How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

This post is based on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from Textusa.

This Daily Mail article from 25th September 2007 seems relevant: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] If this article is correct Charlotte Pennington would seem she was the first independant witness on the scene in apartment 5a. From the article:

Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her childfrom the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man,who had been shouting a name."She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-childprocedure. In these situations, the first thing we do isinvestigate the scene."We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment."There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends."When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming:'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

Clearly the twins were present when the police arrived later so had they not yet been placed in the room rather than been taken out?

In her police statement at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Charlotte said

She did not enter the residence in question

i.e. apartment 5A. So did someone 'suggest' she made a statement to the police to that effect? But then why change her statement when interviewed by the Daily Mail?









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

kikoraton wrote:7.30 - 8.30 is awful early to trot off to the Millenium (too far away for evening meals?) for breakfast on your first day. Especially as it was a signing-in-your-kids-and-getting-to know-each-other morning. That is, they didn't need to arrive at the Lobster Club pronto. If I were asked to guess, I'd say they went there with a full complement, just to be seen.
Who saw them there? Are there any eye witnesses?

It is early considering that they had 3 children to get washed, dressed and everyone had to walk there. Which is why I started looking into what the McCann's had to say, compared to the breakfast staff. Here is some of the interesting bits.

Witness Statement of Alexandra Nicole de Sousa
Date: 2007 – 05 – 08 Occupation: Waitress Place of Work: Millenium Restaurant, OC

When asked, she says she recalls the parents of the girl who disappeared as they dined in the restaurant on the day they arrived in Portugal, on a Saturday, she does not remember the date. She say that she remembers the twins, Madeleine’s siblings, but not Madeleine. although she recognises that she must have seen her in the company of her parents.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Witness Statement of Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo
Date/Time: 2007/05/06 22H00 Occupation: Public Relations Place of Work: Millenium restaurant, OC.

When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off. She says that breakfast was served between 08.00 and 10.00 and that the McCanns would arrive between 08.00 and 09.00.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Witness Statement of John Sholto Young
Date: 2007-05-08 Occupation: Waiter, Millenium Restaurant

After seeing their [the McCann’s] picture, (which must have been provided by Murat who translated for him) he immediately remembered that he had seen them having breakfast in the restaurant where he works
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Witness statement of Luis Miguel de Sousa Barros
Date: 2007/05/08 Occupation: Barman Millenium Restaurant

Apart from breakfast, which they would eat every day in the Millenium restaurant, dinner on Saturday night was the only meal they had there because the Tapas bar did not serve dinner on Saturdays. He remembered that Saturdays dinner was a buffet service and that he had been very close to the group, giving them all the necessary indications related to the service. In spite not recalling Madeleine’s exact features, he presumes she was there with the other children present.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ohhhhh.......I thought they had breakfast in the apartment

kikoraton wrote:ohhhhh.......I thought they had breakfast in the apartment [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So did I. I am sure I read that somewhere.

Yes, according to the McCann's, from the 30th onwards, they had breakfast every morning in their apartment.

How can so many members of staff all get it wrong though ?

The McCann's were the only ones with 3 children and would easily stand out from the rest, would they not ?

The list of outright contradictions between the witnesses about exactly what happened that week groweth

Tony Bennett wrote:The list of outright contradictions between the witnesses about exactly what happened that week groweth

One would have thought that this alone was good enough reason to start some serious and intensive questioning of the witnesses.

Judge Mental wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:The list of outright contradictions between the witnesses about exactly what happened that week groweth

One would have thought that this alone was good enough reason to start some serious and intensive questioning of the witnesses.

100% agreed.

Some inconsistencies are inevitable when witnesses try to recall a certain event or incident.

But these are outright contradictions, and there are many of them.

A comprehensive list should be compiled and forwarded to Leicestershire Police, who will be duty bound to investigate them themselves OR refer them to the Policia Judiciara in Portugal.

This time the interrogation of all the witnesses should be probative and seaching, not like the chat show that took place during the Rogatories.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:The list of outright contradictions between the witnesses about exactly what happened that week groweth

One would have thought that this alone was good enough reason to start some serious and intensive questioning of the witnesses.

100% agreed.

Some inconsistencies are inevitable when witnesses try to recall a certain event or incident.

But these are outright contradictions, and there are many of them.

A comprehensive list should be compiled and forwarded to Leicestershire Police, who will be duty bound to investigate them themselves OR refer them to the Policia Judiciara in Portugal.

This time the interrogation of all the witnesses should be probative and seaching, not like the chat show that took place during the Rogatories.

