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

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 image.]

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 image.]

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 Verdi 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.

by Verdi 04.02.18 13:19

Logic - music to my ears! With a generous helping of common sense.

MMRG wrote: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,

I disagree, I think it highly unlikely that the crèche record sheets were kept at the Ocean Club reception. That aside, it makes no allowances for collection of the children - or signing out if you prefer. If the witness statements are to be believed, the children were taken for high tea at the Tapas restaurant, where they would have been signed out by the parent, not the crèche. This indicates the record sheets were taken to the Tapas restaurant by the respective child carer - any other arrangement would be totally irresponsible and putting children's welfare at risk.

As I've said over and over again, logic which some refuse to accept or even acknowledge. According to the McCanns version of the truth, Madeleine did not disappear from the crèche, she disappeared when tucked up in bed in apartment 5a on the night of 3rd May. The formal questioning of the crèche workers would be routine policing to establish the relationship between child and parent, if the child appeared unwell or emotionally/physically damaged, the general demeanour of the child and if anything or anyone suspicious was noticed in the children's presence. They were not interviewed as suspects or persons of interest.

Plus they were interpreted by Robert Murat, who for some unknown reason, volunteered his services to the PJ (being bi-lingual) and was suspected by one particular police officer, of prying into the investigation - sticking his nose in where it didn't belong.

Again I say, take into consideration the creche workers witness statements were not recorded verbatim, clearly (and logically) they were all asked the same specific questions from a list (routine policing), it stands to reason the replies would be similar in content..

Q. 'Can you remember seeing Madeleine McCann at the crèche'
A. Yes, I think she was there with the other kids - she wasn't in my group but if she was signed in she must have been there'

No one has said 'I solemnly swear by almighty god, or some other deity, that I saw Madeleine McCann at the crèche every day from Sunday 29th April until Thursday 3rd May 2007'.

It only takes one, or maybe two, to steer the direction of the investigation. Catriona Baker had responsibility for the group that Madeleine was allegedly attending, a group of no more than seven children, mostly three four or five at any given session - Charlotte Pennington is a fantasist with delusions of grandeur. She arrived at the same time as some of the McCanns group of friends, she traveled on the same transit bus from the airport, she was not listed amongst the initial childcare workers contracted by Mark Warner for the season. She arrived and hey-presto became one of the childcare team. She called herself a child educator - said to be responsible for a very small group of babies.

by sallypelt 04.02.18 16:26

Can anyone explain this? The 29.4.07 entries for twins have an "in" time of 14:25 and an OUT time of 12:30:

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

All other entries for the other children appear to be correct, as they are signed out AFTER the time they were signed in. What could possibly explain the error in the McCann's children's entries?

by skyrocket 04.02.18 17:01

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I think it might read 17.30.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree, I don't think the record sheets would have been kept anywhere other than in the relevant creche rooms. The room above the main reception was accessed independently of the reception - if in fact that is where the club was held.

The more I look at the nannys, the more interesting Shinead becomes.

-       Shinead was looking after the twins (in one of the 3 Toddler2 sub-groups) during the week, apart from Thursday 3 May, which apparently was her day off. On this day, Stacey Portz, Head of the Toddler2 group is shown as looking after the twins;
-       Despite being shown as in work on Friday 4 May (we are told in the tented crèche next to the Tapas Restaurant/Bar), the PJ are refused access to her (by Stacey Portz) for an informal interview;
-       In her statement Shinead says that she only met/saw Madeleine once during the week, at some point soon after Madeleine’s arrival (the word arrival is used);
-       She cites the fact that she is working with the Toddler2 group as the reason that she doesn’t know Madeleine and yet the other 3 nannys involved in the Toddler2’s use the very same fact as the reason why they DO know Madeleine. It would seem reasonable to assume that Shinead should have had the greatest contact with the Mcs, and by default, Madeleine;
-       Shinead is one of the three nannys who state that the crèche is closed on Sundays, except for the evening dinner drop in service;
-       She is the only nanny to state that she did not follow the missing child procedure, and her statement infers that others didn’t either;
-       She states that there are 15 nannys in total, a figure which agrees with the list provided by Donna Hill to the PJ, which includes Hayley May Crawford (was she moonlighting as an evening nanny after her daytime work at the adult pool?).

