The creche enquiry

Daisy wrote:So why the chaotic and contradictory statements about the days leading up to that 'fateful night'? If nothing had happened to Madeleine until the 3rd, why all the inconsitencies and question marks about those previous days? Surely if it had happened fresh that night, they wouldn't have had as much to remember and their statements would be more consistent not less?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Daisy wrote:So why the chaotic and contradictory statements about the days leading up to that 'fateful night'? If nothing had happened to Madeleine until the 3rd, why all the inconsitencies and question marks about those previous days? Surely if it had happened fresh that night, they wouldn't have had as much to remember and their statements would be more consistent not less?

These two questions are very pertinent: "Why the chaotic and contradictory statements about the days leading up to that 'fateful night'? If nothing had happened to Madeleine until the 3rd, why all the inconsitencies and question marks about those previous days?"

Stella's consistent answer (which I have tended to agree with) has been: 'Because something happened to Madeleine very early on in the week'.

I think there just could be an alternative explanation for why there is so much evasion and confusion about what went on earlier in the week.

Suppose that the Tapas 9 and some of the guests, as has been supposed (and claimed by some), were 'swingers'. Suppose that in some way the 'swinging' of these couples was instrumental in some direct or indirect way in Madeleine dying (e.g. sedation). Is it possible that a plan could have emerged amongst all those, including any Mark Warners staff who were involved in or facilitated the 'swinging', to come up with the plan of an abduction hoax? It might explain why Mark Warners immediately flew in the top PR experts they could lay their hands on. And if they were really 'swinging' half the time, whilst claiming to be playing tennis and going windsurfing etc., could that posibly account for all the evasions and confusions about their activities earlier in the week?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:I wonder if this is a connection?

On May 1st, Gerry makes no calls.

On May 1st, Kate deletes 14 calls.

On May 2nd, Gerry is using Kate's phone, as he gives this number to the creche.

On May 2nd, Kate deletes another 5 calls, just before receiving a call from Swansea.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Now to me, it looks like GM has possibly been using Kate's phone on the 1st, plus the morning of the 2nd, where he slipped up by putting it on the creche sheets !!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] So was it Gerry who deleted all of those calls and not Kate?

Stella, where did the deleted call info come from? Thanks. I never knew you could tell when calls had been deleted? Its amazing what they can do now!

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Daisy wrote:So why the chaotic and contradictory statements about the days leading up to that 'fateful night'? If nothing had happened to Madeleine until the 3rd, why all the inconsitencies and question marks about those previous days? Surely if it had happened fresh that night, they wouldn't have had as much to remember and their statements would be more consistent not less?

These two questions are very pertinent: "Why the chaotic and contradictory statements about the days leading up to that 'fateful night'? If nothing had happened to Madeleine until the 3rd, why all the inconsitencies and question marks about those previous days?"

Stella's consistent answer (which I have tended to agree with) has been: 'Because something happened to Madeleine very early on in the week'.

I think there just could be an alternative explanation for why there is so much evasion and confusion about what went on earlier in the week.

Suppose that the Tapas 9 and some of the guests, as has been supposed (and claimed by some), were 'swingers'. Suppose that in some way the 'swinging' of these couples was instrumental in some direct or indirect way in Madeleine dying (e.g. sedation). Is it possible that a plan could have emerged amongst all those, including any Mark Warners staff who were involved in or facilitated the 'swinging', to come up with the plan of an abduction hoax? It might explain why Mark Warners immediately flew in the top PR experts they could lay their hands on. And if they were really 'swinging' half the time, whilst claiming to be playing tennis and going windsurfing etc., could that posibly account for all the evasions and confusions about their activities earlier in the week?

Hi Tony - I think it could. The same could also account for more 'unsavoury' interests they may have had (allegedly one man leaving the Tapas table at a time for 15 minutes or so?)
I'm actually starting to come round to a different idea of what may have happened after reading this and a couple of other threads. It could turn out to be a non-starter, I need to get my thoughts all down on paper to check if it works then I'll offer it up for dissection! If a topic never appears, you'll know it didn't work...

