RESEARCH RESULTS: Is THIS how the McCanns were able to DECEIVE everyone into believing Maddie was ALIVE and at the creche?

I have previously posted on this topic and worked on the possibility of 'One child in One child out' but it was DURING one of my posts that it all became clear to me.  It was a 'lightbulb' moment and I am still blown away by the possibility that this MAY have been what happened!

Did something happen to Maddie BEFORE THURSDAY?  If I am correct, THIS IS HUGE...and SO simple!

Many times, Gerry and Russell arrived to the creche at the same time... Russell sent in HIS daughter and Gerry went in and chatted to the nannies.... so a WEEK LATER when asked about Maddie, they remembered Gerry and recalled the child that came in at the same time... Russell O'Briens daughter! (please don't use her name in comments)

No need for deception!  Just a VERY CUNNING PLAN! The reason the OC staff describe a SHY TIMID child!

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

Many of us believe that something happened to Maddie earlier in the week...If that is the case then HOW did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone into thinking that Maddie was ATTENDING the creche?  That question HAS to be answered...or any suggestion of something happening earlier cannot be considered credible...

More than 8 years ago, I felt I could explain WHAT was done, (on child in and one child out) but its only just recently I discovered HOW it was likely done.

As I scrutinised the creche records it became apparent! (AFTER I put together a graphic with the main details... it would have been impossible to understand it without the graphic...)

I could go into detail explaining the specifics, but for the sake of this thread I will just give an overview along with one example that may help CONFIRM the scenario...

This is based on the records.. NOT a scenario that I put together and tried to fit... It became apparent as I was posting an explanation of the creche information.

Have you ever wondered why Dianne Webster (I believe to be credible) claimed she saw the McCanns at the Millenium Wednesday morning but doesn't know whether they ate breakfast?

It seems that the TWINS were dropped off at 9.10am.... Had the McCanns walked directly over to Maddies creche they would have dropped her off at about 9.20 (ten minutes before Russell O'Brien arrived) and then MAYBE gone to the Millenium (for Dianne to have seen them)

HOWEVER, they didn't get to the creche for 20 mins, and arrived same time as Russell O'Brien... SO.. did they walk over to Millenium to meet up with Russell (hence Dianne saw them) and then proceed to the creche WITH Russell, (see location video) so he could send in his daughter and Gerry would chat with nannies, so at a later date the nannies would remember him and Russell's daughter arriving at same time. Hence it was 'Maddie'... the shy timid child that the OC staff described (see video)

As with everything we know nothing for sure but it IS possible.

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

For those that believe Catriona could not have been duped, there are a few things to keep in mind...

1)  Maddie may not have been there after the first day or two...
2) Unlike a regular nursery, this was more about 'babysitting' and keeping the children occupied. 
3) Children were dropped off and picked up randomly  Up to 14 children in ONE ROOM!
4) Check with ANY nursery, (who would be more vigilant) and they will tell you that the children's names are not remembered easily for a few days at least.  It can take a while before each child is easily identified and thats in a classroom that WANTS to learn about the child and their habits...
5)  Because the children were randomly dropped off and picked up... the records were not about attendance as much as to be able to contact the parents at any given time from the phone numbers provided.
6) The week was uneventful at the creche... no need to make note of anything until AFTER the fact and once Catriona was advised HER charge (Maddie) was missing, she remembered Russells daughter as the one arriving with Gerry!
..




IMPORTANT TO HELP UNDERSTAND...


I have already put together a couple of basic videos to assist in understanding....





McINFO: Locations & Routes of Creche etc Used by McCanns





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








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


This is not new but until the graphic above, with all the times easily viewable was put together it was impossible to see just exactly HOW it was possibly achieved.



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

The idea of the nannies being duped is hard to believe in the light of the events of Thursday afternoon. Russell O'Brien collected his daughter early from the creche at 4.30 p.m. with Cat signing her out. Who then was the sole girl left in the Lobster's group with the two remaining boys - we know it cannot have been O'Brien's child since she was at the Paraiso restaurant during high tea. In addition, it would have been a ridiculous ploy for Russell to remove his daughter from creche that afternoon (the only afternoon on which this was done and the very day of the disappearance, which was bound to be scrutinised by  police) if they were relying on the nannies confusing E O'Brien for Madeleine! By removing E. O'Brien early from creche the risk of drawing attention to the fact of Madeleine not really being there was raised dramatically.

