How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

kathyBelle wrote:Hi Candy, do you suspect Robert Murat had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance? I always presumed he didn't because his alibis checked out. Let's face it, Robert Murat was interrogated many times in the lead up to him being made an arguido. The McCanns, had given the PJ reason to suspect, they were involved with Madeleine's disappearance, yet they were not interrogated in the way that Robert Murat was interrogated.

Also Robert Murat's mum's house was raided more than once and her garden was dug up at least twice, by the police.

In a news report, I saw Robert Murat, standing outside his mum's house with his lawyer. The lawyer said that Mr Murat, had requested to be made an arguido, because it gave him certain rights. The right to have a lawyer present and the right to remain silent when questioned, were just two of the rights an arguido is entitled to have. He was never going to remain silent, unlike Kate McCann, but because of the many times he was questioned as a witness, he could not have a lawyer present, unless he was an arguido.

I read that once it was established that Robert Murat was not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, he expected to be released from his arguido status and he was very upset to learn that he had to remain an arguido, until the McCanns were either prosecuted or released from their arguido status.


Unlike the McCanns, Rober Murat remained in Portugal for the whole time he was an arguido. He would have had to report to the police station in Pria da Luz, at least once a week, under the terms of his arguido status. Which makes me wonder why the McCanns were allowed to leave Pria da Luz, and head for home, because they too, should have attended a police station, at least once a week.

I know one thing, David Payne and Robert Murat are similar in looks and David Payne, if what Katherine Gaspar said is true, is a man who shouldn't be around children and certainly shouldn't be a doctor. Yet Robert Murat, is the one who is still suspected of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance. If not by the police, by certain members of the general public.

Hi kathy, no I don't think he had anything to do with her her disappearance, it just seems odd to me that on that night, they were sitting in the kitchen talking and didn't know about anything that was going on around them. Such a small place with such a lot of activity. Just a quick look out of a window, they would presumably have seen many police and holidaymakers with flashlights looking for Madeleine and shouting her name. Let alone all the police cars (don't know if they had sirens on) going up and down that road, which by all accounts looks fairly quiet.

Well, bless my soul, your lordship, I'm not surprised by that news, and I only hope you are not joking me.
I know it makes the mods a little nervous, but the two reasons I post what I find rather too frankly, are (1) you good people deserve to be kept in the loop, and if I said nothing, you wouldn't be able to contribute your ideas. And (2) if I can start a new fashion amongst the Tapas Nine and their additional friends, for the wearing of brown underwear, I shall have done a service.

kikoraton wrote:And (2) if I can start a new fashion amongst the Tapas Nine and their additional friends, for the wearing of brown underwear, I shall have done a service.

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

Judge Mental wrote:@ Kikoraton and Stella.

According to some messages one has been receiving, these findings of yours are continuing to cause great consternation amongst those who believe in the abduction theory.

Would one care to share the messages one has been receiving. If so, one would be most obliged....

Daoud wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:@ Kikoraton and Stella.

According to some messages one has been receiving, these findings of yours are continuing to cause great consternation amongst those who believe in the abduction theory.

Would one care to share the messages one has been receiving. If so, one would be most obliged....

@ Daoud

Of course not. Looking at one's records, you have yet to attend one's compulsory brainwashing sessions. This may be because you have not made quite enough incisive posts to render you trustworthy enough to be invited into one's sessions.

However, having been reminded of these messages, one will immediately forward some to Kikoraton.

So that's a 'No' then [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi folks

Yesterday I had an unfortunate/fortunate little trip to hospital to have a large number of injections to treat osteoarthritis. Ouch !!! yes, say no more. But what was interesting was the way in which things got signed off. I signed a consent form, yet when I left, the copy of the consent form I was given did not have my signature on it ?? God only knows what I was originally given to sign? Then it occurred to me, if the original paperwork shall we say got a little mislaid, it would be very easy to produce another set. How many people would check to see if their own signature was there on a very badly written procedure form? Perhaps this is how it frequently works in the medical field?