Stella wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:I wonder if this is a connection?

On May 1st, Gerry makes no calls.

On May 1st, Kate deletes 14 calls.

On May 2nd, Gerry is using Kate's phone, as he gives this number to the creche.

On May 2nd, Kate deletes another 5 calls, just before receiving a call from Swansea.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Now to me, it looks like GM has possibly been using Kate's phone on the 1st, plus the morning of the 2nd, where he slipped up by putting it on the creche sheets !!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] So was it Gerry who deleted all of those calls and not Kate?

Stella, where did the deleted call info come from? Thanks. I never knew you could tell when calls had been deleted? Its amazing what they can do now!

Kikoraton, our retired intelligence expert analysed all of this and you should be able to find it in our telephone autopsy thread.

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

Stella wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:I wonder if this is a connection?

On May 1st, Gerry makes no calls.

On May 1st, Kate deletes 14 calls.

On May 2nd, Gerry is using Kate's phone, as he gives this number to the creche.

On May 2nd, Kate deletes another 5 calls, just before receiving a call from Swansea.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Now to me, it looks like GM has possibly been using Kate's phone on the 1st, plus the morning of the 2nd, where he slipped up by putting it on the creche sheets !!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] So was it Gerry who deleted all of those calls and not Kate?

Stella, where did the deleted call info come from? Thanks. I never knew you could tell when calls had been deleted? Its amazing what they can do now!

Kikoraton, our retired intelligence expert analysed all of this and you should be able to find it in our telephone autopsy thread.

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

rainbow-fairy wrote:

pennylane wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

pennylane wrote:

beejay wrote:I sometimes think we can look for things that aren't there and the reality is simpler.

I believe Goncarlo Amaral was close to the truth and of course he had much more intelligence than any of us.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, there were tensions building from the start, probably pre-dating the holiday and the relationship between Gerry & Kate started to fracture very early on as he decided to do his own thing signing up for regular tennis games while Kate was left to look after the kids. I think she may have developed a resentment of the children for these marital issues and Madeleine as the eldest and more vocal child became the focus for her repressed anger.

I reckon Kate sedated the children so they could have more time together in the evening and the so-called regular checks never happened.

When Madeleine woke up and cried all night she increased the dose with tragic repercussions.

The cover-up started and all the group fell in line because they were also guilty of leaving their kids alone so were scared of being implicated in a negligence action. There may have been other reasons why this became a group dynamic and we can only speculate on the motives but they will be stronger than just friendships.

The way things unfolded were not due to any covert organisations, it was simply that the McCanns were a middle class, photogenic couple and the politicians, press, celebrities etc fell for the abduction theory and the useless foreign police. If there has been a follow-up cover-up it is purely to save face and because the forensics cannot nail the McCanns in the absence of a body.

We are in an age when smart killers with good PR and the best solicitors can escape justice because the burden of proof has become ridiculously slanted and the technology on DNA, forensics etc mean holes can be punched in virtually any prosecution case when you have enough money to throw at it and the jury/judges are not qualified to see through the technobabble. I give you Foxy Knoxy and her incredible acquittal.

The McCanns will be safe from conviction unless and until one of the Tapas 9 breaks or poor Madeleine's body is found but neither of those events is likely to happen I guess.

I totally agree beejay. The reality is simple. You've hit the nail on the head with your post imo. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

pennylane, beejay, can't deny that these are well written and well thought out arguments AND you could well both be right.
However, the 'over-sedation and accidental death scenario' just doesn't work for me. Yes, there would have been repurcussions but it just doesn't strike me as being sufficiently 'serious' enough for the other Tapasniks to cover for them. In effect, committing yet more crimes in the process - perverting the course of justice, perjury if it came before a court, etc. They'd not be charged with neglect EVEN if (and I don't believe for one second) the children were left alone. Portuguese law only recognises 'neglect with intent' ie knowingly abandoning a child to it's fate. I firmly believe that K + G, considering Maddie met some kind of 'fate' could, with a bit of wrangling, have been charged with this. IMO they were not because the PJ were well aware the children were not left alone. This then raises much more sinister connotations for the other Tapasniks sticking by the McCanns. The 'over-sedation and accident' also doesn't, for me, explain the government help and disruption of the PJ investigation either. All just MHO, of course

