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

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

IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, as the DISCREPANCIES started Tuesday morning, it appeared confusing because of the contradictions of probably trying to cover up the truth

What we are 'told' about the truth is not necessarily what actually happened, hence I spent a few years compiling all the statements into timelines and timetables for comparison. Hence I discovered the discrepancies.

Remembering Madeleine McCann Research Forum
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning.....  On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim......"
 "This afternoon we went swimming....."
."She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." 

Ella had just undergone surgery following a cut on her foot which had turned septic. There were even doubts as to whether she would be able for the holiday. If true (and it was easy to verify) there is no way she would have been permitted contact with pool water (or indeed the sea water). Therefore I cannot conceive of Ella replacing Madeleine in any of these activities. Cat clearly implies that Madeleine did attend creche every day "Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine EVERY day in the morning." Therefore she is clearly claiming to have seen her on the morning of May 3rd.  As Verdi has pointed out, with so few charges it is impossible to not have learned the child's name if the tale re how the childminding operated is true. Either Cat is knowingly lying about Madeleine's presence in creche or the childminding was so slapdash that Cat hasn't a clue who was where, and she may not even have been there at the appointed times herself but foisted her charges onto another nanny and is lying to cover this up

I just wanted to say you make some excellent points above. Like you, Phoebe I do not think CB was working on Thursday. This is purely speculative but I noted that if CB had been working on Thursday it suggests to me she worked a six day week and I think this is unlikely. I definitely think the working practices and contracts for MW nannies warrants further scrutiny. 
 I noted also that the twins' nanny had Thursday off and I agree Phoebe that CB's description of the mini sail does not sound plausible IMO and I cannot for the life of me understand why the McCanns would be watching other people's children playing tennis whilst showing no interest in what surely should have been a milestone in their own child's life worthy of attention?

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

Press Releases Ofsted Whistleblower reveals widespread failings in the care of the under-fives

Category: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]; [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
Date: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Whistleblower, BBC One's flagship undercover series, will tonight (Wednesday 5 March, 8.00pm) lift the lid on how nurseries are putting children at serious risk by failing to check both the criminal records and references of staff employed to work with very young children – and the failure of Ofsted to police this.
 
In an exclusive interview given to the programme on condition that her identity was protected, a current Ofsted inspector alleges that Ofsted – the official body responsible for inspecting and regulating nurseries and childminders in the UK – is approving childcare facilities that should not be operating.
 
Ofsted inspector: "I am a mother of two young children and many of my colleagues have young children. Between us, I would say we would inspect roughly 700 crèches, nurseries, after-school clubs and childminders and there wasn't more than five that we would take our own children to."
 
Following the tip-off from the Ofsted inspector, BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks began an eight-month undercover investigation, during which she discovered that Ofsted is not only failing to adequately regulate the childcare industry in order to protect pre-school children in nurseries and in the care of childminders, but that political connections could have influenced Ofsted's decisions.
 
The programme uncovers Ofsted documents that indicate that the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne should have been closed following the accidental death of a child in its care and critical inspection reports, but was saved from closure due to concerns about the implications for Michael Fallon MP. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, was the Managing Director of the nursery at the time and the documents state:
 
"If we cancel this particular setting then there are implications for Michael Fallon, as he would be automatically disqualified."
 
Viewers will be shocked to see how Imogen Willcocks, a 21-year-old undercover BBC journalist with no experience of looking after children and no professional qualifications, is employed to look after young children under the age of five by two nurseries in Britain, and a leading British holiday company. Furthermore, they will see her approved as a registered childminder by Ofsted.
 
Imogen's undercover filming takes place at Just Learning in Cambourne (near Cambridge) and Buttons nursery in west London, as well as a Mark Warner holiday resort in Dahab, Egypt – an upmarket company that markets itself as offering "award-winning childcare".
 
The undercover footage in the programme reveals:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] A failure to make criminal record and reference checks – The companies that featured in the programme all employed Imogen to look after young children without obtaining CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks, or speaking to any of her referees.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult tochild ratios were not always met – on several occasions at Buttons nursery, Imogen is seen left in sole charge of up to 13 pre-school children. At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is and, on one occasion at Just Learning, Imogen and another member of staff are left caring for 23 children. This was despite complaints from members of staff concerned about child welfare and safety.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions – the undercover BBC reporter discovered, for example, potential choking hazards in the sandpit at Just Learning (which she removed and disposed of). At Buttons nursery she found pieces of glass in the garden and witnessed maintenance work, involving power tools, being carried out whilst the children were in the same room. At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Infrequent inspections – Ofsted fails to make frequent inspections of nurseries – with the Buttons nursery in west London having nearly four-and-a-half years between inspections.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegally low pay – BBC undercover journalist Imogen Willcocks earned £100 a week (about £2.50 an hour) whilst at Buttons nursery – well below the national minimum wage. Staff at Buttons nursery are discouraged from discussing their pay – the nursery manager told Imogen: "a couple of months ago, we called people out because they've been discussing wages. That's confidential, you mustn't do that."
 
Imogen's findings go some way towards understanding the Ofsted Whistleblower's comments in the programme:
 
"Ofsted reports are not worth the paper that they're printed on."
 
"Anybody can approach Ofsted, talk a good talk and really become registered [as a childminder]."
 
"I've taken a great risk talking to you but I don't believe, and many of my colleagues don't believe, that we protect children anymore."
 
"Inspectors will go out to undertake an inspection and are literally skimming the surface. We are told consistently and constantly: 'if you go in and you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Get in there, take a quick look and get out'. The No. 1 priority for all inspectors is to meet their targets, because if they don't then they are disciplined. So targets take priority over safeguarding of children."
 
The critical Ofsted report, following the inspection of Just Learning in Cambourne that occurred after 10-month-old Georgia Hollick died accidentally at the nursery in April 2006, found serious problems there. There was no criticism of the nursery at the inquest. Documents obtained by the programme show that Ofsted took into account the consequences the closure of the nursery and disqualification from running it could have on the then Managing Director when considering what action they should take. The Managing Director at the time was Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, who remains on the Board of Just Learning.
 
Since filming, the directors of Just Learning have written to parents announcing the closure of their Cambourne nursery following the Ofsted reports and the BBC's investigation, and have admitted that the BBC has made them aware of "a serious breach of recruitment policy last year".
 
Notes to Editors
 
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.
 
