The McCanns family trip to Sagres 30th April

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:
Day 37 is from the 3rd of May, obviously from the 1st of May it will be exactly 40 days.

So from the 1st of May, required observance of the faith:
3rd day, prayers 3/4th May, Church PdL
9th day prayers-? 9th/10th ???
40 days, memorial service- Sagres family and friends, dressed in black. (we need to find photographs of that day)
3 months, visit the grave to say farewells. Huelva trip (1 day late but was planned for the 1st of August?)

The infamous picture of them emerging from the church is on day 8 from the date of the reported disappearance, so 9 or 10 days from any other happening.

So Sagres is spot on - 9th June, 3rd/4th May is spot on for 3 days , Huelva is spot on. 3 months. That is if we take the 1st of May.
As I said in another post (where would a body be hidden) the family and friends were largely complicit, but the excuse (overdose - resultant loss of job, house etc.) would be convincing enough for them to go along with the storyline.
But - and I think this is really important - the rites and obligations to the dead were meticulously observed and the family was present. If not justice, respectful remembrance was seen to be done.

Sagres wasn't just a nice beach.

Look at these photos of the rocks with crevices in.

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

Apologies won't show on the forum.

Day 37 is from the 3rd of May, obviously from the 1st of May it will be exactly 40 days.

So from the 1st of May, required observance of the faith:
3rd day, prayers 3/4th May, Church PdL
9th day prayers-? 9th/10th ???
40 days, memorial service- Sagres family and friends, dressed in black. (we need to find photographs of that day)
3 months, visit the grave to say farewells. Huelva trip (1 day late but was planned for the 1st of August?)

So Sagres is spot on - 9th June, 3rd/4th May is spot on for 3 days , Huelva is spot on. 3 months. That is if we take the 1st of May.

The mccanns have a history of marking dates e.g., 100 days, 200 days, 1000 days etc to when she disappeared. They clearly do mark dates and being devout catholics they would mark the religious dates.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann’s handset was silent all day. Kate McCann’s mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the day’s calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The crèche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann’s call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

At around 8.45pm on Tuesday 1st May 2007, Miss Nejoua Chekeya, the Ocean Club’s busty Aerobics Instructor, held a “Quiz Night” and was later invited, allegedly by Gerald McCann, to join his table which she did sometime between 9.30pm and 9.50pm. She did not say how long she had remained with them, but she is not the sort of woman men would wish see to leave too quickly. Miss Chekeya stated that one dinner setting was unused and that she could not remember seeing Kate McCann.

However, both Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the “Quiz Night” (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter. Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O’Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!

Kate McCann’s mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the “Tapas 9”.

Mrs Fenn, the McCann’s neighbour, reported that Madeleine had cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45. The evidence shows that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A 14 minutes before Madeleine started crying. Tuesday 1st May 2007 is the only night (except, of course, for Thursday 3rd May 2007) that either of the McCanns or any of their friends made calls after dinner.

On Wednesday 2nd May 2007, Kate McCann called her friend “Amanda” at 7.36.41 and again at 7.36.45. This was around two hours earlier than any of mobile activations on any other morning: so Kate McCann was “up with the larks”. Amanda returned the calls at 7.50. There is no record of how long any of these calls lasted or whether they were SMSs. They were all deleted from memory.

At 11.21 Kate received a call from what appears to be a landline in Swansea ( xxxxx0023). The Swansea call had become so special to Kate McCann that, when deleting all of the other Portuguese call records from memory, she decided to leave this one intact.

The batch of SMS messages received by Gerald McCann on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 seems to have caused him some anxiety

So the bottom line is that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A when Madeleine cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45 on Tuesday 1st May 2007, leading to a unique flurry of late night calls and to unique calls very early the following morning. A forensic examination of the records of Madeleine’s attendance at the “Lobsters” crèche on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd May 2007 is critically important because if they have been falsified, to establish she was there when she was not, this case takes on an entirely new dimension and sets different search parameters.

Secondly, if the memories of the mobile telephones were deleted in way suspected, a level of cunning is implied that would be capable of conceiving plan to deliberately delay reporting Madeleine’s “disappearance”; if for no other reason than to disassociate it from the crying incident on Tuesday 1st May 2007.

