CATRIONA AND THE WAVES by Dr Martin Roberts

By Dr Martin Roberts
21 October 2012

CATRIONA AND THE WAVES

The cooler waters of the Atlantic coastline with Iberia are beautifully clear in Summer, when, at low tide, shoals of small fish can be seen just beneath the surface. At the Portuguese corner of the peninsular however the ambience is murkier. Things are altogether less clear there. Clarity of understanding is fundamental to attainment of the 'helicopter view;' that ability, beloved of management scientists, to envision the 'broader picture,' and something which is not, for good or ill, in everyone's gift. It is an accomplishment requiring a cultivated imagination, as the eventual construct is, when all's said and done, the perceiver's entirely. So what is one to make of a children's nanny who, when questioned about her recent experience in the role, exhibits such remarkable recall and awareness as to suggest that she is (or at least was) grossly under-employed?

As an initial 'for instance' we may take the psychological phenomena of 'recency' in memory and failures in recall over time, both tested scientifically (Sandra) and manifest in common experience. When our subject nanny was asked about diurnal events three days previously she had very little to say about them. When asked for those same recollections a year later she was able to provide considerably more detail. Odd that.

It appears at first blush that this was no ordinary nanny. But like the magical chess-playing mannequin of yore there was, in all likelihood, a measure of, shall we say, informative intervention, for in-between her first and second attempts at recall she paid a visit to a soothsayer, who had rather more details of the fateful day at their disposal. 'Never mind that. Can she think 'outside the box?' What's her 'summative overview?''

Basically this:
'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.'
We'll come to the 'helicopter' in a while. First let's check out the launch pad.

'On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning.'

The tense is wrong. The statement is literally describing the recollection of an activity prior to 3 May, as though what she recalls now is what she recalled then, and on that date precisely.

'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.'

The order of events is inverted. Despite serial ordered recall being the more demanding task, most people have no difficulty in dissociating morning from afternoon, together with associated events. Although you might not think so to read this, the afternoon 'dive/swim' (which took place at the pool) was preceded by the sailing and greeting at the beach, which occurred in the morning.

'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.'

To be clear, Madeleine returned to the Minis Club from the beach and, if she were among the 'we,' went swimming in the pool in the afternoon.

Boarding the helicopter

'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.'

In isolation this statement appears perfectly straightforward, apart perhaps from the extraordinarily imprecise interval of time. But there is another perspective viewpoint, on these details specifically, which obliges us to examine the statement more closely. That perspective is Kate McCann's ('Madeleine,' p.66):

"Together we took Sean and Amelie back to the Toddler Club at around 2.40 p.m. and dropped Madeleine off with the Minis ten minutes later. Ella was already there. Gerry and I had booked an hour-long couples' tennis lesson with the professional coach at three-thirty, and as the courts were unoccupied, we decided to have a knock-up for half an hour first. Near the end of our lesson, as I strove to improve my substandard backhand, another guest appeared, and he and Gerry decided to have a game together.

"Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group...I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.

"I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry."

Now then, at some time between 3.30 and 6.00 p.m., according to super-nanny, 'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area.' So where, exactly, was our observant witness positioned when she saw Kate, who was 'wearing sporting clothes,' make her way toward the Tapas Bar area? The question is not quite as simple as it appears, and the reason is this: 'Cat Nanny' signed Ella O'Brien out of the Kids' club at 4.30 p.m., the very time when the McCanns would conclude their tennis lesson. Kate left the court 'near the end' of the lesson, not to 'get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area' but to 'go for a run along the beach.' It is highly unlikely therefore that 'Cat Nanny' Baker was in the vicinity of the tennis courts to witness Kate's departure therefrom. Had she been she would not have had to make any assumptions as to the purpose of Kate's 'athletic clothes' and would have been in no doubt as to whether or not Gerry was playing tennis.

Kate, wearing sporting clothes, must have been seen going to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area ('Kate went to get Madeleine') from somewhere other than the tennis courts therefore. Perhaps the reference is to what Kate did on leaving the beach at around 5.30. It is Kate's signature on the crèche register after all (although Kate claims in her book that all the McCann children were already with Gerry by the time she arrived at the Tapas Bar area).

OK, what was 'Cat Nanny' doing on the beach at 5.30? After lunch that afternoon she would have been with the children at the pool. At 4.30 p.m. she was present at the club to sign them out. And since Ella O'Brien's was an unusually early departure, she will have remained to supervise those three children who had yet to leave – Madeleine McCann among them. They must have been at the club by then, as Kate had 'wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.' And 'Cat Nanny' must have been there to 'hand them over' at 5.30, in which case she will have been rather more aware of Kate McCann's coming than going.

If Cat Nanny was not at the tennis courts to observe Kate's movements, she was not at the beach an hour later to see Kate leave for the Tapas Bar area either. So how can she describe Kate as 'going' to get Madeleine? 'Getting Madeleine' must be regarded as an assumption in any case, unless Kate had announced her intentions to her personally. And yet 'Cat Nanny' is perfectly at ease giving a first-person account of what she herself apparently witnessed.

We have take off

The witnesses 'positivity,' despite not being present at either end of Kate McCann's trajectory in the late afternoon of May 3rd suggests that she has an overarching 'helicopter' view of the situation. However, without being an extraordinary visionary, the only way she can have acquired such a perspective is from someone else. And having been given that perspective it will not have been formed in her mind as a product of perception but of imagination. There is a world of difference between 'according to what I remember' and 'according to what I remember being told.' Does anyone even say, 'according to what I remember?' 'As I recall' is the stock phrase. Accordances are at one remove.