Now, going back to the creche sheets, maybe it was made perfectly clear in the nannies welcome meeting, that only the parents were allowed to collect their own children. It could be that some of the parents had a little arrangement with a few of the nannies to allow their very close friends to also do this, but to keep the paperwork in order, the correct parental name had to be added. The nanny was then in the clear, as was MW. Some very young nannies, influenced by a group of upstanding professional people who all travelled as a group, should not cause any concern, right? Well, if all had gone well then no one would be the wiser. Perhaps what the nannies didn't bank on was a whole load of creche sheets being made public to millions of people. We know that this group changed the way in which the tapas bookings should have been made. It is not therefore unreasonable to think they could have also influenced the creche arrangements.

We need to look closely at all of the available creche sheets for signature inconsistencies. It is such a shame that baby club is missing. We need to collect any available signatures on statements for all of the nannies, Cat, Charlotte and the Carpenters named nanny, to see if they are consistent with the handwriting on those sheets.

Somewhere I saw a statement from someone that said when the nannies tookthe children to high tea, they took the creche sheets with them and only when the child had finished eating and the parents had arrived, it was the parents who signed out the child. But was it? If one nanny had signed out all of the children in her care, could she have looked after another groups children on a private basis? Could this explain why Stephen Carpenter got a little confused over who Madeleine's nanny was?

There is much work to be done, but at the moment I have to rest quite a bit, so will have to put my terrier instinct on the back burner for a bit. But don't worry, the mind is always on overtime. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[quote stella]

Now, going back to the creche sheets, maybe it was made perfectly clear in the nannies welcome meeting, that only the parents were allowed to collect their own children. It could be that some of the parents had a little arrangement with a few of the nannies to allow their very close friends to also do this, but to keep the paperwork in order, the correct parental name had to be added

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

There is a statement to that effect in the witness statements of the nannies. I can't remember which one just now, as I read them all the other day. I will look for it. In it she says it is a strict rule of MW that only parents can sign their own children in and out and this must be done on each occasion, and there must be a prior arrangement with the nannies (MW) for anyone else to sign the children out. None of the nannies (as far as I am aware) say there was such an arrangement in place.

Found it

[snipped - witness statement of Catriona Baker]

Mark Warner has a standard procedure, signing a sheet whenever a parent delivers a child under the care of the club, which they sign again with their name and the time at which the child was picked up again. There is a separate sheet for the morning shift and one for the afternoon shift. The sheet has a space for the name of the child, the time and the parent’s signature. Only the parents are allowed to pick up the children, except when there is some other agreement. When Gerry and Kate came to pick up Madeleine, they were friendly and the child would run into their arms.


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

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

She was probably covering her own arse by making that statement, seeing as she was the only one who mentions it. Maybe she knew that the correct procedure had not been followed at the time and that the tapas gang had used other peoples names to sign in and out the children?? If so, it would be guts-for-garters for her and by making that statement, perhaps she thinks it will help protect her own position.

So what are we to make of all those entries of 'Cat Nanny' ?

Does this mean that she left the creche with that child and walked them back to Mum and Dad ?

This is what you missed, daoud!! I don't think the Judge will mind you knowing that in some circles she is "the Golden Judge". Nor do I mind that they think I am mad - I'm more interested that they are trying to confuse their readers that my theory is based on the "mis-identification of a signature". I have no doubt who wrote it, nor whose siggy was being imitated.

"Still sofa bouncing from their great coup of attracting the maddest and most deranged posters from the MCF, and still happy to allow them to build a theory based on the mis-identification of signatures, Havern's very own Golden Judge has some sound advice for the sleuths:

Re: How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

Post Judge Mental Yesterday at 5:14 pm
The work you are doing to prove something we have always been extremely suspicious of, has come as a great relief to oneself. "

kikoraton

parapono

Hola Kiko,
I can't say that I understood exactly what it is I'm supposed to have missed - I guess you're referring to the 5.30 or later on the 3rd of May theorists? But anyway, I'm glad to see that you're continuing with the good work. What do you make of Hernani Carvalho's remarks about PdL and dawn?
All the best.

