Possible Timeline ? Discuss

What is important for anyone that follows my posts.

I have made it clear that I believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week.   I have not claimed she died earlier in the week.

My thoughts are based on the files and nothing I have seen indicates WHEN she died.

Initially I questioned why so many statements showed such MAJOR discrepancies that started Tuesday morning that I could only conclude they had a REASON.

That was my FIRST indication and researching the witness statements that claim she was seen would give me an indication WHICH DAY (with reasonable confirmation) she was last seen.

At this point my thoughts go to something happening after she was last seen and before the T9 felt it necessary to start contradicting themselves.

I feel its important to justify ALL the reasons I have come to that conclusion and its my responsibility, to ALSO justify how I believe the McCanns were able to claim Maddie was at the creche. (which I have covered on another thread)

I do not feel it is the right thing to make a claim and not cover the important points to justify my claim and to be credible.

Without an explanation of how they managed to deceive everyone about Maddie being at the creche, then my claims would NOT be credible.

My research is to give my thoughts some credence.... NOT to prove others wrong

I will maybe stop trying to answer others as to why I feel the statements are not justified to be used in the research... I will maybe ask others to prove why they are as credible proof as possible and that there is no way they could have been mistaken.

What everyone believes is their prerogative.

What I use in my research is IMPORTANT to be be as credible as possible.

The statements in the official PJFiles are from those independent witnesses there at the time

They have signed statements to the facts they saw madeleine
I think its important to keep that focus in mind when trying to understand what happened to Madeleine

It must be remembered the files we see only make up 17% of the entire case files. Many files have not been translated, some are missing and  some contain translation errors

We can only go so far in understanding the case but I feel to discount or discredit those that claim to see madeleine that week affords Madeleine no justice

Ruffian, please don’t view it as discounting or discrediting, it is simply a difference of opinion.

Ruffian wrote:The statements in the official PJFiles are from those independent witnesses there at the time

They have signed statements to the facts they saw madeleine
I think its important to keep that focus in mind when trying to understand what happened to Madeleine

It must be remembered the files we see only make up 17% of the entire case files. Many files have not been translated, some are missing and  some contain translation errors

We can only go so far in understanding the case but I feel to discount or discredit those that claim to see madeleine that week affords Madeleine no justice

Please try to understand, I have said many times that the witnesses MAY have seen Maddie and therefore am not meaning to discount your opinion and apologise if thats how you see it.

The LAST thing I want to do is to have any member feel their opinions are not of value, because that would be wrong of me.

I think its more or a misunderstanding about WHY my criteria is looking for specific identification about Maddie being seen.

It is not about trying to say you are wrong, its about explaining why, from what I read in the statements, I don't find ENOUGH indication that shows their statements can be used in my research.

The comments from Miguel Matias show the FACT that Maddie could have been easily mistaken for another child and I cannot use ANY statement that does not specifically show they identified the child they saw as Maddie.

Ultimately I may be wrong, but I must ONLY use information that i believe is credible.

I hope you understand and I REALLY apologise if my comments have made you feel that I am discrediting your opinion.

I am only trying to explain why my research can only use statements where there is NO possibility that the witness was mistaken.

Keep in mind... you may be right and I may be wrong :)  Thats not what I am trying to show




