Mccanns and the childcare

by Khaleesi 18.10.21 14:09

Somewhere along the road in my mind a theory formed, that the McCanns had to have a nanny, taking care of the children when they were not in the creche. The way the McCanns described their day is one giant giveavay that they never really had a bunch of toddlers under their care. I worked in a kindergarten/nursery, had under my care kids as young as the twins were in 2007, and some of McCanns descriptions just left me speechless.

So, let's examine these statements, shall we?

Kate, in her arguido statement says:

During the holidays, the three children went to bed at 7:30PM. She says that during the holidays it is relatively easy to put the three children to sleep when they had not slept during the day and were tired after the day's activities.

Well, most of the toddlers I know react quite badly on disturbance of their daily routine and tiredness does not help much. A tired kid, paradoxically, can have some problems with falling asleep and is often cranky as hell. Additionally, on holidays there is a lot of stuff happening to the children and around them, a lot of new things and it all leaves children pumped up with emotions and all hyper at the bedtime. Astonishingly the McCann children never had any issues like that, heck, they were never fussy or threw a tantrum during these holidays. Amazing, no?

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM.

That's an amazing timeline, I must say. Mind you during the morning they had to wash and dress themselves, wash, dress and comb three tots, more or less fussy (not many kids have a sunny disposition in the morning), put fresh nappies on the twins, prepare the breakfast, feed the kids and mind you twins still required a bit of help with eating, clean them (toddlers have an enormous ability of smearing themselves from head to toe with even tiniest bit of food). All of that in an hour tops. I don't think that feeding three, even least fussy, tots could take any less than a half of hour, so at best there is another half of hour for everything else, that is dressing and washing both themselves and kids, changing nappies, brushing everyone's hair, and so on. And wait, I forgot something, washing the dishes. There are no dirty plates in the forensic pics of a kitchen, so i think they had to be washed after each meal.

I have to add that both kitchen and whole apartment is uncharacteristically neat for a flat inhabited by three toddlers. I mean there is a bit of the adult stuff thrown around, like some pieces of clothing and other items, but no kiddie stuff. At all. No toys anywhere, no clothing items left in the least expected places, no sippy cups, nappies, hats, cereal boxes, favorite soft toys, anything. It looks almost like it was inhabited only by two adults, with some cots, blankie and cuddly cat added as an ornament. Another thing: three toddlers produce Himalayas of laundry each day. Where are these dirty and freshly washed clothes?

Let's get back to Kate's statement though.

After the children's bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.

First, I would not offer two freshly cleaned and put into clean pjs tots any food or drink. food first, washing and nappies after that, not the other way round. As i said, kids this age have an uncanny ability to spill every beverage on themselves, and the mixture of cookies and milk creates fantastic stains on everything. Your clean and bed-ready kiddos would turn into sticky monsters with crumbs everywhere before the end of the meal. A'propos crumbs, check the pictures of the dining table in 5A. Spotless. Not a single crumb on the table or on the floor under it. And we are to believe that this is the place where three tots ate a breakfast and a lunch that day and there was no cleaner on Thursday. Second, I just hope it was a figure of speech and Kate did not hand her two years olds the real glasses, made of, you know, glass.

But it gets better...

While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes

Holy guacamole NOOOO! You do not leave three toddlers, supplied with glasses of beverages and food, unattended! At best the milk would end up spilled on kids, books, couch, carpet etc., the worst possibility is that one of the kids would choke and die, while Kate would be unable to hear a thing due to the water noise under the shower. No sane person leaves kids that young unattended during the mealtime.

It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this.

Lady, kids do not work like that. Putting kids to bed is not like automatically switching them off. They rarely, very rarely fall asleep immediately after their heads hit the pillow. The consequence with which the McCanns describe their kids as easily falling asleep make me think they never had to actually put their children to bed by themselves. Anyone who ever begged their kid to go to sleep at last, or actually fell asleep before the kid, knows what I am talking about.