4. On 18 February 2008, Jonathan Bell, the MD of Just Learning, wrote to parents announcing that the Cambourne nursery would close on Friday 29 February 2008. Quote from the letter: "You will be aware that the nursery recently received an "Inadequate" report from Ofsted. The directors of Just Learning have considered this and the increasing difficulty of recruiting staff against continuing media interest in the nursery. We have also been made aware, by the BBC, of a serious breach of recruitment policy last year involving a former member of staff. As a result of this, the nursery manager has resigned".
 
5. Mark Warner resorts are not required to work to Ofsted regulations.
 
6. Rights of Reply
 
Written statement from Michael Fallon MP in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"This is news to me, and a matter for Ofsted. I had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne. I resigned as managing director immediately afterwards. I strongly endorse the decision of the board to close the Cambourne nursery. The breach of the company's recruitment procedures was completely unacceptable."
 
Written statement from Buttons nursery in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"Buttons Day Nursery is a family-run nursery with a loyal following. Our aim is to provide a safe, happy and stimulating environment for our children. We try to foster trusting and supportive relationships between families and staff. The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"Buttons has regularly received favourable Ofsted inspection reports, one as recently as February, 2008.
 
"Buttons has a low staff turnover. New joiners undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
 
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
 
Written statement from Mark Warner in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"It's company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record. There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff.
 
"We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously. It is the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
 
"Guests who've been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is high.
 
"Eighty-nine out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. And every single one of our water sports instructors has a professional qualification."
 
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
 
Written statement from Just Learning in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
 
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery.
"The prescribed staff ratios should be maintained at our nurseries at all times and the company requires this. We do not condone any breaches the BBC has discovered.
 
"Choking hazards are very serious and any member of staff would be expected to be vigilant and to remove and dispose of them as well as raising awareness of other staff.
 
"The death of Georgia Hollick was the subject of a coroner's inquest. It did not find our first aid provision wanting – our staff did everything humanly possible to save Georgia's life. The company has expressed its regret and sympathy to Georgia's family. The health and safety investigation is still being carried out and we do not intend to comment upon it at present."
 
Written statement from Ofsted in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"Ofsted makes 70,000 visits a year to check children and young people are safe, healthy and happy. Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe.
 
"If Whistleblower has identified things that can be improved, we will want to consider them, including making recommendations to the government about possible future changes.
 
"Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job.
 
"Our policy of unannounced inspections keeps most nurseries and childminders on their toes.
 
"Parents have choices over where to place their children. Ofsted inspection reports are available on our website to help them.
 
"Childminders know a good report is important to their business. Where they don't improve, we take action."
 
We put to them our charge that they allowed Michael Fallon MP's position, as managing director of Just Learning, to influence their decision not to close the Cambourne nursery. They would not respond directly, but said: "Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour. Our reports are often critical of government initiatives. We make no apology for that."
 
[size=13]SB
[/size]

---

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



The shocking truth behind daycare at nurseries and creches
By IMOGEN WILLCOCKS
Last updated at 08:10 06 March 2008

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

Britain's childcare industry is booming.

Every working day, more than a million parents drop off their precious little cargos at childminders and private nurseries.
All of them do it firm in the belief that those they trust with their babies are highly-qualified, strictly regulated and genuine, caring people.
Terrifyingly, they are wrong. During an eight-month investigation for the BBC1 investigative programme Whistleblower, I uncovered a childcare culture where a new carer's criminal records and references are never checked, yet they will immediately be left alone with young, vulnerable children.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Finding out the truth: Reporter Imogen Willcocks
I was initially alerted to the scandal by an inspector for Ofsted (the government agency that regulates childminders and nurseries). She said that, as a parent of two children and having inspected 700 nurseries with her colleagues, she had found only five that she would have let her own children attend.
She also said that Ofsted inspection reports - the only safeguards that parents have to go on when choosing a nursery - aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
"We are literally skimming the surface," she said.
"We are told constantly: "If you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Take a quick look and get out."
"The priority for all Ofsted inspectors is to meet their targets. If they don't, they are disciplined. Targets take priority over safeguarding children."
I decided to test these claims by going undercover and getting myself a job in a number of nurseries.
I thought I would encounter difficulties since I had no children and, apart from a couple of babysitting stints, no experience of looking after babies and toddlers.
Yet I needn't have worried. None of the nurseries with which I got jobs bothered to check my fake CV or fictitious references.
Even Ofsted, which at least checked my criminal record, registered me as a childminder despite the premises where I was looking after the children not being at all suitable.
My first job was at the Buttons nursery in Ealing, West London. We'd had a tip-off that its supervision of babies and toddlers was unacceptable.
After a cursory interview, I was appointed as a nursery assistant. No one checked my references in the five weeks I was there and even though the law states that everyone working with children has to have their background checked by Home Office agency the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the all-clear didn't come back until I had left.
Buttons is based in a rambling, 19th-century detached house and caters to the area's professional middle classes. It was not cheap, charging £1,100 a month for a child who is dropped off at 8am and collected at 6pm.
On my first day, I was terrified - partly afraid that my secret filming equipment would be discovered, but mostly because apart from a quick nappychanging lesson with a friend's baby, I had no clue how to look after children.
As it turned out, no one noticed my inexperience.
At 21, I was one of the oldest nursery assistants.
Many were trainees and had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. There was no on-the-job training. Instead, we were thrown in at the deep end.
At times I was on my own with as many as 13 children, even though the law says carers waiting for their CRB clearance should always be closely supervised at all times.
And they shouldn't be allowed to change nappies and take children to the toilet.
With so many children to look after, I could barely make sure they were safe, let alone care for them individually. Instead, it was just damage limitation - I found myself grabbing broken glass, sticks and sharp objects from children as young as three.
One day, builders were brought in to fit guards to the radiators because one little boy - weeks earlier - had badly burnt his hand on one.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Undercover: Imogen Willcocks is seen with children in this footage
The other staff told me that the owner, Satnam Parhar, had blamed the staff for not supervising the burned boy properly and that he was only getting the guards fitted because an Ofsted inspection was due.
The builders left their power tools inches away from where the children were playing and no one seemed to notice.
I spent that particular session on tenterhooks.
The nursery assistants at Buttons were poorly supervised and very poorly paid. I was on about £100 a week - less than the legal minimum wage. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the staff were less than high-quality carers.
I saw two nursery assistants hauling a boy across the nursery by his arm. Then I heard a child being called a "sh*t-bag" and saw a little girl's head being shoved into a mattress on the floor as she didn't want to go.

