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

by **HiDeHo** 22.03.18 21:52

Crackfox wrote:I agree that it is highly plausible that Ella was signed in as Maddie and then someone else (possibly one of the Payne's daughters who JT said she knew well and I believe was very friendly with E***) was signed in as E***. Could it be that the foot episode was a deliberate attempt to create a false flag?

I can't see any reason to bring any other contrived effort into place.

As I see it, its basically Ella signed in, but Gerry present at the same time so that the nannies (when giving statements later) would remember GERRY at the door and therefore believing Ella was his child and were not mindful that she left easily because her real daddy was there..

That would account for them describing the personaity that matched Ella and not Maddie.

Important to keep in mind that names of the children in a room of approx 14 children were not necessarily remembered easily, never mind used a lot. Nannies were there to keep the children occupied for random lengths of time not to learn about their personalities in the holiday short term atmosphere.

After a visit from a child, they didn't even know if that child would be back again. (Which may have happened with Maddie after a day or two)

The only thing that Gerry and Russell needed to ensure was that he was not identified as signing the register with no child. Meanwhile Russell entered his name and dropped off Ella normally (maybe staying out of view while Gerry spoke to the nannies to ensure they remembered him and had the recollection of Ella as being his child)

Ultimately...this would NOT be a case of Ella impersonating Maddie, it would be a very CUNNING PLAN to have the nannies believe the child that came in when Gerry took the time to speak to them was Maddie.

by Crackfox 23.03.18 0:08

Thanks HiDeHo I see your point - Occam's razor! My only issue still is that if it was that simple, wouldn't GM get ROB's apartment number right if he's signing in two children? I feel there is a missing piece of the puzzle and it sounds like someone was told the apartment was G5D but misheard it as G5B. Possibly the same with the name. I don't know how to explain this without bringing a third person into the equation, someone more on the periphery perhaps?

by **HiDeHo** 23.03.18 1:12

Crackfox wrote:Thanks HiDeHo I see your point - Occam's razor! My only issue still is that if it was that simple, wouldn't GM get ROB's apartment number right if he's signing in two children? I feel there is a missing piece of the puzzle and it sounds like someone was told the apartment was G5D but misheard it as G5B. Possibly the same with the name. I don't know how to explain this without bringing a third person into the equation, someone more on the periphery perhaps?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say Gerry was signing in two children. Can you explain that?

I have only said I see that Russell takes his child and signs in/out as usual, but its possible that Gerry arrives at the same time and signs 'Maddie' in/out (even though there is not a child)

As far as remembering the apartment number I have lived at this address for more than a year and yet still have to find an envelope to read the four digit Post Office Box #

by Crackfox 23.03.18 15:15

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say Gerry was signing in two children. Can you explain that?

Hi HiDeHo - what I meant by that was I thought your theory was that GM possibly signed in E*** as Madeleine but would then have also signed E*** in. I thought this because I thought it would be very unlikely that ROB made so many mistakes - particularly as he did seem to get it right on the first day, including the right apartment number. Have I misunderstood this?

by **HiDeHo** 23.03.18 15:55

Crackfox wrote:I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say Gerry was signing in two children. Can you explain that?

Hi HiDeHo - what I meant by that was I thought your theory was that GM possibly signed in E*** as Madeleine but would then have also signed E*** in. I thought this because I thought it would be very unlikely that ROB made so many mistakes - particularly as he did seem to get it right on the first day, including the right apartment number. Have I misunderstood this?

I'm sorry Crackfox. I obviously I didn't explain my thoughts well so thank you for pointing that out to me.

Many of the drop offs and pick ups have BOTH Russell and Gerry or Kate at the same time.

What I am suggesting is that Rob signs Ella in/out and Ella joins the room or leaves the room when she sees her daddy.

What I believe may be the CUNNING plan is that Gerry (who is there also) SIGNS to drop off or pick up 'Maddie' (even though she is not there). In some cases either Russell or Gerry signed.

Gerry also likely makes a point of chatting to the nannies so they BELIEVE the child dropped off or picked up is GERRY'S child or thats how they remember it a few days later after the disappearance.

Please let me know if I haven't explained this possibility in an easy to understand way.

I will try to do a graphic to explain better.