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

If we are saying the fatal accident was May 1st (daytime), there is an awful lot to support this. And I purport that Mrs Fenn heard one of the 'twins' crying on the night of May 1st, as he/she was missing Maddie. This was the need for gerry to say in first statement 'why Maddie had asked why they didn;t come when the twins were crying'. The mccanns knew the crying was heard so quickly made an alibi story about it. I also purport that 1st August when gerry was 'suddenly ill' was also false and was indeed a visit to the grave which is not in Huelva but somewhere else

j.d. I read somewhere that I cannot remember now that the Amanda that Kate called is married to a pathologist. mmm....was she calling for advice on what to do in the event of 'accidental death' or 'cause of death'.............. did she call in a panic the night before, leave lots of messages and then Amanda returned the call in the early hours next day upon hearing frantic voice messages????

jd wrote:The mccanns have a history of marking dates e.g., 100 days, 200 days, 1000 days etc to when she disappeared. They clearly do mark dates and being devout catholics they would mark the religious dates.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann’s handset was silent all day. Kate McCann’s mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the day’s calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The crèche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann’s call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

At around 8.45pm on Tuesday 1st May 2007, Miss Nejoua Chekeya, the Ocean Club’s busty Aerobics Instructor, held a “Quiz Night” and was later invited, allegedly by Gerald McCann, to join his table which she did sometime between 9.30pm and 9.50pm. She did not say how long she had remained with them, but she is not the sort of woman men would wish see to leave too quickly. Miss Chekeya stated that one dinner setting was unused and that she could not remember seeing Kate McCann.

However, both Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien have stated that he did not go to the Tapas Bar on the “Quiz Night” (ie Tuesday 1st May 2007), but had stayed in their room looking after his sick daughter. Jane Tanner took his dinner to the room; thus explaining the unused plate setting. Russell O’Brien was not asked by either the Policia Judiciaria or Leicestershire Police whether he had heard Madeleine crying!

Kate McCann’s mobile was next activated six times, in rapid fire, between 22.16 and 22.27, after she had returned to Apartment 5A after dinner. The antenna traffic proves that these calls were not made to any of the “Tapas 9”.

Mrs Fenn, the McCann’s neighbour, reported that Madeleine had cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45. The evidence shows that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A 14 minutes before Madeleine started crying. Tuesday 1st May 2007 is the only night (except, of course, for Thursday 3rd May 2007) that either of the McCanns or any of their friends made calls after dinner.

On Wednesday 2nd May 2007, Kate McCann called her friend “Amanda” at 7.36.41 and again at 7.36.45. This was around two hours earlier than any of mobile activations on any other morning: so Kate McCann was “up with the larks”. Amanda returned the calls at 7.50. There is no record of how long any of these calls lasted or whether they were SMSs. They were all deleted from memory.

At 11.21 Kate received a call from what appears to be a landline in Swansea ( xxxxx0023). The Swansea call had become so special to Kate McCann that, when deleting all of the other Portuguese call records from memory, she decided to leave this one intact.

The batch of SMS messages received by Gerald McCann on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 seems to have caused him some anxiety

So the bottom line is that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A when Madeleine cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45 on Tuesday 1st May 2007, leading to a unique flurry of late night calls and to unique calls very early the following morning. A forensic examination of the records of Madeleine’s attendance at the “Lobsters” crèche on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd May 2007 is critically important because if they have been falsified, to establish she was there when she was not, this case takes on an entirely new dimension and sets different search parameters.

Secondly, if the memories of the mobile telephones were deleted in way suspected, a level of cunning is implied that would be capable of conceiving plan to deliberately delay reporting Madeleine’s “disappearance”; if for no other reason than to disassociate it from the crying incident on Tuesday 1st May 2007.

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

If we are saying the fatal accident was May 1st (daytime), there is an awful lot to support this. And I purport that Mrs Fenn heard one of the 'twins' crying on the night of May 1st, as he/she was missing Maddie. This was the need for gerry to say in first statement 'why Maddie had asked why they didn;t come when the twins were crying'. The mccanns knew the crying was heard so quickly made an alibi story about it. I also purport that 1st August when gerry was 'suddenly ill' was also false and was indeed a visit to the grave which is not in Huelva but somewhere else

There is no evidence whatsoever, that the child heard crying that night was Madeleine. To state that it was is pure speculation and the word alleged should always be included in this sentence, for clarity.