Rainbow fairy, thanks for your reply

It is possible that most or all of the children were not left alone, but that's not been confirmed imo. I think perhaps you underestimate the repercussions of all these doctors and specialists drugging their kids to go out drinking with each other, and a 3 year old little girl dies as a result! Whether there was sometimes someone present or not.... the scandal and penalties would have been enormous, and would have ruined their careers, and social services could have taken their children. Also a factor is what type of sedation was used? For example, perhaps ROB had something in his kit that he said would be ever so gentle.... and then Maddie got up in a groggy state and fell off the back of the chair, or over the balcony, breaking her neck. That ties him in as another who would be desperate to keep the sordid truth from emerging. I still believe Gerry ran into Smith (sorry guys), and JT was desperate to save her partner ROB, hence her simultaneous bundleman/Gerry sighting. I don't think she was doing anything for the Mc's, it was all about self preservation for each and every one of them.

Also there's a possibility that the tapasniks and other UK couples that were doctors etc, were on a (shall we say) lifestyle type of holiday, or meeting up for a reason we do not know, arranged by someone who lived in the vicinity. All of these people with top jobs and children could fear the scandal or truth emerging imo. It could have been sordid, and destroyed their lives imo.

The government was helping British doctors and specialists, and a member of COMARE, as they wanted the scandal to go away. They didn't want them on trial in a foreign country and their bank records etc looked into, as the NHS has much to hide imo.

The Mc's et al thought they could blagg it..... 'I'm so respectable, look who I know, of course I'm telling the truth' They thought nobody would even consider them liars. Goncalo Amaral and the PJ saw through them and unfortunately were stopped in their tracks.


------
Whew, that was a marathon. This is why I try not to get too involved with my answers.... there's so much to say, and it's all been said before many times. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I hope someone can come up with something that settles certain issues once and for all so we can come close to an agreement. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

pennylane, another fantastic post and I can't fault your reasoning. I certainly agree with many parts. I'd just like to pick up on a few parts, though:

Bolded text-Would they necessarily lose their jobs, or would they have been helped and shielded even more than they already have been?
Italics-You would certainly think so. In fact, I would stake every penny I own, and then some, that if I was suspected of (or publicly admitted to) doing what the McCanns insist they did i.e leaving three children under the age of four in an unlocked apartment, home or abroad, even for ten minutes, my children would be on a CP register or even the subjects of an EPO (I'm not a middle class doctor you see. I'm a single parent with health problems). At the very least we would be interfered with by Social Services. The McCanns don't seem to be! Granted, we would not know if the twins ARE subject to Child Protection or not, as the secrecy of SS depts and family courts would prevent this. However, didn't Kate and Gerry claim that a Children's Services professional had said their arrangements were 'well within the realm of responsible parenting'? Well, I for one don't believe it - they've never identified themselves, have they?
Bold Italics-How exactly would JT help ROB by inventing 'bundleman'?

I get the idea behind another of the Tapas lot covering up any part they may have played in what happened but I still feel it was likely something far more sinister than accidental over-sedation. But fantastic post anyway pennylane

pennylane wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

pennylane wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

pennylane wrote:

beejay wrote:I sometimes think we can look for things that aren't there and the reality is simpler.

I believe Goncarlo Amaral was close to the truth and of course he had much more intelligence than any of us.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, there were tensions building from the start, probably pre-dating the holiday and the relationship between Gerry & Kate started to fracture very early on as he decided to do his own thing signing up for regular tennis games while Kate was left to look after the kids. I think she may have developed a resentment of the children for these marital issues and Madeleine as the eldest and more vocal child became the focus for her repressed anger.

I reckon Kate sedated the children so they could have more time together in the evening and the so-called regular checks never happened.

When Madeleine woke up and cried all night she increased the dose with tragic repercussions.

