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

Crackfox wrote:I think there are some really interesting points being raised in this thread and I believe the key to this mystery is buried here somewhere.

One point I think is important is that the number of children signed in/out would be very important to the staff because even the most basic provision of care would involve ensuring when you leave the creche area for other activities such as tennis you have to at least do a head count to make sure you have the correct number of kids! For that reason I don't think the two signatures but only one child scenario is viable,  IMO.

Another issue related to this is the choice of a photograph of Madeleine with shorter, bobbed hair slightly darker in colour than certainly 'the last photo' suggests. I think this is relevant but I've yet to join the dots but I definitely think the choice of this photograph would not have been helpful in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance and  raises the question of why a more recent image wasn't chosen as it would have been the most vital piece of evidence if you were looking for a missing child. Conversely,  I think an image of a slightly younger Madeleine with darker, bobbed hair would be useful however if an audacious deception had taken place.

NickE wrote:Very interesting thread, it feel's like we are on the right track here.
I throw this in as a parenthesis in the context.
A lot of phone traffic to A.T in Doncaster between 5AM-7AM on May 3rd from the Dolphin phone box.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

polyenne wrote:The crèche record for the 1/5 intrigues me.

In previous records there’s a spare line between AM & PM but not that day. And possibly the reason being that Madeleine’s name could be construed to have been “squeezed in”.....last to arrive in the morning, first to arrive in the afternoon.
And someone doesn’t know Ella’s name !?

HiDeHo wrote:

polyenne wrote:The crèche record for the 1/5 intrigues me.

In previous records there’s a spare line between AM & PM but not that day. And possibly the reason being that Madeleine’s name could be construed to have been “squeezed in”.....last to arrive in the morning, first to arrive in the afternoon.
And someone doesn’t know Ella’s name !?

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

Doug D wrote:Same building, just front (road) aspect (on left) and main reception (from car park), now re-styled as 'Palm Bay'.

Google image from Feb 2015 showing both aspects:

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

HiDeHo wrote:

Doug D wrote:Same building, just front (road) aspect (on left) and main reception (from car park), now re-styled as 'Palm Bay'.

Google image from Feb 2015 showing both aspects:

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

Thanks very much for that Doug The photos I provided were from two different sides of the building :)

Sometimes I need to engage my brain 

Verdi wrote:Juggle kids around as much as you like, add or subtract as many as you like but fact remains - Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children, mixed sexes, at any one session. Even then according to the records, six/seven children only on one or two half days. Mostly there were only three, four or five children signed in.

If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker.

Verdi wrote:Bump..

Verdi wrote:Juggle kids around as much as you like, add or subtract as many as you like but fact remains - Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children, mixed sexes, at any one session. Even then according to the records, six/seven children only on one or two half days.  Mostly there were only three, four or five children signed in.

If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker.

Bump..

Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007  [Interpreter - Robert Murat]

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

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.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

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

Mistaken identity?  Bah!

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:Bump..

Verdi wrote:Juggle kids around as much as you like, add or subtract as many as you like but fact remains - Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children, mixed sexes, at any one session. Even then according to the records, six/seven children only on one or two half days.  Mostly there were only three, four or five children signed in.

If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker.

Bump..

Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007  [Interpreter - Robert Murat]

To our question, she specifies that she is responsible for a group of children, similar in age to the missing minor and that each supervisor has around seven children who stay with the same supervisor for the week.

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.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

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

Mistaken identity?  Bah!

Verdi.... It's absolutely your prerogative if you dont agree with this POSSIBLE scenario.

If you believe that something happened earlier in week  I would hope/expect you to have a possible solution as to how they managed to get away with the creche issue.

There can't be a claim of something happening earlier if there is not a reasonable solution to how they got away with the creche issue

Thats the point of this thread... Its not the solution here... its the RESEARCH to maybe come to a solution.

sharonl wrote:
It would be interesting to look back at this list but that would need to be done on another thread.

loopzdaloop wrote:

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.

[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

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."

[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.] 


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. [size=16]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.[/size]
 
[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".




(...)


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.

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.

Basil with a brush wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

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.

Like I said, there probably are. The video HiDeHo posted was quite appalling. But was this place like that? Doubt it, and I'm sure I'd get a faint whiff of such a place and wouldn't dream of leaving my child there. Call me old fashioned, but I'd insist they knew my child's name and a fair bit about their character before I'd ever consider leaving them there. Call me even more old fashioned, but I'd never have left such extremely young children of mine in one of those places anyway, being all together on holiday and all that. So, I don't believe the staff wouldn't have known what children they had and on what day. It's hardly a pile high desk of admin at the start and finish of your shift. Your also likening working in a coffee bar to looking after young children? Perhaps one day there will be a coffee bar where toddlers can stream in alone by the hundreds, order a coffee, maybe hang briefly to discuss how bad the day care is locally and then leave without anyone knowing who they are. I read a lot of HiDeHo's posts and I admire and agree with a lot of it. I just don't on this one. I think the Tapas nine were prematurely named. Ocean's eleven, twelve or thirteen would be better.

[size=35]TVMais: At what time did Maddie leave the crèche?
by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/size]

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

Some have doubts about the Ocean Club’s crèche records. The doubts increase if we pay attention to the depositions from Maddie’s last nanny

by Hernâni Carvalho

“The disappearance took place during the time period between 5.35 and 10.05 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007”, reads the report from the 4th Brigade of the PJ in Portimão. A premiss that is now questioned. Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker was the nanny who worked at the crèche and was responsible for Maddie since the McCanns arrived in Praia da Luz. The statements that the nanny gave to the police raise doubts. After Maddie’s disappearance, she was heard by the PJ in Portimão. One week later, she was transferred to another location by her employers. Soon afterwards, she returned to England. At Leicestershire police, she was also heard, but corrected the statements that she had given in Portugal.