In blue writing, not sure who wrote this:
"If we are saying the fatal accident was May 1st (daytime), there is an awful lot to support this"
Why are we saying it was an accident? There are no physical or tangible signs of an accident having taken place anywhere. We really do need to stick to the forensic findings when considering what may have happened.
"there is an awful lot to support this" What, death on the 1st during the day, really? Can you tell us what that is please?

quote from jd :
So the bottom line is that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A when
Madeleine cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45 on Tuesday 1st
May 2007, leading to a unique flurry of late night calls and to unique
calls very early the following morning. A forensic examination of the
records of Madeleine’s attendance at the “Lobsters” crèche on Wednesday
2nd and Thursday 3rd May 2007 is critically important because if they
have been falsified, to establish she was there when she was not, this
case takes on an entirely new dimension and sets different search
parameters.

I don't think it was established that Kate was effectively in the apartment, but in the area, because the ping was from PDL center. Personaly I do think she was indeed in 5A, but it is not proven.

I have to agree with you finch. Placing someones mobile phone in any area, does not prove that they were physically there and using it. Gerry or a friend could easily have borrowed it.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:
Day 37 is from the 3rd of May, obviously from the 1st of May it will be exactly 40 days.

So from the 1st of May, required observance of the faith:
3rd day, prayers 3/4th May, Church PdL
9th day prayers-? 9th/10th ???
40 days, memorial service- Sagres family and friends, dressed in black. (we need to find photographs of that day)
3 months, visit the grave to say farewells. Huelva trip (1 day late but was planned for the 1st of August?)

The infamous picture of them emerging from the church is on day 8 from the date of the reported disappearance, so 9 or 10 days from any other happening.

So Sagres is spot on - 9th June, 3rd/4th May is spot on for 3 days , Huelva is spot on. 3 months. That is if we take the 1st of May.
As I said in another post (where would a body be hidden) the family and friends were largely complicit, but the excuse (overdose - resultant loss of job, house etc.) would be convincing enough for them to go along with the storyline.
But - and I think this is really important - the rites and obligations to the dead were meticulously observed and the family was present. If not justice, respectful remembrance was seen to be done.

Yes and if the family were informed prior to this about the accident and their fear of reporting it and they had been told it was 'for the best' and that thye would do the very best for MM and see to it that everyone got to say their goodbyes, would it not make sense then that they were then told what the plans were. Each and every one will cover up to protect their own child (even if they are nearly 40+) and this would then explain the phone call where GM can only think of saying 'it's a disaster' quite unnatural thing to say unless of course all the talk and tears had been done and now the 'real' plan was taking shape! Including a brother giving up his full time paid job! He knew like the rest of them that MM was never coming back so the 'fund' could go on forever and a day so long as they keep up the spin!

Makes a lot of sense! Would certainly explain the phone calls and maybe even the crying on the night of 1st - was it actually KM saying Maddie not MM saying Daddy?

quote from Tigger I think..
So Sagres is spot on - 9th June, 3rd/4th May is spot on for 3 days , Huelva is spot on. 3 months. That is if we take the 1st of May.
As I said in another post (where would a body be hidden) the family and friends were largely complicit, but the excuse (overdose - resultant loss of job, house etc.) would be convincing enough for them to go along with the storyline.
But - and I think this is really important - the rites and obligations to the dead were meticulously observed and the family was present. If not justice, respectful remembrance was seen to be done.

I believe in a demise prior to 3rd May....but what about the creche attendance on 2nd and 3rd? If a sub was used then the different child surely would have been noticed? A sub used from the outset woud not present this problem, but that would mean death almost at the start and the deceit starting 29th.... could the creche have been so sloppily run that a child who was not there could be signed in and out at busy times when there was a small group of parents congregated ? So no sub child used? Or was a live Maddie not at OC at all but elsewhere?
btw did any nanny mention Maddies coloboma or comment about the iconic photo when released that they did not see that eye defect on the Maddie who was signed in ? Or could it be that if a sub was used, it was the sub who had a coloboma, hence one was photoshopped on the photo of Maddie? Just throwing out some thoughts....because not once in her book does Kate mention Maddies right eye....her most distinguishing physical feature, allegedly.

