New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

by **HiDeHo** 03.06.18 23:27

NEW video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

[ltr][/ltr]

by joyce1938 04.06.18 8:08

theonly problem I find in this ,is ,it was early season ,and I have thought infact ,there were very few kids in the crech,so shouldn't be too difficult ,to knew who was who .joyce1938

by skyrocket 04.06.18 8:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - thanks, great job as always.

by **HiDeHo** 05.06.18 19:46

joyce1938 wrote:theonly problem I find in this ,is ,it was early season ,and I have thought infact ,there were very few kids in the crech,so shouldn't be too difficult ,to knew who was who .joyce1938

The Lobster group of 7 children and the Sharks with likely the same amount, SHARED the same room..

That would be at many times possibly 14 children, and, as we know from regular nurseries and particularly holiday nurseries, it takes a while to learn names. The aim at the creche was more likely to keep the children occupied as opposed to learn who they are individually and with so many little 'blonde' girls I am not sure that during the week many could be identified or remembered if missing...

These are three children that were in that room, similar age and similar hair colouring......

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

by Guest 06.06.18 2:34

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

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

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

So, no matter how many children are or aren't in the childcare area, each childminder has duty of care for 'around seven children' [sic]. That is a mix of boy and girl, so a mean average of 3 1/2 boys and 3 1/2 girls - not every morning nor afternoon session registers the full quota per carer.

Apart from Catriona Baker's frequent reference to Madeleine by name and connaissance of her parents, she has a notional 3 1/2 little girls to care for in any one session - give or take. Even if, and that's a very big if, she wasn't aware of a child's name surely she would be able to recognize any one child from another? Let's say for argument sake, Ms Baker had 4 little girls on average at each session throughout the week. Four girls signed in or out but only three girls in the group .... or only two .... or only one .... They were signed in, as management dictates, so where are they?

If Ella is Madeleine and Jessica is Ella and Elizabeth is Jessica - that's three little girls and one missing little girl. Does the carer, in this instance Catriona Baker, then think perhaps the long fair haired little boy is the missing little girl - if so, then where is the little boy?

It's a theory too far - I don't buy it.

As for the introvert v. extrovert theory of mistaken identity, children can be very crafty when they want their way and they're very good at telling porkies.

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 4:35

I dont expect anyone to immediately (if ever) agree with my findings.

I am more than comfortable with what I have discovered and feel relatively sure that if something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then it explains how the McCanns were able to deceive everyone into thinking she was at the creche when she wasn't.

It is NOT a theory that I thought may be the answer and looked to make it 'fit'.. I studied all the information and it basically 'told' me.

I have tried many times to explain but although it would have been fairly simple in execution, I have felt like a brick wall in understanding faces me every time.

I will... at some point be attempting a video, but like many topics, that are now basically accepted, it is taking years for most people to get their head around.

As I said... I am TOTALLY convinced of the way that everyone was deceived into thinking Maddie was at the creche but until I feel there are those that have the patience and motivation to understand I don't have the time or patience to keep repeating myself.

I WOULD however, like to hear ideas from others that believe something happened earlier and how it can be explained that Maddie was not at creche.

I dont believe I have seen ANY explanations yet... and as I have mentioned before.... for those that believe something happened earlier or she died earlier then there HAS to be an explanation about how everyone believed she was at the creche...

Where are the suggestions?

(PLEASE... I hope I dont hear accusations of all the nannies and staff were lying about that week. They were young girls in the wrong place at the wrong time.. Maybe later on, one or two were 'reminded' about some things but I find any accusations of them lying, without any proof, unpalatable.)

I apologise, of course we have Kikos great research on the 'substitute' child, and though I prefer to not think another child was substituted, it is not that far away from the simple explanation of what I believe happened.

by Lossincasa 06.06.18 8:52

It's my first post here so hi everyone [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] , but I've been on 'n off this case since the start. Can I ask how sure is everyone that the nannies were even remotely professional? Could it be that what they say or write after the fact is just them covering their arses? I always had this notion that everyone (the majority) in the resort was lying for their own reasons (or a reason), like kids getting caught doing smth naughty.

It would be great if there was a way they could be put to the test right away and after shown pics of the kids (all the kids), the nannies demonstrated their 'real' knowledge identifying the 'Ellas' from the 'Maddys'. Would they be able to tell them apart even so soon after the tragedy? I'm not convinced they are telling the truth about how they were spending their time with the kids or if they even glanced their way more than once during a session. Why would they? At least this is what I think. Btw these are some very thoughtful opinions from everyone :)

by skyrocket 06.06.18 9:34

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

I completely agree with your points - particularly about there being a whole lot of lying going on after the 3 May (IMO, much more and much deeper than any of us have yet uncovered).

In ref to Cat/the nannys in general being aware of exactly how many children they had in their care at any one time, the following detail from her statement regarding the boat outing is telling, IMO (has been discussed before):

The route taken was as follows:

1. The parents left the children at "Baby Club", Mark Warner, situated next to the principal reception and which is open 24 hours;
2. then Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach. The distance is about 100 metres but not in a straight line;

Also, we need to remember that there was a very high ratio of young (mainly blond) girls to boys.

