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

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.

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 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).

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.

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?

@HiDeHo
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

Ruffian wrote:@HiDeHo
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

Catriona Baker TinLizzy 5 5207 Post Reply:HiDeHo 01/30/2018 7:13 AM Charlotte Pennington Highlighted TinLizzy 15 3926 Post Reply:HiDeHo 04/18/2017 8:25 AM Child minding services rejected by McCanns on 03 May 2007 TinLizzy 1 1392 Post Reply:HiDeHo 03/21/2015 7:56 AM Mark Warner & BBC Whistleblower Program TinLizzy 2 3920 Post Reply:Guest 07/08/2011 2:13 PM Activity Sheet TinLizzy 5 1637 Post Reply:TinLizzy 03/24/2011 5:07 PM MW Creche Staff Employment Adverts TinLizzy 2 516 Post Reply:TinLizzy 03/24/2011 4:02 PM Nannies Highlighted Statements Dizzy_Lizzy 0 850 02/08/2011 7:24 AM Nannies that saw Madeleine... TinLizzy 3 5671 Post Reply:TinLizzy 01/16/2011 11:14 AM Nanny Info & Statements Highlighted TinLizzy 1 5109 Post Reply:TinLizzy 01/16/2011 11:12 AM Mini Sail, Ice creams & Diagram of Events. TinLizzy 0 584 11/09/2010 1:43 PM The CRECHE RECORDS (Part 1) 5,000posts (1 -1,500 ) TinLizzy 1 2691 Post Reply:TinLizzy 09/15/2010 6:20 AM Updated Spreadsheets Creche Details (Montaillou) TinLizzy 0 866 07/28/2010 5:37 AM Children at the Creche TinLizzy 0 1278 07/28/2010 5:25 AM Anomalies in the Case File TinLizzy 1 890 Post Reply:TinLizzy 07/24/2010 8:48 AM Mark Warner Creche Charges TinLizzy 0 987 06/12/2010 1:07 PM Creche Comparison to Files Grid TinLizzy 1 532 Post Reply:TinLizzy 06/02/2010 7:51 PM Creche Information Table and Creche Staff Statements TinLizzy 0 560 06/02/2010 5:41 PM Creche Table TinLizzy 3 1221 Post Reply:TinLizzy 03/31/2010 8:01 AM Creche Registrations TinLizzy 1 595 Post Reply:TinLizzy 03/31/2010 4:58 AM NANNY'S CRECHE KIDS & CLUB STAFF (Pamalam) TinLizzy 0 878 03/31/2010 4:13 AM Creche Record Documents TinLizzy 0 2478 08/23/2009 3:32 AM CRECHE RECORDS THREAD FROM 3A (several cached pages) TinLizzy 3 13538 Post Reply:TinLizzy 08/23/2009 3:17 AM

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.

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.

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

I thought it was R&A’s daughter ?

Here's one of kikoratton's threads https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1543-how-maddie-s-creche-attendance-was-arranged#35274

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.

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 !

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

Which is what Kikoraton theorizes as MBM was dead by 29th April.

