Re: The creche enquiry

by puzzled 17.01.12 9:39

kikoraton wrote:I don't believe KM took any child to the Lobster Group that afternoon.

It' just occurred to me, in her rogatory interview, Jane Tanner uses that strange phrase 'key piece of information' in talking about the Lobsters group. It's on p.57 of the Madeleine McCann Case Files. This may not have particular significance of course, but it struck me as strange.

by Guest 17.01.12 9:41

AM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	9.10	12.30	9.25	12.30	9.10	12.30	9.20	12.30	9.10
McCann	9.45	12.15	9.30	12.10	9.30	12.20	9.20	12.30	9.10	12.25

PM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	2.40	5.20			2.30	4.00
McCann	2.45	5.30	3.15	3.30	2.30		2.45	5.30	2.50	5.30

As the week progressed, both children were signed in and out at exactly the same time.

by Guest 17.01.12 9:48

AM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	9.10	12.30	9.25	12.30	9.10	12.30	9.20	12.30	9.10
McCann	9.45	12.15	9.30	12.10	9.30	12.20	9.20	12.30	9.10	12.25

PM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	2.40	5.20			2.30	4.00
McCann	2.45	5.30	3.15	3.30	2.30		2.45	5.30	2.50	5.30

For the first couple of days, Maddie was the first one to leave the morning creche. Did she have settling in problems? Maybe by the afternoon on the 30th, after just 15 minutes, she had had enough?

by Guest 17.01.12 9:52

AM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	9.10	12.30	9.25	12.30	9.10	12.30	9.20	12.30	9.10
McCann	9.45	12.15	9.30	12.10	9.30	12.20	9.20	12.30	9.10	12.25

PM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Naylor	2.40	5.20			2.30	4.00
McCann	2.45	5.30	3.15	3.30	2.30		2.45	5.30	2.50	5.30

This afternoon is particularly interesting. Naylor gets signed out an hour and a half before the end of that session and low and behold, Maddie does not get signed out at all. No 'Cat nanny' marks either.

by Praia 17.01.12 13:30

Stella, I was taken with what Kiko said y'day.

Mon. Healy panics. Signs her in, brings twins to creche, is spooked, goes straight back, signs her out.
Maybe the sub. did not / would not /could not attend. Healy panics, Madeleine has to attend every day., signs it, has second thoughts or tells McCann. Whoops, runs back, changes it.

by Praia 17.01.12 13:32

To add that the Naylor girl is not there on Mon. pm. so her friend does not go, or won't on her own. Panic for Healy.

by Guest 17.01.12 13:41

Praia wrote:To add that the Naylor girl is not there on Mon. pm. so her friend does not go, or won't on her own. Panic for Healy.

That's what we are thinking. Somewhere in Matt's statement, I think he talks about unrest or crying where the creche is concerned.

by Praia 17.01.12 13:48

So does O'Brien, something like it was nt a shebeen or anything but one of his would get upset.

by Guest 17.01.12 13:58

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

“the kids were always sort of really confident and they were the least misbehaved, well not misbehaved, they were the least upset when they dropped them off at Nursery, at crèche, it was all really good and it was all sort of, they were sort of very good at, if they did something wrong, they said no and sort of explaining it properly and why it was naughty to do that sort of thing, it was all sort of very appropriate and almost by the book, and it seemed a bit sort of casual to sort of like leave the door open, but then they had sort of an older daughter, so and older children might get nightmares, so it seemed as though there might be a reasonable explanation, but although I thought it was odd at the time, I didn’t say, do you normally leave your door or anything like that”.

Who are the "they" he is referring to? Did other people drop his children off for him? It certainly sounds like it to me.

His children were also the least upset?, whose children got upset then?, no one has mentioned this.

by Praia 17.01.12 14:10

No Stella. MO is referring to the McCann children being the best behaved, he is praising GM and KHs way of parenting eg explaining why things are wrong. The McCann children are the easiest to drop off at creche, no tears etc.

by Newintown 17.01.12 14:16

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

“the kids were always sort of really confident and they were the least misbehaved, well not misbehaved, they were the least upset when they dropped them off at Nursery, at crèche, it was all really good and it was all sort of, they were sort of very good at, if they did something wrong, they said no and sort of explaining it properly and why it was naughty to do that sort of thing, it was all sort of very appropriate and almost by the book, and it seemed a bit sort of casual to sort of like leave the door open, but then they had sort of an older daughter, so and older children might get nightmares, so it seemed as though there might be a reasonable explanation, but although I thought it was odd at the time, I didn’t say, do you normally leave your door or anything like that”.

Who are the "they" he is referring to? Did other people drop his children off for him? It certainly sounds like it to me.

His children were also the least upset?, whose children got upset then?, no one has mentioned this.

Those quotes in red print leave me quite shocked, absolutely unbelievable that supposedly loving, caring parents would even mention that. It shows what cold fish they all were when it came to looking after their kids or having any real feelings for them. Dump the children in the creche every day and don't worry about them fretting or being upset, as long as Mummy and Daddy are having a good time on their holiday.