Having said that, I believe that the creche sheets are almost entirely fabricated - false times; names attending; signatures.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.18 11:40

Lossincasa wrote:It's my first post here so hi everyone [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] , but I've been on 'n off this case since the start. Can I ask how sure is everyone that the nannies were even remotely professional? Could it be that what they say or write after the fact is just them covering their arses? I always had this notion that everyone (the majority) in the resort was lying for their own reasons (or a reason), like kids getting caught doing smth naughty.

It would be great if there was a way they could be put to the test right away and after shown pics of the kids (all the kids), the nannies demonstrated their 'real' knowledge identifying the 'Ellas' from the 'Maddys'. Would they be able to tell them apart even so soon after the tragedy? I'm not convinced they are telling the truth about how they were spending their time with the kids or if they even glanced their way more than once during a session. Why would they? At least this is what I think. Btw these are some very thoughtful opinions from everyone :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: Welcome - and I agree with the thrust of your questions. I will answer with a few points.

I also put on record that I completely agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s observations, namely:

"There [was] a whole lot of lying going on after the 3 May (IMO, much more and much deeper than any of us have yet uncovered)".

If we take a broad look at this case, we can be forgiven for thinking that quite a lot of people may have had much to hide:

* The McCanns
* Their Tapas 7 friends
* Some of the other people on that holiday
* The Mark Warner company which organised the holiday, and, yes...
* ...some of the nannies.

And beyond that, we could also be forgiven for thinking that the British state also had much to hide, if we look for example at Tony Blair rushing his top media man Clarence Mitchell to Portugal and at all the members of the British police, MI5, CEOP, Special Branch, Control Risks Group and other security personnel who rushed over to Praia da Luz in the first 9 days (see thread on CMOMM).

I can't unfortunately answer as to how many, if any, of the nannies, had any sort of professional training or qualifications. What we can say is that they were mostly very young - around 20 - and judging by photos that emerged of a previous set of nannies (including Cat Baker) dancing energetically in very light clothing it looks as though they were making sure that they had a very good time while they were over there.

It can by no means excluded that one or more of the nannies may have had direct or close knowledge of what really happened to Madeleine on that holiday.

If one were to look at the nanny Cat Baker in particular, numerous questions arise.

For a start, there is good evidence that she already knew the McCanns before that holiday.

She was a Facebook friend a year or more previously with Chloe Corner, daughter of Jon Corner, godfather to Amelie - and the person who released the highly controversial 'Make-Up' Photo to the world in 2009.

Months after Madeleine was reported missing, Cat Baker spent several days at the McCanns' in Rothley at the very same time (November 2009) that the McCanns, the Tapas 7, their lawyers and PR representatives were attending a crucial meting at Rothley Court Manor hotel to discuss developments in the case.

Moreover, she was the sole nanny for Madeleine's crèche group of seven children, The Lobsters, and therefore (if there was a cover-up) ideally placed to lie about what happened to Madeleine and assist with what may have been a forgery of the crèche records.

And there IS evidence that she and another nanny, Charlotte Pennington, lied about a crucial event: namely the so-called 'High Tea' at which Madeleine was supposed to have attended at about 5pm on Thursday 3 May.

In fact, Lizzy Taylor (HideHo), the originator of this thread, has already done a comprehensive analysis* of all the multiple contradictions about this alleged event, showing that that the accounts of Kate McCann, Gerry McCann and Cat Baker about what is supposed to have happened at the high tea reveal innumerable serious discrepancies.

We simply cannot rule out either the possibility that one or more of the nannies was deliberately lying (and we have evidence to support this) or else that they were 'leaned on' to fabricate some of their evidence.

* LINK: "High Tea Discrepancies" >

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

by Lossincasa 06.06.18 12:27

Thank you for your answer and warm welcome :)

It appears, Cat had prior knowledge of the kids or some knowledge at least. If everything is how they describe it, then if Cat were to lie (being the 'main' nanny) for whatever reason, the other nannies (probably not paying much attention on what was going on -despite it being their job) were then much easier to manipulate on agreeing with smth that wasn't true. They were probably eager to agree by this point fearing the consequences or even incrimination (of losing said child). If no one knew where Maddy was the finger could have being pointed to the nannies (by the management of Ocean) even as a way to force them to comply. This is speculation from me ofc, but I always found shipping them in Cyprus? right after a bit strange.

Is there an independent witness of this High Tea, an employee, a holidaymaker etc (they signed a record or smth, was it checked?) which Maddy participated in, other than the parents and the forgetful nanny?

Should a professional attempted a graphoanalysis of the written record and the signatures be able to verify if it was Kate, or Cat or someone else that did the signing?

A simple picture on 'any' phone or camera would have sufficed I imagine to help strengthen their argument but for whatever reason this family outing lacked in those (pictures). It is really difficult to understand why they didn't produce more quality photos (or didn't show them) from that camera they carried around all the time. Having it displayed prominently and ready for use, one would suppose they (McCanns) were quite fond of photography, but they were probably just too busy playing tennis. That's a lot tennis considering the weather :)

The witnesses talked with each other a lot it seems, which probably helped them put out a composite of sorts, but when interviewed by the police their stories were just not believable or well memorized despite all the effort. confused

ps: I edited out a bit about the Rothley meeting. I have misunderstood the timing.

by Guest 06.06.18 13:41

HiDeHo wrote:I WOULD however, like to hear ideas from others that believe something happened earlier and how it can be explained that Maddie was not at creche.