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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Firstly, I must say I am a long-time, tremendous, admirer of the sheer volume of work and facts you have complied and put together which benefits so many!!!    Please don't ever think my tendency to play devil's advocate is an attempt to discredit any theory. It isn't. It is merely intended to flag up challenges to certain suppositions which exist and IMO should not be ignored.
 My initial gut feeling is that Madeleine was dead on Thursday morning. However, I cannot ignore the fact that she may have been seen at the sail that day by someone other than the nannies. I also have to factor in the cook who says she saw her and the fact that it has been announced to all and sundry that she was at tea that evening with the other children. If she was not, then it was a risky strategy to claim otherwise. What if one of the children from the creche had asked where she was. What if the other parents who were there for tea noticed her missing - we know Neil Berry was at the Tapas bar at 5pm that evening and that his wife collected his daughter, presumably from tea (this was the main meal on the children's half board package). His daughter, Jessica, was in Madeleine's small Lobster group so the Berrys could have known Madeleine from seeing her in creche eg. at collection times. I wonder if the McCanns and the nannies would make the bold claim Madeleine was at tea if there was a risk of these or other parents remembering that she wasn't. Then there is Raj Balu who is in a playground photo publicly claimed to have been taken on Tuesday. What a risk for the McCs to take if he might contradict this. There is so much information we do not have access to that I fear it is premature to make hard and fast theories in the absence of full facts. The danger is that theories may become regarded as proven facts and this could lead the investigation down a path that may be incorrect. I appreciate HiDeHo is always scrupulous to point out that theories and hypotheses are just that, but sometime this caveat seems to get ignored.

polyenne wrote:On Monday the McCanns go "silent" and on Tuesday it's all a bit "wonky"....make of it what you will but something ain't right

I think you nailed it here! Monday in Rothley was Gerry's golf day. Where was GM on Monday?

Phoebe wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Firstly, I must say I am a long-time, tremendous, admirer of the sheer volume of work and facts you have complied and put together which benefits so many!!!    Please don't ever think my tendency to play devil's advocate is an attempt to discredit any theory. It isn't. It is merely intended to flag up challenges to certain suppositions which exist and IMO should not be ignored.

 My initial gut feeling is that Madeleine was dead on Thursday morning. However, I cannot ignore the fact that she may have been seen at the sail that day by someone other than the nannies.

I also have to factor in the cook who says she saw her and the fact that it has been announced to all and sundry that she was at tea that evening with the other children.

If she was not, then it was a risky strategy to claim otherwise. What if one of the children from the creche had asked where she was.

What if the other parents who were there for tea noticed her missing - we know Neil Berry was at the Tapas bar at 5pm that evening and that his wife collected his daughter, presumably from tea (this was the main meal on the children's half board package). His daughter, Jessica, was in Madeleine's small Lobster group so the Berrys could have known Madeleine from seeing her in creche eg. at collection times.

I wonder if the McCanns and the nannies would make the bold claim Madeleine was at tea if there was a risk of these or other parents remembering that she wasn't.

Then there is Raj Balu who is in a playground photo publicly claimed to have been taken on Tuesday. What a risk for the McCs to take if he might contradict this.

There is so much information we do not have access to that I fear it is premature to make hard and fast theories in the absence of full facts.

The danger is that theories may become regarded as proven facts and this could lead the investigation down a path that may be incorrect.

I appreciate HiDeHo is always scrupulous to point out that theories and hypotheses are just that, but sometime this caveat seems to get ignored.

Phoebe wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Firstly, I must say I am a long-time, tremendous, admirer of the sheer volume of work and facts you have complied and put together which benefits so many!!!     Please don't ever think my tendency to play devil's advocate is an attempt to discredit any theory. It isn't. It is merely intended to flag up challenges to certain suppositions which exist and IMO should not be ignored.

We seem to have a mutual admiration society gong on here as I  love to have to second guess myself and to have someone like yourself offer your thoughts in such detail and with such politeness but also in such detail, is a pleasure to respond.  Unfortunately, at times I have not had the time to be able to do so, but hope I have covered most of your points.

 My initial gut feeling is that Madeleine was dead on Thursday morning. However, I cannot ignore the fact that she may have been seen at the sail that day by someone other than the nannies.

I also have to factor in the cook who says she saw her and the fact that it has been announced to all and sundry that she was at tea that evening with the other children.

If she was not, then it was a risky strategy to claim otherwise. What if one of the children from the creche had asked where she was. 