When I complained to the owner that I had been left on my own with 13 children, he refused to accept what I was saying and called the idea crazy.
When I contacted him later, saying I had been undercover for a TV programme, he issued a statement.
"The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"New joiners to our staff undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
My next childcare job took me to a nursery with the worst possible history.
In April 2006, a ten-month-old girl called Georgia Hollick had choked to death on a slice of apple at the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire.
The inquest found that her death was accidental and made no criticism of the nursery.
However, a subsequent investigation by Ofsted found that children's health and safety were being compromised at the nursery.
Nevertheless, it was allowed to reopen less than a month after her death. Just
One day, I had to stop babies eating - and potentially choking on - small Christmas decorations that a member of staff had placed in the sandpit.
It was unbelievable that just 19 months after a baby choked to death at this nursery, such chances were still being taken with child safety.
Within days of the result of my investigation being put to them, Just Learning closed the Cambourne nursery and issued a statement saying: "The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery."
But this still left the question of why such a failing nursery had previously survived a very critical Ofsted report following the death of a young child in its care.
The BBC has been given an internal Ofsted document that refers to the Tory MP Michael Fallon, who was managing director of Just Learning at the time of Georgia Hollick's death.
A passage says: "If we cancel this particular setting [nursery] then there are implications for Michael Fallon as he would be automatically disqualified [from running it]."
Mr Fallon has since responded, saying: "This is news for me and a matter for Ofsted. I have had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne.
"I resigned as MD immediately afterwards.
"I strongly endorse the decision of the Board to close the nursery. The breach of the company's procedures was completely unacceptable."
After these two nurseries, I decided to investigate the self-styled upper end of the child-minding business, where I soon realised that the problems are not confined to our own shores.
Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.
It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.
That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.
Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

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.
Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.
He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.
"There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise.
"We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures."
For the final part of my investigation, I discovered that even an inexperienced 21-year old with no qualifications can also fool Ofsted.
I borrowed a large house, made no alterations to accommodate young children - despite the fact that no youngster had lived there for 20 years - and applied for a childminder's licence.
I admitted to the Ofsted inspector who visited that I had no fireguard, no first aid kit, no stairgates, no safety glass or socket covers. I didn't even have a table for the children to sit at.
The building was completely unsuitable.
But I did say I had a wish-list containing all those items and planned to install them. That was enough for the inspector and I got the go-ahead.
No one ever came back to check up that I had put them in place.
When contacted, Ofsted said in a statement that it would consider making improvements based on the findings that I had uncovered.
But it said: "Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe. Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job. Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour."
I don't yet have children but having seen what I've seen, I can't imagine I'll ever risk putting my own into childcare.
? WHISTLEBLOWER is on BBC1 tonight at 8pm.


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

Whistleblower: Full responses
12 March 2008, 4:07pm
The nurseries and organisations included in the Whistleblower expose on bad practice in the early years sector have been quick to respond to the programme's accusations. We have printed their statements in full.

MARK WARNER RESPONSE
It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and that we complete and submit a form to check their criminal record.
From the information given to us by the BBC ahead of the programme, there were clearly two occasions when we failed to do this. 
That is completely unacceptable and we apologise for this. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff so this does not happen again.
We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously.
That's why we were one of the first holiday companies in the UK to introduce criminal record checks for childcare staff, even though this has never been a legal requirement for staff working overseas. 
It is also the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
We recognised that it wasn't possible to provide room listening and guarantee that there would never be any safety or security issues of any kind. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and switched to drop in crèches.
Guests who have been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is very high. 
89 out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. The other four have proven childcare experience. And every single one of our watersports instructors have a professional qualification.
Over the past 25 years, we have taken over 150,000 families on holiday and won several awards for the quality of our service. We are determined to maintain that record.

Questions & Answers to issues raised in the BBC programme "Whistleblower" broadcast on March 5th 2008.

Q1. What is your reaction to the BBC Whistleblower programme?
A1. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, we let our customers down by failing to properly follow our established procedures for obtaining references before staff started working for us. That shouldn't have happened and we apologise for this. As a result, we have reviewed and strengthened our procedures for recruiting childcare staff, to stop this ever happening again.
Q2. What is your procedure for vetting childcare staff and how have you strengthened it following this programme?
A2. Prospective childcare staff must provide two references and, where relevant, original professional childcare qualification certificates before being offered a job. They must also provide personal information to enable us to submit a Criminal Bureau check. The two incidents highlighted by the BBC show that these procedures were not followed and so we have retrained our recruitment staff to ensure that this does not happen again.
Q3. Why did you let staff begin work without having received their CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) forms back?
A3. There is no legal requirement for any holiday company operating overseas to obtain a CRB check for their staff and the majority don't. These checks are required in other sectors, like the NHS and teaching, for staff who work with children. However, at Mark Warner, we decided five yeras ago to voluntarily introduce these checks for our nannies and we were one of the first holiday companies to do so. Unfortunately, we have no control over the length of time it takes for the check to be run and sent back to us. We would like the process to be quicker, but even companies and organisations legally required to run CRB checks face the same problem.
Q4. Your room listening service was criticised in the programme. What's your response to that?
A4. Our room listening service has always been very popular with guests. Unfortunately we stopped offering this service in 2007 because it was impossible to provide room listening and guarantee guests that there would never be any safety or security issues. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and replaced room listening with supervised evening crèche facilities at all our resorts.
Q5. The programme suggested that your nannies don't receive any training.
A5. To be able to join Mark Warner, all prospective childcare staff must already have a professional childcare qualification - such as an NNEB or NVQ - or a proven track record of working with children. After they start work, all childcare staff follow an induction programme which takes them through our own internal procedures such as fire and evacuation; lost child procedures; health & hygiene, as well as an explanation of their specific role and responsibilities.
Q.6 The programme suggested that children taking part in watersports aren't always supervised by staff who are competent in the water.
A.6 When children are involved in any beachfront activity, our professionally qualified watersports staff are responsible for their safety. In a typical summer, we employ over 200 of these staff and every single one has a qualification in watersports and life saving. Their qualifications are from internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the Royal Yachting Association and British Water Ski Federation.
Q.7 The programme suggested that your childcare is not "award winning". What is your response to that?
A.7 We have consistently received very high ratings from guests for the standard of childcare at our resorts. We have won an award from the children's baby charity Tommys for "Most Parent Friendly Tour Operator" as well as an award from Babygoes2.com and Ace Magazine awarded us a "Best for Families" award three years on the run for our resort - Lakitira in Greece.
Q.8 The programme mentioned the ratio of nannies to children. What is the ratio of nannies to children at your resorts?
A.8 In the UK, the Government's "Sure Start" guidelines on childcare state that the ratio should be one nanny to three Under 2's, one nanny to four 2 year olds and one nanny to eight 3 to 7 year olds. At Mark Warner, we not only comply with these ratios but, in some cases, better them.
Q.9 The programme claimed that staff in your resort in Egypt are working illegally and Mark Warner is therefore breaking the law?
A.9 The process of securing a work visa for staff in Egypt is lengthy and can take eight to nine months. We work closely with the Ministry of Labour to secure working visas for staff and the Egyptian authorities are aware that staff have to wait for their working visas to be processed.
Q.10 The programme was critical of Mark Warner, so what reassurance can you now offer to customers?
A.10 Over the past 25 years, we've taken hundreds of thousands of families on holiday. We've built our business on offering parents high quality childcare and a choice of first class resorts, with many guests writing to us each year to compliment us on the services we provided. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, the correct procedures for vetting and employing staff weren't followed. This is why we have already retrained staff and put in place measures to stop this happening again. We'd like to reassure customers that the safety, security and enjoyment of their holidays is our number one priority and always will be


