Can Anyone Explain Why the Discrepancies Started on Tuesday Morning? Please ask if you need further info

I can’t help thinking that this whole sad saga possibly started on Monday afternoon (30^th April) when Kate signed Madeleine into the ‘Lobster’ crèche at 3.15pm. Kate then left the Mini-club to take the twins to the Tapas Toddlers crèche (signed in at 3.25pm).
Something caused Kate to return very quickly. Madeleine was signed out by Kate at 3.30pm.
Had something happened earlier during lunch to Madeleine to upset her? Had Madeleine gone into a tantrum and refused to stay in the creche? (On finding Kate’s phone turned off - one of the crèche staff could have phoned to the Toddler crèche to ask Kate to return to the Mini-club).
That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to and she and the twins were quite shy about meeting new people.”
Eileen McCann, Sunday Mail, 27/4/08
Gerry’s tale (10.5.07) of Madeleine and the twins running around the back of the apartment complex/front of Tapas reception area on an unspecified day ‘between Monday and Wednesday’ springs to mind here. (Were the twins there at all, or was it just Madeleine who ran off as Kate tried to get her in?)
Jane Tanner’s story (8.4.08) about passive Ella having ‘a complete meltdown’ which started with her ‘screaming’ and lying ‘on the floor’ in the Tapas play area also comes to mind ‘which she doesn’t do at all’. (Was this perhaps a description of Madeleine?)
Statement Janet Kennedy (snipped) 14.4.08 - ‘Gerry and Kate are good rationalisers, they do not hit. They have their proper strategy which involves taking the child out of the situation and putting them in time-out, close the door, and let the child think about what they have done. This always seemed to gain results’. 
Did Kate take Madeleine back to the apartment that day?
Was Kate angry at Madeleine’s behaviour?
Did something ‘bad’ happen to Madeleine around this time?
Did Kate close the apartment door and leave her there in ‘time-out’ (cowering behind the sofa)?
 
Was that the ‘situation Madeleine found herself in’?

The discrepancies started the next day.

Something that has occurred to me after looking at the diagram provided by HiDeHo on the timeline thread, wby would KM drop M off first and then walk back and drop off the twins  at the creche near the tapas restaurant? From a psychological standpoint, if M was more 'difficult' than the twins, it makes sense to drop them off first so M would know they were also going to be sepated from their parents and this might comfort her. 

With both phones being switched off on Monday, one possibility is that someone signed in M but never strayed too far, perhaps just intending to test the water and so to speak. If there was a planned deception, this would be a good time to start it because well the longer you leave it, the harder it would be to pull it off. Something JT said about her daughter was "She wouldn't say boo to a goose." To me that's significant and could explain certain anomalies as far as the creche goes. The line of questioning to JT and ROB about their intentions regarding signing up for activities (including creches) suggests to me that there wad a suspicion that plans were changed. What also strikes me as odd is that JT and ROB go from being anxious that their daughter could even travel  at all to signing her up for a lot of water based activities post operation in a short space of time. That's also a red flag IMO.

I too think Monday's early pick up from creche is important. I have always believed Madeline hated creche and kicked up a fuss. I wouldn't put it past her parents to have deliberately gone incommunicado to make it difficult for the creche to contact them in order to collect an unsettled Madeleine which would have spoiled their "it was our holiday too" me-time. From Monday onwards we are told it was "no-nonsense Gerry" who took to depositing her in creche.

Phoebe wrote:I too think Monday's early pick up from creche is important. I have always believed Madeline hated creche and kicked up a fuss. I wouldn't put it past her parents to have deliberately gone incommunicado to make it difficult for the creche to contact them in order to collect an unsettled Madeleine which would have spoiled their "it was our holiday too" me-time. From Monday onwards we are told it was "no-nonsense Gerry" who took to depositing her in creche.