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

by Crackfox 23.03.18 17:33

Thanks HiDeHo - I'm sure it's just me being a bit dim and I understand clearly now, you mean GM perhaps goes empty handed so to speak and just chats and distracts? That sounds risky to me but I'm certainly not ruling anything out as far as this debacle is concerned. I think one issue could be head counts, I know people who work with children always do a basic head count when you venture outside and the same when you return. There would be a real panic if numbers didn't tally, IMO.

by **HiDeHo** 23.03.18 17:49

Crackfox wrote:Thanks HiDeHo - I'm sure it's just me being a bit dim and I understand clearly now, you mean GM perhaps goes empty handed so to speak and just chats and distracts? That sounds risky to me but I'm certainly not ruling anything out as far as this debacle is concerned. I think one issue could be head counts, I know people who work with children always do a basic head count when you venture outside and the same when you return. There would be a real panic if numbers didn't tally, IMO.

I agree with you regarding the headcount, but knowing the children were picked up and dropped off randomly and with Ella being signed out when she wasn't signed in, I cant imagine they were overly careful about checking with the register.

Likely more a headcount of who was in the room and maybe justifying the child had been picked up as with so many blank spaces it was not a strict register, probably more to alert parents if a problem.

eg. Tuesday afternoon with a trip to the beach, Ella wasn't signed in and Maddie wasn't signed out.

Hardly reliable and responsible (or correct) accounting for the children.

by **HiDeHo** 23.03.18 21:21

In my opinion, the MAIN reason many are reticent to consider that something may have happened earlier is because they feel the nannies would be correct in identifying Maddie.

Do you agree or disagree that these nannies statements can be eliminated as DEFINITE sightings of Maddie?

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

by **HiDeHo** 25.03.18 22:35

I'm adding this curiosity to this thread in the hope (though doubtful) that someone may have the knowledge of what the ORIGINAL text or recording are, from Dianne Webster's rogatory statement.

Was the (inaudible) added to avoid using the word it MAY have been?

I can think of no other reason to put a capital 'S' for super in the context of that sentence other than 'Super Injunction'

Could that be what she had said?

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

by Phoebe 26.03.18 0:53

@ HiDeHo. The idea that the nannies could have been innocently mistaking Ella for Madeleine faces several problems.
1) Who was the sole girl that remained in creche with Cat on Thursday afternoon after Ella was collected by Russell. If Ella was being "Madeleine" who was being Ella! If Ella left with Russell, did Cat not notice he was taking the child she had thought was Gerry's all week. She saw that the child signed out at 4.30 had been signed out as Ella O'Brien and the only two girls in creche that whole afternoon were Ella and Madeleine. If Ella (who was posing as Madeleine) left, who on earth was the other girl left behind and how could would she also be mistaken for "Madeleine" (who had just left with Russell!)
2) Cat says Madeleine had to be comforted on her lap during the sail that morning. Did she really not bother to address her by name when comforting her. What if she had called Ella "Madeleine" as in "don't be scared Madeleine" and the child had replied "I'm not called Madeleine, my name is Ella". The whole scheme would have come apart at the scenes. Much too risky IMO.

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 5:19

Phoebe wrote:@ HiDeHo. The idea that the nannies could have been innocently mistaking Ella for Madeleine faces several problems.

1) Who was the sole girl that remained in creche with Cat on Thursday afternoon after Ella was collected by Russell.

If Ella was being "Madeleine" who was being Ella!

If Ella left with Russell, did Cat not notice he was taking the child she had thought was Gerry's all week.

She saw that the child signed out at 4.30 had been signed out as Ella O'Brien and the only two girls in creche that whole afternoon were Ella and Madeleine.

If Ella (who was posing as Madeleine) left, who on earth was the other girl left behind and how could would she also be mistaken for "Madeleine" (who had just left with Russell!)

2) Cat says Madeleine had to be comforted on her lap during the sail that morning. Did she really not bother to address her by name when comforting her. What if she had called Ella "Madeleine" as in "don't be scared Madeleine" and the child had replied "I'm not called Madeleine, my name is Ella". The whole scheme would have come apart at the scenes.

Much too risky IMO.

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

1) Who was the sole girl that remained in creche with Cat on Thursday afternoon after Ella was collected by Russell.

The creche room was shared by Sharks and Lobsters so we don't know how many children (little blonde girls) weer in the creche during the afternoon.