Simply two words .... Catriona Baker.

The evidence is stacked against her. The contradictions in her statements suggest either a painfully poor memory or downright lies. For example, during her witness interview on 6th May 2007m she says that Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, accompanied Madeleine on a few of the organised kids activities - I have never seen any evidence to suggest this to be true, the McCanns themselves certainly never mentioned this hands-on time in their busy sports schedule. Oh but wait, maybe it was the mini tennis session - when the McCanns were already at the courts, you know the session they can't quite recall when and who.

Whatever happened to Madeleine in truth, nothing suggests her disappearance had any direct connection with the créche, so where exactly does Catriona Baker fit in apart from being just another childcare worker? All she needed do was directly answer the questions posed during her witness interview, no need for frills or elaboration - just answer the questions. [Important note: Interview interpreter on 6th May 2007 - Robert Murat].

Did she do that? No, she went that extra mile to involve herself on a more personal friendly like way, with the parents McCann.

She, Catriona Baker, was later named by the McCanns as a key witness (sort of character witness) for interview during the rogatory process, mostly held in April 2008. She was also personally invited by the McCanns to visit them at their home in Rothley in November 2007 to "see how they were getting on" !?! A visit which curiously coincided with the clandestine Rothley Court Hotel meeting.

Catriona Baker is innit up to her eyeballs - there was no need for her to become personally involved.

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 14:57

According to Catrionas early statements I see nothing to indicate she was lying in any way.

Maybe after her trip to Rothley she was 'reminded' of a few things for her Rogatory interview a year later. (in a similar way that Dianne was 'reminded' by Dave and Fiona to change her original statement comments)

She was a young girl, along with the others doing her summer job and likely doing no more than to receive the children when they arrived, keep them occupied for a couple of hours, and to allow them to leave with their parents at pick up times.

What Catriona DIDN'T know was that a child that may have been in the creche in the first day or two, was no longer there during the week, but she was TOLD she was there so her brain put the logical info together about a child she then BELIEVED was Maddie...

Encouraged by Gerry, because he manipulated the situation so the nannies believed he was dropping Maddie off and picking her up...

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

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.18 15:00

Lossincasa wrote:It appears, Cat had prior knowledge of the kids or some knowledge at least.

REPLY: YES.

I always found shipping them in Cyprus? right after a bit strange.

REPLY: They were nearly all shipped out elsewhere. Mostly to Greece IIRC.

Is there an independent witness of this High Tea, an employee, a holidaymaker etc (they signed a record or smth, was it checked?) which Maddy participated in, other than the parents and the forgetful nanny?

REPLY: NO.

Should a professional attempted a graphoanalysis of the written record and the signatures be able to verify if it was Kate, or Cat or someone else that did the signing?

REPLY: I think most of the signatures were actually those of Gerry & Kate. There is a strange pattern of the timings of their 'pick-ups' and 'collections' of the children. If Cat Baker knew (either more or less) what had happened to Madeleine, she would be in a unique position to have allowed the parents to sign Madeleine in and out, even though she knew she was gone. And this IMO is exactly what she may have done.

It is really difficult to understand why they didn't produce more quality photos (or didn't show them) from that camera they carried around all the time.

REPLY: Actually, the answer is dead simple. There aren't any.

The witnesses talked with each other a lot it seems, which probably helped them put out a composite of sorts, but when interviewed by the police their stories were just not believable or well memorised despite all the effort.

REPLY: A supreme example of this is the 20+ contradictions between what David Payne and Kate McCann said about an alleged visit by him to the McCanns' flat at about 6.30pm. The visit may not have happened at all; instead they may have agreed to invent the visit but didn't rehearse the details well enough - so that when the police questioned them, their stories fell apart like a wooden hut in a tornado

by sar 06.06.18 15:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Lossincasa wrote:It's my first post here so hi everyone [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] , but I've been on 'n off this case since the start. Can I ask how sure is everyone that the nannies were even remotely professional? Could it be that what they say or write after the fact is just them covering their arses? I always had this notion that everyone (the majority) in the resort was lying for their own reasons (or a reason), like kids getting caught doing smth naughty.

It would be great if there was a way they could be put to the test right away and after shown pics of the kids (all the kids), the nannies demonstrated their 'real' knowledge identifying the 'Ellas' from the 'Maddys'. Would they be able to tell them apart even so soon after the tragedy? I'm not convinced they are telling the truth about how they were spending their time with the kids or if they even glanced their way more than once during a session. Why would they? At least this is what I think. Btw these are some very thoughtful opinions from everyone :)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: Welcome - and I agree with the thrust of your questions. I will answer with a few points.

I also put on record that I completely agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s observations, namely:

"There [was] a whole lot of lying going on after the 3 May (IMO, much more and much deeper than any of us have yet uncovered)".

If we take a broad look at this case, we can be forgiven for thinking that quite a lot of people may have had much to hide:

* The McCanns
* Their Tapas 7 friends
* Some of the other people on that holiday
* The Mark Warner company which organised the holiday, and, yes...
* ...some of the nannies.