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am merely pointing out that there were approx 13 children in the creche and care workers are aware it takes a while to recognise children.

I would appreciate you not claiming 'stubborness' regarding Cat Baker and I have certainly not invented anything.   I post what I see/believe and I feel my original post explains exactly how I feel and I have always maintained (that initially at least) Catriona was NOT involved.

I find it quite shocking to be 'expected' to think she was involved by claiming I am stubborn.

I have made a suggestion to what I honestly believe may have happened.

Perhaps you could show me an alternative explanation?

HiDeHo,
The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies.

I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child.

Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path.

The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care.

If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with.

@ HiDeHo. I certainly think the standard of childcare at the Ocean Club was dismal and that M.W. were terrified of that becoming public. Remember too, Cat had every reason to be nervous after Madeleine's disappearance. I recall clearly those around me at the time were utterly convinced that any abduction had to be an "inside job". Who was better placed to have learnt that the parents were leaving the children unattended at night and that Madeleine had been upset/frightened than her nanny? Who could have known exactly which apartment Madeleine was in - her nanny (after all the parents wrote it down for her to see each day!) Who could get a child to go with them without screaming and attracting attention - her nanny whom she trusted, having spent fun time with her each day. I would be astonished if the P.J., when forced to consider abduction, would not look closely at her nanny. What was her record, did she have a dodgy boyfriend etc. Where was she at the crucial time? Who could vouch for this? Had she revealed anything about Madeleine to an outsider etc. etc. Cat must have known she would be asked about all this as well as her observations of Madeleine, anything Madeleine might have told her that could be relevant and how she perceived the relationship between parents and child. The fact that Cat. was shipped out post-haste beyond the reach of questioning by M.W. suggests there was something to hide. I believe that "something" may have been the slip-shod childcare that week which may well have meant that the nannies couldn't vouch for anything.

Speaking as someone who assists in a crèche on a monthly/voluntary basis, I would have thought it would be difficult to get to know the names of a number of new children all at the same times as would be the case in a holiday setting. When you know most children & there's just one or two new ones to assimilate, it's much easier. Within a crèche setting, it tends to be the noisier ones who command more attention & so are more memorable in terms of looks and names. I can quite see how the nannies would not be completely clear about identifying all the children in the crèche & if they are coming & going at irregular times, all the more so.

JRP wrote:HiDeHo,
The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies.

I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child.

Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path.

The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care.

If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with.

It's your prerogative to believe as you wish and it's mine to look at the information I see and SUGGEST a possibility of how the McCanns managed to deceive everyone IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

I make a note of claiming that Catriona was not complicit during that week.  To suggest a young girl doing her job was involved in what the McCanns were trying to achieve is, without any 'evidence' is quite frankly someting I find offensive.

We are all aware (or should be) as to how some people can be 'manipulated' or guided to claim things that are not exactly a true representation, in this case not only to maintain her job credibility but also, IF she could not remember seeing Maddie but was TOLD that she was looking after Maddie she could hardly question it, keeping in mind that the creche was not initially in question as the 'abduction' was from the apartment so to follow along with what she was 'told' (about Maddie being there until Thursday) was not something I would consider as complicit.

Once this was acknowledged, there was no turning back for her and likely/possibly the McCanns managed to 'remind' her of many details.

Similar happened to Dianne when she claimed categorically that she did NOT see Matt while walking towards the creche (when Fiona, David and Matt all claimed to see each other...in different locations along the route)

A year later in the rogatories she claimed that she was wrong after being 'reminded' by Fiona and David.

I use the footage of an example of the 'chaos' with several children of a similar age.  She was allocated 7 children but shared the room with Sharks, meaning there were possibly 13 children using the facilities in the room and likely were not separated.  The video was an example of how it may feel as opposed to imagining a room with 13 under fives quietly playing together.

Like everyone else, I DON'T KNOW how it was or what happened, but this is a POSSIBILITY that I am putting forward for those that believe something happened earlier in which case the creche needs to be explained.


Please do not use the word 'substitute' child in this scenario. Ella was already in the creche and was not sent as a 'substitute'.  I suggest the possibility that she was MISTAKEN for Maddie and not substituted.

Its important to explain how the creche scenario was achieved for those that believe something happened earlier.

I am awaiting other suggestions.

mezzyd wrote:Speaking as someone who assists in a crèche on a monthly/voluntary basis, I would have thought it would be difficult to get to know the names of a number of new children all at the same times as would be the case in a holiday setting. When you know most children & there's just one or two new ones to assimilate, it's much easier. Within a crèche setting, it tends to be the noisier ones who command more attention & so are more memorable in terms of looks and names. I can quite see how the nannies would not be completely clear about identifying all the children in the crèche & if they are coming & going at irregular times, all the more so.

That is important to remember. Thanks mezzyd.

The point IS that for those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then she would likely not be remembered later especially when this photo was used to identify her  (as someone has also suggested) that it is the reason the younger photo was used, to avoid recognising Maddie and claiming NOT to have seen her.




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

I should also like to add that I feel it slightly disconcerting that Catrions Baker spent time with the McCanns back in the UK some time after events in PdL. I believe initially it was by invitation from the McCanns. Was she the only nanny invited to meet them back home ?
Seems a little strange

polyenne wrote:I should also like to add that I feel it slightly disconcerting that Catrions Baker spent time with the McCanns back in the UK some time after events in PdL. I believe initially it was by invitation from the McCanns. Was she the only nanny invited to meet them back home ?
Seems a little strange

I agree that the invitation was 'odd' and coincided with the Secret Meeting at Rothley

This would be the time before the rogatories that I see the possibility that they may have 'reminded' Catriona of some of the details they wanted known.