What if the other parents who were there for tea noticed her missing - we know Neil Berry was at the Tapas bar at 5pm that evening and that his wife collected his daughter, presumably from tea (this was the main meal on the children's half board package). His daughter, Jessica, was in Madeleine's small Lobster group so the Berrys could have known Madeleine from seeing her in creche eg. at collection times. 

Like yourself, my initial feelings were that she died prior to that evening.  I didn't know when and that is why when I started to see the possibility it may have been Wednesday I changed it to 'something happened' as I realised I could not claim she was dead at any time prior to Thursday. The files give no indication of a time prior to Thursday that she died.

From that time I have never said she died earlier.  Something may have happened and she became fatally ill at some point earlier in the week.

For the record I have never presumed he was in the company of her parents when she died and the possibility is always in my mind that an ACCIDENT happened while being looked after by one of the other T7 and it was decided to claim they left the children unattended to prevent ONE PERSON from being targeted. (just a possibility)

The parents ARE, however, responsible for hiding her body and simulating her abduction.

Regarding her being seen, I cannot, in all honesty, change what I have discovered by researching all the witness statements and the enormous amount of discrepancies.

Basically EVERYTHING has fallen into place and nothing I have subsequently discovered has contradicted this scenario in the ten years I have been studying it.  Only that I gradually moved the days to earlier in the week. Based on what the files told me.

I have the timeline of that week running in my head like a 'movie' and though I respect other peoples right to have a different opinion based on their knowledge I CANNOT CHANGE MINE AS I CAN'T CHANGE THE FILES!

IF Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth had made statements to say that they took Maddie and Ella on the boat together and that Maddie was very excited and talkative, whereas Ella was shy and a little scared, and though they looked alike, he remembers lights on Maddies shoes and Ella's mother taking pictures of her, and knew her father from watersports, and that he asked their names (etc etc) then I would scrutinise their statements to be reasonably sure that Maddie did appear to be alive and well on Thursday morning.

Unfortunately, both sail instructors were not interviewed formally, that we are aware of and their informal statement gives no indication that the sail even happened Thursday morning, never mind seeing Maddie.

I have asked myself WHY can't I find ANYTHING that places Maddie around the club that week?

Creche projects, breakfasts and lunches with the T7.   ONLY comments of her being seen at high tea, in a small area with possibly 30 children and their parents.  I can't imagine it would be easy to find ones own child never mind recognise and retain the visual picture of other children, especially as its known that there were several little blond girls of a similar age to Maddie.

It certainly is possible that the witnesses DID see Maddie, but by the same token its POSSIBLE they were mistaken!

Therefore we can all form our opinions based on what we have read.

I can certainly NOT prove that Maddie wasn't seen and have not attempted to do so.

I wonder if the McCanns and the nannies would make the bold claim Madeleine was at tea if there was a risk of these or other parents remembering that she wasn't. 

There was no reason during the week for others to make note, as I feel sure that most of us could not identify and remember all the children on a busy day at MacDonalds

Lets not forget that Catriona does NOT claim to have seen Maddie at high tea (only Kate sitting with the twins)

The McCanns photo to distribute seemed to be contrively chosen to NOT look like Maddie during the holiday as to have posted the 'last picture' may have resulted in someone claiming to have seen Maddie and in that outfit on the SUNDAY.

Had they used that photo, then I may have felt it was truly taken on Thursday and the thought that someone would have identified her and her outfit earlier in the day then that may have been a stumbling block for the thought of something happening earlier... BUT they didn't use it and it just adds ANOTHER reason why the earlier theory remains unchanged.

Then there is Raj Balu who is in a playground photo publicly claimed to have been taken on Tuesday. What a risk for the McCs to take if he might contradict this. 

I have seen this claimed before.  I would need to see the comment confirming it was taken on Tuesday and proof he was asked about the photo, and his remarks.

He is likely unaware to this day that the photo has any importance regarding the ay it was taken.

There is so much information we do not have access to that I fear it is premature to make hard and fast theories in the absence of full facts. 