If Ella was being "Madeleine" who was being Ella!

It is unlikely that even Catriona could individually identify all the children and call them all by name. Maybe if they were needy and stuck out for some reason from the others, but that would not happen with Maddie if she wasn't there.

If Ella left with Russell, did Cat not notice he was taking the child she had thought was Gerry's all week.

Russell did NOT sign Ella out from the creche, but the time chosen was around the time they left with summy snake to go to high tea at the tapas

Was he really there?

Thursday afternoon was supposed to the Water Diving. 3.30 - 4.30 which Ella could not join in with because of her foot (though we cannot be sure of the activities on the sheet)

Did he pick her up earlier? Without confirmation of the activities or what time he picked her up its hard to determine. (He tells us he ran up from the beach).

She saw that the child signed out at 4.30 had been signed out as Ella O'Brien and the only two girls in creche that whole afternoon were Ella and Madeleine.

As mentioned, no-one signed Ella out and we don't know why Catrona filled it in

The creche had Sharks and Lobsters so there may have been other girls there.

If Ella (who was posing as Madeleine) left, who on earth was the other girl left behind and how could would she also be mistaken for "Madeleine" (who had just left with Russell!)

Ella was not posing as Maddie. She entered the creche as herself, but it appears that Gerry had his plan of making himself 'known' so he was attempting to have the nannies believe the child that entered was his.

What we ARE told by Catriona is that she does not remember who picked up 'Maddie' at lunchtime and who dropped her off. So, there seems to be an issue surrounding this time and one that I have already addressed in the discrepancies.

Kate claims she went back to the apartment first before going to pick Maddie up with Fiona (Kate signed at 12.25)

Fiona claims they left the TAPAS area to go pick up Scarlet and Maddie

Gerry claims Kate went back to the apartment to make lunch and HE went to pick up Maddie using the short cut.

I covered it in this video

For those that cant watch the video, it is important enough that I did this graphic with screenshots from the video...

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

by Ruffian 26.03.18 9:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Many recognised Madeleine from the news broadcast on the 4th
Therefore your theory falls flat

Unless you think Cat was almost blind or never once looked at Madeleine who was constantly in her care that week

And again I ask you what about all the other inconsistant entries the creche records for the other children

No matter how you spin your theory its inconceivable that all the staff that saw Madeleine that week were wrong or simply saw Ella instead

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 11:37

Ruffian wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Many recognised Madeleine from the news broadcast on the 4th
Therefore your theory falls flat

Unless you think Cat was almost blind or never once looked at Madeleine who was constantly in her care that week

And again I ask you what about all the other inconsistant entries the creche records for the other children

No matter how you spin your theory its inconceivable that all the staff that saw Madeleine that week were wrong or simply saw Ella instead

You are welcome to your own thoughts and opinions Ruffian.

I have based it on the files and I am more than pleased with how it all fits together as being a LIKELY possibility.

Maybe you could explain how you believe it was accomplished?

by Ruffian 26.03.18 12:45

I study the files every day because the are vast in information and things are easily missed

The witnesses that saw Madeleine are in there. I have posted in another thread. I will post again in here later

You dispute every sighting because it does not fall in line with your opinion the case

You still haven't acknowledge there are other anomalies in the creche sheets for other children that attended

You cannot explain away the fact Madeleines photos were broadcast on the 4th of May and many say they recognised her from those same photo's

As I have pointed out before the files we see only 17% of the case files, some are missing, translation errors and many files untranslated

You are basing your opinion on information that is incomplete

by Guest 26.03.18 13:14

Ruffian wrote:You cannot explain away the fact Madeleines photos were broadcast on the 4th of May and many say they recognised her from those same photo's

Who?

by Phoebe 26.03.18 13:40

Even if Cat did not interact with Madeleine on the personal level which she claimed, it still does not explain the numbers problem. If a phantom Madeleine and Ella were both included in the creche numbers and Ella left, then that left the group TWO children down, not just one. Surely this would have been spotted. They would have had to inform the Tapas kitchen staff of how many children were to be expected for tea each day, especially for cooked food.
Cat HERSELF signed Ella out as the child who left (allegedly with her dad) Irrespective of whether Russell collected her himself or not, this shows that Cat KNEW the name of the child belonging to Russell. There cannot have been a phantom child as the creche nannies describe "Madeleine" both physically and in personality. Which child's personality and appearance was Cat referring to when she recounted her memories of Madeleine. If it was Ella, she would have copped on that Ella was called Ella not Madeleine when she herself signed her out to go to the beach with her dad! Since Ella was not at high tea on Thursday who was the other child that looked so like Madeleine that the cook thought it was her. A resemblance, even close up, between two children is possible, but between three children is a stretch.