SECRET MEETING Mirror Article wrote:'Tapas 9' in secret McCann meeting

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

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Kate and Gerry McCann (Reuters)
Kate and Gerry McCann held a secret meeting with the rest of the "Tapas Nine" amid reports that Portuguese police are coming to Britain to re-interview them, it was revealed yesterday.

The friends met last month for the first time since the McCanns' four-year-old daughter Madeleine vanished in Portugal seven months ago.

They were all dining with the couple in a tapas bar near the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine was sleeping with two-year-old twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie.

Portuguese police were furious about the meeting. A source close to the investigation claimed it was "highly suspicious" that they had met up to "talk tactics".

Detectives are said to be awaiting formal clearance to come to Britain and question the nine again about alleged discrepancies in their statements.

But the couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell denied that the nine had gathered to square their accounts before a police visit.
He said the emotional reunion "a few weeks ago" at a hotel near the couple's home in Rothley, Leics "was just to discuss the overall situation.

"They weren't comparing notes or doing anything untoward. It was an operational meeting to discuss what might be coming up in the next few weeks.

"They are in touch all the time by phone and emails anyway but decided to meet face to face. They were together for a few hours and discussed the overall position. They wanted to see each other because they hadn't done so for some time."
He added: "It was a private meeting and I therefore don't want to say more about it."
The other seven members of the party are heart specialist Dr David Payne, 41, his doctor wife Fiona, 34, hospital consultant Dr Russell O'Brien, 36, his partner Jane Tanner, 37, endocrinologist Dr Matthew Oldfield, 37, and wife Rachael, 36, and Dr Payne's mother Dianne Webster.

They are key witnesses who gave police crucial evidence supporting the couple's belief that Madeleine was kidnapped.
Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a small child in pink pyjamas like Madeleine's away from the flat. Three have given statements claiming they saw Robert Murat, the first official suspect, outside the apartment - though he claimed he was at home with his mother.

A friend of the couple claimed the meeting gave the lie to a rumour that some of the party had fallen out with the McCanns and were preparing to change their statements.

The source said: "It was a show of solidarity under police claims that one or two had wanted to change their stories. That is not the case and the meeting showed that.

"It was a meeting to express support by the friends and just to see each other again. They hadn't all seen each other for months."

The friend said the reunion last month was kept secret because of the huge interest it would have generated.

The McCanns were officially made suspects on September 7 by Portuguese police, who believed they accidentally killed Madeleine and hid her body. Some detectives are said to have suspected that some or all of the seven helped cover up the crime.

A furious Portuguese police source said: "This meeting is highly suspicious.

"The McCanns left Portugal and flew home the moment they were made suspects and refused to answer many key questions about what had happened.

"Now, they and their friends are about to be re-interviewed and it is revealed they have met up in secret in a hotel.
"The McCanns are suspects and their friends are witnesses who could soon also have arguido (official suspect) status. They should not be meeting to discuss the case and certainly not the evidence."

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

HiDeHo,

There are only two alternatives, either Cat Baker knew Madeleine was in the creche or she didn't know Madeline was in the creche, it's as simple as that.

I find it odd that you find an opinion which is opposite to yours offensive. I can understand you not agreeing with me as that is your prerogative, but to find what I said offensive is a little strange.

With regard to mezzyd's point about it being difficult to remember names, there were only 2 to 7 children in the creche during the holiday week, perhaps mezzyd has a few more to remember in her/his workplace.
I have a shop, we see more than 7 people during a day, if somebody orders something today, I'll remember their name when they return. It's part of the job, as is remembering kids names in a creche, and I don't have the advantage of glancing at wristbands.

Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?

I can't see any way any nursery worker could be fooled into thinking one child was another.

Speaking from experience, I have worked in nurseries as a supply assistant (often going into nurseries for just one day) and by the end of the day you not only know every single child's name but their faces and personalities stick in your memory for days, even weeks. I'm talking whole classes of 20+ children, after just one day with them.

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

I maintain that I find anything suggesting Catriona  was lying (indicating she was complicit) is very wrong.  It's not an opinion, I see it as an accusation and regardless whether I find her rogatory statement questionable I do not for one second see ANY indication that she was complicit during that week.

As I have explained many times she was a young girl doing her job and I OFFERED a suggestion how it MAY have happened.

I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, in fact I may be wrong, but I prefer that anyone that disagrees, offers an alternative to show how it MAY have happened.

I do not have an agenda on this case.  Its not important to me if I am right or wrong because the TRUTH of what happened to little Maddie surpasses any need to boost an ego.

I did many years of research and am offering what I have put together to try to make sense of the situation.

For those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then its IMPORTANT to base that belief on what we know from the files and HOW it was accomplished to deceive everyone about how Maddie was presumed to be in the creche when she wasn't.

Just 'guessing' she was not around the Ocean Club does not give credibility to something happening earlier.  It needs to be explained HOW it was accomplished, apart from T7 statements that were contrived and suggested she was seen.

I believe something happened earlier so I am attempting to back up that thought with the research I have done.... and the POSSIBILITY of how the creche could be explained.

The police files tell us that Maddie died in the apartment and the parents hid her body and faked an abduction.

Could all that be accomplished in an hour and half?

I don't believe so.

I would be interested to hear a timeline of that hour and half to explain it and all we have learned from the statements and facts from the case.  

It is my responsibility to back up my thoughts with an explanation of how it was all accomplished.  I certainly could not explain how it happened during the dinner that night.

I welcome someone that can, take the time to explain it to me.

I am not here to presume guilt for someone who may be innocent.... I am here to help make sense of what happened by using the files....

I would be interested in hearing from someone that DOES feel the OP could have some possibility.

This is research in progress... It's not a fully fledged conclusion.

polyenne wrote:BTW, I contacted Chris Unsworth around the middle of last year (he's at Exeter Uni IIRC) and put to him a short list of questions.

He failed to respond.

Failed to respond?

Can't say I blame him. If some stranger contacted me and started asking questions, I'd tell whoever to go swivel! What impertinence!

HiDeHo wrote:

Considering Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley were the instructors on the beach when Maddie was supposedly attending the mini sail.  They were interviewed 'unofficially' according to the files.

One would think their statements would have been important (more so than some of the other staff).

I really can't see the significance here - why would their statements be considered important?

Firstly, the PJ were primarily looking at the disappearance/abduction of Madeleine as claimed by the parents and their friends - the night of Thursday 3rd May, therefore there would have been no reason to question whether or not Madeleine was among the group at the beach mini-sail.