The cover-up started and all the group fell in line because they were also guilty of leaving their kids alone so were scared of being implicated in a negligence action. There may have been other reasons why this became a group dynamic and we can only speculate on the motives but they will be stronger than just friendships.

The way things unfolded were not due to any covert organisations, it was simply that the McCanns were a middle class, photogenic couple and the politicians, press, celebrities etc fell for the abduction theory and the useless foreign police. If there has been a follow-up cover-up it is purely to save face and because the forensics cannot nail the McCanns in the absence of a body.

We are in an age when smart killers with good PR and the best solicitors can escape justice because the burden of proof has become ridiculously slanted and the technology on DNA, forensics etc mean holes can be punched in virtually any prosecution case when you have enough money to throw at it and the jury/judges are not qualified to see through the technobabble. I give you Foxy Knoxy and her incredible acquittal.

The McCanns will be safe from conviction unless and until one of the Tapas 9 breaks or poor Madeleine's body is found but neither of those events is likely to happen I guess.

I totally agree beejay. The reality is simple. You've hit the nail on the head with your post imo. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

pennylane, beejay, can't deny that these are well written and well thought out arguments AND you could well both be right.
However, the 'over-sedation and accidental death scenario' just doesn't work for me. Yes, there would have been repurcussions but it just doesn't strike me as being sufficiently 'serious' enough for the other Tapasniks to cover for them. In effect, committing yet more crimes in the process - perverting the course of justice, perjury if it came before a court, etc. They'd not be charged with neglect EVEN if (and I don't believe for one second) the children were left alone. Portuguese law only recognises 'neglect with intent' ie knowingly abandoning a child to it's fate. I firmly believe that K + G, considering Maddie met some kind of 'fate' could, with a bit of wrangling, have been charged with this. IMO they were not because the PJ were well aware the children were not left alone. This then raises much more sinister connotations for the other Tapasniks sticking by the McCanns. The 'over-sedation and accident' also doesn't, for me, explain the government help and disruption of the PJ investigation either. All just MHO, of course

Rainbow fairy, thanks for your reply

It is possible that most or all of the children were not left alone, but that's not been confirmed imo. I think perhaps you underestimate the repercussions of all these doctors and specialists drugging their kids to go out drinking with each other, and a 3 year old little girl dies as a result! Whether there was sometimes someone present or not.... the scandal and penalties would have been enormous, and would have ruined their careers, and social services could have taken their children. Also a factor is what type of sedation was used? For example, perhaps ROB had something in his kit that he said would be ever so gentle.... and then Maddie got up in a groggy state and fell off the back of the chair, or over the balcony, breaking her neck. That ties him in as another who would be desperate to keep the sordid truth from emerging. I still believe Gerry ran into Smith (sorry guys), and JT was desperate to save her partner ROB, hence her simultaneous bundleman/Gerry sighting. I don't think she was doing anything for the Mc's, it was all about self preservation for each and every one of them.

Also there's a possibility that the tapasniks and other UK couples that were doctors etc, were on a (shall we say) lifestyle type of holiday, or meeting up for a reason we do not know, arranged by someone who lived in the vicinity. All of these people with top jobs and children could fear the scandal or truth emerging imo. It could have been sordid, and destroyed their lives imo.

The government was helping British doctors and specialists, and a member of COMARE, as they wanted the scandal to go away. They didn't want them on trial in a foreign country and their bank records etc looked into, as the NHS has much to hide imo.

The Mc's et al thought they could blagg it..... 'I'm so respectable, look who I know, of course I'm telling the truth' They thought nobody would even consider them liars. Goncalo Amaral and the PJ saw through them and unfortunately were stopped in their tracks.