This was my original thinking as to why Monday's stay at the creche was so brief but I'm not so sure now. I think if a child is unsettled at first staff are used to this and will give it some time and try to distract the child before they contact parents. MO said his daughter always cried when he dropped her off but soon settled and I imagine on holiday with lots of changes to routine this is common. I don't think twenty minutes is enough time for the staff to become so concerned they have to track down a parent and ask them to collect their child. So I think there has to be another explanation - I'm just not sure what it could be.

From Monday onwards we are told it was "no-nonsense Gerry" who took to depositing her in creche.

29 April 2007

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	[color:fc5f=000000]Kate's mobile phone number	[color:fc5f=000000]09:45	Kate McCann	12:15	[color:fc5f=000000]Gerry McCann
PM	Gerry's mobile phone number	14:45	Gerry McCann	17:30	Kate McCann

---

[color:fc5f=000000]
30 April 2007

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	TENNIS Gerry's mobile phone number	09:30	Gerry McCann	12:10	[color:fc5f=000000]Gerry McCann
PM	Kate's mobile phone number	15:15	Kate McCann	15:30	Kate McCann

---

[color:fc5f=000000]
01 May 2007

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	TENNIS	09:30	Gerry McCann	12:20	[color:fc5f=000000]Gerry McCann
PM	TENNIS/POOL Kate's mobile phone number	14:30	Gerry McCann	[No entry]

---

[color:fc5f=000000]
02 May 2007

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	ROOM* Kate and Gerry's mobile phone numbers	09:20	Gerry McCann	12:30	Cat Nanny [Catriona Baker]
PM	Kate's mobile phone number	14:45	Kate McCann	17:30	Kate McCann [signed as 'Kate Healy']

[color:fc5f=000000]* Detail of entry for 'Parent's Location'

---

[color:fc5f=000000]
03 May 2007

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	TENNIS/ROOM* Gerry's mobile phone number	09:10	Gerry McCann	12:25	Kate McCann
PM	Kate's mobile phone number	14:50	Kate McCann	17:30	Kate McCann

[color:fc5f=000000]* Detail of entry for 'Parent's Location'

Or it could just be that this job was left to a junior "agent" and he made a right balls up of the whole thing?

Are there any clear images of Ella available against which to compare likeness to Madeleine ?

Perhaps – (as HideHo has suggested) – the Mc Canns were returning from a trip to the beach on Monday afternoon when Madeleine was signed in first at 3.15pm by Kate? (They would pass by the Mini-club crèche on the way back to the Tapas crèche/apartment).
This could be all the more reason why a child like the character of Madeleine, might refuse to stay indoors in the crèche to do sand painting and moon pictures.
Would 20 year old Cat Baker be able to adequately pacify Madeleine and keep her there if she wanted out? I would very much doubt that.
(snipped) That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to………….. Eileen Mc Cann

Kate rushed back to the Mini-club crèche that day for a reason.

As many of you know, I find it a POSSIBILITY that Maddie only went to the creche maybe Sunday/Monday and therefore Catriona would have little recollection of her from that short time (with lots of little blonde girls in the Kids Club)

Apparently there is no question that long term nurseries have trouble identifying the names of all the children and the Kids Club room had approximately 14 children.  Catriona was unlikely to have had much, if any, formal training from Mark Warner (as discovered in a BBC Whistleblower program exposed 2 weeks before at their Egypt location)

She was a young girl who, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, was likely there more for the holiday location than to further her career with children, and though probably very responsible, may have regarded he 'nanny' job as looking after the children and keeping them occupied, as opposed to taking an interest to learn about the children.

Once informed of the disappearance and recognising that she was SUPPOSED to have been looking after Maddie until that afternoon, I feel that its POSSIBLE that Catriona second guessed herself and thought that the child that was there on Thursday afternoon was Maddie (but was actually Ella) they both looked similar






With this in mind, she recalled that she didnt remember if Maddie was there Sunday morning... It was ELLA that wasn't there Sunday morning.  She would have had a difficult time to remember for sure  and be able to identify the children individually on the first morning, but upon reflection, she recalled the child that she looked after until Thursday afternoon was not there on Sunday morning.

