Re: The creche enquiry

by Guest 03.07.11 10:25

pauline wrote:
madeleine wasn't in Cats's care when she went missing - she was in her parents care.
Only SOME of the time Pauline. During the day, on average of about 6 hours, Madeleine WAS in the care of Catriona Baker and not her parents. More hours a day than she actually spent with her parents I believe.

Holiday childcare workers, in my experience, are sometimes moved from one resort to another depending on the needs of the company. If there are more bookings with children in Greece and cancellations in PDL (which there might well have been) doesn't it make sense to transfer staff there?
No absolutely not. What a lame excuse. At any given time the PJ may have needed to ask her something very important, but with her thousands of miles away, how are they going to do that ?

How did they track her down - well they could have asked Mark Warner! Even if Mark Warner only said she was in the Greek centre, that would be enough to track her down. When she left PDL for Greece she most likely said goodbye to the Mccanns and gave them her mobile number.
You seem to be very quick to defend the McCann's Pauline.

by Guest 03.07.11 10:40

Stella wrote:
pauline wrote:
Holiday childcare workers, in my experience, are sometimes moved from one resort to another depending on the needs of the company. If there are more bookings with children in Greece and cancellations in PDL (which there might well have been) doesn't it make sense to transfer staff there?
No absolutely not. What a lame excuse. At any given time the PJ may have needed to ask her something very important, but with her thousands of miles away, how are they going to do that ?

I absolutely agree with that Stella. The PJ had a very difficult job. It was bad enough with all the holidaymakers that had to leave and return home, which they couldn't really stop, but the nannies were of paramount importance in this case, and it was very surprising indeed that Cat (and weren't there others) transferred out of the resort so quickly.

Out of interest, how many of the tapas 7 stayed? Didn't some of them leave quite quickly too, I have forgotten the details.

by Guest 03.07.11 10:50

It seems we are not the only ones questioning the creche sheets.

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

Since a small part of the case file - the DVD version was made accessible to the public, a great deal of ink has flowed. We note that it is necessary to be cautious as to its contents. In fact, it is only 17% of the complete case file and certain details are only of interest in relation to the complete file and not taken out of their context.

You probably know that our team, at the association, is comprised mainly of professionals from the field of police work. As such, we have analysed the case file and from the first pages, we have identified a few anomalies. Thus, the registers from the Kids Club appeared to be incomplete. Certain gaps have not been explained.

Thus we note that on May 1st 2007, Madeleine McCann's name is on the Kids Club register. She arrived at 9.30am, dropped off by Gerry. According to the register, Gerry spent the morning playing tennis. He went back to fetch Madeleine at 12.20pm. Where things seem stranger to us is in the entries for the afternoon. Gerry drops Madeleine off at the Kids Club at 2.30pm and he spends his afternoon, again according to the register, playing tennis and at the swimming pool. Oddly, no one went back to fetch Madeleine in the evening! No signature for the evening of May 1st 2007. Why? Why did no one sign the register that evening?

Various explanations are possible.

It could be imagined that the parents arrived late to pick up Madeleine and that they didn't take the time to sign the register. In that case, why isn't that made clear in the case file? Why is there no mention of this possible lateness? And above all, why were they late? Right in the middle of an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of a little four year-old girl, these details are important. But the anomalies continue the following day.

According to the register for May 2nd 2007, the day before Madeleine's disappearance, Kate dropped Maddie off at the Kids Club at 9.20am. Madeleine was picked up at 12.30pm but it's not Kate or Gerry's signature on the register. Someone else has signed the register in the space for parents. The signature of Cat nanny, in other words, CATRIONA BAKER is found there.

Here too, you could imagine various explanations. The parents arrived late (once again?) and in a hurry (why?), they didn't sign the register. You could think that they forgot, for the second time, to sign the register. You could imagine that Catriona had finished her shift and as the parents had not yet come to fetch Maddie, Catriona signed the register then took Madeleine to her parents. You could imagine lots of things. But no explanation is provided in the case file. Catriona didn't mention it in her interview, the parents neither. But this kind of detail raises questions that need to be resolved. Too many unanswered questions, too many whys, too many gaps, not enough explanation.

These explanations could go in both directions. Thus, the investigators must wonder if Maddie didn't disappear sooner than May 3rd? If she was indeed present present at the Kids Club on the afternoon of May 1st? Why didn't anyone sign the register? Was she actually present at the Kids Club on the morning of May 2nd? Why did Catriona sign in the space for parents? Why does Kate's signature on the register for May 2nd seem different from Kate's other signatures? Where were the parents if someone else signed for them?

Certainly, these anomalies may only be trivial details, but these details could equally be significant, even fundamental to the investigation. Don't forget we are talking about the disappearance of a little four year-old girl. We cannot allow ourselves to leave these questions unanswered.