Moving on, the beach animateurs who supervised the boating trip couldn't be expected to know or recognize the identity of any one of a group of children never seen before. Catriona Baker however most certainly should have known the identity of children in her care.

The informal conversation with Unsworth and Stanley would have been only to establish if they saw anyone, or anything, suspicious when the children were at the beach. I'm in no doubt, if the PJ thought the beach workers were persons of interest, they would have been formally interviewed.

Essentially the PJ were looking for a potential abductor and/or evidence of suspicious behaviour wherever the children were during the week.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],   I don't imagine those who believe Madeleine died on May 3rd accept that it could only have happened in "an hour and a half". Why should they? Madeleine allegedly left high tea sometime between 5.30 and 6 p.m. (If she was there at all!) What is to stop those who believe death occurred on May 3rd from considering that it happened during this four and a half hour period? The only witness who claimed to have seen Madeleine alive and well after tea was David Payne - enough said. (For the record I personally believe she was dead by Thursday morning). However, I cannot see why you fix on an hour and a half - because the McCanns say she was fine when they left for dinner? Why should anyone take that as true? It is inaccurate (IMO) to state  that the only options must be - either dead before Thursday or died between 8.30- 10 p.m. on Thurs. night.

On another point, seeing as Madeleine created such a fuss about being afraid to sail one would have expected the sailing instructors to also mention this. I'm sure that in an effort to assuage her fear they would have spoken to her. If they mentioned noticing/ interacting with her it would help to confirm whether she was actually there.

JRP wrote:

Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?

I've asked that same question many times in the past - have yet to see an answer.

There are some people that believe she died between the times they were at the tapas.  Some believe it was after 5.30pm  Some believe it was Wednesday. Others believe she died earlier in the week.

Personally I have seen nothing to indicate when she died.

Ella was 'Ella' at the creche as I tried to explain in the OP.

As far as Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth... One would have thought they were just as important to interview as all the other OC staff.

I have done my best to offer a possible scenario... Just as it is possible that, eg, Catriona knew ALL the childrens names, but that would need an explanation about how (if Maddie WASN'T in the creche) it can be explained that the McCanns were able to deceive everyone.

I'm not seeing anything offered to suggest HOW it could have happened if that is the case, based on what we 'know' from the files.

HiDeHo wrote:

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

DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE BEFORE 5.30PM MAY 3^RD?
 
If so, that would mean that she did not attend the crèche during May 3^rd or earlier.

Have you considered how this could be explained?  Catriona, her nanny, claims Maddie was in the crèche during Thursday (and before).  For the record, I DO NOT believe Catriona was lying.
 
Is the following scenario possible?
 
Suggesting that something happened to Maddie before Tuesday morning (when the major discrepancies/contradictions/lies started…likely to hide the truth) then Maddie would have only visited the crèche for a day or two.

What I feel is important to remember, is that the crèche did not follow the strict guidelines of a school, where children were expected to be present and accounted for during the full day.

Children were dropped off and picked up randomly and the register was likely used as a record of where to find the parents if needed  as opposed to a record of their use of the crèche (which was free, so no need to establish cost) There were approximately 13 children that used the kids club (3 – 5 yrs old) and were divided into two groups. Lobsters and Sharks. However they all shared the same crèche room and although assigned to specific nannies, were likely interacting together.

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

We are told that there were several little blonde girls and  I doubt for the first day or two the nannies were able to distinguish between them or notice if one or more of the young children were missing for the rest of the week.

Children arrived and left randomly, and were the records strictly kept where each nanny greeted the parents at the door as they arrived and signed the register, or was the register a requirement to locate the parents and was left‘on the side’ for them to responsibly sign in case the nanny needed to contact them?

Would the nannies scrutinize the register and take special note of who should be there at any specific time during the day? Likely  not.  Once children arrived and doors were closed, the nannies, at the beginning of the season when everything was new and lprobably not all in place, would likely be focused on keeping the children’s attention and dealing with minor issues between the children.

Catriona claims there were bracelets issued to each child and whether used or not, in a room of approximately 13 children, that were only going to be there for less than a week, and sometimes only a couple of hours, remembering their names would likely be secondary to keeping them occupied.  There was no expectation for every child to be in attendance every day and so if one or more was missing, I can’t imagine it being of importance.

Is this the reason that, whether during the week or only Thursday, it may not have been apparent that Maddie was not there?


How could the McCanns have accomplished this deceit? 
How could Catriona claim to have seen Maddie, even though she was not there?


Is it possible that this following scenario explains how the McCanns deceived everyone into believing Maddie was attending the crèche?


JaneTanners daughter was similar in appearance to Maddie. She was only 3 months younger and had similar hair colour..  Her shy personality was very different from what we have been told about Maddie but is it possible that Catriona was 'intimidated' by the knowledge, once Maddie disappeared,  to learn that SHE had been looking after Maddie until that afternoon.  

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

Did she SPECIFICALLY remember Maddie (by name) as being there or KNOWING (according to the McCanns) that she had been with Maddie that day maybe she was thinking she didn’t recall the name of the child that day (or before) but as far as she was told, Maddie WAS at the crèche and she could have second guessed herself and felt the child that had disappeared must have been the child that resembled who she later learned was Maddie.

If she couldn’t remember EXACTLY the child named Maddie was there that day, (or earlier) there is no way she could have jeopardized her job by claiming shedidn’t remember.

She had been TOLD Maddie was at the crèche that day and as the ‘abduction’happened from the apartment, the crèche was not involved.  However there WAS a BBC Whisteblower program that had criticized a Mark Warner crèche in another location only three weeks prior.  Admitting to not SPECIFICALLY remembering Maddie could jeopardize her credibility for the job

.

She presumed that Maddie was the child that may or may not have been called ‘Ella’.  Is this the reason that Catriona and many of the other OC staff described ‘Maddie’ as being shy and had the personality of Ella?

It goes without question that,  even though she may not have remembered Maddie specifically, (especially if Maddie was actually only there during the first couple of days) she would give her statements about the child she now believed must have been Maddie.

Once acknowledged Maddie was there she could never retract her statement. There was no turning back. Was this the reason she went through a depressing time a few weeks later (as described to a friend) when she inwardly realized the scope of the case?

This brings us to HOW could the McCanns achieve their deceit of Maddie attending the crèche?
 
 
After scrutinizing the crèche records, and guided by the discrepancies/contradictions starting on TUESDAY MORNING, so with the possibility that they were trying to hide something at this point, Monday MAY have been the day something happened.