The danger is that theories may become regarded as proven facts and this could lead the investigation down a path that may be incorrect. 

I appreciate HiDeHo is always scrupulous to point out that theories and hypotheses are just that, but sometime this caveat seems to get ignored.

I do not consider my research as being a 'theory'.

I collect the details into an orderly compilation of 'facts' from the files/statements and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions.

I have added a thread with a VAST collection of some of my research and as mentioned, I have, over the years, retained a 'movie' type memory of the weeks holiday timeline  and occasionally someone may throw in issues that make me second guess myself.

So far NONE of them have changed the 'movie' as its not based on individual topics, it how EVERYTHING fits together and though I understand others have not had the time or motivation to have studied it in detail, I try to provide ONLY the facts from the files as a REFERENCE for others and explain what the files 'tell' me,  so everyone can form their own opinions based on knowledge.

Personally I see far more info that has been recorded in the media (quotes) and in interviews which I try to retain for different purposes, but my main timeline thoughts are based only on the files.

I can't change them as I can't change the files.

Phoebe wrote:
There is no way she can have been mistaken for someone else. Either Cat Baker is lying or Madeleine was there at creche and high tea.

....and there is my tenth member right there.

Thanks Basil and Phoebe. This is for me the nub of the issue and it's where I feel Operation Grange and any other investigation (PJ etc.) should apply the focus. GA took Cat's evidence at face value, but there is much to suggest that something happened earlier in the week. I don't have the answers any more than anyone else does, but wonder why she would risk a criminal record (and not just for a minor driving, use of cannabis etc. offence) to protect the Mccanns. It is known that she met with them afterwards, of course, but that proves nothing about any link beofre the holiday.

Basil with a brush wrote:

Phoebe wrote:
There is no way she can have been mistaken for someone else. Either Cat Baker is lying or Madeleine was there at creche and high tea.

....and there is my tenth member right there.

OR as in the most obvious alternative for me (and I urge anyone to call a nursery to check) that names of the children were not of major importance.  They were there to keep the children occupied... NOT to keep a register like a school or long term nursery.

The children were randomly dropped off and picked up and ALSO she may have only seen Maddie for a day or so.

In a room of approximately 14 children (sometimes) shared with the 'Sharks' there is no question that little blonde girls can be mixed up... UNTIL something happened then, maybe, they are more aware.  Probably not before.

I am NOT saying it has to be likely...only that its POSSIBLE and from my personal research to child care workers and nurseries I have been assured that although the managers make a special effort to keep each child identifiable, it can take them a few days and for the casual nursery assistants, one nursery I called, the manager did not allow the assistants to pass the children to the parents.  She insisted on doing it herself as she did not trust the assistants to know all the children and their parents.

That is by far the most likely (and simple) scenario for me. 

I dont know what happened with Catriona AFTER the disappearance but I most certainly will not accuse Catriona of anything during that week.  I feel its wrong to accuse her without any evidence.

She was a young girl in a holiday atmosphere doing a job, who found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was there a reason she didn't specifically say that Maddie was at high tea on Thursday?

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

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

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

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

Catriona Baker rogatory interview - 18th April 2008

I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.

Most of the time in which I saw the family together, the children would be eating. The twins appeared tired at lunch, after a long day and also perhaps due to the heat, but I never became preoccupied by the children of by the comportment of the McCanns.

On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.
----------

Whether it’s 3 days later or nearly a year later : she’s unable to specify, she doesn’t remember, she thinks......

She mentions Kate & Gerry more than Madeleine !!

Where’s Madeleine’s “bracelet” ? Where are ANY of the “bracelets”.

"Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl , it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter that they asked what Madeleine had done in the Crèche and that they even accompanied Madeleine in certain outside activities " !!! ???

Really , when was that then ? Kate in her " honest version of the truth " never mentions accompanying Madeleine on any activity , inside or outside . Apart from allegedly being at the tennis courts when her group came to do mini tennis then allegedly dashing off to get her camera ! 