Now that is a very good idea

Stella wrote:
Witness statement of Luis Miguel de Sousa Barros
Date: 2007/05/08 Occupation: Barman Millenium Restaurant

Apart from breakfast, which they would eat every day in the Millenium restaurant, dinner on Saturday night was the only meal they had there because the Tapas bar did not serve dinner on Saturdays. He remembered that Saturdays dinner was a buffet service and that he had been very close to the group, giving them all the necessary indications related to the service. In spite not recalling Madeleine’s exact features, he presumes she was there with the other children present.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am wondering if this is a translation issue? I have copied the whole section below and what I noticed the second time round was that at breakfast time he was not there, when it was served. Which is not the same thing as seeing them there. Or he is saying that he was not there to serve them, but he saw them when he started work at 8 am. ??

Also, I have just noticed that he is suggesting that the tapas was booked DURING the time that all of the children were having high-tea, which means 5pm on Sunday 29th. Not that morning, which contradicts all of the tapas 7 and also the tapas receptionist.

He remembered being in the presence of the group Madeleine belonged to, composed of nine adults and eight children on the 28th April, the day they arrived at the resort. Apart from breakfast, which they would eat every day in the Millenium restaurant, dinner on Saturday night was the only meal they had there because the Tapas bar did not serve dinner on Saturdays. He remembered that Saturdays dinner was a buffet service and that he had been very close to the group, giving them all the necessary indications related to the service. In spite not recalling Madeleine’s exact features, he presumes she was there with the other children present. He did not notice anything particular about the girl, nor was there any difference in the normal tranquillity in spite of the fact that there were 8 children.

He does not remember serving breakfast to the group, given that this would occur before he began work.

When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.

He think that this request was made in order to be close to the children who had their meals with the nannies, and to be close to the apartments.

He has nothing else to add.

Reads, ratifies, signs.

Lets not forget the shelf above the bed where the perp put cuddlecat, a shelf that never existed,,and Gerry said, cuddlecat was on the bed contradicting kate

As for the barman's evidence, it seems to me that he is saying that on at least one occasion the children were being looked after by nannies during evening dinner. Surely the parents were cruelly forced to look after their children during the lunch break, so he can't be referring to that, can he????????

That's interesting. I looked at all the list of statements from the OC staff list and Millennium staff list and there was only 1 Steve, this one. Who also happens to have a title of catering manager. BUT, look at the bit in red !!!


Witness Statement of Steven Marcos Rodrigues Cova

Date: 2007/05/08 Occupation: Catering Manager Place of Work: Ocean Club

He has worked at the OC since January 2007. Within his functions he supervises all that is related to the catering in the different restaurants belonging to the resort. His working hours are not fixed but he generally works from 10.00 to 19.00. In the implementation of his functions he circulates through the entire resort, knowing the place relatively well.

When questioned he says he knows about the disappearance of the English girl Madeleine, which he found out about at around 02.00 on the morning of 4th May 2007, by means of a phone call he received from the resort manager, who said he had contacts with a person linked to the local radio station, with the aim of proceeding to spread the news about the girl’s disappearance.

He says that on the day of the girl’s disappearance he worked at the resort until 20.00. He said that he was absent from Portugal between Sunday 29th April and the 2nd May 2007.He never had any contact with the girl or her family before the disappearance and heard about them from the press.

He did not see or hear anything strange in the days preceding the disappearance. He has no further information.

Reads, ratifies, signs

From all the statements I have read so far, it does not look like anyone would be able to identify Madeleine. Look at how many said something like, oh well she must have been there !!!

I had the idea, possibly erroneous, that the Steve in question was British. Probably just me, assuming things. But you're right, Stella - when push comes to shove, there are precious few people who could say a single word about how Maddie looked or behaved.

I thought I read she mixed well with other children but was shy and small for her age? Can't recall where.

soulthief wrote:I thought I read she mixed well with other children but was shy and small for her age? Can't recall where.

Yet her mother has given the impression that she was a child who could be quite rude and cheeky, by saying that she would be giving her new parents or a paedophile gang her ''tuppenceworth''. A family friend has said she was a ''sceamer''. Another family friend has said she enjoyed playing the game of ''monsters'' and being chased.

Having compared the vague picture of a very small Madeleine alighting the plane, and the robust, strapping child in the Tennis Ball picture, one has to say that one does not believe these two images to be of the same child. Much longer limbs in the second photograph, and a sense of more coordination somehow.

So what are you saying judge? that the plane footage is not Madeleine? Also, the footage of Madeleine playing on the stairs shows an out going happy child.An extrovert.

Or perhaps the tennis balls photo isn't Madeleine. One thing for certain, those pics could not both be Madeleine of similar age.