And beyond that, we could also be forgiven for thinking that the British state also had much to hide, if we look for example at Tony Blair rushing his top media man Clarence Mitchell to Portugal and at all the members of the British police, MI5, CEOP, Special Branch, Control Risks Group and other security personnel who rushed over to Praia da Luz in the first 9 days (see thread on CMOMM).

I can't unfortunately answer as to how many, if any, of the nannies, had any sort of professional training or qualifications. What we can say is that they were mostly very young - around 20 - and judging by photos that emerged of a previous set of nannies (including Cat Baker) dancing energetically in very light clothing it looks as though they were making sure that they had a very good time while they were over there.

It can by no means excluded that one or more of the nannies may have had direct or close knowledge of what really happened to Madeleine on that holiday.

If one were to look at the nanny Cat Baker in particular, numerous questions arise.

For a start, there is good evidence that she already knew the McCanns before that holiday.

She was a Facebook friend a year or more previously with Chloe Corner, daughter of Jon Corner, godfather to Amelie - and the person who released the highly controversial 'Make-Up' Photo to the world in 2009.

Months after Madeleine was reported missing, Cat Baker spent several days at the McCanns' in Rothley at the very same time (November 2009) that the McCanns, the Tapas 7, their lawyers and PR representatives were attending a crucial meting at Rothley Court Manor hotel to discuss developments in the case.

Moreover, she was the sole nanny for Madeleine's crèche group of seven children, The Lobsters, and therefore (if there was a cover-up) ideally placed to lie about what happened to Madeleine and assist with what may have been a forgery of the crèche records.

And there IS evidence that she and another nanny, Charlotte Pennington, lied about a crucial event: namely the so-called 'High Tea' at which Madeleine was supposed to have attended at about 5pm on Thursday 3 May.

In fact, Lizzy Taylor (HideHo), the originator of this thread, has already done a comprehensive analysis* of all the multiple contradictions about this alleged event, showing that that the accounts of Kate McCann, Gerry McCann and Cat Baker about what is supposed to have happened at the high tea reveal innumerable serious discrepancies.

We simply cannot rule out either the possibility that one or more of the nannies was deliberately lying (and we have evidence to support this) or else that they were 'leaned on' to fabricate some of their evidence.

* LINK: "High Tea Discrepancies" >

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

+1 TB

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 15:20

I DO believe the McCann friends (except Dianne Webster) had at least a degree of knowledge of what was going on, but it was Russell that likely knew the most about how Gerry managed to deceive everyone (including Catriona)

August 20th weekend there were suggestions there was a warrant for his arrest. (according to media, but very specific and possibly true)

He often arrived with the McCanns at drop off or pick up times...

HIS child entered the creche and GERRY chatted to the nannies so they would believe it was Maddie....

(Hence there are so many 'one child in and only one child out scenarios)

Nannies and staff would NOT be aware this was happening, and such a simple (and effective) way to deal with the days at the creche when there was NO reason to question anything strange at that point...

ALL their statements are in retrospect to what they can REMEMBER happening...

They saw a young girl (that they remembered looked like Maddie) come in and out of the creche and GERRY made himself available to chat with the nannies...

He likely FOOLED them into thinking he was the child's father...

Relatively 'simple' under the circumstances.

This is NOT a guess to make a theory fit, on my part... this is what studying the 'files' show is possible/probable....

The creche analysis of those days in question are CURIOUSLY missing from the files...Likely the POLICE knew what happened....

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.18 15:34

HiDeHo wrote:What Catriona DIDN'T know was that a child that may have been in the creche in the first day or two, was no longer there during the week, but she was TOLD she was there so her brain put the logical info together about a child she then BELIEVED was Maddie...

Lizzy, as you know we disagree markedly on this very crucial issue.

I simply cannot accept that there is any evidential basis for thinking that Madeleine was in the creche 'for a day or two', with just six other children, and that Cat Baker was then 'unaware' that she was missing. This wasn't a class of 30 children.

The unlikeliness of your hypothesis is rather strengthened when we recall Kate's words in 'madeleine' (page 51): "Madeleine's nanny, Cat, I warmed to straightaway, as did Madeleine. [Cat] was bubbly, smiley, kind and bursting with enthusiasm...".

The idea that after that encounter, and her being in the crèche (to quote you) 'for the first day or two', that Madeleine then didn't show up and that Cat didn't realise, and/or was 'told' she was there, stretches credibility IMO to beyond breaking point.

Like you, I go by the facts and build up my hypotheses based on the available facts. In this case we obviously see the explanation for Cat's conduct very differently.