These anomalies, which are the first of a long series, were communicate to whom they may concern. And it is in referring to the article on SOS Madeleine of November 19th, we discover that a hand-writing report would be necessary. This confirms our suspicions and implicitly confirms certain rumours mentioning forged pieces of writing, forged signatures....manipulated documents...signatures added several days after the date indicated...etc.

If this report, that SOS Madeleine speaks of, confirms our our suspicions (and the rumours) these details which we have officially revealed, are then clearly less "trivial" !!!!

by Guest 03.07.11 10:59

Amy Tierney was Catriona Bakers supervisor.

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

Amy was also the person to print off the first copies of "Madeleine", from her printer that mysteriously disappeared.

"When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine".

by Guest 03.07.11 11:10

candyfloss wrote:
Out of interest, how many of the tapas 7 stayed? Didn't some of them leave quite quickly too, I have forgotten the details.

I'm not sure on that one Candyfloss, it's something I will need to find out.

by Guest 03.07.11 11:20

Stella wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Out of interest, how many of the tapas 7 stayed? Didn't some of them leave quite quickly too, I have forgotten the details.

I'm not sure on that one Candyfloss, it's something I will need to find out.

I found this Stella - it seems the Payne's stayed behind for some weeks after the abduction...............

DAVID AND FIONA PAYNE (nee Webster) (Aged 41 and 34 respectively) Year 2007
David Anthony Payne is a senior research fellow in cardiovascular sciences at Leicester University [David Payne is NOT a senior research fellow at Leicester University. That was a temporary post which ended in 2003. He is a surgeon at Leicester Royal Infirmary, specialising in strokes.], and a doctor. Dr Fiona Payne and her husband David were among those who stayed on in the Algarve to support the McCanns for several weeks after the abduction. It was David Payne who organised the group’s holidays at Praia de Luz. The reservation was made over the internet, after a good experience with the Ocean Club’s group in Greece. This was the second time that David visited Portugal. The first time was eleven years ago, before he got married. David and Fiona have been together for seven years and they have two children. They were the only ones in the group who used the babyphone system to keep watch over the children during dinner. Fiona Payne, born in Bedford in 1972, was back in the Algarve on July 11, along with Rachel Oldfield and Russell O’Brien, in order to give their third deposition to the PJ. The Paynes live in Stoneygate about a 30 minute drive from the McCanns at Rothley. It has been reported that the McCanns occasionally visit them on a Sunday.

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

by Guest 03.07.11 11:26

You know what, this nanny Pauline McCann was only ever asked if she knew Kate & Gerry, but what if she knew someone in the wider McCann family?

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

Questioned, states that she also does not know Madeleine's parents, and the twins did not frequent the Baby Club given their age.

by Guest 03.07.11 11:32

As yet, I cannot find one single creche worker who saw Madeleine on the 28th, the day they arrived, at the welcome meeting.

Tanner said there was someone there specifically to talk about child care, but who was this?

by Guest 03.07.11 11:55

I feel that Stella was a little hard on Pauline by suggesting that she is very quick to support the McCanns; it seems to me anyway that Pauline was merely pointing out that some facts are open to individual interpretation and this can lead to them being used erroneously to back up a particular theory. I'm certainly not a supporter of the McCann Circus - overall the initial story and their subsequent behaviour contains more holes than a colander - but there are I think some things being raised which are being given more importance than perhaps they merit.

May I say how pleased I am to have discovered this website. It certainly isn't always easy to stand up (sometimes in the face of very hostile opposition) and make yourself heard.

by ROSA 03.07.11 23:29

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

by ROSA 04.07.11 0:06

But was it their first time? The Sunday Times doesn't seem to think so. They printed on 13 May 2007 that: 'The McCanns are believed to have stayed once before in Praia da Luz and had returned because they considered it a safe resort.'

In the MSNBC documentary, Richard Gaisford said, when talking of Praia da Luz: "It's a very warm welcoming friendly place. And it was a place the McCanns knew well. They'd been to the resort before." (MSNBC Missing Madeleine en op 3arguidoforum)

by ROSA 04.07.11 2:13

Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho

Occupation: Receptionist
She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30.

GM is not thin the child madeleine mccann is the subsitute who are these elements

by Guest 04.07.11 8:54

Jean wrote:
- but there are I think some things being raised which are being given more importance than perhaps they merit.

Well Jean, if you cannot understand the significance of the integrity of these creche records with it quite possibly pointing to an earlier time of death, even after 24 pages worth of very detailed information. Sadly I think you never will.

Whatever happens, we are going to continue to discuss these items whether you like it or not. People who are genuinely here to discuss, debate and constructively counter argue, will never be faced with hostility. But for those who are here just to deflect and disrupt, for no other reason than to try and stop a particular subject from being discussed, will.