[
Makes a lot of sense! Would certainly explain the phone calls and maybe even the crying on the night of 1st - was it actually KM saying Maddie not MM saying Daddy?

[/quote]

Hence GM saying that they never called her Maddie only Madeleine.

russiandoll wrote: quote from Tigger I think..
So Sagres is spot on - 9th June, 3rd/4th May is spot on for 3 days , Huelva is spot on. 3 months. That is if we take the 1st of May.
As I said in another post (where would a body be hidden) the family and friends were largely complicit, but the excuse (overdose - resultant loss of job, house etc.) would be convincing enough for them to go along with the storyline.
But - and I think this is really important - the rites and obligations to the dead were meticulously observed and the family was present. If not justice, respectful remembrance was seen to be done.

I believe in a demise prior to 3rd May....but what about the creche attendance on 2nd and 3rd? If a sub was used then the different child surely would have been noticed? A sub used from the outset woud not present this problem, but that would mean death almost at the start and the deceit starting 29th.... could the creche have been so sloppily run that a child who was not there could be signed in and out at busy times when there was a small group of parents congregated ? So no sub child used? Or was a live Maddie not at OC at all but elsewhere?
btw did any nanny mention Maddies coloboma or comment about the iconic photo when released that they did not see that eye defect on the Maddie who was signed in ? Or could it be that if a sub was used, it was the sub who had a coloboma, hence one was photoshopped on the photo of Maddie? Just throwing out some thoughts....because not once in her book does Kate mention Maddies right eye....her most distinguishing physical feature, allegedly.

I have always wondered about the signing in process at these so called creches.

Here in UK I am sure you know our nurseries are run under very very strict guidelines. Everyone has to be CRB checked, doors are alarmed, and each room would have a register of who is there at any specific time, checks have to be made regularly on sleeping children to make sure they are still breathing etc etc. BUT as I am sure you all know even then we still hear of horrific things happening, CRB checks are useless if someone is that way inclined, alarmed doors mean nothing if they are not shut properly or someone else is given the code and as for registers I'll bet you there isn't a day goes by somewhere at some nursery where the register is not 100% - everyone can make mistakes.

So back to these holiday creches - whilst I am not saying that they are not run well and not run under guidelines I am not sure they are as strict as a nursery where you depend on your children for your livelyhood. These children and families come and go on a weekly basis, no one before this MM event would ever dream that a situation like this would occur, the staff are generally temporary and they can come and go as regularly as the guests.

Have you ever left you children (or stayed with them) at these indoor soft play centres? You have to sign them in but I don't remember a time when anyone has ever made sure I am who I say I am or that the child I drop off is mine and most of the time they don't take a second look at the child.

When you sign them in you could put that you were Humpty Dumpty and they wouldn't notice! You can go away without signing them out, and I have often wondered why I had to bother signing them in in the first place!!

What I am getting at is I think it would have been very easy to sign someone in to the creche at the OC and for them to not even notice they were there or not. Question is when they go to the beach or the playground is the headcount done from the sign in book or from the children they have with them at the time?

Hummingbird wrote:
[...]

What I am getting at is I think it would have been very easy to sign someone in to the creche at the OC and for them to not even notice they were there or not. Question is when they go to the beach or the playground is the headcount done from the sign in book or from the children they have with them at the time?

****
Whichever, Nanny Cat Baker doesn't seem to be able to be precise about the number of children she took to the beach for the sailing trip:

Processo Volume IV, pages 870 to 872

REPORT OF
EXTERNAL DILIGENCE

Date: 2007.05.10
Place: Praia da Luz, Lagos
Officer responsible: Manuel Pinho, Inspector


[...]


The
path taken was as follows:

1. The parents leave the children in the Mark Warner "BABY CLUB",
which is situated next to the principal reception of the resort, and which is
open 24 hours;
2. Next, Catriona, with MADELEINE and 4 or 5 other children, headed in the
direction of the beach on foot. The walk was about 100 metres, even though not
in a straight line;


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

Châtelaine wrote:

Hummingbird wrote:
[...]

What I am getting at is I think it would have been very easy to sign someone in to the creche at the OC and for them to not even notice they were there or not. Question is when they go to the beach or the playground is the headcount done from the sign in book or from the children they have with them at the time?