Phoebe wrote:The idea of the nannies being duped is hard to believe in the light of the events of Thursday afternoon. Russell O'Brien collected his daughter early from the creche at 4.30 p.m. with Cat signing her out. Who then was the sole girl left in the Lobster's group with the two remaining boys - we know it cannot have been O'Brien's child since she was at the Paraiso restaurant during high tea. In addition, it would have been a ridiculous ploy for Russell to remove his daughter from creche that afternoon (the only afternoon on which this was done and the very day of the disappearance, which was bound to be scrutinised by  police) if they were relying on the nannies confusing E O'Brien for Madeleine! By removing E. O'Brien early from creche the risk of drawing attention to the fact of Madeleine not really being there was raised dramatically.

It was simple for children to be signed out from High tea... Lots of children and parents...and as you say, Russell didnt even sign her out...

ALSO keep in mind there were up to 14 children in the one room...

Im sorry... I have some things to do... just wanted to respond quickly

Or there could be an even simpler explanation - like Catriona Baker and perhaps one or two of her colleagues were complicit in the conspiracy.

There are a number of anomalies associated with the child care workers and the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann, beginning with the McCanns request that Catriona Baker be interviewed by rogatory as a key witness and Catriona Baker's curious private visit to the McCanns Rothly home in November 2007, around the same time as the meeting held at the Rothly Court Hotel.  When considering the possiblity that Madeleine was mistaken for another child signed in at the creche, it's necessary to also factor in the substitute child.  If one child is passed off as Madeleine, then who stood in for the substitute Madeleine?  Catriona Baker said in one of her witness statements that each child was given a bracelet with their personal details written on, previously prepared by her.   If they weren't she was perverting the course of justice, if they were then where was Madeleine when being represented by another child?

The theory that the creche workers innocently mistook one child for another hinges entriely on the Tapas groups version of events which are confusing, contradictory, in fact downright  misleading - the bigger picture however throws more light on the subject.

Then consider Charlotte Pennington and her imaginary world, changing her stories repeatedly and muscling in on every opportunity for an appearance before the camera and/or media interview.  Then there is Amy Tierney and the mysterious case of the printer that was allegedly used to print off pictures of Madeleine in the first hours.  

That's just a few points for consideration, there are many more when you look outside the McCann groups version of the truth.

There are too many holes in your theory to make it feasible. deleted.  A possibility yes but without some evidence to back it up I can't see it going beyond a work in progress.

Verdi wrote:Or there could be an even simpler explanation - like Catriona Baker and perhaps one or two of her colleagues were complicit in the conspiracy.

There are a number of anomalies associated with the child care workers and the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann, beginning with the McCanns request that Catriona Baker be interviewed by rogatory as a key witness and Catriona Baker's curious private visit to the McCanns Rothly home in November 2007, around the same time as the meeting held at the Rothly Court Hotel.  When considering the possiblity that Madeleine was mistaken for another child signed in at the creche, it's necessary to also factor in the substitute child.  If one child is passed off as Madeleine, then who stood in for the substitute Madeleine?  Catriona Baker said in one of her witness statements that each child was given a bracelet with their personal details written on, if they weren't she was perverting the course of justice, if they were then where was Madeleine when being represented by another child?

The theory that the creche workers innocently mistook one child for another hinges entriely on the Tapas groups version of events, which are confusing, contradictory, in fact downright  misleading - the bigger picture howeve throwsmore light on the subject.

Then consider Charlotte Pennington and her imaginary world, changing her stories repeatedly and muscling in on every opportunity for an appearance before the camera and/or  media interview.  Then there is Amy Tierney and the mysterious case of the printer that was allegedly used to print off pictures of Madeleine in the first hours.  

That's just a few points for consideration, there are many more when you look outside the McCann groups version of the truth.

There are too many holes in your theory to make it a possibility worthy of note.  A possibility yes but without some evidence to back it up I can't see it going beyond a work in progress.

I realise there are other theories which may or may not be credible, but I would ask that THIS thread be used to consider the POSSIBILITY that it may have happened this way.

You suggest 'many holes' but so far I have not seen a lot that DOESNT fit.... and to consider it not worthy of note is  something I find to be a DISRESPECTFUL reply.  It implies the MANY many hours of research I have done on this is irrelevant?

It seems you may not have looked at it thoroughly at all the research, or taken into consideration the REALITY of how the creche was likely run.

Sorry HiDeHo, I thought you like to be second guessed - I'll leave you to it.

Your research is never wasted, always something you can be proud of. I have deleted the not worthy bit of my post as I don't wish to offend you.

Verdi wrote:Sorry HiDeHo, I thought you like to be second guessed - I'll leave you to it.

Your research is never wasted, always something you can be proud of.  I have deleted the not worthy bit of my post as I don't wish to offend you.

Verdi, you are correct, I DO like to have to second guess myself, but I saw no indication there was anything specific in your reply to suggest I needed to second guess myself...