Respect as always Lizzy despite differing with you on this point friends

by Lossincasa 06.06.18 15:37

They either lied outright (the most probable) or they didn't remember exactly (again this is lying) and went along with the parents. I can understand some of them to a degree were fearful, but they all need to be questioned again imo. The McCanns, the nannies, the staff and the guests. Someone in the police must think the same I'm sure or I hope they do, because this burglary-gone-bad thing I hear about, which was the reason I got involved with the case again just isn't believable at all. If no one broke in to steal a child, then no one broke in to steal at all and if they had they would have taken that flashy camera at least.

by Lossincasa 06.06.18 15:49

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

If they were manipulated from the parents and they gave false statements, what is it that prevents them so many years after the fact, coming forward and tell the truth? Or their version of truth? Like they could say now that they didn't remember seeing Maddy... or they aren't sure. Is it fear of what the people will say or is it you think smth more sinister, like let's say a type of reward? I'm speculating here ofc and my personal opinion is that perhaps, with the exception of the two nannies mentioned who need to be questioned again (It's just not believable Cat forgot about Maddy or never asked a simple question - Where's Maddy mrs McCann? Haven't seen her for two days), the other employees just weren't paying attention.

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 16:01

Thanks for respecting our differences Tony :) It's always important to us both to recognise and respect that different research gives us different thoughts on what happened, however, it does bring us to the belief that SOMETHING happened to Maddie early in the week.

For those that don't believe that Catriona (or any other staff during that week) was complicit... the above video is the first of a few that will show the details that explain HOW the McCanns and their friends managed to deceive everyone into believing Maddie was at the creche...

I realised that before the scenario can be understood there has to be knowledge of the creches and the routes taken. I have nearly completed a video outining the details of the twins creche... Maddies Mini Club, the Main Reception, the Millenium and High tea location...and the regular routes taken (not short cuts)

All that knowledge is integral to understand why I believe, almost without question, HOW the deceit was achieved (according to the info in the files)

Hopefully it will help and not confuse...

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 16:10

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

If they were manipulated from the parents and they gave false statements, what is it that prevents them so many years after the fact, coming forward and tell the truth? Or their version of truth? Like they could say now that they didn't remember seeing Maddy... or they aren't sure. Is it fear of what the people will say or is it you think smth more sinister, like let's say a type of reward? I'm speculating here ofc and my personal opinion is that perhaps, with the exception of the two nannies mentioned who need to be questioned again (It's just not believable Cat forgot about Maddy or never asked a simple question - Where's Maddy mrs McCann? Haven't seen her for two days), the other employees just weren't paying attention.

Intimidation is, and was prevalent regarding why noone (that we are aware of has come forward)

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

Regarding the intricacies of the creche and the details of how it would have been run, seems to be based on judgement and expectancies, whereas in reality it was likely not how it was for the nannies...

Hopefully I can explain in an upcoming video

by Guest 06.06.18 16:23

HiDeHo wrote:According to Catrionas early statements I see nothing to indicate she was lying in any way.

Example already given - repeated here..

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

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.
...................

Where is the evidence that the parents accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outdoor activities?

If Catrion Baker was telling the truth - who did the McCanns accompany on certain outdoor activities, if not their own daughter Madeleine?

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 17:03

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:According to Catrionas early statements I see nothing to indicate she was lying in any way.

Example already given - repeated here..

Catriona Baker witness statement - 6th May 2007

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.
...................

Where is the evidence that the parents accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outdoor activities?

If Catrion Baker was telling the truth - who did the McCanns accompany on certain outdoor activities, if not their own daughter Madeleine?

We dont know if any of the parents including the McCanns (possibly T7) accompanied the creche activities...

We also dont know if that happened whether Catriona was aware of which child was which.

Nothing in her early statements suggest she was lying...

Maybe others think differently, but I see no proof...

by Lossincasa 06.06.18 18:39

They must have suspected smth, especially after she got 'lost', I believe I would. I'd look back. A mistake made by the kids or the parents, one wrong word, a different character trait etc. Everyone would, I think. Intimidation is too broad, too vague to apply to every employee. A blanket medicine for their problem. Not impossible ofc and I could easily accept it. But what if someone talked anyway? (young) People talk. To a spouse or a relative... because no one has.
But this is very interesting I'd like to see that video :)

by **Jill Havern** 06.06.18 20:09

And let us not forget all those lovely photos of Madeleine at the head of 'Sammy Snake' marching proudly down to the beach, and the photos of her in the little sailing boat wearing her lovely little life jacket.

The photos of the art work she did in the creche are particularly lovely and somehow poignant, knowing what we do now, but the memories are there, and the little things she made, the finger paintings and everything else will always be treasured. We know that parents across the world have seen those photos and felt especially close to us.

The long sequence of photos of Madeleine having her baby tennis lesson make us all very proud. Gerry says he can see real talent emerging.

And we know all parents will sympathise with us when they see the family photos of the ‘spaghetti explosion’ in the apartment . . .

Oh, Hang on . . . .

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 22:36

McINFO: Locations & Routes of Creche etc Used by McCanns

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.18 23:19

HiDeHo wrote:

Intimidation is, and was, prevalent regarding why no-one (that we are aware of) has come forward)

Yes, well we can both agree on that one...

...and in case [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is unaware of it, I post below the August 2009 article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in which specific reference is made to intimidation by McCann Team Head of Private Investigation, Brian Kennedy - so serious that witnesses were intimidated into silence - see bits in bold red below.

Intimidation or extreme pressure to conform would certainly provide Cat Baker an excuse for any lies she told.