We know that Ella, because of her foot infection, was not allowed to join in water sports and this seems to be reflected in the creche records...

Ella was taken to the creche on Sunday afternoon at the same time as Maddie at 2.45pm, but was picked up 45 minutes later at 3.30pm at the time the activity sheet tells us there was Splish Splash Splosh water time.

Catriona, at this point, was still unlikely able to identify each individual child and only had ONE of the two children in the morning and only ONE of the two of them for the main part of the afternoon.






On Monday both Ella and Maddie were signed in for the morning, and this is where we can see that the Activity Sheet does not follow the actual activities as it says it was 'mini tennis' and we know from the tennis sheets and from Georgina the tennis instructor that this happened on Tuesday morning. The activities for Monday would have been changed.

Was it possible that the afternoon activity of 'Garden Adventure' was changed from 3.30-4.30 and replaced the 10.00-11.00 time (which tells us was mini tennis)?

This would leave the 3.30pm -4.30pm time slot needing to be replaced.

The activity sheet tells us that Splish Splash time was scheduled for Tuesday morning, so was it moved to fill in the time where 'Garden Adventure' was originally scheduled? (3.30-4.30pm Monday).  Maybe the parents needed to know beforehand that the children needed their swim suits so the Monday morning change could not have been Splish Splash time.



IF something had happened to Maddie at this time there may have been a decision to send Ella (instead of Maddie) and it was arranged that she would be dropped off late (maybe a panic?) at 3.15pm but upon arrival (if the child was Ella) realised that she couldn't stay for water play and was removed almost immediately at the start of water play 3.30pm

Curiously, 'Ella' was not signed in until 4pm half way between the afternoon activity (possibly water play) which she couldn't have joined in with anyway... and shows no sign out time.  What would be the point of signing her in, knowing she couldnt join in and knowing the children would be brought over to the High Tea shortly after.

Was it MAYBE to keep the 'numbers' up and confuse the nannies about WHICH child was being taken to high tea?

It is also important to remember that the PJ analysis of this creche day is MISSING from the files.  Did they see there were anomalies on this day which they couldn't release in the files?

Could it explain why 'Maddie' was signed in at 3.15pm and taken out at 3.30pm bcuse it was actually Ella that was there and not Maddie?

It is still possible/likely that the children could not be identified easily.





Tuesday morning was mini tennis.

Both Maddie and Ella were signed in, but even though we are told that Russell walked with Jez and Gerry to pick up the children at lunchtime only ONE child was signed out.  Russell did not sign the register.

Could it have been ELLA in the creche and Gerry signed, hence the nannies would have thought he was the little girl with the blonde hair's daddy (later thinking it was Maddie but may have actually been Ella)?

Tuesday afternoon, Gerry signed the register at 2.30 (Maddie) but CAT filled in the blank for Ella.

Maddie was NOT signed out Tuesday afternoon but Russell signed Ella out.  ONE cild was signed in and only ONE child was signed out.

Interesting AGAIN to note the PJ analysis for this creche day is ALSO MISSING! (Anomalies recognised but not suitable to release in the files?)




I will leave it at that point for now, but please note, although I have recognised the possibility that Ella may have been mistaken for Maddie I have not gone through the actual timeline (possible) explanation until now and I am even MORE convinced that it very strong likelihood.

We are here to discuss and all I am asking is to consider the possibility that it MAY have been achieved this way, rather than disregard it.

It takes a lot of thought and I know many don't have the time (or inclination/motivation) to go into understanding the  detail that I have explained as a possibility above, but for those that do I welcome your thoughts. Thank you.

Its very new for me but it DOES seen to fit into place as I was putting it together above.



ETA: Because this 'possible explanation' was achieved as I was writing the post, I haven't added Wednesday and Thursday yet so don't know if there will be a possible explanation for those days.

As I mention a lot, I never know what I will find as I do my research.  I don't have a theory and make it 'work'  I just look at the information and try to make sense of it, with no idea what I will find.