I think these kids were actually supervised by someone else than the McCanns and certainly did not eat any meal in 5A. What do you think?

by crusader 18.10.21 18:22

I'm not convinced the McCann children had a nanny. Someone would have seen her/him. There would be no reason to hide a nanny.

2 parents supervising mostly the twins, would not be hard.

They had, according to Kate, cereal for breakfast.

So, up at 8am, clean nappies for the twins, breakfast , wash dressed and out by 9.

Kate could have washed the dishes before she went to pick the children up at lunchtime.

If they had a nanny, how and when did Madeleine disappear?

If the McCann's disposed of Madeleine, why would the nanny keep quiet and if Madeleine was snatched, what was the nanny doing while this took place?

by Khaleesi 18.10.21 18:55

crusader wrote:I'm not convinced the McCann children had a nanny. Someone would have seen her/him. There would be no reason to hide a nanny.

There is so many weird things in this case already that a hidden nanny would not surprise me at all. The only good reason I can find for hiding nanny's presence is Maddie's abduction. That means if Maddie's vanishing was somehow planned, they had to create that window of opportunity for (non existent) kidnapper. With nanny in the picture that would be impossible.

2 parents supervising mostly the twins, would not be hard.

Soon-to-be-four-years-old might require less help than a two years old, but certainly needs a metric ton of supervision.

They had, according to Kate, cereal for breakfast.
So, up at 8am, clean nappies for the twins, breakfast , wash dressed and out by 9.

Two years old eating cereal with milk on their own equals a lot of mess. Yet the flat was immaculate and the boy bib found in there looked squeaky clean, like fresh out of the shop. Also, all three kids needed assistance with dressing up, brushing teeth and combing their hair. And believe me, combing a tot is not easy... Another thing, during that hour Kate managed also to wash Maddie's stained pyjama top.

Kate could have washed the dishes before she went to pick the children up at lunchtime.

According to both of them after the tennis lesson finished Kate went to the pool area, Gerry joined her there after his lesson ended and they went to the apartment together at 12:00. According to the creche records and both of the McCanns the children were picked up by Kate at 12:15. That gives Kate 15 minutes to wash the breakfast dishes and then prepare sandwiches and pasta they allegedly ate for lunch. The lunch, by the way lasted all 20 minutes. I cannot imagine toddlers eating pasta that fast.

If they had a nanny, how and when did Madeleine disappear?
If the McCann's disposed of Madeleine, why would the nanny keep quiet and if Madeleine was snatched, what was the nanny doing while this took place?

Those are good questions and i don't have a good answers for them. I cannot shake down that impression, though, that the McCanns had no idea how the care over toddlers looks like for real. Compare their stories about perfectly well-behaved fuss-less children with the statements of their friends. Their kids somehow can be in bad mood, wake up everyone with their crying, and have problems, like normal, living kids. Tge McCann kids in description of their parents are like mannequins or props.

by Guest 18.10.21 19:05

I think the only way Kate could have had a helper, without people noticing this person, would be if she hired an off duty pole dancing nanny, who was employed at the creche?

by crusader 18.10.21 19:50

According to Kate, she washed Madeleine's pyjama top " later that same morning "
Kate went back to apartment with Gerry after his lesson ended at
11-15, where they stayed until close to 12-15.
Kate signed Madeleine out at 12-15, there is no creche sheet for the twins am on the 3rd.
Back at apartment 12-30/12-45.
Lunch around 20 mins, stayed in apartment for a while.
Went to play area near pool, stayed 1 hour or more.
Back at creche 2-45.
We only have Kates word that the above timeline is true, or if it is all a fabrication.
I still don't believe there was a nanny involved, that's just my opinion.
If you are sure there was a nanny and it leads to discovering what happened to Madeleine, fantastic.

by Doug D 18.10.21 21:21

'On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first'

That's a miracle on its own. Sunrise at 6.37 so starts to get light a good hour before that. I would have expected the twins to be awake and demanding attention around 5.30 - 6.00, if not before, however tired they may have been the night before.

by crusader 18.10.21 21:23

Don't forget, the curtains and blinds were never opened.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.21 21:34

Khaleesi wrote:Somewhere along the road in my mind a theory formed, that the McCanns had to have a nanny, taking care of the children when they were not in the creche. The way the McCanns described their day is one giant giveavay that they never really had a bunch of toddlers under their care. I worked in a kindergarten/nursery, had under my care kids as young as the twins were in 2007, and some of McCanns descriptions just left me speechless.