The article is taken from the article on the blog of Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis:

------------------------------------------

Sunday, 27 September 2009

Mark Hollingsworth Investigates The McCann Files

Disillusioned with the Portuguese police, Gerry and Kate McCann turned to private detectives to find their missing daughter. Instead the efforts of the private eyes served only to scare off witnesses, waste funds and raise false hopes. Mark Hollingsworth investigates the investigators.

by Mark Hollingsworth*

It was billed as a ‘significant development’ in the exhaustive search for Madeleine McCann. At a recent dramatic press conference in London, the lead private investigator David Edgar, a retired Cheshire detective inspector, brandished an E-FIT image of an Australian woman, described her as ‘a bit of a Victoria Beckham lookalike’, and appealed for help in tracing her. The woman was seen ‘looking agitated’ outside a restaurant in Barcelona three days after Madeleine’s disappearance. ‘It is a strong lead’, said Edgar, wearing a pin-stripe suit in front of a bank of cameras and microphones. ‘Madeleine could have been in Barcelona by that point. The fact the conversation took place near the marina could be significant.’

But within days reporters discovered that the private detectives had failed to make the most basic enquiries before announcing their potential breakthrough. Members of Edgar’s team who visited Barcelona had failed to speak to anyone working at the restaurant near where the agitated woman was seen that night, neglected to ask if the mystery woman had been filmed on CCTV cameras and knew nothing about the arrival of an Australian luxury yacht just after Madeleine vanished.

The apparent flaws in this latest development were another salutary lesson for Kate and Gerry McCann, who have relied on private investigators after the Portuguese police spent more time falsely suspecting the parents than searching for their daughter. For their relations with private detectives have been frustrating, unhappy and controversial ever since their daughter’s disappearance in May 2007.

The search has been overseen by the millionaire business Brian Kennedy, 49, who set up Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, which aimed ‘to procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated’. A straight-talking, tough, burly self-made entrepreneur and rugby fanatic, he grew up in a council flat near Tynecastle in Scotland and was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness. He started his working life as a window cleaner and by 2007 had acquired a £350 million fortune from double-glazing and home-improvement ventures. Kennedy was outraged by the police insinuations against the McCanns and, though a stranger, worked tirelessly on their behalf. ‘His motivation was sincere,’ said someone who worked closely with him. ‘He was appalled by the Portuguese police, but he also had visions of flying in by helicopter to rescue Madeleine.’

Kennedy commissioned private detectives to conduct an investigation parallel to the one run by the Portuguese police. But his choice showed how dangerous it is when powerful and wealthy businessmen try to play detective. In September 2007, he hired Metodo 3, an agency based in Barcelona, on a six-month contract and paid it an estimated £50,000 a month. Metodo 3 was hired because of Spain’s ‘language and cultural connection’ with Portugal. ‘If we’d had big-booted Brits or, heaven forbid, Americans, we would have had doors slammed in our faces’ said Clarence Mitchell, spokesperson for the McCann’s at the time. ‘And it’s quite likely that we could have been charged with hindering the investigation as technically it’s illegal in Portugal to undertake a secondary investigation.

The agency had 35 investigators working on the case in Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco. A hotline was set up for the public to report sightings and suspicions, and the search focussed on Morocco. But the investigation was dogged by over-confidence and braggadocio. ‘We know who took Madeleine and hope she will be home by Christmas,’ boasted Metodo 3’s flamboyant boss Francisco Marco. But no Madeleine materialised and their contract was not renewed.

Until now, few details have emerged about the private investigation during those crucial early months, but an investigation by ES shows that key mistakes were made, which in turn made later enquiries far more challenging.

ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

•The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’.

•The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.

•Key witnesses were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police.

•Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work.

By April 2008, nearing the first anniversary of the disappearance, Kennedy and the McCanns were desperate. And so when Henri Exton, a former undercover police officer who worked on M15 operations, and Kevin Halligen, a smooth-talking Irishman who claimed to have worked for covert British government intelligence agency GCHQ, walked through the door, their timing was perfect. Their sales pitch was classic James Bond spook-talk: everything had to be ‘top secret’ and ‘on a need to know basis’. The operation would involve 24-hour alert systems, undercover units, satellite imagery and round-the-clock surveillance teams that would fly in at short notice. This sounded very exiting but, as one source close to the investigation told ES, it was also very expensive and ultimately unsuccessful. ‘The real job at hand was old-fashioned, tedious, forensic police work rather than these boy’s own, glory boy antic,’ he said.

But Kennedy was impressed by the license-to-spy presentation and Exton and Halligen were hire for a fee of £100,000 per month plus expenses. Ostensibly, the contract was with Halligen’s UK security company, Red Defence International Ltd, and an office was set up in Jermyn Street, in St James’s. Only a tiny group of employees did the painstaking investigative work of dealing with thousands of emails and phone calls. Instead, resources were channelled into undercover operations in paedophile rings and among gypsies throughout Europe, encouraged by Kennedy. A five-man surveillance team was dispatched in Portugal, overseen by the experienced Exton, for six weeks.

Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980’s. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for ‘outstanding bravery’. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer.

(*) - ERASED, WHILE WAITING FOR LEGAL ADVISE *

He later set up his own consulting company and moved to Bury in Lancashire.