If we loose one or two along the way who are not happy about this, so be it. But as you can see, there has now been over 5,000 views on this one topic and I am guessing that there is a large amount of people out there who can see the importance.

by Miraflores 04.07.11 9:31

Stella wrote:
Jean wrote:
- but there are I think some things being raised which are being given more importance than perhaps they merit.
Well Jean, if you cannot understand the significance of the integrity of these creche records with it quite possibly pointing to an earlier time of death, even after 24 pages worth of very detailed information. Sadly I think you never will.

I think you are being a bit harsh here to Jean, Stella. I am not sure how important the creche records are myself. I do think it is something the Police need to look at - is it significant, were the records falsified to cover up Madeleine's absence, or is it no more significant than Mark Warner's staff having sloppy record keeping and seeking to cover their backs about it? I think the latter is just as likely.

We have to be careful, I think, to stick to facts as much as possible - we don't need to give the 'pro McCann' camp evidence that we are vile nutters, making ludicrous statements. Just my tuppence worth, you understand.

by pauline 04.07.11 9:46

Miraflores wrote:
Stella wrote:
Jean wrote:
- but there are I think some things being raised which are being given more importance than perhaps they merit.
Well Jean, if you cannot understand the significance of the integrity of these creche records with it quite possibly pointing to an earlier time of death, even after 24 pages worth of very detailed information. Sadly I think you never will.

I think you are being a bit harsh here to Jean, Stella. I am not sure how important the creche records are myself. I do think it is something the Police need to look at - is it significant, were the records falsified to cover up Madeleine's absence, or is it no more significant than Mark Warner's staff having sloppy record keeping and seeking to cover their backs about it? I think the latter is just as likely.

We have to be careful, I think, to stick to facts as much as possible - we don't need to give the 'pro McCann' camp evidence that we are vile nutters, making ludicrous statements. Just my tuppence worth, you understand.

My thoughts exactly Miraflores. Like Jean, I have felt the lash of a Stella post because I try to look for explanations that don't fit the theory as well as one that does. Sometimes simple answers make sense - like your suggestion of sloppy record keeping in the creche. Stella and others do brilliant research and obviously it takes a lot of their time, but they shouldn't feel offended when people suggest a particular line of inquiry may not be very significant, and attempt to test it. A pro Mccann friend of mine says I try to make the facts fit my theory that there was no abduction - I say to her she needs to read the police file and other material. I hope she will. But since that comment I have looked more critically at my own thinking because I do feel she had a point.

by **PeterMac** 04.07.11 9:49

Stella wrote:As yet, I cannot find one single creche worker who saw Madeleine on the 28th, the day they arrived, at the welcome meeting.

Tanner said there was someone there specifically to talk about child care, but who was this?

from another thread some time ago

Re: Remarkable children
PeterMac on Fri 17 Jun 2011 - 20:50

According to p. 47 as soon as they had been allocated to their apartment.

"After reorganising the sleeping arangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group. ... Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her. I was not exactly keen. But she was so excited about the pool. I took one look at her eager little face and went off to put on my costume."
Went off where ? Where was her costume, and her towel ? Madeleine must already have been in her costume, to be able to jump in ahead of the adults, and into water so cold it stops her breathing for a couple of seconds, and causes serious hypothermia, which they are still suffering three hours later.

"Even if it did take us both the best part of three house to warm up afterwards.
We were still shivering when we went off to a 'welcome' meeting with the Mark Warner team, who outlined the facilities and events on offer."

Exaggerating ? Surely not. If Madeleine really were still shivering after 3 hours she should have received medical attention. Katey was an anaesthetist. She is specially trained to deal with this sort of thing.

by Guest 04.07.11 11:37

PeterMac wrote:
Stella wrote:As yet, I cannot find one single creche worker who saw Madeleine on the 28th, the day they arrived, at the welcome meeting.

Tanner said there was someone there specifically to talk about child care, but who was this?
from another thread some time ago

Re: Remarkable children
PeterMac on Fri 17 Jun 2011 - 20:50

According to p. 47 as soon as they had been allocated to their apartment.

"After reorganising the sleeping arangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group. ... Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her. I was not exactly keen. But she was so excited about the pool. I took one look at her eager little face and went off to put on my costume."
Went off where ? Where was her costume, and her towel ? Madeleine must already have been in her costume, to be able to jump in ahead of the adults, and into water so cold it stops her breathing for a couple of seconds, and causes serious hypothermia, which they are still suffering three hours later.

"Even if it did take us both the best part of three house to warm up afterwards.
We were still shivering when we went off to a 'welcome' meeting with the Mark Warner team, who outlined the facilities and events on offer."