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 14:11

Ruffian wrote:I study the files every day because the are vast in information and things are easily missed

The witnesses that saw Madeleine are in there. I have posted in another thread. I will post again in here later

You dispute every sighting because it does not fall in line with your opinion the case

You still haven't acknowledge there are other anomalies in the creche sheets for other children that attended

You cannot explain away the fact Madeleines photos were broadcast on the 4th of May and many say they recognised her from those same photo's

As I have pointed out before the files we see only 17% of the case files, some are missing, translation errors and many files untranslated

You are basing your opinion on information that is incomplete

There are many witnesses that claim they saw Maddie and its always possible that they did. However, many of them describe a child that is not what we are led to believe is Maddie's personality.

Yes, children can be shy at first, and maybe Maddie was shy all week, but my point behind the claims after MANY months of research is that not ONE (after Fatima) can be considered so specific that it WAS Maddie they saw, without question.

You dispute every sighting because it does not fall in line with your opinion the case

I have not seen one. Thats not my opinion. For 8 years I have challenged to show me a statement that gives relative proof she was seen. No-one to date has shown me one

Maybe you could provide one and explain why it is so specific it can only be considered a credible sighting

Do you consider all the nannies statements can be considered credible that it WAS Maddie?

I am not saying she WASN'T seen. I am saying I see NOTHING specific in the statements to say she definitely WAS seen.

Big difference.

You still haven't acknowledge there are other anomalies in the creche sheets for other children that attended

I haven't discussed about the anomalies in general.

It became clear to me that by arriving at the same time, Russell was able to pick up or drop off his child as normal and Gerry could take the opportunity of chatting to nannies so they would think it was his child.

It's a very simple concept but fits with everything I have found of their activities.

You cannot explain away the fact Madeleines photos were broadcast on the 4th of May and many say they recognised her from those same photo's

So, based on their recognition of her from a photo on the TV, can you show a statement that can be considered they recognised her without question and without the possibility they were mistaken?

Please remember... you may be right that she was seen by witnesses. I am not trying to prove that she wasn't seen.

I am looking for something to that gives reasonable proof she WAS seen

Do you consider any of these nannies statements as credible that they DID see Maddie?

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

by skyrocket 26.03.18 14:24

I think it is worth remembering that every younger child booked in with MarkWarner that week was entitled to the Tapas high tea (I believe the older children ate an evening meal/dinner at the Millenium site), irrespective of whether they attended creche or not. In fact, MarkWarner's blurb from the time encouraged parents to take their children to this meal rather than having them dine with them in the evenings. From Feb 2007 website:

'Children who have high tea or dinner with the children's clubs are not expected to also attend dinner later in the evening, which is essentially a grown up occasion'. (My highlighting).

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 14:58

Phoebe wrote:Even if Cat did not interact with Madeleine on the personal level which she claimed, it still does not explain the numbers problem. If a phantom Madeleine and Ella were both included in the creche numbers and Ella left, then that left the group TWO children down, not just one. Surely this would have been spotted. They would have had to inform the Tapas kitchen staff of how many children were to be expected for tea each day, especially for cooked food.
Cat HERSELF signed Ella out as the child who left (allegedly with her dad) Irrespective of whether Russell collected her himself or not, this shows that Cat KNEW the name of the child belonging to Russell. There cannot have been a phantom child as the creche nannies describe "Madeleine" both physically and in personality. Which child's personality and appearance was Cat referring to when she recounted her memories of Madeleine. If it was Ella, she would have copped on that Ella was called Ella not Madeleine when she herself signed her out to go to the beach with her dad! Since Ella was not at high tea on Thursday who was the other child that looked so like Madeleine that the cook thought it was her. A resemblance, even close up, between two children is possible, but between three children is a stretch.