While Exton, however flawed, was the genuine article as an investigator, Halligen was a very different character. Born in Dublin in 1961, he has been described as a ‘Walter Mitty figure’. He used false names to collect prospective clients at airports in order to preserve secrecy, and he called himself ‘Kevin’ or ‘Richard’ or ‘Patrick’ at different times to describe himself to business contacts. There appears to be no reason for all this subterfuge except that he thought this was what agents did. A conspiracy theorist and lover of the secret world, he is obsessed by surveillance gadgets and even installed a covert camera to spy on his own employees. He claimed to have worked for GCHQ, but in fact he was employed by the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) as head of defence systems in the rather less glamorous field of new information technology, researching the use of ‘special batteries’. He told former colleagues and potential girlfriends that he used to work for MI5, MI6 and the CIA. He also claimed that he was nearly kidnapped by the IRA, was involved in the first Gulf War and had been a freefall parachutist.

Very little of this is true. What is true is that Halligen has a degree in electronics, worked on the fringes of the intelligence community while at AEA and does understand government communications. He could also be an astonishingly persuasive, engaging and charming individual. Strikingly self-confident and articulate, he could be generous and clubbable. ‘He was very good company but only when it suited him’ says one friend. He kept people in compartments.’

After leaving the AEA, Halligen set up Red Defence International Ltd as an international security and political risk company, advising clients on the risks involved in investing and doing business in unstable, war-torn and corrupt countries. He worked closely with political risk companies and was a persuasive advocate of IT security. In 2006, he struck gold when hired by Trafigura, the Dutch commodities trading company. Executives were imprisoned in the Ivory Coast after toxic waste was dumped in landfills near its biggest city Abidjan. Trafigura was blamed and hired Red Defence International at vast expense to help with the negotiations to release its executives. A Falcon business jet was rented for several months during the operation and it was Halligen’s first taste of the good life. The case only ended when Trafigura paid $197 million to the government of the Ivory Coast to secure the release of the prisoners.

Halligen made a fortune from Trafigura and was suddenly flying everywhere first-class, staying at the Lansborough and Stafford hotels in London and The Willard hotel in Washington DC for months at a time. In 2007 he set up Oakley International Group and registered at the offices of the prestigious law firm Patton Boggs, in Washington DC, as an international security company. He was now strutting the stage as a self-proclaimed international spy expert and joined the Special Forces Club in Knightsbridge, where he met Exton.

During the Madeleine investigation, Halligen spent vast amounts of time in the HeyJo bar in the basement of the Abracadabra Club near his Jermyn Street office. Armed with a clutch of unregistered mobile phones and a Blackberry, the bar was in effect his office. ‘He was there virtually the whole day,’ a former colleague told ES. ‘He had an amazing tolerance for alcohol and a prodigious memory and so occasionally he would have amazing bursts of intelligence, lucidity and insights. They were very rare but they did happen.’

When not imbibing in St James’s, Halligen was in the United States, trying to drum up investors for Oakley International. On 15 August 2008, at the height of the McCann investigation crisis, he persuaded Andre Hollis, a former US Drug enforcement agency official, to write out an $80.000 cheque to Oakley in return for a ten per cent share-holding. The money was then transferred into the private accounts of Halligen and his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis to finance a holiday in Italy, according to Hollis. In a $6 million lawsuit filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, Hollis alleges that Halligen ‘received monies for Oakley’s services rendered and deposited the same into his personal accounts’ and ‘repeatedly and systematically depleted funds from Oakley’s bank accounts for inappropriate personal expenses’.

Hollis was not the only victim. Mark Aspinall, a respected lawyer who worked closely with Halligen, invested £500,000 in Oakley and lost the lot. Earlier this year he filed a lawsuit in Washington DC against Halligen claiming $1.4 million in damages. The finances of Oakley International are in chaos and numerous employees, specialist consultants and contractors have not been paid. Some of them now face financial ruin.
Meanwhile, Exton was running the surveillance teams in Portugal and often paying his operatives upfront, so would occasionally be out-of-pocket because Halligen had not transferred funds. Exton genuinely believed that progress was being made and substantial and credible reports on child trafficking were submitted. But by mid-August 2008, Kennedy and Gerry McCann were increasingly concerned by an absence of details of how the money was being spent. At one meeting, Halligen was asked how many men constituted a surveillance team and he produced a piece of paper on which he wrote ‘between one and ten’. But he then refused to say how many were working and how much they were being paid.

While Kennedy and Gerry McCann accepted that the mission was extremely difficult and some secrecy was necessary, Halligen was charging very high rates and expenses. And eyebrows were raised when all the money was paid to Oakley International, solely owned and managed by Halligen. One invoice, seen by ES, shows that for ‘accrued expenses to May 5, 2008’ (just one month into the contract), Oakley charged $74,155. The ‘point of contact’ was Halligen who provided a UK mobile telephone number.

While Kennedy was ready to accept Halligen at face value, Gerry McCann – sharp, focused and intelligent – was more sceptical. The contract with Oakley International and Halligen was terminated by the end of September 2008, after £500,000-plus expenses had been spent.

