be the easiest thing for one of the McCanns just to sign in Madeleine on the crèche sheet, if Cat Baker knew that Madeleine was gone and she had agreed (either willingly or unwillingly) to allow this.

The McCann case: anomalies in the case file.

Latest topics