Just the reference to my efforts not being worthwhile in your opinion...

I's ok... It takes a lot to offend me and cant remember if it has ever happened on this case :),  I am confident in my research, but prefer that comments do not try to discredit my work without being substantiated with a good reason why..

As I mentioned, this thread is about the possibility of this happening, and I havent added ALL the indications, just the basic possibility of what happened and I ABSOLUTELY believe its a strong possibility and though not EVERY moment appears to 'fit', the overall suggestion is just a VERY SIMPLE explanation of what COULD have happened.

I do not believe that Catriona was complicit and I apologise if your theory claims that but this is not to be taken as a comparison, only as an alternative.

NONE of us know what happened.

But... OK.. we can have a 

One thing that is very difficult to understand is the REALITY of what it is like in the creche.

I'ts very easy to presume that with two nannies looking after up to 14 children that they would each make a special effort and KNOW the names of each child.

This has been proven time and time again (for anyone that has researched this) that nannies take a WHILE to remember each child individually.  One of my admin described how her little one has attended creche for two years and they still have problems with his name.

Keep in mind also that if nurseries have trouble, that it goes without saying that holiday creche nannies would not be focused on learning about each child and attempting to educate them.  They are there to keep them occupied and the register appears to be used to keep a note of parents location where they can be reached in case of emergency.

There was no attendance record taken each morning as there were no expectations about  every child attending at specific time if at all.  They were dropped off and picked up randomly within creche times, and the pick up time in the afternoon,  was at high tea where the children were taken over to the 'high tea' area (with all other children and parents) and I doubt very much if each child was checked as to who belongs to who.  Parents would sign and take their children with the expectation that parents knew who their own child was!

Its interesting to note that Catriona does not claim that Maddie was at high tea on Thursday....

Although many of us would like to believe we could instantly remember their names and identify them arriving randomly on future days and although maybe some can, I can assure you without question, unless they wore the same clothes every day, I would have a LOT of trouble being able to identify each of them even  after a few days.

The IMPORTANT thing to remember is that this thread is based on something happening to Maddie earlier in week in which case she would NOT have been at the creche.

She may have only been in creche for a few hours Sunday/Monday

Would the nannies have had time to identify and REMEMBER her in that short period of time?

HIGHLY improbable.

Hence this thread suggests that Gerry and Russell arrived at same time and Russell sent his child into the room and Gerry went in to chat with nannies, so a week later when the nannies were interviewed they associated Russell's daughter with Gerry... and thats why they described her EXACTLY with the characteristics of his daughters personality...Shy... timid... NOTHING like we have been told can be attributed to Maddies personality

At some point during the week the little girl would have said her name is 'E***' or the nannies would have asked her what her name is at some point, even if they had to ask her several times during the week. 

They wouldn't just say "do you need the bathroom little girl" or "would you like a drink little girl". Children like to hear their names being used, it helps them to bond with the person in authority. And they usually do bond. I remember when my granddaughter went on her first holiday and she cried when they left the resort because the nanny had become special to her, as they do at that age, and the nanny took time to have her photo taken with her. She was only in the creche for a few afternoons during the last week.

When the McCanns raised the alarm they said they were looking for Madeleine.

Surely the nannies would have recognised the name E*** but NOT recognised the name Madeleine as she wasn't there.

Surely the nannies would have thought: "Madeleine? She looks familiar but I don't remember that name."

How do you tell a 3 year old girl that her name has changed to Maddie and expect her to keep up the pretence for 4 days?

Sorry HideHo but I cannot see that Russels child would be able to go along with this and not give the game away.

My biggest problem with HiDeHo's theory hinges on the behaviour of Russell O Brien on the afternoon of May 3rd.
Going with the scenario HiDeHo puts forward would mean that the O'Briens, knowing that Madeleine was unable to attend creche due to being ill or dead, agreed to allow their daughter to be mistaken for Madeleine. They went along with this deception for several days. Then, on the very day that Madeleine was due to disappear, the day that would attract most focus in the aftermath, they jeopardise the whole plan. Instead of maintaining the routine which had, allegedly, allowed Madeleine's absence to go unnoticed, they break with that routine and collect E O'Brien early from creche, taking her away to the beach!!
 The O'Briens could have no assurance that their child would never be asked her name, or would never engage with a nanny up close and personal. It doesn't matter how many children were put together at a time (and we know that on the afternoon of May 3rd there were only 2 girls, Madeleine and E. O'Brien among the 4 children in the Lobsters group) The Tapas 9 would have run a completely unnecessary risk of discovery by choosing to remove the O'Brien child on that afternoon. If the plan to hide Madeleine's absence relied on confusion due to the numbers of children in the creche why on earth would they damage that confusion by removing E. O'Brien - making it easier to spot Madeleine's absence! We do not know (and the Tapas 9 had no way of knowing) how many children would attend the Sharks group that afternoon of May 3rd. Removing E O'Brien left Madeleine as the ONLY girl in the Lobsters. How could they run the risk that no activity would occur which might involve the children identifying themselves to the nannies.
In any case, Cat and Charlotte both claim to have interacted closely with Madeleine that day. It is virtually impossible to interact with a 3 yr old without addressing them by name.
If Madeleine  was, indeed, not actually in creche that week then it can only have been achieved with the cooperation of the nannies.