I know the tennis ball picture not sure of the one its being compared to,but it is certainly different from the supposed last picture in which she looks like she is little more than a baby.

soulthief wrote:So what are you saying judge? that the plane footage is not Madeleine? Also, the footage of Madeleine playing on the stairs shows an out going happy child.An extrovert.

One cannot say for sure that the child seen in the plane footage is not Madeleine, on account of the fact that we cannot see her face. Not that this would provide much help as Madeleine appears to look rather different in many photographs of her. However, the child in the plane footage certainly does not appear to have the height of the child we see in the 'Tennis Ball' photograph.

One would agree with yourself that Madeleine would be more likely to be an extrovert than this shy child we keep reading about.

Forgive one's impertinence, but do you really wear this wristband which you were misled into buying? Had one been misled in the same way, one has to say that it would have been returned by now, with a rather stiff demand for a refund [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What do you make of the last picture? She looks like a very young child, like a 2 yr old, not much more than 2, very different form the Tennis ball shot and the wendy house one where she is dressed in pink? I would say the pics looked about a year apart age wise.
to the band, I never knew you could get a refund and it seems trivial over a couple of quid, I just never took it off and never really consider it, its one of several I wear. I am thinking of burning it on youtube to make some dramatic statement, maybe on 4chan or some other message board that would allow such an act. And I dont take it as impertinence judge, only now people have asked wear it am I second thinking about it.

I have no doubt that the various photos of Madeleine were manipulated by the McC Team in order to convey whatever effect they desired, and to sow confusion.
If I'm a bit silent nowadays, it's because I am creating computer graphics to support the evidence we have gathered with respect to the phone calls (and silences!), and the creche records. These will be presented to the appropriate police force by myself and someone who has been working with me, assuming that the said force agrees to meet us, in the very early part of the New Year.
It would probably take me only another week to get it all ready, but given the weather and the current silly season, there's no point in hurrying it. We can afford to let Team Mccann stew for another month or so.

kikoraton wrote:I have no doubt that the various photos of Madeleine were manipulated by the McC Team in order to convey whatever effect they desired, and to sow confusion.
If I'm a bit silent nowadays, it's because I am creating computer graphics to support the evidence we have gathered with respect to the phone calls (and silences!), and the creche records. These will be presented to the appropriate police force by myself and someone who has been working with me, assuming that the said force agrees to meet us, in the very early part of the New Year.
It would probably take me only another week to get it all ready, but given the weather and the current silly season, there's no point in hurrying it. We can afford to let Team Mccann stew for another month or so.

Hello Kikoraton, may I commend you on your tenacity. You and the others with the skills and sticking power to keep going, despite the slings and arrows, deserve our utmost support. Sincere thanks.

I don't think the pool picture was a last picture, she looks too much of a baby in it, she looks a little over 2, Im sure I read the Mccanns had gone to Portugal the previous year, perhaps the picture of Madeleine was form then and shopped on to the last picture?

soulthief wrote:I don't think the pool picture was a last picture, she looks too much of a baby in it, she looks a little over 2, Im sure I read the Mccanns had gone to Portugal the previous year, perhaps the picture of Madeleine was form then and shopped on to the last picture?

I think it was just Gerry and a friend who went to another Mark Warner resort in Portugal the previous year. Didn't he say something like 'it seemed a child friendly place' and gave that as a reason why he thought it would be ideal for all the family to stay?

Autumn wrote:

soulthief wrote:I don't think the pool picture was a last picture, she looks too much of a baby in it, she looks a little over 2, Im sure I read the Mccanns had gone to Portugal the previous year, perhaps the picture of Madeleine was form then and shopped on to the last picture?

I think it was just Gerry and a friend who went to another Mark Warner resort in Portugal the previous year. Didn't he say something like 'it seemed a child friendly place' and gave that as a reason why he thought it would be ideal for all the family to stay?

I can't recall exact details but know they had been before. Do you think that last photo is the last photo?

No, Soulthief, there has been much discussion about the 'last photo' on various forums and I fall into the photoshopped camp - you have to wonder why it wasn't produced until Gerry returned from a visit to Rothley 3 wks later.

From Missing Madeleine Forum


Russell O'Brien Part Statement about the photo of Madeleine that was printed off,and that the red top photo was taken from Kate's camera.

Russell OBrien Rog Interview
Part Statement date 10.4 08.