****
Whichever, Nanny Cat Baker doesn't seem to be able to be precise about the number of children she took to the beach for the sailing trip:

Processo Volume IV, pages 870 to 872

REPORT OF
EXTERNAL DILIGENCE

Date: 2007.05.10
Place: Praia da Luz, Lagos
Officer responsible: Manuel Pinho, Inspector


[...]


The
path taken was as follows:

1. The parents leave the children in the Mark Warner "BABY CLUB",
which is situated next to the principal reception of the resort, and which is
open 24 hours;
2. Next, Catriona, with MADELEINE and 4 or 5 other children, headed in the
direction of the beach on foot. The walk was about 100 metres, even though not
in a straight line;


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

Yes you are right was it 4 or was it 5?

There is a massive discrepancy when you read through CB statement for the day of 3 May.

On 3 May 2007 I remember GM having accompanied MM to the club between 9.15 and 9.20 in the morning I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but, after she returned in the afternoon for a dive and a swim.
These activiites were realised with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach D & J (not D&F?)
Around 14.45 M returned to the minis club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went (should it say came to get) to get M from the tapas bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed she was practising some form of athletics. It was around 15.25 / 18.00. I think G was playing tennis

So who took M back to the club if they were at the beach in the afternoon as this would suggest? And why was she taken back? It is very odd because CB goes onto say this.

'there was one occasion on Thurs 3 May around 10.30 in the morning where M cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean

Now the schedule for the minis club states that Thurs am is beach and sailing but CB is clearly suggesting here that they sailed pm.

Who did M return to minis club with, from where and why?

As according to schedule they were already in minis club doing space chalk paintings and swimming starts at 3.30.

Kate went to get M between 15.25 and 18.00!!!!!!!!?????????

She can't remember who picks her up but can clearly remember what KM was wearing on that particular day but doesn't know whether it was anytime between 15.25 and 18.00

Engage brain before opening mouth I think!!

Something else that struck me whilst looking at these creche sheets - that amount of errors people seem to make when signing in their own children - especially ROB/JT who on the first few days are making a lot of errors in names and apartment numbers!

Russian Doll wrote: (I think)
I believe in a demise prior to 3rd May....but what about the creche attendance on 2nd and 3rd? If a sub was used then the different child surely would have been noticed? A sub used from the outset woud not present this problem, but that would mean death almost at the start and the deceit starting 29th.... could the creche have been so sloppily run that a child who was not there could be signed in and out at busy times when there was a small group of parents congregated ? So no sub child used? Or was a live Maddie not at OC at all but elsewhere?
btw did any nanny mention Maddies coloboma or comment about the iconic photo when released that they did not see that eye defect on the Maddie who was signed in ? Or could it be that if a sub was used, it was the sub who had a coloboma, hence one was photoshopped on the photo of Maddie? Just throwing out some thoughts....because not once in her book does Kate mention Maddies right eye....her most distinguishing physical feature, allegedly.
unquote

Early on - it may still be traceable - one of the nannies said she'd never noticed Maddie's eye.
As for the rest - I don't think the creche sheets were checked at all. Where were they? If it was the case that the nanny would come forward and take the child, see the parent sign and the same when she was collected - then it's more difficult.
But if one would know where the sheets were located and how far away from the actual signing in the nanny usually was - it will be clear I expect.
On neither of the photographs of Maddie is she wearing a rubber bracelet - wasn't that something that was done? I'm thinking that she never was in the creche at all.

The twins were put back in the creche almost immediately after Madeleine disappeared. They had almost the same routine as before Madeleine disappeared. There a loads of photos out there of them, I don't think they are wearing the id bracelets on any of them are they?

Presumably they only wore bracelets when they were actually in the creche? In which case, unless we have photos taken inside the creche, the children won't be wearing bracelets.

Miraflores wrote:Presumably they only wore bracelets when they were actually in the creche? In which case, unless we have photos taken inside the creche, the children won't be wearing bracelets.

Perhaps it wasn't done at all then, it's unlikely that you'd take the bracelet off for lunch and then back on again. I'd certainly have expected bracelets on the boat trip though. But I agree with the previous posters, it seems it was a very informal affair. Take the children in and out when you like, forget to sign them out (or in). Corrections later?

tigger wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Presumably they only wore bracelets when they were actually in the creche? In which case, unless we have photos taken inside the creche, the children won't be wearing bracelets.