Verity:

' the nannies would have asked her what her name is at some point, even if they had to ask her several times during the week.'

I'm sorry, but you've got more faith in jobsworth nannies than I have. 

Creche, what's a creche? We're supposed to look after the kids? Really? That's what they are paying us for?

I'm sorry for stereotyping, they are not all like that. 

Some really do care and it's a vocation, but unfortunately many are out there for any easy ride, for a bit of pocket money to pay for a long summer in a nice climate and the 3 S's.

Phoebe wrote:My biggest problem with HiDeHo's theory hinges on the behaviour of Russell O Brien on the afternoon of May 3rd.
Going with the scenario HiDeHo puts forward would mean that the O'Briens, knowing that Madeleine was unable to attend creche due to being ill or dead, agreed to allow their daughter to be mistaken for Madeleine. They went along with this deception for several days. Then, on the very day that Madeleine was due to disappear, the day that would attract most focus in the aftermath, they jeopardise the whole plan. Instead of maintaining the routine which had, allegedly, allowed Madeleine's absence to go unnoticed, they break with that routine and collect E O'Brien early from creche, taking her away to the beach!!
 The O'Briens could have no assurance that their child would never be asked her name, or would never engage with a nanny up close and personal. It doesn't matter how many children were put together at a time (and we know that on the afternoon of May 3rd there were only 2 girls, Madeleine and E. O'Brien among the 4 children in the Lobsters group) The Tapas 9 would have run a completely unnecessary risk of discovery by choosing to remove the O'Brien child on that afternoon. If the plan to hide Madeleine's absence relied on confusion due to the numbers of children in the creche why on earth would they damage that confusion by removing E. O'Brien - making it easier to spot Madeleine's absence! We do not know (and the Tapas 9 had no way of knowing) how many children would attend the Sharks group that afternoon of May 3rd. Removing E O'Brien left Madeleine as the ONLY girl in the Lobsters. How could they run the risk that no activity would occur which might involve the children identifying themselves to the nannies.
In any case, Cat and Charlotte both claim to have interacted closely with Madeleine that day. It is virtually impossible to interact with a 3 yr old without addressing them by name.
If Madeleine  was, indeed, not actually in creche that week then it can only have been achieved with the cooperation of the nannies.

Apart from Russel arriving at the same time as Gerry, Rusell would not have to be considered as complicit.

They arrive together and he sends his child in... No-one that week were looking for anything odd and the children on Friday afternoon were at the pool I believe and we dont know what time he actually picked her up as he didnt sign.

There could have been other blonde girls in the Sharks, we dont know.

I am not here to force my suggestion as beng the answer and its your prerogative to choose your own theory. We must respect everyone's suggestions.

I can't explain any clearer than what I have attempted.

I know that EVERYTHING in the files and creche indicates that this is a distinct possibility and I most certainly believe it is the most likely.

So do many others.

sharonl wrote:How do you tell  a 3 year old girl that her name has changed to Maddie and expect her to keep up the  pretence for 4 days?

Sorry HideHo but I cannot see that Russels child would be able to go along with this and not give the game away.

I have put a lot of effort into this research and the posts and explained many times, its not about names...

There is NO WAY that Russell's daughter would have been asked, or expected to claim she had a different name.

One has to look from the perspective of the nannies....

You are in the creche and many children arrive and are picked up at random times.

They may or may not know of specific names that day...or the next, especially if the children had different clothes on.

Maddie may have been there for a couple of hours Sunday and maybe similar on Monday...

She would likely not be missed.

At that point in the week did the nannies know all the names of the parents who dropped their children off. or picked them up?

They likely had no, or little,  knowledge of which child belonged to whom, especially if the register was signed near the door.  Unless the nannies had reason to phone the parents they may not have even looked at the records except maybe at the end of the day when they would fill out empty spaces, knowing all the children had gone.

I believe after a few days they probably knew random chldren's names and random parents names.

This had not become a memorable week yet.