------
Whew, that was a marathon. This is why I try not to get too involved with my answers.... there's so much to say, and it's all been said before many times. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I hope someone can come up with something that settles certain issues once and for all so we can come close to an agreement. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

pennylane, another fantastic post and I can't fault your reasoning. I certainly agree with many parts. I'd just like to pick up on a few parts, though:

Bolded text-Would they necessarily lose their jobs, or would they have been helped and shielded even more than they already have been?
Italics-You would certainly think so. In fact, I would stake every penny I own, and then some, that if I was suspected of (or publicly admitted to) doing what the McCanns insist they did i.e leaving three children under the age of four in an unlocked apartment, home or abroad, even for ten minutes, my children would be on a CP register or even the subjects of an EPO (I'm not a middle class doctor you see. I'm a single parent with health problems). At the very least we would be interfered with by Social Services. The McCanns don't seem to be! Granted, we would not know if the twins ARE subject to Child Protection or not, as the secrecy of SS depts and family courts would prevent this. However, didn't Kate and Gerry claim that a Children's Services professional had said their arrangements were 'well within the realm of responsible parenting'? Well, I for one don't believe it - they've never identified themselves, have they?
Bold Italics-How exactly would JT help ROB by inventing 'bundleman'?

I get the idea behind another of the Tapas lot covering up any part they may have played in what happened but I still feel it was likely something far more sinister than accidental over-sedation. But fantastic post anyway pennylane

Hello rainbow-fairy [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Regarding your 'far more sinister' aspect of this case. I have not discounted this possibility at all, particularly in light of the Gaspar statements. It is entirely possible that a couple of the tapasnik men had their own agenda for wanting the body hidden, over and above what the rest of the group have been told. I certainly wouldn't trust a couple of the daddies further than I could throw them!

Tony Bennett wrote:I think there just could be an alternative explanation for why there is so much evasion and confusion about what went on earlier in the week.

Suppose that the Tapas 9 and some of the guests, as has been supposed (and claimed by some), were 'swingers'. Suppose that in some way the 'swinging' of these couples was instrumental in some direct or indirect way in Madeleine dying (e.g. sedation). Is it possible that a plan could have emerged amongst all those, including any Mark Warners staff who were involved in or facilitated the 'swinging', to come up with the plan of an abduction hoax? It might explain why Mark Warners immediately flew in the top PR experts they could lay their hands on. And if they were really 'swinging' half the time, whilst claiming to be playing tennis and going windsurfing etc., could that posibly account for all the evasions and confusions about their activities earlier in the week?

Stella wrote:What everyone needs to remember is, Goncalo Amaral was only privvy to information up until the point he was removed.

Between the point he was removed and the case was shelved, he was not allowed access to the investigation.

Just before leaving, Goncalo Amaral said he was trying to find this mysterious apartment the McCann's were seen entering, which would have been a NEW lead, but that was never followed up.

As soon as Rebelo took over, nothing more was followed up, as confirmed by the Lawyer who reported the airing of the car boot.

So as we can see, the investigation was very much ongoing and far from being complete.

If Goncalo Amaral knew about the handwriting issues on the creche sheets, they would never have been released on the DVD. They would certainly have been witheld pending further analysis, which can only mean they never got that far.

pennylane wrote:Thank you so much for your kind words, rainbow-fairy[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Your posts are extremely insightful, and you are absolutely correct in that we are attempting to make theories fit - nothing more nothing less. Without any real cross-examination or interrogation of the tapasniks being carried out by the police at the most crucial time, or since, it's virtually impossible to know who is hot or cold regarding what happened, Although I feel quite sure the truth has been touched on significantly at times, the proof is in the pudding... and though we have most of the recipe, it's difficult to identify the key ingredients. Let's face it, their version of events is so spectacularly dire - it is not so much about sorting truth from lies, it's about sorting which lie is the most significant to what befell Madeleine.

Stella wrote:"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".

Here is the confirmation that the creche sheets were in the possession of the PJ on the 4th of May.

Stella wrote:At the top of every creche sheet is a date, which is usually in number format, as dd/mm/yy.