Perhaps it wasn't done at all then, it's unlikely that you'd take the bracelet off for lunch and then back on again. I'd certainly have expected bracelets on the boat trip though. But I agree with the previous posters, it seems it was a very informal affair. Take the children in and out when you like, forget to sign them out (or in). Corrections later?

No bracelet on the tennis picture when MM was supposed to be in the minis club soft tennis!!

Perhaps the OC only started using bracelets after 4th May when they realised that they needed to clean up their act?

Miraflores wrote:Perhaps the OC only started using bracelets after 4th May when they realised that they needed to clean up their act?

From Cat Baker's Rogatory interview:

“I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children’s bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner”.

so where is the id bracelet on the tennis court photo?

russiandoll wrote:

Miraflores wrote:Perhaps the OC only started using bracelets after 4th May when they realised that they needed to clean up their act?

From Cat Baker's Rogatory interview:

“I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children’s bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner”.

so where is the id bracelet on the tennis court photo?

exactly! according to FP she was actually on the tennis courts as an activity with the mini club!! Very odd!

[quoteEarly on - it may still be traceable - one of the nannies said she'd never noticed Maddie's eye.
As for the rest - I don't think the creche sheets were checked at all. Where were they? If it was the case that the nanny would come forward and take the child, see the parent sign and the same when she was collected - then it's more difficult.
But if one would know where the sheets were located and how far away from the actual signing in the nanny usually was - it will be clear I expect.
On neither of the photographs of Maddie is she wearing a rubber bracelet - wasn't that something that was done? I'm thinking that she never was in the creche at all.
[/quote]

Anyone involved with Quality Assurance knows all about procedures in an organisation. To be Quality Assured the onus is on the organisation to demonstrate that the procedures exist, are understood and adhered to. Whether or not Mark Warner were Quality Assured the principle still holds. Could MW demonstrate this if asked? If not then the records are not to be relied upon as anything could have been going on.

russiandoll wrote:Kate gives a reasonably full run down of activities from arrival 28th April until evening May 2nd [ she then devotes an entire chapter to May 3rd].

If the routine of their days in PDL had been disturbed by a trip out of the resort, why on earth does she not record this trip in her book? I have just posted in the tapas phone autopsy section a comment on the lack of info about 30 April as a memeber asked what Kate had said in her book about the activities on this particular date.
She says nothing at all about anything until evening when she briefly describes a trip to the supermarket for essentials then mentions tapas evening meal.
NO RECORD AT ALL OF WHAT SHE HER HUSBAND COMPANIONS OR CHILDREN DID DAYTIME 30 APRIL.

That's more or less two 'dead' days. The 2nd is skipped over very lightly (Dr. Roberts - thirty days). If it wasn't Sagres, was it Zaival Beach where a waiter insisted he'd seen the whole family at Easter?
Or was it mysterious Burgau.
I haven't paid much attention to the Gorrods, but does the 30th coincide with their two unaccounted days?

At a later date Amaral said that according to the phone pings of MO and I think ROB, they must have had a car - this was post 3/5/07.

tigger wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Kate gives a reasonably full run down of activities from arrival 28th April until evening May 2nd [ she then devotes an entire chapter to May 3rd].

If the routine of their days in PDL had been disturbed by a trip out of the resort, why on earth does she not record this trip in her book? I have just posted in the tapas phone autopsy section a comment on the lack of info about 30 April as a memeber asked what Kate had said in her book about the activities on this particular date.
She says nothing at all about anything until evening when she briefly describes a trip to the supermarket for essentials then mentions tapas evening meal.
NO RECORD AT ALL OF WHAT SHE HER HUSBAND COMPANIONS OR CHILDREN DID DAYTIME 30 APRIL.

That's more or less two 'dead' days. The 2nd is skipped over very lightly (Dr. Roberts - thirty days). If it wasn't Sagres, was it Zaival Beach where a waiter insisted he'd seen the whole family at Easter?
Or was it mysterious Burgau.
I haven't paid much attention to the Gorrods, but does the 30th coincide with their two unaccounted days?

At a later date Amaral said that according to the phone pings of MO and I think ROB, they must have had a car - this was post 3/5/07.