I urge ANYONE to get in contact with a nursery (with far stricter rules than a drop in holiday creche) and ask them if they were in room with one more nanny and up to 14 NEW children, arriving and leaving at random times, what would be the percentage of children's names and parents names after about 3 - 4 days?  Keeping in mind it was just to babysit and keep them occupied, not to maintain a schoolroom teaching schedule.

So... the week goes along... children come and go, Gerry makes a point of entering and chatting with nannies...at the same time that Russell's daughter enters the room....  No mention of names... only that he could EASILY have been identified as the parent of Russels daughter who we KNOW looks very similar and is similar age.

If someone was to ask Catriona on Wednesday night... How many children of the 14 children in the room that week, can you name and  identify and how many of their parents names can you name and identify, I will guess its VERY FEW.

Ask the nannies a week later with knowledge of Gerry AND his name, it is possible they would associate the child that entered with him (Russell's daughter)  on his contrived appearances to make himself known during that week as being his child NOW that they have been told her name was Madeleine.

Catriona was likely with MANY of those children in that room and would likely not remember specifically which one was Maddie (as she had only been there a few hours Sunday/Monday) so after the disappearnce and having being TOLD Maddie was there that day OF COURSE she would not dispute it and say I dont recall.

She would likely second guess herself as NO WAY would she say at this point 'I dont recall Maddie specifically.' She therefore continues as if she remembered her.  She was a young 19 year old girl on a holiday job, and though likely very good at looking after children, when it came to the disappearance she would have NO reason to think there is any involvement about the creche.

The disappearance was from the APARTMENT!

I have often tried to explain the scenario as it likely happened many times.  I realise there are some who look at it and say 'no way... she would know all names' etc... but sadly that may very well NOT be the case...

Many people understand and agree...

Others have different theories, but whats important is we open up to ALL theories and suggestions as possible.

They are not to be used to disregard one against the other... They should be considered ALTERNATIVE suggestions.

I'd like to add....

From what I understand, (although I haven't checked) 'CMoMM' maintain that Catriona was complicit.  Am I correct?

Most know that I VEHEMENTLY disagree and have never seen any 'proof', so I consider accusations against a young girl, without proof is not something I wish to be associated with.

However, if this is a theory then my opinions should not mean the possibility of the theory is not correct. only that I cannot agree.  One of many suggestions over the years.

Names aside for a moment...

Is it possible, or is it NOT possible that Russell and Gerry could arrive at the same time.... Russell send his child in and Gerry walk in and chat with Nannies... those  nannies NOT at that time being able to identify the children or fathers name, that a week later they would associate GERRY with the child that entered?

It's a very simple scenario and one that when the creche records are scrutinised shows as a STRONG possibility.

I understand many agree with a different theory, but its important to look at this one as to whether its possible... and it IS!

Many people support this suggestion.

I think it's an interesting idea . 
  I also think that you are looking at the  scenario from the wrong end of the telescope if you assume that E*** was being expected to 'impersonate' Madeleine. I don't think that this is what HideHo is suggesting at all. The only point at which there was likely to be 'verification' was at the dropping off and collecting times;all  you need is an adult,a signature and a child in the vicinity to give the right impression.During the creche the nanny could ask the child's name and be told 'I'm E***' and the nanny's not going to rush to the register and say 'well where's Madeleine then?'. She'd just assume she was one of the other children there. 
Also, children can be very reticent in a situation like a creche full of strangers. A shy child would be fairly unlikely to correct an adult who gets their name wrong. Have we seen ANY photographs of the Tapas Seven children wearing ID wristbands on this holiday?

@ HiDeHo. You stated above  -  "Apart from Russel arriving at the same time as Gerry, Rusell would not have to be considered as complicit.

They arrive together and he sends his child in.."

Now I'm confused! Do you mean that Russell did not know that Madeleine was ill or dead during the week. How could he not have noticed her absence all week when they claimed the children all played together after tea in the play area most evenings. How could he not notice that Gerry always accompanied him to the creche, but never had Madeleine with him to sign in! Why would Gerry go to the creche each day at sign-in time if he had no child with him. That would surely attract Russell's notice! 