As Kate and Gerry spent the majority of their time playing tennis or running when did they make time to accompany their daughter ?

sandancer wrote:Really , when was that then ? Kate in her " honest version of the truth " never mentions accompanying Madeleine on any activity , inside or outside . Apart from allegedly being at the tennis courts when her group came to do mini tennis then allegedly dashing off to get her camera !

Of course Kate McCann never mentioned it, because it never happened did it.  No evidence whatsoever of Madeleine's attendance at the crèche or any outdoor activities - no evidence of the play groups activities and even more to the point - no photographs!  

Extraordinary how her recall improves so dramatically after a year of reflection.  In October 2007, the McCanns named Catriona Baker as a key witness to be interviewed by rogatory;  in November 2007 Catriona Baker visited the McCanns at Rothley by private invitation "to see how they were getting on" - this visit transpired around the same time as the infamous clandestine meeting at the Rothley Court Hotel.

Reason enough for me to believe that Catriona Baker was/is complicit in the web of intrigue.

With no apparent after hours childcare facilities available.

 

Is it possible...

 

The parents sought her services, off the record and outside of her contracted hours, early into that holiday?

 

During this, She WAS AWARE of any possible sedation administered by the parents and/or their travelling group? (not many would question the practise of doctors on children. Let alone their own)

 

There was an accident during the time she gave these services after hours, and then confusion (in her mind at least) as to, who exactly would be responsible? Her/The parents or both? Did she worry, her knowledge of the administered sedatives alone, may make her guilty?



Did she become involved with a member of that group in some way and they were disturbed by a sedated child, who then became the victim of heavy handed lash out?
 

 

 

 

Can anyone help me throw these possibilities in the bin?

 

 

I just believe she has to be involved.

Basil, that is very plausible. But that still means that Madeleine has to be signed in/out at the MiniClub each day and, although some of the writing is suspicious, it is still chronological which, to my mind, means it can't have been done retrospectively.

If we can satisfactorily put Cat Baker and the log records together, I think that is a big part of the jigsaw

Something along the lines Basil outlines would give Cat Baker sufficient motive to lie. I also agree strongly with Polyenne that her role, including creche attendance and the records, is key. However, I suspect that after more than 10 years, she would simply claim not to be able to remember well enough if re-interviewed.

I think one of the issues here is that some people are thinking of the creche like it was a nursery and that's a mistake IMO. Creches are more casual, they usually operate for shorter hours, parents have to be on site and they are providing a drop in service with staff who are not expected to form the same bonds with the children as in a nursery. It wasn't registered with OFSTED and I expect most staff had no formal childcare qualifications. I doubt it was even a good creche, it sounds lax from the attendance records. That's my opinion - it needs to be thoroughly investigated to ascertain who was on duty and did staff bother to learn the names of the children. I'm sure MW would have felt the need to minimise damage to their brand and as others have said, these young girls probably found themselves in a terrible predicament I think this is so critical and I can't help thinking that cultural differences meant the PJ didn't ubderstand just how dodgy the whole childcare set up was and leaving your kids in daycare all day every day whilst on holiday is not the norm. MW clearly got their act together after the disappearance and hence the swift removal of young girls like KB.

Here's the current MW policy on security - you need to give a password when you collect your kids.

Upon entrance to every childcare session, the children are given a wristband detailing their name, room number, and any specific allergies or requirements (Rory’s always had a note about needing to use his own specific sun cream). At the evening film club, there is a name card placed at the foot of every bed. At the beginning of our holiday, we were asked to write down a password (a different one for each child). Every time we came to collect our children, we were asked for this password. The childcare team stuck to this religiously regardless of whether they clearly recognised us as A*** and R****’s parents. All childcare areas are enclosed spaces with baby gates and doors. For us, this level of security seemed perfect, there wasn’t anything that we felt wasn’t being done well.

Basil with a brush wrote:With no apparent after hours childcare facilities available.