There were a potential 14 children in Madeleine's age group who could have been in Mini-Club (Sharks and Lobsters combined) at any time but how could the McCanns, in the precarious situation they would have been in, be sure that all these children would turn up for each session to allow a phantom "Madeleine" to go unnoticed in the crowd.
 For example, on the p.m. of Thurs. May 3rd only four children were present in the Lobster group - two boys and Madeleine and Ella (who left). Why would Ella be taken away when every little girl was needed there to help disguise Madeleine's absence! How could they be sure that all or, indeed, any, of the Sharks' little girls would turn up to maintain the confusion. We simply don't know how many children were present for each Sharks' session but I'd wager that afternoon numbers were much lower than morning attendance. Normal parents don't park their kids in creche all day everyday!
 We can see this from the twins' Jellyfish records which show that, on the p.m. of April 30th, only two other children out of the registered 12 were present with the twins. That situation is repeated on the p.m. of May 1st - two other kids and the twins in creche. On the a.m of May 2nd the twins have also only two other kids for company. Although there were 12 children registered in the Jellyfish group many often did not attend, especially for the p.m. sessions. Lily Payne never went in the afternoons and seems to have missed several morning sessions too. How could the McCanns take such a risk while not knowing how many children would turn up for each mini-club creche session. Just suppose that on the p.m. of May 3rd  the Sharks mirrored the poor creche attendance of the Lobsters for the afternoon session and only, say, two boys and two girls turned up. How could they hope Madeleine's absence would not have been rumbled. These people were risking everything, even their very freedom, if they were hiding Madeleine's death or fatal illness. Does anyone seriously imagine they would run such the risk, over which they had no control, that nothing would happen which would reveal that their daughter was not around while they pretended she was. Bear in mind there was no need to take this path. There were other ways of having Madeleine "disappear" which did not involve the mercy of others and sheer luck. If Madeleine was fatally ill rather than dead they could have seen to it that the kids skipped creche sessions like many other children did, in order to spend "family time" together on trips and outings, then have Madeleine abducted elsewhere. I can't imagine the McCanns running this incredible risk from the Sunday to Thursday night. 
The suggestion that  phantom "Madeleine" went unnoticed in a crowd depends on there having been a large attendance of the Sharks children everyday, but especially on that Thursday afternoon. We have no way of knowing how many, if any, "Sharks" girls were at that session but removing Ella would just further increase the risk that Madeleine's absence would be spotted.

GordonGarner wrote: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 !

Thanks very much GordonGarner.

I originally started an MSN group back in 2007 which was for my own use.  Everything was so complicated, I wanted to compile all the info into an easy to find format so that it was easy to access for posts.


MSN Groups - Madeleine McCann
http://msngroup.aimoo.com/madeleinemccann/sitemenu.msnw.htm

It opens on the Site Menu but all the info categories available can be seen if you scroll down left hand side menu.

CLICK HERE to see Category List for Original MSN Group:

That group/forum contains all the original info (2007/2008) and likely contains some long lost details that haven't seen the light of day in  10 years.

MSN Groups closed in early 2009 and I was able to migrate the group to Aimoo Forums in a 'Read Only' format.

I took some of the info and added it to Remembering Madeleine Aimoo Forum but the vast majority still remains untouched since I originally posted it as there was far too much to repost to the 'new' forum.

Remembering Madeleine Aimoo Forum
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

Once the FILES were released I started compiling the information and initially started with Staff statements and compiling the Staff Rota for the Millenium and Tapas (originally for my own use).  

I continued with all the other statements as they were made available and put together about 300 TIMETABLES and timelines.

I also added all random info to each TOPIC thread.

The info is easily available if you Google the topic name (eg Huelva, Blue Bag, Forensics etc) and add Aimoo Madeleine.  So Google *'keyword' Madeleine Aimoo* and the results will direct you to each topic that I have compiled all the information.  I use this all the time as I know there is lots of info for each topic in the forum.

2011 - 2012  I used all the info I had put together and with the initial help from Joana Morais I created my first video :) (Followed by another 3-400)

HiDeHo4 Remembering Madeleine Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/HiDeHo4/videos?sort=da&view=0&flow=grid

In 2012 Facebook groups started to be popular for the case and by the end of 2012 and I was admin of Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY  facebook group.

As often happens on the case, there was some 'drama' and I was kicked out of my own group, but, suspecting something was about to happen I had already created a new group HiDeHo CONTROVERSY of Madeleine McCann (I had originally chosen the 'controversy' name so I kept it.) :)

To assist with threads that are difficult to create on the limited facebook format I created another  forum for Reference to direct facebook members to view easier to read threads.

CONTROVERSY Reference Forum
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy

Followed by a WORDPRESS 'blog' to cover the main topics for reference


HiDeHo CONTROVERSY Wordpress Blog
https://hidehocontroversyofmadeleinemccann.wordpress.com/

I also have several other FB groups covering different topics (far more than I can keep up with, but thanks to great fb admin they keep me on my toes..