One thing to keep in mind and is very likely, is that the nannies probably didnt know each child by name and two groups shared the same room with random children coming and going.

No-one is going to miss a child that only signed in for a day or so considering there were (apparently) so many little blonde girls.

We know fro the BBC Whistleblower program on Mark Warner creche in Egypt that the nannies received no training. Tey were young girls in a holiday atmosphere and as someone mentioned before, this wasnt a career move for them and was likely about keeping the children occupied, knowing that the parents should have signed the register with their phone number in case they were needed.

This wasn't like a school to check who was present at any particular time and the records were not strictly kept as has been pointed out.

With many children excited and mingled together with other children in another group and likely without finding a need to check the register unless a child needed their parents, I dont see it as impossible to be minus a child, especially with children from another group active and excited in the same room.

Parents picked up children randomly, and how about when Ella was not signed in but was signed out?

And Maddie was signed in but not signed out?

How could that happen?

I see it as TOTALLY possible for the nannies and the creche to be focusing on keeping the children occupied and notkeeping restricted records as would be necessary in a long term creche or school.

by nglfi 26.03.18 15:46

It looks like Fretter, Williams and Wagstaff do not specify which day it was they saw Madeleine. The way I'm reading the statements, there isn't enough specificity in them to say exactly when it was they saw her, so could they have all seen her, but at the beginning of the week?

by Ruffian 26.03.18 16:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If you have not looked at all of the creche sheets to see the anomalies then how can you be so sure you are right

Also, Ella didnt disappear along with Madeleine so what would happened if one of those nannies presented Ella to the PJ saying she has found Madeleine

Your theory does not work when logic is applied

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 18:27

Ruffian wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If you have not looked at all of the creche sheets to see the anomalies then how can you be so sure you are right

Also, Ella didnt disappear along with Madeleine so what would happened if one of those nannies presented Ella to the PJ saying she has found Madeleine

Your theory does not work when logic is applied

You say...'If I have not looked at all of the creche sheets'.....?

I have not only looked at the creche sheets and made several compilations, including the last one I have also saved the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of posts scrutinising them...

Are you suggesting I haven't done my homework? Is it possible to view YOUR conclusions and how you arrived at them?

I don't claim to KNOW what happened, I am making suggestions and giving my reasons (which include logic) and found that the FILES told the 'story' as I was posting.

I don't have a problem with you questioning my posts, but would prefer comments that are a little more respectful and instead of discrediting, offering an alternative so everyone can gain from your knowledge also.

This is a clickable portion of some of the creche research from 2008 onwards... Including 1,500 Posts or the 5,000 I saved from from 3As

Topics	Author	Replies	Views	Last Post

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

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

5

5207

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/30/2018 7:13 AM

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

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

15

3926

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
04/18/2017 8:25 AM

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

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

1

1392

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/21/2015 7:56 AM

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

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

2

3920

Post Reply:Guest
07/08/2011 2:13 PM

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

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

5

1637

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/24/2011 5:07 PM

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

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

2

516

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/24/2011 4:02 PM

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

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

0

850

02/08/2011 7:24 AM

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

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

3

5671

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/16/2011 11:14 AM

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

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

1

5109

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/16/2011 11:12 AM

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

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

0

584

11/09/2010 1:43 PM

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

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

1

2691

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
09/15/2010 6:20 AM

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

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

0

866

07/28/2010 5:37 AM

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

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

0

1278

07/28/2010 5:25 AM

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

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

1

890

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
07/24/2010 8:48 AM

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

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

0

987

06/12/2010 1:07 PM

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

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

1

532

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
06/02/2010 7:51 PM

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

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

0

560

06/02/2010 5:41 PM

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

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

3

1221

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/31/2010 8:01 AM

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

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

1

595

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
03/31/2010 4:58 AM

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

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

0

878

03/31/2010 4:13 AM

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

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

0

2478

08/23/2009 3:32 AM

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

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

3

13538

Post Reply:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
08/23/2009 3:17 AM

by Phoebe 26.03.18 21:22

Ruffian wrote:@HiDe

Also, Ella didnt disappear along with Madeleine so what would happened if one of those nannies presented Ella to the PJ saying she has found Madeleine