Exaggerating ? Surely not. If Madeleine really were still shivering after 3 hours she should have received medical attention. Katey was an anaesthetist. She is specially trained to deal with this sort of thing.

What does she mean by "reorganising the sleeping arrangements" ? That kind of suggests that original plans had to be changed. If she means moving one cot, she should have said so.

Maybe a very cold Madeleine had to stay in her room, which is why no one remembers seeing her at that welcome meeting? To be honest, it looks like some of the nanny's only started work for the first day, on that Sunday.

by ROSA 04.07.11 12:05

Stella wrote:You know what, this nanny Pauline McCann was only ever asked if she knew Kate & Gerry, but what if she knew someone in the wider McCann family?

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

Questioned, states that she also does not know Madeleine's parents, and the twins did not frequent the Baby Club given their age.

Stella yes the wider family and what about the owner of 5a Ruth McCann

by Guest 04.07.11 12:08

You would think that the name McCann was as common as Smith & Jones where this investigation is concerned.

by **PeterMac** 04.07.11 12:20

Stella wrote:
What does she mean by "reorganising the sleeping arrangements" ? That kind of suggests that original plans had to be changed. If she means moving one cot, she should have said so.

from p. 45 and 47 paraphrased. Mark Warner had put the two travel cots in the "back bedroom" the one with the full length doors opening onto the baclony, so they put the cots in the "front" bedroom, overlooking the car park and took the "back room" for themselves.

by Guest 04.07.11 12:32

PeterMac wrote:
Stella wrote:
What does she mean by "reorganising the sleeping arrangements" ? That kind of suggests that original plans had to be changed. If she means moving one cot, she should have said so.
from p. 45 and 47 paraphrased. Mark Warner had put the two travel cots in the "back bedroom" the one with the full length doors opening onto the baclony, so they put the cots in the "front" bedroom, overlooking the car park and took the "back room" for themselves.

Thank you PeterMac for explaining that from Kate's book.

Would the the maids really put the cots in the master bedroom knowing they were not babies, but 2+ years of age? Or would they think to put them in bedroom 2, where the children usually sleep?

by ROSA 04.07.11 12:54

Updated Spreadsheets courtesy of Montaillou

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

by Guest 04.07.11 13:10

Thanks ROSA for posting that up. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It's always interesting to see another persons analysis.

It may be misleading though when it says parents signature (tick), as we still do not know if all the handwriting pertains to the name written there.

by ROSA 04.07.11 13:22

Maria M A Jose - saw MBM 4.30pm on 3rd May, having tea at the restaurant.
The cook at the tapas was one of the 'credible' witnesses that 'saw' Madeleine at 16.30 Thursday May 3.

Something I have just noticed regarding the statement of Maria Manuela Antonia José Tapas Cook who has been considered as a reliable witness seeing Madeleine at 16.30 on May 3rd.

Reading her statement she refers to recognising Madeleine from the photo (of younger Madeleine)

seeing her during the day in the creche next to the restaurant (tapas)

Madeleine was not in that creche...but L***y was!

Quote:
Dave would take L*** over to the kids club which was back near the, behind the Tapas Bar area”.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
after seeing pictures of the missing child on television, that she realised who the girl was, referring to her as Madeleine (the name used by the journalists) remembering only at that moment that she had seen her during the meals provided to the children at the crèche, and which take place at the restaurant where she works and during arrivals at the crèche where Madeleine spent the day, located immediately next to the restaurant.the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week

Another example of mistakenly thinking that one of the other tapas children was Madeleine?

(Message edited by TinLizzy On 06/01/2010 11:45 AM)

by kikoraton 04.07.11 21:26

"one of the elements of the group arrived [on the evening of 29 April] with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group"
Given that I have concluded firmly that there was a 3yo substitute for Maddie, who had to satisfy the staff of the OC that she was in fact Madeleine McCann, then I feel obliged to attempt to fit this event into what I believe was going on. Don't take it as gospel - I'm simply trying to work my way through the maze.
The possibility exists that this appearance of a tall thin man (unidentified by name) with a girl who was introduced to the receptionist as Madeleine McCann, was a ruse to imprint the features of the substitute on a member of staff other than the creche workers. Someone else who would be able to say "yes, of course Madeleine McCann was around until 3 May".
By the morning of 29 April, the subby (according to my theory) would have made her debut in the Lobster Group. What better, then, than to introduce her more widely? But who was the fella with her? Not Gerry, by the physical description. I have no reason whatever to believe she would have tagged along with the two tall thin "Tapas", Oldfield or O'Brien. Might it have been her real father, who I believe was staying incognito at the OC? A risky strategy if so. But not unthinkable, if it was considered a risk worth taking.
I'll have to dig out a photo of Mr R and daughter M, just to remind myself if he is tall and thin. I think he is.
afte