I agree that we do not know how many little girls, blonde or not, were in the Sharks group for the afternoon session of May 3rd. That is my point.  Neither the McCanns nor anyone complicit in this alleged "invisible Madeleine" scam could possibly have predicted how many other girls would turn up for that session. The creche records show that many children did not attend all sessions. For all they knew there might be only none or only one other girl in the Sharks group. 
Thinking about it logically - The McCanns have either a seriously ill or dead child on their hands - a fact they are desperate to hide. Would they really run the risk of hoping that nobody noticed her absence for up to five days while they tried to sneakily sign her in and out of two creche sessions per day all the while praying nobody noticed. What would have happened if the nannies decided to ask the children their names for any reason at all - security, a fire-drill, any game that involved using names, signing their names on a painting or drawing or putting them into teams or pairs. Would desperate parents with so much at stake ever run such a risk, and for perhaps 5 whole days! I cannot possibly imagine it. One wrong word and the game would have been up!
In addition, Cat Baker claims to have comforted Madeleine on her lap during the mini-sail that morning. How could she possibly do this without addressing the child by name! There is no way around it IMO. Cat Baker is either telling the truth or lying. If she is telling the truth then Madeleine was  alive and in creche on May 3rd. If she is lying then there was no need for the Phantom Madeleine and the complicated signing in scam.

In the big scheme of things Russell was likely in the picture.  I'm only referring to him dropping his daughter off and picking her up.

Once one realises the distinct possibility/probability that the creche was no more than a place to drop of children and nannies just kept them occupied in a week that was just like any other, then anything odd would likely not be noticed.

When asked they would just remember what they could being TOLD Maddie was there even though she likely wasnt.


It was all a very simple plan...backed up by the creche records showing, for the most part, they arrived together.

Once something had happened to Maddie... all it took was for Gerry to ask Russell to go at the same time and be seen by the nannies... couldn't be simpler....

I know its never been accepted as a possibility in CMoMM but I've had a huge acknowledgement elsewhere.

Remember, I'm only asking if its POSSIBLE...and as mentioned... files details shows it is.

You can see for yourself...

We do not have access to the Sharks' creche records, but if they reflect the pattern of those records we do have access to, namely, the Lobsters and the Jellyfish, then it would seem logical to assume that for some creche sessions there were actually very few children in each group.
 The McCanns were unusual in that they put their children in creche for every available session. Creche was not compulsory and it appears creche groups often had only a handful of children for some sessions. In fact, in the Jellyfish, it was often only the McCann twins with one or two other children.
On the afternoon of May 3rd there were only 4 children in Madeleine's group for the session - two boys and Madeleine and E. O'Brien. Why should we think that the Sharks group (the only ones the Lobsters could have been mixed with) was any better attended. It was the second last day of the holiday for those staying one week and it seems likely that normal parents would want to spend some precious time with their children or take them on an outing or to the beach before the holiday over. 
In any case, the Tapas 9 had no way of knowing that there would be enough other blonde girls at any session to hide Madeleine's absence. This is especially true of May 3rd. If Russell knew what was going on, then removing his daughter and leaving Madeleine as the sole girl in her group (with just two other boys) was most counter-productive. It dramatically increased the chance of children being more easily identifiable. If they were relying on numbers to confuse the nannies then they went out of their way to damage this strategy by removing E O'Brien!
When Cat claims Madeleine had to sit on her lap and be comforted at the mini-sail this allows no chance for confusing the child with another. It was as up close and personal as it could get and would have involved addressing this child (who had drawn such notice to herself) by name and paying great individual attention to her.

Maddie may have been there for a couple of hours Sunday and maybe similar on Monday.

Catriona PJ Statement : 
 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. 


Catriona Rogatory Statement : 
I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning...…..they brought the children...…
I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information (how did she know this information previously ??) 

One thing is for sure: Any so called 'nanny' that at the end of the creche day, looks around, notes there are no children left to entertain and subsequently  signs off the blanks on the creche sheet is surely an accident waiting to happen. I'm just surprised that the McCanns didn't see another way out of their dilemma ………………..………………..a child goes missing from the creche!...……………...and sue the pants off  Warners .

Polyenne - The children just didn't turn up for creche on the first morning. Their parents would have had to have indicated that they wished to avail of M.W. childcare facilities during their stay. This would involve giving the child's name, date of birth, history of allergies and medical info (if relevant) and any other information of note eg. afraid of water, sunburns very easily etc.

Phoebe - really ? You think MW were that precise ? I very much doubt it. I agree that they would have had to request any childcare at the time of booking but I'd need convincing that the information you listed above was requested at that time or even in resort.

worriedmum wrote:I think it's an interesting idea . 
  I also think that you are looking at the  scenario from the wrong end of the telescope if you assume that E*** was being expected to 'impersonate' Madeleine. I don't think that this is what HideHo is suggesting at all. The only point at which there was likely to be 'verification' was at the dropping off and collecting times;all  you need is an adult,a signature and a child in the vicinity to give the right impression.During the creche the nanny could ask the child's name and be told 'I'm E***' and the nanny's not going to rush to the register and say 'well where's Madeleine then?'. She'd just assume she was one of the other children there. 
Also, children can be very reticent in a situation like a creche full of strangers. A shy child would be fairly unlikely to correct an adult who gets their name wrong. Have we seen ANY photographs of the Tapas Seven children wearing ID wristbands on this holiday?