Assuming for a minute that something happened to Madeleine that weekend, if Shinead met the McCanns at a crèche sign-up late Saturday afternoon or on the Sunday morning, isn’t it likely that she, along with Cat Baker, would be one of the two nannys most likely to have actually met Madeleine? Might Shinead then perhaps realize that she hadn’t seen her again that week, whereas other nannys might be easily duped into thinking that they had seen/been in contact with Madeleine during the week (when in fact they were mixing MBM up with another quieter/shyer child, as they describe)?

Shinead’s statement seems to back up the fact that many of the nannys were confused about which child was actually Madeleine.

Did Shinead then refuse to play ball – hence the need to keep the PJ away from her on the 4 May?

I don’t think there was a need for the nannys to be lying en masse, although several of them could have been drawn in and probably made to doubt their own judgement. IMO, beyond this group of relative innocents, Charlotte, Cat and Amy stand out as highly questionable.

by sallypelt 04.02.18 17:09

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I think it might read 17.30.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree, I don't think the record sheets would have been kept anywhere other than in the relevant creche rooms. The room above the main reception was accessed independently of the reception - if in fact that is where the club was held.

The more I look at the nannys, the more interesting Shinead becomes.

-       Shinead was looking after the twins (in one of the 3 Toddler2 sub-groups) during the week, apart from Thursday 3 May, which apparently was her day off. On this day, Stacey Portz, Head of the Toddler2 group is shown as looking after the twins;
-       Despite being shown as in work on Friday 4 May (we are told in the tented crèche next to the Tapas Restaurant/Bar), the PJ are refused access to her (by Stacey Portz) for an informal interview;
-       In her statement Shinead says that she only met/saw Madeleine once during the week, at some point soon after Madeleine’s arrival (the word arrival is used);
-       She cites the fact that she is working with the Toddler2 group as the reason that she doesn’t know Madeleine and yet the other 3 nannys involved in the Toddler2’s use the very same fact as the reason why they DO know Madeleine. It would seem reasonable to assume that Shinead should have had the greatest contact with the Mcs, and by default, Madeleine;
-       Shinead is one of the three nannys who state that the crèche is closed on Sundays, except for the evening dinner drop in service;
-       She is the only nanny to state that she did not follow the missing child procedure, and her statement infers that others didn’t either;
-       She states that there are 15 nannys in total, a figure which agrees with the list provided by Donna Hill to the PJ, which includes Hayley May Crawford (was she moonlighting as an evening nanny after her daytime work at the adult pool?).

Assuming for a minute that something happened to Madeleine that weekend, if Shinead met the McCanns at a crèche sign-up late Saturday afternoon or on the Sunday morning, isn’t it likely that she, along with Cat Baker, would be one of the two nannys most likely to have actually met Madeleine? Might Shinead then perhaps realize that she hadn’t seen her again that week, whereas other nannys might be easily duped into thinking that they had seen/been in contact with Madeleine during the week (when in fact they were mixing MBM up with another quieter/shyer child, as they describe)?

Shinead’s statement seems to back up the fact that many of the nannys were confused about which child was actually Madeleine.

Did Shinead then refuse to play ball – hence the need to keep the PJ away from her on the 4 May?

I don’t think there was a need for the nannys to be lying en masse, although several of them could have been drawn in and probably made to doubt their own judgement. IMO, beyond this group of relative innocents, Charlotte, Cat and Amy stand out as highly questionable.