Well, I do not care what any pros say. I know I am only an amateur but I am more than happy to share what I do know with everybody else here. And I would put serious money on the idea that all of these Ainne Naylor signatures were not written by the same person. There are at least two and possibly three signatories there IMO. Whether any of them are the real Ainne Naylor, I couldn't say; but my hypothesis is that at least one of them isn't!

I'm a little confused now. I just had a quick look, but will go back and have a better look in a minute, once all the creche links are posted up here for easier reference. But I could not see the 3 years old Carpenter's child, located in room FP02 anywhere ??




All the creche links that we have:

Lobsters Sunday 29^th April

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

Lobsters Monday 30^th April

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

Lobsters Tuesday 1^st May

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

Lobsters Wednesday 2^nd May

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

Lobsters Thursday 3^rd May

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





Jellyfish Sunday 29^th April PM

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

Starfish Monday 30^th April AM

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

Starfish Monday 30^th April PM

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



Jellyfish Tuesday 1^st May AM

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

Jellyfish Tuesday 1^st May PM

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

Jellyfish Wednesday 2^nd May AM

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

Jellyfish Wednesday 2^nd May PM

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

Jellyfish Thursday 3^rd May AM

MISSING

Jellyfish Thursday 3^rd May PM

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

On the 1st May I**y Carpenter was signed in, then her name scrubbed off that list. There is nothing for her for the rest of the week, so if she was in another 3 year old's group, what was that group called and who else was in it?


and why would Stephen Carpenter say that his daughter and Madeleine were in the same group?

I think our Cat was getting some very good legal advice compared to a lot of other people. If you look closer at her statement, you will see that someone was advising her to initial the tops of every page, which ensures authenticity.

Also take a good look at her signature at the bottom....



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

@ Stella

Please ensure that you try to have plenty of rest after your ordeal yesterday. One is wishing you well in gaining the greatest benefit from your injections over the next few days. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The work being done in this thread is most intriguing.

You mean the signature that starts below the line then climbs upwards, and has the litte left hand loop on the stroke of the k? Like Ainne Naylor has the little left-hand loop on the upstoke of the r? Just saying.

Thanks Judge [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] for your very sound advice and will do.

I was just about to make one last post before resting for the day.

This is Charlotte Penningtons signature
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

again, just like Cat, the rest of her statement was initialled, unlike some of the others I have seen. I believe she was in charge of Baby Club [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Shibboleth wrote:You mean the signature that starts below the line then climbs upwards, and has the litte left hand loop on the stroke of the k? Like Ainne Naylor has the little left-hand loop on the upstoke of the r? Just saying.

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

daoud - it's not important. It was something written on a pro.McC forum which led JM to believe that we are getting close to the truth.

OK, just a word of advice to all now, which I am sure will be music to the ears of those with the unenviable task of moderating. We are under close scrutiny, and we must be careful to avoid saying anything which cannot be substantiated with some evidence For instance, if I say I believe that someone is using near-identical handwriting to enter two children into the creche, I have to be able to show what I'm talking about.
And about the signature which I replicated and posted some pages back, I will simply say that I have never believed it to be a copy of R Naylor's of London. I believe it to be a simulation of another Robert Naylor, of Leicestershire. And therein lies a great mystery.

I think Carpenter got it wrong. They weren't in the same group. He must have signed the wrong sheet one day, and had to scrub it out.

Could this mean then perhaps that the two groups of children were possibly located in the same building? or maybe even in the same room?

It would make sense that there was more than one group in the same room, under the care of a different nanny and therefore had to sign a different creche sheet. It could then perhaps explain why Stephen Carpenter said they were in the same group and on one occasion completed the wrong sheet, if more than one was lying around on the same table.

I couldn't understand why the twins started off in Jellyfish one day and the next went to Starfish, perhaps it was a similar arrangement as above and all they did was change nanny?

Quite probable, Stella. I've seen a photo showing one small group in a very large room. Hope your injection area is not too painful now!

Thanks Kiko [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Despite the worst pain ever during the actual process of having facet joint injections. For the first time in a long time, I can now move parts of my back relatively pain free. Two weeks from now I should be feeling the full benefit of them apparently!!! I just hope it lasts a long time, as I'm not sure if I could ever go through that process again.