So, let's examine these statements, shall we?

Kate, in her arguido statement says:

During the holidays, the three children went to bed at 7:30PM. She says that during the holidays it is relatively easy to put the three children to sleep when they had not slept during the day and were tired after the day's activities.

Well, most of the toddlers I know react quite badly on disturbance of their daily routine and tiredness does not help much. A tired kid, paradoxically, can have some problems with falling asleep and is often cranky as hell. Additionally, on holidays there is a lot of stuff happening to the children and around them, a lot of new things and it all leaves children pumped up with emotions and all hyper at the bedtime. Astonishingly the McCann children never had any issues like that, heck, they were never fussy or threw a tantrum during these holidays. Amazing, no?

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM.

That's an amazing timeline, I must say. Mind you during the morning they had to wash and dress themselves, wash, dress and comb three tots, more or less fussy (not many kids have a sunny disposition in the morning), put fresh nappies on the twins, prepare the breakfast, feed the kids and mind you twins still required a bit of help with eating, clean them (toddlers have an enormous ability of smearing themselves from head to toe with even tiniest bit of food). All of that in an hour tops. I don't think that feeding three, even least fussy, tots could take any less than a half of hour, so at best there is another half of hour for everything else, that is dressing and washing both themselves and kids, changing nappies, brushing everyone's hair, and so on. And wait, I forgot something, washing the dishes. There are no dirty plates in the forensic pics of a kitchen, so i think they had to be washed after each meal.

I have to add that both kitchen and whole apartment is uncharacteristically neat for a flat inhabited by three toddlers. I mean there is a bit of the adult stuff thrown around, like some pieces of clothing and other items, but no kiddie stuff. At all. No toys anywhere, no clothing items left in the least expected places, no sippy cups, nappies, hats, cereal boxes, favorite soft toys, anything. It looks almost like it was inhabited only by two adults, with some cots, blankie and cuddly cat added as an ornament. Another thing: three toddlers produce Himalayas of laundry each day. Where are these dirty and freshly washed clothes?

Let's get back to Kate's statement though.

After the children's bath, already alone, she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.

First, I would not offer two freshly cleaned and put into clean pjs tots any food or drink. food first, washing and nappies after that, not the other way round. As i said, kids this age have an uncanny ability to spill every beverage on themselves, and the mixture of cookies and milk creates fantastic stains on everything. Your clean and bed-ready kiddos would turn into sticky monsters with crumbs everywhere before the end of the meal. A'propos crumbs, check the pictures of the dining table in 5A. Spotless. Not a single crumb on the table or on the floor under it. And we are to believe that this is the place where three tots ate a breakfast and a lunch that day and there was no cleaner on Thursday. Second, I just hope it was a figure of speech and Kate did not hand her two years olds the real glasses, made of, you know, glass.

But it gets better...

While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes

Holy guacamole NOOOO! You do not leave three toddlers, supplied with glasses of beverages and food, unattended! At best the milk would end up spilled on kids, books, couch, carpet etc., the worst possibility is that one of the kids would choke and die, while Kate would be unable to hear a thing due to the water noise under the shower. No sane person leaves kids that young unattended during the mealtime.

It was around 7:15PM when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she says she is sure of this.

Lady, kids do not work like that. Putting kids to bed is not like automatically switching them off. They rarely, very rarely fall asleep immediately after their heads hit the pillow. The consequence with which the McCanns describe their kids as easily falling asleep make me think they never had to actually put their children to bed by themselves. Anyone who ever begged their kid to go to sleep at last, or actually fell asleep before the kid, knows what I am talking about.