1578 “’And a female member of staff possibly from MARK WARNER’?”
Reply “Yeah, she was certainly, yeah, she was, she was English, you know, clearly not a, not a local. Erm, next it says ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’, I mean, it wasn’t so much struggling to get the picture, it was struggling to find the means of printing it. We had the cam,we had Kate’s camera, erm, the, what we were trying to do is find a picture that actually gave a good likeness, rather than just being any old shot it actually had, you know, a close-up of her, of her face. There were a lot of pictures on the camera but they were, you know, just at home and on, you know, in profile and things like that”.
1578 “Yes”.
Reply “So we had, we”.
1578 “So to the words ‘we were struggling’, ‘but we were struggling’ need to be removed?”
Reply “Erm, yeah, ‘we tried to find’, I think, it’s fairly irrelevant, I think, you know”.
1578 “So?”
Reply “’We were trying to find a picture but we’, you know, delete ‘but we were struggling’. ‘Kate checked the camera’. Erm, I don’t actually remember saying that Jane had taken the picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson, in any case, it wasn’t that day it was the day before that Madeleine and E**a were in the group, erm, on a different day doing the tennis. I think, you know, it’s fairly, I think it’s fairly irrelevant anyway, I don’t think Jane did have a picture from the tennis lesson. So I think that that could all go, I think that ‘Jane had taken a picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson that day’ could all go and then put, the main thing here was, erm, ‘We were searching for a printer and Kat, one of the Nannies, said she had a printer’. I’m pretty sure it was Kat. So this paragraph’s quite”.
1578 “So we keep in ‘We couldn’t print it off’?”
Reply “’We needed to print it off’ that, that was the sticking issue, we had pictures but we needed to get in somewhere to print them and I think people had asked at, at, at the reception down at Ocean Club”.
1578 “So the pictures of Madeleine?”
Reply “On a digital camera”.
1578 “That were printed off?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1578 “Came from Kate’s camera”.
Reply “From Kate’s camera as far as I can remember, yeah. And the main issue was trying to find somewhere to print it”.
1578 “What about if we say ‘Kate checked her camera and found some pictures’?”
Reply “Yeah, yeah, or ‘Kate’s camera was checked’, I don’t think Kate was in no, in no state whatsoever to check her camera”.
1578 “Okay. So ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1578 “’Kate’s camera was checked’?”
Reply “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.
1578 “Okay. But ‘Kate or one of the Nannies’?”
Reply “Yeah, ‘Kat or one of the Nannies’, I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure.
1578 “Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?
Reply “Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.
1578 “So who gave it to you”?
Reply “Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently.

End part Statement ROB.

theolivebranch wrote:

kikoraton wrote:I have no doubt that the various photos of Madeleine were manipulated by the McC Team in order to convey whatever effect they desired, and to sow confusion.
If I'm a bit silent nowadays, it's because I am creating computer graphics to support the evidence we have gathered with respect to the phone calls (and silences!), and the creche records. These will be presented to the appropriate police force by myself and someone who has been working with me, assuming that the said force agrees to meet us, in the very early part of the New Year.
It would probably take me only another week to get it all ready, but given the weather and the current silly season, there's no point in hurrying it. We can afford to let Team Mccann stew for another month or so.

Hello Kikoraton, may I commend you on your tenacity. You and the others with the skills and sticking power to keep going, despite the slings and arrows, deserve our utmost support. Sincere thanks.

I second that. Your tenacity and courage is commendable.

aiyoyo wrote:

theolivebranch wrote:

kikoraton wrote:I have no doubt that the various photos of Madeleine were manipulated by the McC Team in order to convey whatever effect they desired, and to sow confusion.
If I'm a bit silent nowadays, it's because I am creating computer graphics to support the evidence we have gathered with respect to the phone calls (and silences!), and the creche records. These will be presented to the appropriate police force by myself and someone who has been working with me, assuming that the said force agrees to meet us, in the very early part of the New Year.
It would probably take me only another week to get it all ready, but given the weather and the current silly season, there's no point in hurrying it. We can afford to let Team Mccann stew for another month or so.

Hello Kikoraton, may I commend you on your tenacity. You and the others with the skills and sticking power to keep going, despite the slings and arrows, deserve our utmost support. Sincere thanks.

I second that. Your tenacity and courage is commendable.

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

Tip top, kikoraton. You have given many theories an enormous amount of credibility, for which many people are truly grateful.

Regarding this statement below, one has to say that the police were the people to advise on which photographs could and could not have been used, at an appropriate time. What was the hurry to hand photographs around? Madeleine could very well have walked back into the apartment at any moment. Just how foolish do these people think the police and the rest of us really are?

1578 “So we keep in ‘We couldn’t print it off’?”
Reply “’We needed to print it off’ that, that was the sticking issue, we had pictures but we needed to get in somewhere to print them and I think people had asked at, at, at the reception down at Ocean Club”.