These creche arrangements have really got my old sniffer going like a gooden. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did the McCann's or any of the nanny's ever explain why the twins went from jellyfish to starfish on the 30th ? Changing nanny's after only 1 day, would have been quite distressing for children so young. So why did it happen ?

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

Good that your feeling better [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

How do you mean changed nannies?

This is in Catriona Baker's statement:

--Specifies that when looking after children of the missing girl’s age group, each nanny is responsible for approximately seven children, that remain under the care of the same nanny during the whole week.
--States that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, the 29th of 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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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


I've just been trying to fathom out why the twins went from Jellyfish on day one, to Starfish on day 2, then it seems back to Jellyfish for the rest of the week. At first I thought perhaps the different group names were headed up by different nanny's and that perhaps the twins changed groups/nanny's that week. But after just reading the same thing you have just posted, the nanny is claiming she was with them the whole week. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] So why did the name change from Jellyfish to Starfish for only one day ?? I have absolutely no idea, but it niggles me ...




Mini club (3-5 yrs)

Supervisors in pecking order, Lyndsay Johnson, then Amy Tierney

1^st group Cat Baker (MM & E**a O’Brien)

2^nd group Emma Wilding



Toddler club 1 (12m-23m)

nanny's were Shinead Vine, Jacqueline Williams, Leanne Wagstaff

2 sub groups, each group having 3 children

Toddler club 2 (24m-3 yrs) Stacy Portz, Shinead Vine, Sarah Williamson, Susan Owen (AM & SM)





Baby club (3- 11 months)

Supervisors in pecking order Lyndsay Johnson, then Amy Tierney

nanny's were Charlotte Pennington, Lynne Fretter

3 sub groups, each group having 2 babies

blue GM signs
pink KM signs
yellow CB signs or missing
white MM not signed out

Lobsters	29	30	1	2	3
AM in	9.45	9.30	9.30	9.20	9.10
AM out	12.15	12.10	12.20	12.30	12.25
PM in	2.45	3.15	2.30	2.45	2.50
PM out	5.30	3.30		5.30	5.30
Jellyfish	29	30	1	2	3
AM in	missing	9.20	9.20	9.10	missing
AM out	missing	12.15	12.20	12.25	missing
PM in	2.35	3.25	2.30	2.40	2.45
PM out	5.30	5.20	5.20	5.20	5.25

Some observations:

Gerry usually did the morning drop off’s and Kate usually did the afternoon drop off’s

30th Madeleine is signed out in the afternoon after only being there for 15 minutes

1st Madeleine is not signed out PM and this time Gerry did the afternoon drop off ?? (odd signature)
Kate it would appear did not visit Lobsters on this day

2nd in the afternoon, Kate signs in as McCann and out as Healey
At lunchtime a large number of children are signed out that day by Cat Nanny

As the week went on, signing in and out got slightly earlier and earlier each day

Interesting, Stella.
On a daily basis the McCs seem to have divided the deliveries/collections equally for the two combined groups:

29th - 3 d/c each with two missing
30th - 4 d/c each
1st - 4 for GMcC and 3 for KMcC with one 'not signed out'
2nd - 3 for GMcC and 4 for KMcC with one missing
3rd - 1 for GMcC and 5 for KMcC with two missing

There is probably too little infromation here to discern a significant pattern:
GMcC did 7 of the 10 am deliveries, KMcC 1 and two are missing
GMcC did 4 of the 10 am collections, KMcC 3, Cat Baker 1 and two are missing
GMcC did 2 of the 10 pm deliveries, KMcC 8
GMcC did 2 of the 10 pm collections, KMcC 7 and one is missing

So it seems GMcC was busier in the am sessions (11/20, KMcC 4/20 and 5/20 missing or CB) and KMcC busier in the pm sessions (15/20, GMcC 4/20 and one missing) - the one major discrepancy that I can see is for the 3rd - GMcC 1 am delivery and KMcC 5 with both Jellyfish d&c missing.

So of the 40 deliveries and collections KMcC signed for 19, GMcC for 15, CB for 1 and 5 were missing.

Whether it's of any significance I have no idea.