I think these kids were actually supervised by someone else than the McCanns and certainly did not eat any meal in 5A. What do you think?

But most of this is utterly irrelevant if Madeleine was not alive after Sunday night.

Why, a few days after the alleged abduction of Madeleine, Amelie saw her big sister's pyjamas and said; "Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?" If Madeleine was abducted in her pyjamas between 9pm and 10pm on Thursday, according to the evidence of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, Martin Smith, Peter Smith and Aoife Smith, how come her pyjamas weren't abducted?

Meanwhile Goncalo Amaral seems to think that Madeleine was fine at about 6pm on Thursday 3 May, then fell off a sofa and cracked her head or something and died, and was successfully hidden or buried before they all sat down to dinner ay 8.45pm that night.

I'm not buying it.

This case is much simpler to solve than it appears.

by sandancer 18.10.21 22:04

Amanda Coxon.
Karen LeMcCalman.
Hayley Jane Plummer .
Sharon Lewin .
All gave statements regarding looking after Madeleine ( and presumably the twins ) at home in Rothley . Also family members often babysat , see Auntie Janets wonderful statement !
The McCanns , mainly Kate refer to their exceptional children , well behaved , sleep well
!?!? , no tears , tantrums the normal things that children do ! Apart from a shopping trip after Madeleine " disappeared " for new shoes for the twins when it seems to upset her greatly that they cried !
Also her story of a two year old Madeleine running around screaming for her attention when feeding the twins . Not abnormal behaviour for a little one suddenly faced with not one but two new babies taking the attention away from her .
You have to wonder how much time and looking after the children did the McCanns /Kate actually do ? Their perception of toddler behaviour seems imho to be unusual .
Was motherhood and the reality of having children not what Kate expected it to be ?

by **Jill Havern** 18.10.21 22:11

Eileen McCann: "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted

Charming.
Eileen McCann's precious granddaughter had just been 'abducted' by a "paedophile or some other swine" and she refers to Maddie as 'That girl'.

by Verdi 19.10.21 1:06

Tony Bennett wrote:But most of this is utterly irrelevant if Madeleine was not alive after Sunday night.

Quite! Thank you Tony for taking the lead.

Besides, the statement transcript used as a template was not taken verbatim so can't be relied upon with any true conviction.

During such an interview specific questions would be asked and the response will only be a generalization - especially four months after the event.

Remember the questioning was still on the assumption that Madeleine McCann disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007 - the investigation hadn't deviated from that hypothesis when the McCanns were interviewed as arguido. Thus there was no requirement to delve into the family's daily routine with any due dlligence - aside from determining anything suspect, like lurking strangers.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest the McCann children where being cared for by a nanny outside of the creche facilities or possibly at night by an informal arrangement. Even then, it wouldn't indicate the existence of a full-time holiday nanny.

Seriously, there would be some evidence even if only a witness statement.

Even if there was a 24 hour nanny, it wouldn't explain the absence of childlike occupancy - suggested only by the PJ photographic evidence of the crime scene. Surely the GNR/PJ would have raised concerns if they thought for a moment there was no evidence of children in apartment 5a? Or is the scenario intended to suggest a nanny was looking after the three McCann children somewhere other than Ocean Club apartment 5a - or worst still that the PJ were a bunch of incompetent sardine munching fools, unable to conduct a routine police investigation?

Fourteen years + down the line I'm astonished such a scenario has again been raised.

There is plenty of evidence to lead to constructive debate, unsubstantiated theorizing is not the way forward.

This topic doesn't warrant a place of it's own on the forum, I left it here temporarily to see where it leads but I think it's a non-starter. I will move to an existing thread for general discussion in due course.

by Scone76 09.11.21 17:51

Jill Havern wrote:Eileen McCann: "That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted

Charming.
Eileen McCann's precious granddaughter had just been 'abducted' by a "paedophile or some other swine" and she refers to Maddie as 'That girl'.

Shocking to talk about your granddaughter like that, my mum totally adores hers with all her heart