MONDAY AFTERNOON - Oddly, Maddie was signed into the crèche at 3.15pm and signed out after 15 mins.

Approximately half an hour later, Ella was signed in at 4pm, but not signed out.

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

 
TUESDAY morning, Gerry and Russell walked to the crèche along with Jez Wilkins.  Jez makes mention of Gerry telling him about the children being left alone and he responded by talking about children can go to evening crèche and carried home with a blanket.
 
Could this have been the first initial effort to suggest the children would be alone to facilitate an ‘abductor’ being the reason Maddie disappeared? Was it inspiration of bundleman?
 
Jez’ daughter was in the Sharks group but sharing the same room as Maddie’s group,the Lobsters and Russells daughter was also in the Lobster group.

At 12.30pm Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign the register.  Was this because there was only ONE CHILD?

TUESDAY AFTERNOON Gerry signs ONE CHILD in at 2.30.  Ella is signed in at the same time by CAT(Did Russell forget to sign or was there only ONE CHILD?)
 
At 5.30pm only Russell signs out ONE CHILD Maddie is not signed out (Blank) Is that because there was only ONE CHILD?  Kate signed the twins out at 5.20pm  They were at high tea together.  Why did she not sign Maddie out at the same time? Was Maddie there?

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

 
On WEDNESDAY MORNING both Gerry and Russell sign in their child AT THE SAME TIME(could there have only been ONE CHILD?) but at lunchtime Russell signed out ONE CHILD and it was CAT who signed out Maddie at the same time. 12.30pm.  Why and when did CAT sign Maddie out?
 
Kate and Russell both arrived at the same time on Wednesday afternoon. 5.30pm

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

 
THURSDAY is RIDDLED with discrepancies and one example is regarding picking up the McCann children for the crèche at lunchtime….
 
Kate and Fiona were SUPPOSEDLY at the rec area together.

Fiona claims they went together from the rec area to pick up the children(Maddie and Scarlet)
 
Kate claims she went back to the apartment to prepare lunch before going to the creche.

HOWEVER, Gerry claims HE went to the crèche to pick up Maddie and he specifically remembers taking the short cut
 
Kate signs the register at 12.25pm.  Did Gerry REALLY pick up Maddie as he claims?

Keep in mind that Catriona said she did NOT REMEMBER who picked Maddie up at lunchtime

Along with this, neither of them are certain who picked up the TWINS and curiously the twins crèche records for THURSDAY morning are MISSING from the files.

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the above is from memory and along with the graphic is just an indication of why I feel it’s a POSSIBILTY so if any of the info is to be used elsewhere PLEASE confirm or contact me for a link.

As mentioned, for those that believe something happened to Maddie before 5.30pmon May 3^rd there needs to be an explanation as to how it can be explained HOW Maddie was ‘missed’ in the crèche.

For those that believe something happened in the hour and half they were at the tapas on May 3^rd, I would be interested to hear an explanation of how it could be accomplished in such a short period of time.

To date I have not heard a a viable explanation.

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

I think she cracked her head open and died on the night Mrs Fenn heard crying that wouldn't cease from the apartment. 
I don't think its rocket science to mislead staff working at a holiday site. Its warm weather & the environment is such where 'danger' would be the last thing on the staff members minds.

Verdi wrote:Amy Tierney is an enigma to say the least - she stands out above all others, even over and above Catriona Baker who allegedly had charge of Madeleine's day care during the holiday week.

To start, I find it unbelievable that a member of staff employed as a seasonal childcare worker, took charge of such a serious situation as a missing child - a missing child with screams of abduction ringing in the ears.  I understand the manager was not on duty at the time but surely, at only 10:00pm, there would be a senior member of staff on duty?  

When Amy Tierney contacted Lindsay Johnson, why did the latter initiate the Warner's 'missing child' procedure, I imagine that's a procedure initiated when children are in the care of the crèche workers.  A three year old child disappears from a holiday apartment at night,  wouldn't it be more sensible to contact the police - directly!  Even if the child had genuinely wandered off, under the circumstances I feel the police would be an essential ingredient, not an after thought!  Even after the manager, John Hill, was alerted still it didn't occur to them to call the police?  It was said by all and sundry that Gerry McCann went to reception to ask them to call the police.  OK panic situation but does that satisfactorily excuse such an oversight?

Meanwhile back to Amy Tierney.  According to her witness statement, on hearing of Madeleine's disappearance she went straight to apartment 5a and undertook a thorough search - leaving no stone unturned to coin a phrase.  Well, apart from the fact that no one else appears to have seen her there, what was she searching for?  Kate McCann had thoroughly searched before raising the alarm, so say she;  then the group of friends thoroughly searched the apartment and then a whole host of miscellaneous bods did likewise, trampling around contaminating the crime scene - and later blaming the GNR and PJ for not sealing off the crime scene - but that's another matter altogether.

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

What a tangled web they wove!

Interesting point.  Who was the most senior member of staff on duty at 10 PM on 3 May 2007?

Basil with a brush wrote:It is possible and it is interesting. I just can't get my head around a lackadaisical childcare service offered by a reputable holiday company in this day and age. It happens I'm sure, but much rarer than we are sometimes led to believe, and not here to the point of not knowing who the children are. Children are far too important. Other people's children are surely off the spectrum. Has to be more lies here for me.

There are lots of 'lackadaisical' care services, across a range of settings, catering to a range of young people and adults.
You can view the relevant inspector records online. However, in a holiday setting, increased 'lackadaisical'. Once staff get used to an environment with x number of children turning up, staying a couple of days, or a week then going. They are hardly going to start to get bonded with them. Sit in a coffee shop for a couple of hours and see people go in and out. Staff won't remember what day or time their regulars turned up, or if they didn't that day. It becomes routine.

Phoebe wrote:I also believe Madeleine hated creche and, on Monday, acted up so badly she had to be collected after 15 mins. I imagine Cat would have been only too grateful if the McCanns suggested there was no reason to mention any of this. 

This may be a contributing factor towards why Madeleine was left on her own that evening and provides a rationale for her being drugged by the family. She then possibly woke up, climbed on sofa and cracked her head open crying so loudly Mrs Fenn could hear.

I sometimes wonder whether members think I 'create' a scenario and just throw it out there because I can make it fit.

Far from it.

When you have scrutinised all the T9 statements and separated them all into about 200 timelines and timetables for each 15 mins or hour during the holiday (including the rogatory statements) and then compared them against each other, for every 15 mins of the holiday, one tends to retain a lot of information that is not always apparent for most people from only reading each statement independently.

They are far too complicated to understand and to mentally compare to other statements.

