The creche enquiry

Let's [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] now that all of Kiko's evidence [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] has been given to the Met,
they will soon start to see [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]what we have all been seeing for months.

All the timely [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] calls, the bogus [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]creche sheets and bingo [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Kiko. Go get 'em...

My forum colleague who lives in London saw that it was delivered to the correct address, with a record made of its delivery. The department of Scotland Yard tasked with the Madeleine Review seems, as far as I can tell from the police organigrams, to be quite separate from those which have been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons.
So let's hope that it has some decent cops in it, who take the trouble to read our letter and its attachments carefully.
to Stella and ROSA and all who have kept the flame burning here!

Sign-in/check-in Warner/Creche lists

The McCann case: anomalies in the case file
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" !!!!

Source: mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE_ANOMALIES.htm



Added to existing thread

From Catriona Bakers rogatory statement from 18th April 2008 she says "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."....Maybe she was invited to Rothley to discuss what she has to say in her rogatory statement the following April perhaps?

"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."....no mention anywhere in her statements that she had signed Maddie out on the 2nd May 2007

ROSA wrote:Was Maddie in creche there is there proof?

I have to ask the question.....Is there ANYONE anywhere who can confirm and verify that they saw Maddie after May 1st 2007? There is nothing in the statements....is there anyone who can confirm that they saw Maddie at all during the holiday?...I have not seen anything that confirms this. The only ones who say they saw her as well as the so called abductor are....the McScams friends!! NOBODY ELSE!

Oh, Rothley! Don't know. Saw a photo once of coat-pegs purporting to include Maddie's, but AFAIK nobody at the school has ever opened their mouth.
As for sightings at the OC, the best research has been done by HiDeHo.You'll probably find it on this forum,or by googling.

jd wrote:From Catriona Bakers rogatory statement from 18th April 2008 she says "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."....Maybe she was invited to Rothley to discuss what she has to say in her rogatory statement the following April perhaps?

Did they pick her up then as she states she "visited the family home" and note "at their invitation"?

Did they pick her up then as she states she "visited the family home" and note "at their invitation"?

Yes this is how I read it. She lived in bristol apparently and was employed by Mark Ocean on a 1 year contract which started a few weeks before the McScams arrived

Good point ROSA. Are there any records of Rothley....infact are there any pics or anything!!

For the benefit of all our new visitors, make sure you follow this guy on twitter.

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

dewi lennard


@kikoratton catalunya
ex-GCHQ traffic analyst. I.e.who's contacting whom? why? what's the motive? where? how do they fit in with others?


I strongly recommend everyone reading the entire Creche Enquiry thread and make your own mind up as to when Madeleine really died.

ROSA wrote:i dont have twitter Stella if you follow dewi lennard can you post the info here ?

You don't need twitter to be able to follow ROSA, only if the twitter is locked which this account isn't. Just go to the twitter site and in the search field enter "kikoratton" and you will be able to keep uptodate with all the tweets as they are made

ROSA wrote:Stella is there a record of proof Maddie is a IVF baby?

To my knowledge, the Mccanns have refused to release any medical records

jd wrote:

ROSA wrote:Was Maddie in creche there is there proof?

I have to ask the question.....Is there ANYONE anywhere who can confirm and verify that they saw Maddie after May 1st 2007? There is nothing in the statements....is there anyone who can confirm that they saw Maddie at all during the holiday?...I have not seen anything that confirms this. The only ones who say they saw her as well as the so called abductor are....the McScams friends!! NOBODY ELSE!

Is there any proof that Madeleine actually got on the plane to go to Portugal? There was the video of the McCanns on the bus, but it could have been any holiday bus.



There was also the photo of Madeleine climbing the stairs with a little friend onto the plane, but it could have been any plane, anywhere. Even then I thought the parents were strange allowing 2 tiny children to climb very steep plane steps without anyone behind them incase they tripped and fell. Not the actions of caring parents, IMO. If she did go to Portugal why only the one photo of her climbing the steps to the plane. Was that an actual "farewell to Madeleine", what happened to her after she got on the plane?

ROSA wrote:Stella is there a record of proof Maddie is a IVF baby?

The McCanns said she was an IVF baby and described in the book the treatment they had for her and the twins. I know the McCanns are sometimes less than truthful but I just do not see why they would lie over this.

The only reason might be to say, look we wanted children so much, we went through the trauma of IVF, so how could we have covered up the death of our child? But that would be a risky strategy as it could be proved otherwise.

Newintown wrote:
Is there any proof that Madeleine actually got on the plane to go to Portugal? There was the video of the McCanns on the bus, but it could have been any holiday bus.

There was also the photo of Madeleine climbing the stairs with a little friend onto the plane, but it could have been any plane, anywhere. Even then I thought the parents were strange allowing 2 tiny children to climb very steep plane steps without anyone behind them incase they tripped and fell. Not the actions of caring parents, IMO. If she did go to Portugal why only the one photo of her climbing the steps to the plane. Was that an actual "farewell to Madeleine", what happened to her after she got on the plane?

I have often thought why hasn't there been more footage released from the video camera, even to just clarify they were all there in PDL. It seems when they landed in Portugal the camera just stopped for a week. And there is the possibility that this video release could have been from a previous holiday as there is nothing to clarify the dates and location, could have been anywhere. I did try looking through the police reports and they did analyse a video camera as well as cameras, but the report didn't say exactly the details of their findings except they retrieved 116 pictures from a camera and there wasn't anything to indicate what they retireved from the vdieo camera. I suspect this information is in another report which hasn't been released to the public

It is odd (again!!) that the only video of Maddie allegedly from the holiday sees her falling over, when the main theory people have is she fell over and hit her head behind the sofa. And putting GM's comments in the spot light when says "Im not here to enjoy myself" as he is a major suspect with everyone highly suspicious of him. Plus other things like people believe a child abuse scam and then the McCanns release a picture of Maddie with professional makeup on that suggests sexual undertones. Are the McCanns laughing at everyone! I strongly suspect all the confusion is done on purpose to deflect everyone from the real truth

Can anyone estimate the height of the girl climbing the steps? The McCs said maddie was 90cm tall. Ridiculous, if the play-park photo is genuine!

ROSA wrote:Thankyou kiko
records for Maddie in the Rothley creche if the creche does not have these more lies

It's so frustrating, I was in the neighbouring village to Rothley last year and didn't even realize. There are so many questions I could have asked