In sum therefore we have an important witness to events preceding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, whose initial recollection of significant details appears defective. Madeleine's schedule of attendance at the crèche, as represented verbally by her to police, is not that described by corresponding entries in the register. Within three days of the child's disappearance she fails to advance any detail with respect to the Thursday itself, supporting the instinctive interpretation of possibly the most significant thing she did say about that day - that until Thursday May 3rd, the little girl came every day. Almost a year later and with a domestic visit to the McCanns in the interim, her memory of the relevant Thursday improves to the point where she can describe Kate McCann's actions, motivations and dress code without being in a position personally to observe or appreciate any of these things (unless she 'copped a peek' at Kate's running shorts when handing Madeleine over to Gerry, who left it up to Kate to sign the register without collecting anyone at all).

In the final analysis the only 'helicopter' Catriona Baker will have known anything about would have been one that air-lifted her out of Portugal and transported her across the waves to a secret destination known only to her employers – and the McCanns.

The improved memory over time of so many participants in this affair is worth a separate study. The above amounts to total recall, except one can't be everywhere at once.
On the 6th of May she had little to say about that day, then she was sent off to Greece I believe, but (see the separate topic on CB) she was close to a breakdown judging from what she wrote.
Yet a year later, we have a new movie, tranquil seas, sun and sand - not at all convincing imo.

tigger wrote:The improved memory over time of so many participants in this affair is worth a separate study. The above amounts to total recall, except one can't be everywhere at once.
On the 6th of May she had little to say about that day, then she was sent off to Greece I believe, but (see the separate topic on CB) she was close to a breakdown judging from what she wrote.
Yet a year later, we have a new movie, tranquil seas, sun and sand - not at all convincing imo.

Has anyone put together a chart showing certain witnesses statements before and after a visit from certain people claiming to be looking for the truth?

tigger wrote:The improved memory over time of so many participants in this affair is worth a separate study.

Much of this 'improved memory syndrome' stemmed from Brian Kennedy appointing one Melissa Little to do a spot of 'memory reviving', combined with some sketching. This eventually produced the remarkable fact that, according to Jane Tanner, her 'bundleman', with the mustard chinos and the shiny pointy black shoes 'looked very similar' to Melissa Little's 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man'/'Cooperman'. (Are we still supposed to be looking for him, by the way?)

I expect Little's fees were paid by all those children who donated their weekly pocket money and pensioners who sent their weekly pensions to Madeleine's Fund.

How much was Little paid?

Dr Kate McCann said in the book 'madeleine' that all apsects of the Fund and the private investgations would be 'as transparent as possible'.

So what was Little's fee?

If I remember rightly, in the early days this particular group of Warner employees were said to be serious dedicated child minders and yet that proclamation was somewhat clouded by images of a group of young women obviously indulging in partytime - undies 'n all!

Apart from the enigmatic Catriona Baker another prominent diva in this kitchen sink drama is one Charlotte Pennington. She has the advantage of being from, let's say 'the dramatic arts', yet her sense of recall was equally curious as was the obvious insertion of heavy doses of artistic licence - or in street speak, exageration.

Amazing what a heavy hand or a little financial incentive can do isn't it?

Where ARE these girls?

The whole affair has the hallmarks of a sting operation.

Some people in the know shipped in a short while before the actual event; then shipped out immediately.

Remember the botched French Greenpeace operation in the '70's, where they shipped in this so called French honeymoon couple, which managed to prematurely explode the bomb sinking the Rainbow Warrior action ship, killing a totally unconnected Dutch civilian bystander in the process?

These two French walked, being promoted for their efforts, killing an unarmed fellow NATO citizen and sinking a fellow NATO civilian ship.

My point is, that operatives are routinely being flown in and out of countries in order to save our civilisation. Just read John le Carre, or Blacksmith. All to the common good. But they do not end up protecting paedophile rings, or waste 3 yr olds.

So what happened here, and what went wrong?

[quote]Has anyone put together a chart showing certain witnesses statements before and after a visit from certain people claiming to be looking for the truth?

Not a direct association with what you say but in my opinion Bridget O'Donnell's (Jez Wilkin's partner) input is worth noting. I refer in particular to her article in the Guardien, Friday 14th December 2007 'My months with Madeleine'.

Could of course be another example of poetic licence but her memory recall seems to be perfect, comparable to K Mccann's epistle titled 'Madeleine'. Perhaps they got their heads together to compare notes or perhaps O'Donnell's experience working in the media came into play, a useful contact indeed when a media production is in the pipeline.

This example of radically changing testimony is of great importance imo. 

Imo Catriona Baker visited Rothley to receive, shall we say background information which, as we see, she recalled in the rogatory interview. 

Don't forget that the rogatories were  requested by the McCanns to clear their names. So since a number of their witnesses barely knew them - such as Baker- it was necessary to instruct them in the finer pointsof their total devotion to their children and  happy lives before 3/5.

The PJ was able to add a number of questions of their own.

Gollum wrote:If I remember rightly, in the early days this particular group of Warner employees were said to be serious dedicated child minders and yet that proclamation was somewhat clouded by images of a group of young women obviously indulging in partytime - undies 'n all!

Pauline McCann must have been like a fish out of water then.

Is this THE Catriona Baker?

BAKER, CATRIONA TREASA SISILE married somebody named REGINALD LAMERIQUE on 24 September 2014 on a license issued in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States of America.

Yes.
Two kids, but doesn't look as if she's still with husband. Profile used to say she was a magazine editor for an expensive kids clothing type mag. (from memory it was called something like 'Yummy Mummy'), but this has dropped off her profile now.

Found an old screen shot. Might have been CP who was the magazine person.

Cat was 'Founder and CEO of NYC Elite Nannies' back in 2017.