That is actually a valid point. The nannies know Madleleine had disappeared, but according to the theory put forward they were sure Ella was Madeleine, so sure in fact, that when asked about Madeleine they described Ella's shy behaviour and personality to the P.J. What on earth were they to think when it was obvious that Ella was still around. I'm confused by what seems to me to be contradictory claims - first it is claimed that the nannies were mistaking Ella for Madeleine all week, despite Ella having thick bushy hair and, for all we know, a face that bore no resemblance to Madeleine's. We also know that Cat knew Ella well enough to sign her name as the child leaving early on Thursday afternoon. Then it is suggested that no, Ella wasn't unwittingly being used to substitute for Madeleine, but that instead, "Madeleine" never existed physically in creche, only on paper. Yet - the nannies all described a real child they had SEEN, SPOKEN to and INTERACTED WITH. Who was this child. One cannot speak to or interact with a phantom who exists only on the register!! They must have been basing their descriptions of Madeleine physically and personality-wise on SOME little girl. If it wasn't Ella (which it can't have been as Cat knew her name when she signed her out) then it matters not a whit who Russell was with when he signed his daughter in. Who was this child they all based their memories of Madeleine on.

by polyenne 26.03.18 22:13

Isn’t one way to effect such a “mistaken identity” is to use a very similar child who was either not registered at the crèche or she was not on site at OC. Such as a child of a friend of the McCanns or of the T7.
But then surely she needs to be another girl with the name Madeleine ?
A real big call.

by **Jill Havern** 26.03.18 22:36

There's always Kikoratton's theory of the substitute child, Madeline Ryder.

by polyenne 26.03.18 22:38

I thought it was R&A’s daughter ?

by **Jill Havern** 26.03.18 22:52

Here's one of kikoratton's threads [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **HiDeHo** 26.03.18 23:59

With no strict records...
With children that are there for a few days ...
With the likelihood of Maddie only being there for a day or so..
With 'several' little blonde girls that may look similar....
With approximately 14 children sharing the creche room...
With the likelihood that names were not a priority to remember....
With children dropped off and picked up randomly...
With Gerry's ability (and need) for a cunning plan...
With Russells daughter being a similar age with same hair colouring...

I find it a very likely and SIMPLE way of having the nannies believe Maddie was in the creche for Gerry to make himself known when Ella (or ANY child) was sent into the creche.

AFTER the disappearance this would not have been possible, but it was a normal holiday week with many children coming and going.

I am not saying that everyone should agree, and certainly that would not be possible unless all of my posts have been understood, but I am offering it as a very likely possibility and one that requires no real planning except to show up at the creche and make himself known, when a child was arriving or leaving the creche.

Would nannies have recognised Ella after? Doubtful, as although there may have been TV reports with her Snow White pic (and others) the photo that is featured on the front of Goncalo Amarals book is the one they would likely be reminded by.

We don't know if Russell continued to use the creche after, but with the nannies rotated she would not have the same nanny and we don't know if she was likely to be seen by the same nannies that saw 'Maddie' the following week.

I have provided a POSSIBILITY of how it could 'easily' be accomplished with very little knowledge of what was happening during that week and only relying on what the files tell me.

I am personally confident, as someone mentioned, 'staring us in the face all this time', but after understanding the details, (very important) its for each individual to decide.

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

by GordonGarner 27.03.18 8:26

Hi De ho. Your work is astonishing. Spent the last 2 days sifting through it, amazing. It beggars belief that there isn't a wider knowledge of all this through media and general public. Can I ask you, were the police investigation aware or onto any of this in the original investigation ? It's not an angle I've ever seen in the general reporting of the case even when the M's were arguidos. It's the most complex case I've ever studied, like many I used to think I could find the solution but I can't. I still struggle with why all these people would be prepared to lie over something so serious but then again we don't know what their incentive may be ? It's a conundrum wrapped up in an enigma . I even wondered out loud if the whole thing was a giant hoax, a media phsy op designed to see if a story of this magnitude could be made up and sustained...who knows ? But your work is amazing . So frustrating that it's never likely to be heard in a courtroom. Imagine the length of any fair trial ? It would take months to sift through if done on the level !

by polyenne 27.03.18 10:55

It’s becoming clear to me that Madeleine McCann was likely never signed into the crèche.

If this turns out to be true, it is then likely that the whole charade was pre-meditated......IMO

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