Thanks worriedmum.  You are correct, I have never suggested that Russells daughter was a substitute.

One thing that should be taken into consideration is that during the week, there was likely nothing of any note... and no need for Catriona to take any note at any time who was there on Friday afternoon and who wasnt.She was looking after the children dropped off and thats likely all that was important.

The records and who was there at that time were likely not under scrutiny and if two parents arrived and only sent in one child it would have been only that child she would have been concerned about.  She wouldnt necessarily be scrutinising everything...thats why its important to put yourself in that position and not look at it with scrutiny as we wuld do  AFTER the fact.

If the sharks and lobsters shared the same time at the swimming pool or not they would be only focused on looking after the children entrusted to their care, regardless of how many there were.

The would have NO idea how it would become important a while later.

Why would they?  Maddie disappeared from the APARTMENT.

I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how Cat Baker came to mistake the child she comforted on her lap during the mini-sail. There is no excuse of confusion due to numbers here. She had (according to her) one very upset little girl who needed to be cuddled on her lap and comforted. The excuse of the nannies not really interacting with the children one-on-one, or paying scant attention to an individual child, does not hold in this case. There is no way, in the scenario she describes, that she could have mistaken Madeleine for another child. Therefore she is either telling the truth and Madeleine was there or she is lying. Even if she had neglected getting to know Madeleine as an individual up to that point, she was bound to ask her name and address her by name during this interaction!

I have seen no satisfactory explanation of the mini-sail event, period !

Phoebe wrote:I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how Cat Baker came to mistake the child she comforted on her lap during the mini-sail. There is no excuse of confusion due to numbers here. She had (according to her) one very upset little girl who needed to be cuddled on her lap and comforted. The excuse of the nannies not really interacting with the children one-on-one, or paying scant attention to an individual child, does not hold in this case. There is no way, in the scenario she describes, that she could have mistaken Madeleine for another child. Therefore she is either telling the truth and Madeleine was there or she is lying. Even if she had neglected getting to know Madeleine as an individual up to that point, she was bound to ask her name and address her by name during this interaction!

NOTE:  Please understand I am not saying this DID happen, I am asking if it is possible and from everything i have seen it is.

As stated MANY times... I do not consider Russells daughter as a 'substitute'  The nannies had a room full of children and would not necessarily know all their names and be able to identify them and would not have had any reason to note if one of the children was called Maddie specifically.  As with the parents she would not necessarily know their names only that AFTER the fact she would associate the child entering at the same time as Gerry and think that was his child... ie Maddie


In answer to the question about mini sail... there have been questions a to whether it happened on Thursday morning... but huge contradictions, and from everything I can see there is NOTHING that I would be convinced is proof that the child Catriona talks about in all her early statements is definitely Madeleine...

Catriona took six children that were in her care to the 'mini sail'.  Its very possible she could not name them individually. She wold not have seen (the real)  Maddie for most of the week and she would have no need to focus on each child to identify them...only to keep them occupied and safe. (as explained in an earlier post)

She did not mention the trip in her first statement.

Unless she had a brilliant memory she was quoting the times according to the register. (as Stacey did also... but interesting to note the times she claims as we don't have the twins creche details for AM)

Catriona DOES say May 5th '...at no time did it seem to her that the little girl [little girl]  was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything.'


Catriona Rogatory April 2008 AFTER a visit Rothley where I believe she was likely 'reminded' of a few incidents.
Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."



I started to collate some of the things that happened that morning but such a huge amount off discrepancies and contradictions that day, and now finding out the twins were dropped off at 9.30 by the parents (mother picked them up at lunchtime) I have new questions to ask.

Kate was 'supposedly' playing tennis at 9.15.  Gerry drops 'Maddie' off at 9.10, earlier than usual and 10 mins away from twins creche) and 'parents ' dropped the twins off at 9.30

Even if it was Gerry, why would he drop Maddie off first?  Did he take the twins with him? (Highly unlikely) and if Kate dropped them off, how could she is she was playing tennis?

Lets not even TRY to discuss the shambles of who picked Maddie up at lunch and who picked the twins  up...

On the LAST day they saw their daughter.. NEITHER of them could remember and even Catriona could not remember and Fiona tells a different story.....


Interesting that the creche records for the twins is missing as well as the 'Diagram of Events' for that day is blacked out...