Skyrocket, on closer inspection, you are most probably correct. It's 17:30 not 12:30. The seven is a written as a continental 7, and therefore, makes it look like a 2 to my aging eyesight. This is why I don't spend too much time on the crèche records as they are rather blur for my eyesight, So, I will leave the visuals for those with better eyesight than I have, and look forward to reading your findings specs

by Phoebe 04.02.18 19:31

On the afternoon of May 1st, Izzy Carpenter is signed into the Lobsters group at 2.40 p.m. This entry has then had a line drawn through it, suggesting it was an error. Now, Izzy's name never appeared on the "Lobsters'" register on any other occasion, and according to Stephen Carpenter's rogatory statement she was in Emma Wilding's mini-club group. How did her mother manage to get hold of the wrong sheet when signing her in on May 1st if the individual nannies retained their own registration sheets? If she got it from Cat, was Cat, after 5 creche sessions at this stage, still unable to recognize which children belonged to her group?

However she got hold of it she seems to have magically signed it out of sync! The children are signed in as follows- Madeleine McCann, Jessica Berry, Tia Patel and Ella O'Brien (all at 2.30 pm).
Next to be signed in are William Totman and Izzy Carpenter (both at 2.40 pm)
Then, somehow or other, Elizabeth Naylor and Alexander Mann (the latter signed in as Richard, his parent's name) manage to sign in at 2.30 pm. but are written on the sheet AFTER the the Totman and Carpenter children who arrived ten minutes later than them!!
The morning sheet sign in runs as one would expect, with the children named and signed in in chronological order ie. the earliest arrivals first followed by the others increasingly later. ie. 9a.m.; 9.10 a.m.; 9.20 a.m; 9.25 a.m; 9.30 a.m.

by Phoebe 04.02.18 19:33

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

by polyenne 04.02.18 19:40

This was the day when there wasn’t the usual gap between AM & PM sessions......or maybe there was, only to be filled by GM signing Madeleine “last out/first in”

by **HiDeHo** 04.02.18 19:53

sallypelt wrote:Can anyone explain this? The 29.4.07 entries for twins have an "in" time of 14:25 and an OUT time of 12:30:

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

All other entries for the other children appear to be correct, as they are signed out AFTER the time they were signed in. What could possibly explain the error in the McCann's children's entries?

I believe it to be 17.30 A 7 with a line through the middle.

by **sharonl** 04.02.18 21:08

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

How do we explain Madeleine being signed back into the crèche at 2.30 if, a Kate says in her book, they had a family trip to the beach and the kids were returned to the crèche for the last hour?

by **sharonl** 04.02.18 22:09

Who is telling the truth here? Anyone?

According to Kate McCann in her book. On May 1st, they took the children to the beach for the afternoon, returning them to the crèche for the last hour.

Then we have this from Cat Baker

Day 01-05-2007

Gerald McCann

Kids Club

ROUTINE yesterday she received Madeleine at 09.10, Madeleine was handed over by her father. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007 daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 â€“ 9.10.00

Beach

Catriona told us that the only days that they went to the beach was on Tuesday in the afternoon (1st May 2007) between 15.30 and 16.30 and on the following day Wednesday at the same time.
Catriona Baker page 870
01-05-2007 15.30.00

Kate Marie Healy

Kids Club

ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over to her mother at 12.25. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007, daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 12.25.00

Kids Club
ROUTINE she received Madeleine again from her mother at 14.50. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88
01-05-2007 14.50.00

Kids Club
ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over at 17.30. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours.
Catriona Baker page 88

We know that the McCanns had a closed in double buggy. I believe that the twins were in the crèche that afternoon as per the crèche records, so why did the McCanns take a closed up double buggy down to the beach on a rainy day when no one else was likely to be there?

Madeleine could not have been at the crèche or with Cat Baker at this point. Obviously if she was already dead, she wouldn't have been there and if she was alive, Kate McCann would have no reason to lie about the family trip to the beach. So for what reason Is Cat Baker saying that Madeleine was with her at the beach?

Log in for more topics