Concerning the operating hours, there are four separate services.

    * Mornings: 9am-12.30pm
    * Afternoons: 2.30-5.30pm
    * Dining Out Service 7.30pm-11.30pm

(children are watched in a room above the main Ocean Club 24hour reception; there is no extra charge for this service but parents must take and fetch their own children)

    * "Baby sitting Service": 7.30pm-1am

(children are watched in their own apartments; there is an extra charge for this service)

Basil with a brush wrote:Can anyone help me throw these possibilities in the bin?

With pleasure

Thank you Verdi. Are you able to say whether the creche nannies would have provided the evening babysitting service? It seems probable, and, if they did, that helps Basil's theory. There would have been written records, I assume, of parents who had booked this service - have they ever surfaced?

Crackfox wrote:I think one of the issues here is that some people are thinking of the creche like it was a nursery and that's a mistake IMO. Creches are more casual, they usually operate for shorter hours, parents have to be on site and they are providing a drop in service with staff who are not expected to form the same bonds with the children as in a nursery. It wasn't registered with OFSTED and I expect most staff had no formal childcare qualifications. I doubt it was even a good creche, it sounds lax from the attendance records. That's my opinion - it needs to be thoroughly investigated to ascertain who was on duty and did staff bother to learn the names of the children. I'm sure MW would have felt the need to minimise damage to their brand and as others have said, these young girls probably found themselves in a terrible predicament I think this is so critical and I can't help thinking that cultural differences meant the PJ didn't ubderstand just how dodgy the whole childcare set up was and leaving your kids in daycare all day every day whilst on holiday is not the norm. MW clearly got their act together after the disappearance and hence the swift removal of young girls like KB.

Thank you Crackfox.

Not only is it a possibility but BBC Whistleblower investigated Mark Warner in Egypt so one would find it a POSSIBILITY that their standards were similar in other resorts.

PERCEPTION of how the creche was run may be very different from REALITY

Title: Mark Warner & BBC Whistleblower Program

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


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



This video may help explain the REALITY of what it may be like looking after 14 under 5's


BBC WHISTLEBLOWER Secret Video - Concerns about childcare at Mark Warner & Buttons

You are welcome HiDeho - another thing to remember is CB said she wanted to retract the comment she made that Maddie  preferred the company of boys. This suggests there is a withheld statement from KB because there isn't a statement in which she makes this claim in the file is there? It's not good enough that on 1st and 2nd May parents' signatures are missing. Not to mention the other discrepancies with signatures and names and ROB not knowing his own room number. Crucial elements have been withheld including the creche sheets for the twins on key dates including May 3rd. The timeline is very open IMO.

Crackfox wrote:You are welcome HiDeho - another thing to remember is CB said she wanted to retract the comment she made that Maddie  preferred the company of boys. This suggests there is a withheld statement from KB because there isn't a statement in which she makes this claim in the file is there? It's not good enough that on 1st and 2nd May parents' signatures are missing. Not to mention the other discrepancies with signatures and names and ROB not knowing his own room number. Crucial elements have been withheld including the creche sheets for the twins on key dates including May 3rd. The timeline is very open IMO.

Thanks for pointing that out Carckfox.  I hadn't checked to see that does not exist in the original statements.

As I have said many times, I don't believe Catriona LIED prior to the disappearance, but I DO believe she was 'manipulated' into the 'recollection' she had, probably during her visit to Rothley

(eg.  'Do you remember, Catriona when I came to pick up Maddie from high tea.. i was wearing sporting clothes and Gerry was playing tennis?' or ' Do you remember how tired she was that last day?')



Title: Catriona Baker Statements and Comments
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Catriona changed  her original statements (AFTER visiting with the McCanns in Rothley in Nov 2007) so do we REALLY know what those original early statements said?


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

Exactly! We don't know what she said in her original statement (the missing one)  but it was so important she felt she needed to change it and I think so much has been held back. Thanks for the link I'll have a gander.