---

86 to 103 External Diligence of OC staff with passport copies of creche workers

TRANSLATIONS  BY ALBYM

01-Processo 86 to 103

KIDS CLUB STAFF interviewed 4 May 2007 by Inspector M.Pinho

*CATRIONA B.*

In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile B., also known as CAT, she stated:

1. That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007;
2. That she cared for Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always worked the same hours;
3. That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her;
4. That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25;
5. That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30;
6. That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine);
7. That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time or previous days.
8. That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more calm and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful.
9. That she was never far from Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility, even asking her permission to go to the bathroom;
10. That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents;
11. That she noticed no abnormal situation relating to this family;
12. That Madeleine had not told her about any person who had contacted [spoken to] her in recent days, nor [about] any possibly suspicious conversation.

---

253 to 256-Witness statement of Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker 2007.05.06

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. [Russells daughter was not at creche on Sunday morning]

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

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

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

---

870 to 872 Diligence carried out with Catriona Baker regarding Madeleine's outing to the beach 2007.05.10

---

3 to 6 Witness statement of Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker 2008.04.18
I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. 

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

I never saw Kate or Gerry in a car in Portugal. I visited the family in their home at their invitation to see how they were getting along in November of 2007. That was the first time I saw them in a car. 

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

On the 3rd of May, 2007, Kate and Gerry did not demonstrate any unusual comportment - they seemed friendly and happy.

(...)

I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time. Jane Tanner's daughter also took part in my group and together they would play. Apart from being a happy child in the club, she always seemed very content when she saw her parents. Madeleine did not demonstrate any fear with the return launch to land. 

Madeleine never mentioned that she had cried in the absence of her parents nor did she tell me anything of significance relating to feeling sad or something relevant that would cause me to worry.

Mark Warner has a standard procedure, the signature on a page when a parent leaves or checks-in a child. There is a separate page for the morning and one for the afternoon. The page contains the name of the child, the hour of sign-in and the hour of pick-up for the afternoon. Only the parents have authority to take the children, except when there is some other agreement. When Gerry and Kate came to pick up Madeleine there were loving and the child would run into their arms. 

Mark Warner maintained a register to all the activities in which the children participated. It functioned as a calendar, referring hour by hour, to what the children were doing. I believe that the Portuguese police collected the sign-in/out sheets and the registry of activities immediately on the day following the disappearance. I would say that Madeleine adored her family; she seemed happy as they did in the club.

During the week which Madeleine stayed in the club there were three events organized that included a trip to the beach. One of these events took place on Thursday in the morning, as referred to previously. Another of these events consisted of a trip to the beach with "hula hoops", shovels and buckets, etc, and the other trip to the beach was in order to eat ice cream. Together, the trips to the beach took place in the afternoon but I cannot state precisely which days. There should be a recording of this in the Mark Warner registers. 

During these trips to the beach I never noticed anything untoward given that my attention was on the children in my charge. 

I don't know if this discussion was followed up on another thread or not, but I was just thinking about this scenario, and find the hypothesis of HiDeHo doable. I'm not sure about the sailing incident. Could the parents sometimes have put the "Madeleine" bracelet on Russel's daughter just so that a Madeleine was sometimes taken note of? A three year old can't read and wouldn't know. 
The danger of getting caught is definitely there. But maybe it was worth it to them to try. Looking at all the other obvious lies that were easily debunked (e.g. no ruined shutters) it does sort of go down the same path.
But we're looking at this from our point of view and thinking that such a dauntless plan wouldn't be possible.  I find myself thinking exactly that whenever I read about big scams that have taken place...e.g. selling people investment opportunities that don't exist, etc. 
But I believe we can't look at it with our eyes. We have to look at it from the perspective of someone in an emergency situation needing a solution. I can very much imagine the Tapas 9 working out this plan if it was worth it to them. The alternative consequences might have been too great to bear.
The logic behind it is actually very simple...as long as the days are uneventful and go along as usual, who is going to remember one child on a specific date. And as we've seen nobody's memory is perfect. In the worst case, the McCann's could have just said that the creche records show she was there and whoever says otherwise can't remember correctly.
Furthermore, are we really to believe the times listed on the creche registers? If the parents logged the kids in and out they could have written wrong times. Just a thought.
In any case I find this idea very intriguing...it should be looked into more.

I actually just thought of this after I sent off my earlier post...why didn't I think of this before?
What if HiDeHo's theory is right, but the object was that at some point someone was supposed to notice that Madeleine was missing. That would have been a much easier solution to their problem as they wouldn't have been involved so directly as if it happened in their appartment.
But nobody noticed that Madeleine was missing. 
What to do?
Plan B the kidnapping from the appartment as we know it.