It's far too difficult to even read them once they have been compiled, but this is the basic information that I use when compiling posts and videos.  It's like a big picture of what we are TOLD happened during the holiday.

I don't expect anyone else to have that info retained.


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


Initially (during 2007) I realised two main things

1) That she died before Thursday evening

2) That the children were not left alone in the apartments and the 'neglect' was claimed to facilitate the possibility of an 'abductor' entering the apartment.

What I DON'T think was planned but was of tremendous value to the McCanns is that 'neglect' became the trade-off for what REALLY happened that night.

The continued claims of leaving the children alone has been the ONLY negative comment that continues to be allowed by the media.

Why would they not suppress the media?

Two reasons...

1) By allowing the 'neglect' issue it inadvertently supports an abduction.  When people 'McCann bash' about them leaving the children alone they are indirectly suggesting that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone (ie abducted)

We know that isn't the case.

2)  The OTHER reason they must love the accusations of neglect is because it is a TRADE-OFF for what REALLY happened.

Thursday night wasn't about leaving Maddie alone...it was about putting everything in place for the FAKED ABDUCTION.

It took  3 years of continually posting about neglect and having noone respond or believe it was a worthwhile scenario to consider...

Finally in 2010 it became an accepted possibility and someone coined the phrase  'No Neglect = No Abduction'

Following the acceptance of the 'neglect' issue I attempted to encourage members to consider the more than 50 major discrepancies (non memory related) and one by one they are starting to be recognised.

With many of the discrepancies in place (that started on Tuesday morning...(suggesting something had happened prior to Tuesday) I chose to scrutnse ALL the people that claimed they saw Madeleine.

I had NO IDEA which day would be the statement that convinced me she was seen at the Ocean Club.  I felt that the discrepancies by Tuesday morning, although indicating they were hiding something by then, could be corroborated by discovering WHICH day she was last seen.  

I needed to find statements that specifically identified Maddie that I could consider 'proof' she was seen and that could give me the day that something happened.

After going through them all the ONLY one that I felt was credible 'proof' that she was seen was the cleaners daughter Fatima that saw her SUNDAY LUNCHTIME! Many statement may be valid but they ALL had a degree of question to them and could not therefore be considered 'proof'

At that point it dovetailed with the discrepancies starting Tuesday, suggesting something happened AFTER Sunday lunchtime and BEFORE Tuesday morning.

This was 2010 and it took several years before my posts were considered as possibly credible.  The scenario relied on the 'no neglect' issue and the Discrepancies being recognised to help with crediblity.

I challenged others many times to have someone show me ANY evidence that it was NOT possible.  To date I have heard lots of 'noise' about witnesses and their statements but in nearly 8 years I have seen NOTHING to make me second guess my conclusion.

Be assured that if Fatimas statement was referring to WEDNESDAY, then THAT would be the day I would focus on, and look for some other reason they were trying to hide something by Tuesday morning.

Now that something happening earlier seems to be more of a possibility and with all of the supporting details in place, I decided maybe it was time to bring forward the possibility of how the creche deceit could be explained...

Hence this thread...

Its NOT something I have suddenly decided to put together.  I have been 'sitting on it' for years but could not expect it to have any credibility until neglect, discrepancies and who saw Madeleine issues had been accepted as possibly credible.

Members need to have the big picture before it could be contemplated as to how it was achieved.

HOWEVER I am second guessing myself as to whether its the right time to expect members to understand what I have  put together without having entered into discussions previously?

I felt sure that most have enough of a 'big picture' to finally consider this scenario involving the creche a possibility.

Am I wrong?

Here is a post I made nearly 8 years ago on this topic (forgotten about but surprisingly found by accident tonight), but it was too early to expect any responses that could give any input.

(Please also know that I have more topics and info not yet known or discussed) 

This is basically the same as the original OP on this thread, but may be easier to understand?


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

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

There’s a way of cold-emailing someone, making an introduction, requesting answers to questions and leaving them free to decline to answer if they so desire.

Over the years, I’ve learnt from your sometimes brusque manner, that you would find it difficult to concoct such an email.

With all due respect of course

Verdi wrote:Amy Tierney is an enigma to say the least - she stands out above all others, even over and above Catriona Baker who allegedly had charge of Madeleine's day care during the holiday week.

To start, I find it unbelievable that a member of staff employed as a seasonal childcare worker, took charge of such a serious situation as a missing child - a missing child with screams of abduction ringing in the ears.  I understand the manager was not on duty at the time but surely, at only 10:00pm, there would be a senior member of staff on duty?  

When Amy Tierney contacted Lindsay Johnson, why did the latter initiate the Warner's 'missing child' procedure, I imagine that's a procedure initiated when children are in the care of the crèche workers.  A three year old child disappears from a holiday apartment at night,  wouldn't it be more sensible to contact the police - directly!  Even if the child had genuinely wandered off, under the circumstances I feel the police would be an essential ingredient, not an after thought!  Even after the manager, John Hill, was alerted still it didn't occur to them to call the police?  It was said by all and sundry that Gerry McCann went to reception to ask them to call the police.  OK panic situation but does that satisfactorily excuse such an oversight?

Meanwhile back to Amy Tierney.  According to her witness statement, on hearing of Madeleine's disappearance she went straight to apartment 5a and undertook a thorough search - leaving no stone unturned to coin a phrase.  Well, apart from the fact that no one else appears to have seen her there, what was she searching for?  Kate McCann had thoroughly searched before raising the alarm, so say she;  then the group of friends thoroughly searched the apartment and then a whole host of miscellaneous bods did likewise, trampling around contaminating the crime scene - and later blaming the GNR and PJ for not sealing off the crime scene - but that's another matter altogether.

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

What a tangled web they wove!

Good question regarding Amy T.
I brought up a theory some years ago that the (some?) Nannies babysat in the evenings and earned black money under the table from OC guest's.
I do not remember exactly how many, but after this happened was some of the nannies transfered to other resorts in Europe.
Why did MW do this when a child went missing from the apartment in the evening?
It had nothing to do with the Nannies.
What if a nannie did this on Sunday and something happened during this time?
But why did the McCann's hide what happened during a babysit?
Maybe they gave sedatives before they left and this caused the disaster?
That's why one or a couple of nannies could pretend that Maddie was present at the creche?
What had happened to the Mark Warner if it had been revealed that their nannies earned black money and especially in combination that something bad happened to a child?
What had happened to the McCann's if it has been revealed that something happened because they gave drugs to their child?

In this sceanrio:
Both MW and The McCann's had everything to lose if the truth was revealed.