In this case I'm quite taken aback how it could make sense.

To follow from my last post above,  I have to add that it would also explain why so many of the witnesses described a 'shy and timid' child (which we are told describes Ella) as opposed to the 'extroverted' child that Maddie has been described as...

One major 'lightbulb' moment that struck me in the above scenario, is that Tuesday lunchtime, Jez, Russell and Gerry all walked together to the creche, but Russell did not sign his child out.

Is it POSSIBLE that Gerry signed and it was Ella that was picked up, therefore establishing that the child Gerry was associated with was Ella (keeping in mind the names were possibly not important to the nannies) and because Russell was with him, Ella would have gone with them easily?

@ HiDeHo the situation you describe above is possible but it still requires Cat to have lied about Thursday (I suspect she lied about the whole creche set up that week). On Thurs afternoon Madeleine was the sole girl in the Lobster group with just two other little boys. We are told that Russell signed Ella out and took her away to the beach and Paraiso tea. If Ella left with Russell, who was the little girl that remained. (apologies, no question mark, keyboard acting up!) There were only four children in creche that afternoon - two boys, William and Alexander, and two girls, Madeleine and Ella (who left at 4.30). It is, IMO, possible for a mistake to have been made over Madeleine being the remaining girl if these children were mixed in with others and minded by other nannies who were not familiar with them. This could have happened but it means Cat lied about being with Madeleine that afternoon. If her job and reputation were on the line because she skived off and got someone to cover for her that would be good motivation to lie. I have always suspected that the creche set-up was an ad hoc affair, with nannies chopping and changing and doing favours in order to free each other up without official permission.

Great work HideHo ! Your summation is certainly very plausible. I'd be interested to see if your Wednesday/Thursday analysis follows naturally on (with respect, you're so much better at this stuff than me !!) 

I'm still incredulous, an allegedly unplanned "accident" having happened, that they can come up with a cunning plan so quickly and execute it.

To coin a YouTube phrase : makes yer think, doesn't it ?

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

What if Cat was drawn into the web as the week progressed ? If it is believed that "assets" were in place certainly by Tuesday or Wednesday, she could have been "got at". I appreciate that this is all conjecture and not proven (for Verdi's benefit) but I feel it's important to throw things into the pot and kick them around to see if they might fit.

@ Polyenne. The fact that Cat was moved by Mark Warner out of the reach of police questioning with unholy haste is interesting. I suspect that they discovered what had been going on in creche and how shoddily it was run and, in an effort to protect the M.W. childcare brand, shifted Cat lest she dropped them in it.

And the fact that the McCanns then requested she be interviewed, she went to the Rothley Hotel pow-wow and has been a friend ever since.

I could have went along with the possibility that Cat Baker was tricked in some way into believing that Ella O’B was Madeleine – (by Gerry collecting Ella instead of Russell after the morning crèche on Tuesday 1st) but later in the afternoon it is Cat Baker who seems to have recognized Ella is in attendance by signing the crèche sheet in place of any parent (2.30pm).

Something I've been thinking about today - how could Madeleine be signed in at the creche if she wasn't there? It occurred to me that something like this could have happened: JT and ROB never intended to send E*** to the creche, because she had been unwell and they wanted to keep an eye on her. If there were other friends, perhaps not staying at the Ocean Club, maybe it was arranged that someone would have E***'s place so that Madeleine would have a playmate. If Madeleine came to harm on Sunday, it could be that a third child was already intended to be at the creche on Monday and all that would be necessary would be for that child to take the place of Madeleine rather than E*** and E*** would now have to attend. This is a bit sketchy but I think there was some arrangement like this which may have seemed quite innocent (or not) at the time and remained a secret because it looked incriminating after the event. On Monday Madeleine attends briefly, followed by E*** who arrives after Madeleine left. I think  It's a bit out there but I think a scenario like this explains how people didn't know their own room numbers, couldn't spell their own child's name or even get the name right and had multiple signatures etc. Is this similar to your tbeory HiDeHo?