“I was allowed to refresh my memory by reading the translated version of my original statement to the Portuguese police”, one can read in the report that was taped by Leicester police. The contents of the nanny’s statements was such that she was heard three times on the same day, and had to have her memory refreshed. At Leicestershire police headquarters, Catriona Baker was heard by detective Gierc between 10.09 and 10.54 a.m. on Monday, the 14th of April 2008. Between 11.57 and 12.12 a.m. on the same day, she was heard again by the same detective and between 1.35 and 1.45 p.m. on the same day she was again questioned by the same detective.

«They Showed her the PJ's Report to Refresh her Memory»

The nanny revealed that she only met the McCanns in Portugal; she recognized that after returning to England she visited the couple upon their invitation, in November 2007. “I visited the family at their home following an invitation to see how all of us were doing.” The McCann couple is worried about searching for Maddie and about knowing how the nannies are doing. Catriona explained how the McCanns behaved in Portugal. “The twins sometimes looked tired at tea time, after a long day and maybe also because of the heat, but I never saw a reason for concern with the McCanns children or their behaviour.”

Maddie’s last nanny remembers extraordinary details about that last day, but she doesn’t remember who picked up Maddie and at what time. “On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry dropping Madeleine off at the club between 9.15 and 9.20 a.m. I don’t remember who picked her up for lunch that day, but in the afternoon she returned for a swim. We carried out activities with other children. On that day, we practiced sailing and I remember meeting friends of Madeleine’s parents on the beach, David and Jane. At around 2.45 p.m., Madeleine returned to the Minis Club above the reception, but I don’t remember who brought her. On that afternoon, we went swimming. Kate picked up Madeleine in the Tapas Bar area, and as far as I remember, she was wearing sports clothes at that time and I deducted that she had been jogging. It was around 3.35 – 6 p.m.”

At what time did the little girl leave after all?

Catriona can’t remember. She remembers Kate’s jogging suit. That’s not too bad. Coincidentally, Catriona Baker didn’t go out with her friends that day (the 3rd of May 2007). “Some of my colleagues were going out, but I was too tired to accompany them.”

Catriona Baker stated to the Portuguese and British police that on that day she went into her room to sleep because she was tired. And that’s why she only noticed that Madeleine McCann had disappeared when her colleagues from the crèche went to alert her. On that night, Mark Warner invited all the resort’s employees to cooperate in the searches for Maddie. “The director told us where to search. We searched everywhere. I walked most of the routes that Madeleine passed through and that could be familiar to her”, the nanny told the British police. Catriona Baker took part in the searches, but found neither Maddie not the McCanns. “I didn’t see Kate or Gerry that night.”

The Ocean Club crèches

There is a number of children clubs at the Ocean Club resort. The children are grouped according to their age. Clubs for 3-11 months (Baby Club), 12-23 months (Toddler Club), 24 months to 3 years (Toddler 2 Club), 3 to 5 years (Minis Club), 6 to 9 years (Juniors Club), 10 to 14 years (Kids Club) and from 14 to 17 years (Indies Club). In May 2007 there were 16 nannies at the Ocean Club. Catriona Baker is one of them. The importance of her deposition derives from the fact that she was the nanny who cared for Madeleine McCann.

Samples from the crèche records

Reports

The workings of the Ocean Club crèche was explained to the British police by Catriona herself: “Mark Warner has the usual procedure of signing a form whenever the parents leave the child in the club’s care, which they sign again with the name and the time at which the child was collected. There is a separate sheet for the morning shift and another for the afternoon shift. The sheet contains space for the child’s name, the time and the parent’s signature. Only parents are allowed to take the children, except when an agreement is made in another sense, in due time.”

In Portugal, the experts that can evaluate calligraphy are from the PJ. It was explained to Tvmais that the crèche’s reports reveal inconsistencies in the writing. One of the doubts that the analysts raise concerns the identity of the authors of the form filling and their signatures in the form. The nanny’s signature and her handwriting appear on the sheet where only the parents were supposed to sign. Did anyone notice?

Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008

Phoebe wrote:HiDeHo has asked for possible explanations, so I'll give it a shot.

I believe the childcare at the Ocean Club fell far short of what was described. There were few children so early in the season and I believe the nannies did not adhere to their own groups but rather that whichever children turned up were all put together and were minded by whichever nanny volunteered for that particular session.

In this way I believe the nannies never really got to know the individual children properly. As we have seen no hard evidence of the scheduled activities (in terms of craft items made, pictures drawn etc) I suspect that the easiest methods of entertaining children may often have been employed. Eg. group story time, circle time games, learning a group dance (something akin to "if you're happy"!) I also suspect there was a lot of group-watching of cartoons!

My own daughter once a attended kids club, which promised fun-filled activities, on a holiday abroad. (Not M.W. but a reputable firm) One afternoon she proudly announced that she had won a competition. Delighted, I inquired "doing what?". It emerged she had been the champion of pretending to be asleep and had managed to stay coma-like for about 15 mins! None of the minders ever bothered to learn her name.

Having worked in similar "kids camps" as a student I could regale you with stories of childcare which bore little resemblance to what was promised!

In such circumstances it is possible that Madeleine's presence/absence may not have drawn particular attention.

Thank you Basil 

Equity wrote:Undoubtedly something happened to MBM before the 3rd which then begs the question why take the risk of the subterfuge regarding attendance at the creche to wait until the Thursday night to stage an abduction?
Does it give more credence to the theory that M was injured in some way earlier in the week and having so many doctors on hand they felt perfectly able to treat rather than answer some awkward questions about the circumstances surrounding the initial accident?
Maybe rather than discovering a child had gone missing on Thursday night they discovered a child who had been tragically misdiagnosed?
.