For the McCanns it was a bitter experience, Exton has returned to Cheshire and, like so many people, is owed money by Halligen. As for Halligen, he has gone into hiding, leaving a trail of debt and numerous former business associates and creditors looking for him. He was last seen in January of this year in Rome, drinking and spending prodigiously at the Hilton Cavalieri and Excelsior hotels. He is now believed by private investigators, who have been searching for him to serve papers on behalf of creditors, to be in the UK and watching his back. Meanwhile, in the eye of the storm, the McCanns continue the search for their lost daughter.

in ES Magazine (London Evening Standard)– Paper edition only, 28 August 2009

*Mark Hollingsworth is best known for his investigations into Mark Thatcher and also MI5. He worked for Granada TV’s ‘World In Action’ programme for five years. He is the author of nine books, notably ‘Thatcher’s Fortunes: The Life and Times of Mark Thatcher’, ‘Defending the Realm: MI5 and International Terrorism’ and ‘Saudi Babylon: Torture, Corruption and Cover-Up Inside the House of Saud’. His new book, ‘Londongrad: From Russia with Cash, The Inside Story of the Oligarchs’, will be published in July 2009. He also contributes regularly to the London Evening Standard and most national newspapers

Note: This story, published by the Evening Standard (and later erased...) was also published [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Speaking about books (and the old habit of burning those considered "dangerous") a sugestion of a good (and also old...) movie: "Fahrenheit 451". Take a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of this movie, based on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It's a fiction movie, about firemen that are called not to extinguish fires, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...

(*) These lines were erased, while I'm waiting for detailed legal advise, after I received a[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (see [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], in order to get more information about it)

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

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.18 23:59

Although I agree there are many examples of intimidation and pressure that may have happened afterwards and certainly Catriona's visit to Rothley may have been a good time to 'remind' her of some of the circumstances.... I see absolutely no indication that the details she told police immediately after the disappearance show any suggestion of lying.

Catriona's EARLY and INFORMAL statements:

I believe Catriona was CONNED like the rest of the staff into believing that Maddie had been one of the tapas children.

It was a simple exercise to arrive at the creche together with Russell and often sign for two children but only send one in (or pick one up) and for Gerry to make himself known as if HE was the father of the little girl that just came in or just left... and the CRECHE RECORDS show this could have been likely.

I suggest to ANYONE to phone a regular nursery and ask approximately how long it would take for childcare workers to remember each child individually and remember their names. I was told by an owner of the nursery (which takes more care and is rarely faced with 14 new children coming and going at random times) that it takes her a few days and it takes a while for her to allow her child care workers to pass the children to the parents until she has authorised it.

Names are not as important as keeping the children occupied and added to that a nursery is all day, every day and has strict rules in place.

Mark Warner Creche was looked after by a few teenage girls on a holiday job. Not to say they werent good at caring for the children but we know from Whistlbower that Mark Warner did not necessarily give good (if any) training for their creche staff....

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

I think its clear that Gerry would have found it relatively easy to have the nannies believe his child was in the creche...even when she wasn't.

I find it far more credible than to consider Catriona was complicit (especially without proof).

by **Hobs** 07.06.18 1:40

Keeping it simple

Who has the most to gain by Maddie being seen in the creche mornings and afternoons, every day till the Thursday night when Maddie was allegedly abducted by a paedophile stranger?

Who has the most to lose by Maddie not being seen in the creche mornings and afternoons, every day till the Thursday night when Maddie was allegedly abducted by a paedophile stranger?

by **Jill Havern** 07.06.18 7:24

I found this on Paulo's blog:

Wednesday, 2 January 2008

A good question about babysitters, from "thentherewere4"

We know the Mccanns did not like to use the creche according to Patricia McCann who said: 'They felt it was better than leaving them with a babysitter as you don't know who you are going to get with a stranger.' We know that Catriona Baker, CharlottePennington, Kirsty Mayran and Lianne Wagstaf were employed as baby sitter at the creche and we also know that there were a total of 5 babysitters at the Ocean Club.They have all made statements to the PJ except one that is.

Who was the fifth nanny and why hasn't she come forward to clear her name?

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

by skyrocket 07.06.18 9:10

'A good question' is confusing.

We are told by Shinead Vine that all the creche staff had shifts working in the evening drop in creche, and she confirms that there are 15 of them in total. Elsewhere we are told 14.

Has anyone seen reference to just 5 babysitters? I have always assumed the babysitters (working in the guests apartments) were again a subset of the 15 creche workers on any given evening. I know Margaret Hall X-employee is described as a babysitter, which has always niggled, but as her statement is particularly daft I have always side stepped it.

The fifteenth woman on the nanny list is Hayley May Crawford, who despite being interviewed makes no mention at all of being involved in any babysitting. Her 10am until 6pm job in the Adult Pool Bar would give her the time to earn a bit extra cash in the evenings. She had been at the resort for 4 years - before MarkWarner purchased the OC. What we are told is that she was driving around on the evening of the 3 May and was passing Block 5 at around 9pm.

Note: Hayley doesn't appear to be on the nanny list solely as a virtue of her being a British female worker i.e. a mistake. There were other female Brits e.g. Tiffany Horner was a waitress in the Millenium.

New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Re: New Video: BEFORE Thursday? (Pt 1) - Did OC staff see Maddie or a SHY T7 Child?

Latest topics