...just to clarify because I don't think I explained that well, E*** wasn't known at the creche because someone else had been given her place which means E*** could then come back as Madeleine and the child who had taken E***'s place continues to do so with the parents possibly unaware of the extent of the deception. Hope that makes sense!

Did the Gorrods have a suitable child ?

Thanks so much for your responses.

I continue to hesitate that Cat was lying, partly because i see no indication of it, and partly because I see every indication that its POSSIBLE from Monday (approx)  on she had not been aware of which child was which and as Madeleine was no longer there (children were dropped off randomly and Maddie may have only been there for a few hours so her identity would not be uppermost in her mind) the child that Gerry signed for on Tuesday was, in her recollection, known to her as 'his' child.

Regarding Thursday, which I haven't posted about yet, is showing signs as possibly similarly accomplished as although he TELLS us that he ran to the creche to pick her up at 4.30pm  I have my doubts about his timing and also this was following the Dive and Find Pool time which Ella would not have been able to join in with so doubtful they would have left her in the creche for that and maybe the reason he did not sign her out.  It is filled in by Cat.



We don't know WHEN Cat filled that or any of the other spaces.

Keep in mind it MAY have been because MW had been just been alerted about the investigation into the quality of the creche in MW Egypt and was filled in after the fact.

Maybe when it was known that the records were required by the PJ, it was filled in at that point.

We dont know, but we can't speculate WHEN we can only see they WERE filled in and this would indicate to us that the REAL signature required (Russell) may not have filled in for some reason.

The 'Dive time' may have been shared with the Sharks, so there may have been other little blonde girls in the group.







Kate WAS at the creche for pick-up  at 5.30 and Catriona mentions the twins being there but she does NOT mention Maddie.




She may have been told by Kate (if only Kate was there) that Gerry was at tennis, but both Kate and Gerry tell us he was there.  Maybe he wasn't there. It's only the McCann's word that he was there.

Maybe the reason the rest of the group not to the beach in the afternoon had something to do with this issue as well as to avoid Dianne who was with them but wasn't overly familiar with Maddie from telling about 'high tea' on Thursday in her statement.

What would she have remembered?


PLEASE NOTE:  The THREE major days that I have highlighted as having QUESTIONABLE ISSUES are the three days that the PJ analysis is MISSING.

MORE IMPORTANTLY the PJ 'Diagram of Events' (their form of timeline) for Thursday has been BLACKED OUT which indicates the probability that the PJ PURPOSELY did not want the contents of that Diagram to be seen in the files.

I don't know, none of us do but I would say the missing/blacked out files are coincidentally the days that I see as possibly the days that show it's POSSIBLE for Ella to be mistaken for Maddie.

Crackfox:  Your suggestion of another child is possible but I see nothing to indicate there was another child and could only classify it as speculation.  Unless/until you have something to indicate otherwise.

Thanks HiDeHo I agree I am just speculating and you have put a great deal of work into this -  I really think you know far more about this than I do. I suppose my issue is why are there so many discrepancies about E*** such as (what looks to me) to be the name Emma crossed out and the wrong apartment number (a couple of times)?   That's why I thought E*** may have been substituted and then from Monday she then replaced Madeleine.   I'm probably overthinking it but essentially, an early disappearance means staff did not have time to get to know Madeleine and this could have been exploited in a number of ways. I look forward to your post on Thursday, HiDeHo.

Crackfox wrote:Thanks HiDeHo I agree I am just speculating and you have put a great deal of work into this -  I really think you know far more about this than I do. I suppose my issue is why are there so many discrepancies about E*** such as (what looks to me) to be the name Emma crossed out and the wrong apartment number (a couple of times)?   That's why I thought E*** may have been substituted and then from Monday she then replaced Madeleine.   I'm probably overthinking it but essentially, an early disappearance means staff did not have time to get to know Madeleine and this could have been exploited in a number of ways. I look forward to your post on Thursday, HiDeHo.

Crackfox.  All of my research and thoughts are specifically related to the files and so I cannot use speculation in my posts. 