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

Except for one day!! On the 3rd, it now appears in full as the '3rd May 2007'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rainbow-fairy wrote:

pennylane wrote:Thank you so much for your kind words, rainbow-fairy[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Your posts are extremely insightful, and you are absolutely correct in that we are attempting to make theories fit - nothing more nothing less. Without any real cross-examination or interrogation of the tapasniks being carried out by the police at the most crucial time, or since, it's virtually impossible to know who is hot or cold regarding what happened, Although I feel quite sure the truth has been touched on significantly at times, the proof is in the pudding... and though we have most of the recipe, it's difficult to identify the key ingredients. Let's face it, their version of events is so spectacularly dire - it is not so much about sorting truth from lies, it's about sorting which lie is the most significant to what befell Madeleine.

Absolutely, very well said pennylane. I don't know what you think about this, but I always get the gut feelings that when the 'truth' is being touched on however small, is when the trolls descend. I had read with interest 'Theory' on the Unterdenteppichgekehrt blog and looked forward to seeing it debated here. Fat chance! In jumps garth1 ( and I think RbXHn also) and 80 pages later... Nada. No sensible debate, just trolls blowing smoke. It always makes me wonder why some topics escape, but others are jumped on almost immediately? Any thoughts?

ETA: there is one thing I almost agree with the McCanns on (yeh, I know!) - that is, the PJ. Taking nothing away from GA, who I think did a wonderful job, I have to say they did c**k up from the first second. The apartment should've been cleared and sealed, K, G and the other Tapas should've been separated and questioned. No soft options. If this had been done, I really believe the McCanns and (some) friends would be in prison and we'd all be doing something else! Considering statistics show most crimes against children are perpetrated by close family, the McCanns were given far too much benefit of the doubt (IMHO, obviously ) But poor Gonçalo was up against it from day one.

Moa wrote:

Stella wrote:At the top of every creche sheet is a date, which is usually in number format, as dd/mm/yy.

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

Except for one day!! On the 3rd, it now appears in full as the '3rd May 2007'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On the sheet from 29th I dont see a date at all? And the reason for the 3 may to be written differently, can that be a simpler reason that it was different people everyday signing those dates ? and they all had their way of writing the date? Is that something thats possible to find out ?

Edit : After a closer look, it seems like the sheet from 30th april and 2 may is the same nanny, Cat. The one from 29th and 1 may is written by another person, probably the same on those two days, and the one from the 3 may is another person. So atleast 3 different people writing the dates here. As I can see..

pennylane wrote:Morning rainbow-fairy, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I agree with you about the trolls, only they don't so much as 'descend' upon us, as sit here (and elsewhere) ready to take any in-depth discussions off target, and into the realms of the ridiculous (imo).

Stella wrote:

Moa wrote:

Stella wrote:At the top of every creche sheet is a date, which is usually in number format, as dd/mm/yy.

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

Except for one day!! On the 3rd, it now appears in full as the '3rd May 2007'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On the sheet from 29th I dont see a date at all? And the reason for the 3 may to be written differently, can that be a simpler reason that it was different people everyday signing those dates ? and they all had their way of writing the date? Is that something thats possible to find out ?

Edit : After a closer look, it seems like the sheet from 30th april and 2 may is the same nanny, Cat. The one from 29th and 1 may is written by another person, probably the same on those two days, and the one from the 3 may is another person. So atleast 3 different people writing the dates here. As I can see..

That's right Moa, the date is missing from the very first day, I wonder why that was? As for different people writing the date at the top of each sheet Mmm..., Catriona Baker said she was the one looking after Madeleine's group every day.

Moa wrote:But on the ones that Cat wrote on she has written her name. On the other sheets its a different handwriting as well. I guess she was not alone with all this kids in the chreche? So the other sheets could have been written on by an assistent..

Stella wrote:

Moa wrote:But on the ones that Cat wrote on she has written her name. On the other sheets its a different handwriting as well. I guess she was not alone with all this kids in the chreche? So the other sheets could have been written on by an assistent..

I don't think so Moa. The Mini's Club for 3-5 years, was split into 2 groups. One group was looked after by Catriona Baker, the other group was looked after by Emma Wilding. Both girls reported to their Supervisors, Lyndsy Johnson and Amy Tierney. Ultimately, it was Catriona Baker and only her who was in charge of Madeleine's small group.