It seems that perhaps a lot of 'sharing' went on on this holiday, buggies and pushchairs for one thing but it may be that the Gorrods car was hired and used by certain members of the group and they all 'pooled' the cost of petrol etc or sported them a dinner and drinks on evening?
Sorry but where can I find this supposed waiter statement about seeing them at easter?
And why is Burgau so mysterious?
It would appear that with the creche record and tapas sheets now being looked closely at, the 30th and possibly the 29th are two days very much in question.
Hope someone can enlighten me on the above - although not sure the brain can take much more!

Also slightly off the creche topic - this is one that will take you back 4 years or more. I remember seeing a photo of GM pushing a double buggy and it was covered in a dark type of netting - someone had enlarged it and there were questions as to what was inside the buggy - can anyone remember it and can you point me in the right direction for it - it was very interesting and I will keep searching!

There you go! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hummingbird, here's a link to images of two separate buggies.

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

Jean wrote:Hummingbird, here's a link to images of two separate buggies.

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

Now if he could only get Kate to wear a burka....

I find this part of the McCann story very confusing indeed. Can someone please clarify exactly what time the McCanns allegedly went to Sagres on the 30th April? For how long? With or without their three children? And how they went there?

What I surmise is that they were in the beach idea and someone unconnected to the McCanns, Nuno Lorennco, happened to take a photo of suspicious goings on involving the children (or Madeline in particular) and a blonde woman with a Renault Clio (who may or may not have been Michaela).

Let us not forget that Robert Murat arrived suddenly back to Portugal on Monday 30th April and Tuesday 1st May was a public holiday. Robert Murat, having accounted many times for his movements since leaving the UK on the morning of 30th April, could he have possibly been involved in events as early as 30th April?

There are three points that I wish to pick up on here concerning two photographs and Robert Murats use of a mobile phone. There are two photos which seems to me to be of particular relevance - the once taken by Nuno Lorenco and a second by the McCanns of Madeleine apparently beside the swimming pool area on the afternoon of Thursday 3rd May. Either these two photos exist or they do not. Both photos will have a digital number and any tampering with the photos can be established from photos taken before and afterwards.

Has anyone ever seen the photo allegedly taken by Nuno Lorenco? Have the Police ever seen it? If not, then question marks must hang over the credibility of what Nuno Lorenzo saw (or did not see) on 30th April.

Furthermore, it should be possible to analyze the swimming pool photo of Madeline to establish whether it was indeed taken on the afternoon of Thursday 3rd May or taken two days before, as has been hinted at by the Statement of Rachel Oldfield.

As regards the mobile phone of Robert Murat, this was switched off and on numerous times between the time of his arrival on the morning of 30th April and upto around 11.15pm on the night of Thursday 3rd May and his movements during this time period have never been fully explained. We can perhaps excuse Kate and Gerry McCann for switching off their phones while on vacation and not expecting any significant calls (assuming they are innocent in all of this) but Robert Murat was a 'man with a mission' and had a lot of urgent business to attend to even on a Public Holiday, something he knew of course and could not overlook, because he lived in Portugal most of the time!

I suggest therefore that not only the actual calls and SMS made from his phone but use of the tracking signals from phone calls would help to establish where he was at key times. I have faith in both the British and Portugese Police and I suspect that they have already followed this line of enquiry but not all evidence has been put in the public domain.

It is also critical to understand whether Gerry McCann had ever visited Portugal previously and how he could have developed such a network of contacts on whom to call for such mountainous assistance. Much more than a phone call made to old buddy now in civil service at Whitehall.

I am at a loss to understand what could have happened to Madeline other than an accidental death at the Apartment which the Tapas 9 plus Creche and Ocean Club staff plus other Guests would conspire to make one of the biggest cover ups in legal history. In other words, how could so many people cover up something which happened to her before the night of 3rd May?

I find this part of the McCann story very confusing indeed. Can someone please clarify exactly what time the McCanns allegedly went to Sagres on the 30th April? For how long? With or without their three children? And how they went there?

What I surmise is that they were in the beach idea and someone unconnected to the McCanns, Nuno Lorennco, happened to take a photo of suspicious goings on involving the children (or Madeline in particular) and a blonde woman with a Renault Clio (who may or may not have been Michaela).