HOWEVER, that does not mean that something else may have happened and which MAY fit a discussion that is just speculation.

Please DO NOT hesitate to post your thoughts and theories because of something I have posted.

I am NOT here to disprove anyone elses suggestions, in fact I love to use the info to second guess myself.

BUT, at the end of the day (and for myself only) if it is not in the files (or a quote or interview) I cannot use speculation in MY research results.

We are here to discuss and I love for EVERYONE to feel free to input.

I understand that for some people it's difficult to feel confident enough to post their thoughts, but I urge everyone.  

I will do my best to ensure that no-one feels intimidated by others. (and thanks to everyone I see no indication of that happening)

A wide variety of suggestions is important.

Thanks HiDeHo -  although internet communication can be difficult and it's easy to get it wrong I always get a sense that you are both patient and tolerant and that's why I post my thoughts. Mostly, when I post something it's because I'm trying to understand something and I need that dialogue with others to make sense of things. I find the process of discussing these complex issues helps me to shape my opinions, which have shifted considerably over time. So thank you for your openness and I will continue to try and grapple with this subject, which like you I think is the key to this mystery.

Whilst some members strive only for facts, which is entirely admirable, the reality is that there is much blurring and it is my belief that over the years, and in continuation, enough research hard work and interpretation have gone into forming theories and opinions that are entirely plausible.

One day I’m sure, all this hard work will pay off and slowly but surely, the truth will out. Just maybe there’s a key piece that has yet to be discovered, or recognised as such, that will be the catalyst.

Crackfox wrote:Thanks HiDeHo -  although internet communication can be difficult and it's easy to get it wrong I always get a sense that you are both patient and tolerant and that's why I post my thoughts. Mostly, when I post something it's because I'm trying to understand something and I need that dialogue with others to make sense of things. I find the process of discussing these complex issues helps me to shape my opinions, which have shifted considerably over time. So thank you for your openness and I will continue to try and grapple with this subject, which like you I think is the key to this mystery.

Thanks for that Crackfox.

It takes a lot of patience for everyone to join with threads and discuss, an my main objective is to provide the info.

What I realsied this morning that just looking at the files gives the information, but it needs more to understand how it relates to the rest of the info.

I discovered that, initially, with the statements.

Until they are compiled into timelines with the ability to compare each T9 statements with each other, its impossible to recognise the discrepancies.  I may have spent a few years putting them all together but NOW everyone can view for themselves without spending the time.

When I started the 'How did they manage the deceit in the creche thread, it took a couple of days compiling the summary graphic of the creche times and addin further info.

At the time it felt like an effort that didn't seem to be of any use BUT this morning I realised that without it I could not have put the creche timeline together as the creche records are impossible to understand and remember.

Thats why it has taken me until 10 years later to 'see' the possibility.

For those of us that believe something happened earlier, its VITAL to explain how they were able to deceive everyone that Maddie was in the creche.

I strongly believe that to decide it was likely Catriona and that she was complicit during the week does not explain it to me.  I consider that speculation and if incorrect is very wrong to accuse a girl that is likely innocent of knowing anything that week, to be accused of lying.  

It may EXPLAIN how the deceit happened but does not have anything to base that conclusion on. (not as far as considering her complicit or lying during the holiday week)

I recognise I may be WRONG and as in ALL the details and thoughts I post, if I find ANYTHING to contradict my thoughts I will not try and avoid it.  the TRUTH is more important to me than to support my thoughts at any cost.

If I AM wrong about Catriona then I will admit that, but I prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than accuse an innocent person, especially a young girl, that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Although I understand it could be a possiblity, I hope everyone can think of the repercussions if she IS innocent, before pointing the finger at her without hesitation.

For me, I am more than comfortable in believing that Maddie wasn't there during the week and Russell appeared most times at the same time as Gerry or Kate so it would have been difficult for the nannies (Catriona) to recognise that the child was any other than the McCanns child as she would freely go with them as her real parent was there with them.