FB groups are great for getting the word out but cannot compare to forums and CMOMM.

Jill has been great and even created a special category for my research and videos, which I really must take time to update, but although I post on 'Latest News', once the threads have become quiet she removes them to my special category :)

HiDeHo's Videos and Research
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f8-hideho-s-videos-and-research

So... in answer to your question    about whether the police are aware of my work, I don't think the PJ have been sent any but I was in touch with detectives in Operation Grange and I was encouraged to send them my videos and research from the Remembering Madeleine Forum and they assured me that 'everything, EVERYTHING' was looked at.

I created a special category at the top of the forum with some of the main info from the forum so it was easier for them to access


 IMPORTANT INFO
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann


GordonGarner. Because of your interest in the info I have added many links to 10 years of research, a lot of it not accessed too frequently because it is so complicated and most people don't have time (or motivation) but its what I have retained over the years and still use in all my posts or for anyone that wants a link to a topic.


Maybe you will find a little long lost gem of information :)

@ HiDeHo   It has been claimed that the way in which Madeleine's "attendance" at creche was faked, or that her absence went unnoticed, is due to a cunning ploy by Gerry and Russell. Russell would allegedly bring Ella to creche and Gerry (without a child) would accompany them and engage the nannies in chat to distract them. Then he would sign in Madeleine although she wasn't actually there.
 If this was their scheme why did Russell remove Ella from creche on the afternoon of Thurs. May 3rd. By doing so he would have merely highlighted the fact that there was NO little girl left in the Lobsters group (if Madeleine was indeed only there on paper) just two boys. How could they know that there would any girls in the Sharks group who were unknown to the nannies. Indeed, how could they guarantee that their would be any blonde girls, indeed any girls at all, there that afternoon who might be mistaken for the phantom Madeleine. Deliberately removing Ella on the very afternoon that would command most police attention seems counter intuitive to the plot to deceive  the nannies based on the number of little girls there.

Hi De Ho..thank you, I will sift through with interest.
Many thanks.

Seeing the photographs of the two young girls up-thread what's striking is the dark glasses, if Madeleine had a coloboma wouldn't she have to have some eye protection like this?

Crackfox wrote:Seeing the photographs of the two young girls up-thread what's striking is the dark glasses, if Madeleine had a coloboma wouldn't she have to have some eye protection like this?

No.

No need to identify this young girl but again, it shows how similar to Maddie, hair colour and age, sharing the same creche room.

Further confirmation of how difficult it must have been for the nannies to perfectly identify each child and know each child by name within the first few days in a room of up to 14 children.

The number of blonde girls who could have potentially attended creche still does not get around the problem facing the T9 as they allegedly gambled on Madeleine's absence not being noticed for 4 days. On Thursday afternoon for example, after Russell removed Ella there were no girls at all left in Cat's group (assuming Madeleine was only there on paper). How could the T9 dare to take the risk that this would not be noticed. They had no way of knowing how many girls (indeed if any at all) would show up for the "Sharks" afternoon session that Thursday. We do not have access to the Sharks records, but, based on the Jellyfish records, very few children outside of the McCanns twins spent all day, everyday, in creche. Removing Ella that afternoon seriously increased the risk of Madeleine's absence being spotted. If they were hoping Madeleine's  absence would go unnoticed or that another child of the T9 (and this could only have been Ella) would be mistaken for her, then surely they would not have removed Ella on the very afternoon of the "abduction".

P.S. I'm afraid I can't say I'm a fan of this new page layout. IMO it makes it much more difficult to see new posts as they arrive!

Crackfox wrote:Seeing the photographs of the two young girls up-thread what's striking is the dark glasses, if Madeleine had a coloboma wouldn't she have to have some eye protection like this?

You are correct in implying that an issue with iris coloboma is sensitivity to light (only have to google it). However, not all children suffer with this, so I don't think the sunglasses thing can be made an issue here.