Let us not forget that Robert Murat arrived suddenly back to Portugal on Monday 30th April and Tuesday 1st May was a public holiday. Robert Murat, having accounted many times for his movements since leaving the UK on the morning of 30th April, could he have possibly been involved in events as early as 30th April?

It is confusing and Ive tried putting it together:

On April 30th Madeleine was signed into creche by kate mccann at 1515, she dropped the twins off at 1525 then went back and got Madeleine out of the creche at 1530….just 15 mins later

The twins were later signed out at 17.20, Ella O'Brien was signed in at 1600 but never signed out…nor were any of the other kids in Madeleine's creche signed out that afternoon, just Madeleine…did something happen?

A week later on 12th May 2007, reports in all the newspaper media 'claim' that the mccanns went to Sagres beach that afternoon which is 20 miles from PDL. This gives the mccanns a window of 100 mins to get to Sagres, go to the beach and get back to PDL, totally unlikely. And they never had a car. That very same day Nuno Lourenco de Jesus claimed of a man photographing his daughter on the beach and trying to snatch her later in a cafe in Sagres. The newspaper media 'claim' goes on to link Nuno Lourenco de Jesus child snatchers to the same ones caught on CCTV at a petrol station on the 4th May 2007, further claiming Nuno Lourenco de Jesus identified 2 of the 3 suspects at the petrol station as the same ones who were photographing his daughter in Sagres 4 days earlier

The newspaper media 'claim' goes on even further to link the same Nuno Lourenco de Jesus "child snatchers" as matching a description of the woman given by a witness who spotted someone acting suspiciously outside Madeleine’s bedroom on the night of her disappearance

Now for the facts:
Nuno Lourenco de Jesus statement of the "child snatchers" photographing & snatching attempt of his daughter is true. However there is no record of him identifying them as the same ones spotted in the petrol station. He identified his child snatchers from CCTV images taken in a FNAC shop in Chiado, Lisbon. Robert Murat's Uncle Ralph Eveleigh also provided CCTV footage of the couple visiting in his Beach Bar in Burgau. Coincidence?

There is no record or proof of the mccanns being in Sagres that afternoon. All there appears to be is a 'shopkeeper' (which could be anyone) in the newspaper articles claiming to have seen the mccanns in Sagres that afternoon, with a buggy when they didn't have one nor were the twins with them either as they were in creche. In the bewk, kate mccann makes NO REFERENCE to what they did during the daytime on 30th April, no mention of Sagres no mention about anything this day. This day seems to have been totally erased from memory. She only briefly describes a trip to the supermarket for essentials then mentions tapas evening meal. As do all the other tapes members evade this day and mention only about the tapas meal "they think"

Who were the Nuno Lourenco de Jesus child snatchers?
A Polish couple who were staying in an apartment in Burgau. The apartment block in Burgau have links to Robert Murat - his father's company built the block and are rumoured to manage the block. Yet another coincidence

From Interpol:
Using the "PAX-LIST" (passenger list), persons in seats around the KROKOWSKI couple were shown pictures of Madeleine and all stated that that couple was not accompanied by any child.

From IP Warsaw:
- At 07h10 this morning (6 May) the couple were interviewed in their home apartment, which was searched and the missing child was not found. After arriving in Berlin they left by train at 21h22 arriving home this morning at 06h45.

Summary:
Nuno Lourenco de Jesus seems to be genuine with his statement, however he was simply mistaken who the Polish couple were or trying to do imo. This is about the only element of truth. The rest seems to have been made up, linked up, connected up, to add weight to the mccanns abduction theory. As the Sagres claims are in all the newspapers then it would appear to have been fed to them by the mccann machine. What so stands out is on the 30th April there are very strange entries on the creche sheets for that afternoon and the tapas members erased memory of this very same afternoon….what was going on 30th April that needed to be whooshed from the chapter in kate mccanns bewk which every day of the holiday was described to some extent? Why did robert murat suddenly book a flight back to PDL that same day at midnight for a flight a few hours later? Anyone would think that something important happened….something that could be the truth of the lie?

Polish Couple from CCTV FNAC shop in Chiado, Lisbon
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

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

petrol station child looks like a 2 year old to me ,not one that could be maddie ,joyce1938