Based on all the children arriving randomly and that with possibly no formal training and a holiday atmosphere, the main objective was to keep the children occupied and, unlike a nursery, would not have recognising each child by name as a priority.

Catriona was likely deceived and  is what I REALLY believe after the post I made this morning.

To be honest I am still blown away with how it all fits together!

polyenne wrote:Whilst some members strive only for facts, which is entirely admirable, the reality is that there is much blurring and it is my belief that over the years, and in continuation, enough research hard work and interpretation have gone into forming theories and opinions that are entirely plausible.

One day I’m sure, all this hard work will pay off and slowly but surely, the truth will out. Just maybe there’s a key piece that has yet to be discovered, or recognised as such, that will be the catalyst.

I think I answered your comment from my point of view in the above post.

For ME it has to be confined to ONLY 'facts'  I feel a responsibility to provide only information that can be viewed from a link so others can decide for themselves but ALL other posts are important as I feel there is a likelihood that the files only gives us about 5-10% of what happened that week.

Yes... I DO believe that, apart from what the PJ may hold, there is ONE key piece of information that COULD provide a recognition of the McCanns attempting to pervert the course of justice by lying about the date the last picture was taken, by it being proved that it was NOT taken on Thursday.

Petermac did great research on the photo including the weather conditions, but what no-one has yet discussed or understood, is that Rachael's statement is CRITICAL to show that they were NOT at the pool at lunchtime on Thursday.

It's difficult to get one's head around but once realised, it indicates that she was not playing tennis when the McCann family were there, but it means if SHE wasn't there then Jane was lying about playing tennis with her and was only using the opportunity to say how Maddie was shouting at them through the fence to place Maddie 'around' at the time of the last photo.

If Rachel is lying...(she claims the last time she saw Maddie was at mini tennis BEFORE the last photo)

Then is Jane lying...? (she tells us that Maddie was shouting through the fence so Rachel WOULD have seen her)

So...were the McCanns lying?

Ultimately, was Maddie REALLY there at the pool at 2.29pm May 3rd? Not according to Rachael.

I've been looking at the crech sheets and I wanted to highlight some of the issues with ROB which I think throw light on the timeline and the key date of Sunday. 

ROB gets his room number wrong on Monday am, Tuesday am, Wednesday am but then corrected, Wednesday pm again corrected. Interestingly, he gets it right on Sunday. 
ROB appears to get his daughter's name wrong on Tuesday, appearing to write Emma before correcting it.
ROB doesn't sign his daughter out Monday pm, Tuesday am and Thursday pm (when Cat signs out) 
ROB's signature is very erratic and I think there are at least three versions all starting from Monday.

I think some of these things could be explained away but getting your apartment number right on Sunday but then subsequently  wrong on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday  does not make sense.

I feel it is important to post this, translation courtesy of Anna Esse



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is/was comprised mainly of professionals from the field of police work and they worked on  several topics from the Maddie case.

This one refers to the creche records and discusses the issues that I was posting this morning.

They are looking at possible explanations for the anomalies on the creche records,  and I feel that the possibility of the explanation of Ella being mistaken for Maddie is certainly one that should be considered as it 'fits' throughout the week, even though I initially only saw the Tuesday being a possibility.

If one considers the possibility of the records being on a table near the entrance, with no staff member monitoring it, and with both Russell and at least one of the McCanns arriving at the same time to pick up the 'ONE CHILD' but giving two signatures,in some cases, and leaving blank in others (maybe because of being in the presence of a staff member as it would have highlighted there should have been TWO children to pick up?)

Regardless, I think this is worthwhile to read and also highlights that there could be a question as to whether Maddie attended the creche in the last few days!

SATURDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2008

[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.]

22/11/08

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

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

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

Various explanations are possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hideho, thank you for posting the above.  I have huge respect and gratitude for all that you have done in this case, and for generously informing and sharing your work with us.

Interesting to note that nine years ago there were suspicions that the disappearance occurred before 3rd May.