As for the "they" dropping them off, no wonder the poor kids were upset if they were been dumped on someone else to drag them kicking and screaming to the creche if they didn't want to go.

When Oldfield mentions "leave the door open" was he referring to leaving the door open at night when the kids were in bed. It's hard to understand what he means in that paragraph, he sounds like the village idiot. It's even more scary to think that he's a doctor and he can't even string a few lines together coherently.

by Praia 17.01.12 14:23

Newintown MO is talking about the McCanns leaving the door opened at night in apt. He is being asked about the McCanns, he is commenting on how their kids behave.

by Guest 17.01.12 14:25

Praia wrote:No Stella. MO is referring to the McCann children being the best behaved, he is praising GM and KHs way of parenting eg explaining why things are wrong. The McCann children are the easiest to drop off at creche, no tears etc.

Praia, yes you are absolutely right.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I remember now. That will teach me for keeping a clip of it on my pc with no explanation. I remember seeing it when looking for something else, put it somewhere safe, then forgot about it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Praia 17.01.12 14:30

Stella this forum is fantastic and I just think we need to be careful about the context in which statements are made. We all have limited time a day and need to focus on highlighting points that might help us understand why we are being played for fools.

by Guest 17.01.12 14:39

I agree. We also need to step up a gear, just in case SY are prevented from doing their job properly.

by Ollie 17.01.12 19:47

Stella wrote:
AM 29 30 1 2 3
in out in out in out in out in out
Naylor 9.10 12.30 9.25 12.30 9.10 12.30 9.20 12.30 9.10
McCann 9.45 12.15 9.30 12.10 9.30 12.20 9.20 12.30 9.10 12.25
PM 29 30 1 2 3
in out in out in out in out in out
Naylor 2.40 5.20 2.30 4.00
McCann 2.45 5.30 3.15 3.30 2.30 2.45 5.30 2.50 5.30

What happened on the afternoon of the 30th. Naylor does not attend and Madeleine is in and out, within 15 minutes.

KM makes no mention in her bewk why Madeleine left the creche after 15 minutes. As the book was supposed to be about Madeleine, if she had been upset or ill surely KM should of mentioned this. There is nothing in the bewk.

by Ollie 17.01.12 20:01

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

“the kids were always sort of really confident and they were the least misbehaved, well not misbehaved, they were the least upset when they dropped them off at Nursery, at crèche, it was all really good and it was all sort of, they were sort of very good at, if they did something wrong, they said no and sort of explaining it properly and why it was naughty to do that sort of thing, it was all sort of very appropriate and almost by the book, and it seemed a bit sort of casual to sort of like leave the door open, but then they had sort of an older daughter, so and older children might get nightmares, so it seemed as though there might be a reasonable explanation, but although I thought it was odd at the time, I didn’t say, do you normally leave your door or anything like that”.

Who are the "they" he is referring to? Did other people drop his children off for him? It certainly sounds like it to me.

His children were also the least upset?, whose children got upset then?, no one has mentioned this.

So when the McCanns were explaining why they had done something wrong 'it was all sort of very appropriate and almost by the book' which begs the question why did they leave the children alone at night (if they really did) that certainly isn't 'by the book'. Then saying 'they had sort of an older daughter' - nearly four years old, I wouldn't say that was a sort of an older daughter!

by Newintown 17.01.12 21:51

Praia wrote:Newintown MO is talking about the McCanns leaving the door opened at night in apt. He is being asked about the McCanns, he is commenting on how their kids behave.

Thanks for that. That's what I thought but I was a bit thrown by the "older daughter" comment. Good grief, how can you call a 3-4 year old an "older daughter" as if he's referring to a 10 or 11 year old. Unbelievable!

Sorry, I should have noticed the link to the Rogatory interviews, I was reading the comments in a rush before I went out.

by Ollie 17.01.12 22:15

'so and older children might get nightmares'...we are stupid! So this is probably why the door was left unlocked, if Madeleine - nearly four years old- had a nightmare she was 'older' so she could open the door and wander off if she had a nightmare! They call these people intelligent professionals, I can think of a few things to call them and intelligent and professional are not on the list.

by Guest 21.01.12 17:13

If i'm reading this correctly, some of the items missing from the publicly released PJ files included detailed activity analysis of the tapas 9 phone calls 28 april - 1 may, and the creche sheets 30 april - 1 may.... does seem to be a sensitive period...and I think it shows they were querying the creche sheets early on in the holiday....

------------------------------------

Missing pages from detailed activity analysis reports
1 - Anexo 17:
Analysis of first round of witness statements
Time period 17:30 to 19:59 on 3 May 2007
2 - Anexo 19:
Analysis of first round of witness statements
Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
3 - Anexo 30:
Analysis of second round of witness statements
Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
4 - Anexo 37:
Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9
Dates from 28 April to 1 May 2007 inclusive
5 - Anexo 55:
Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9
Time period 22:00 to 22:59 on 4 May 2007
6 - Anexo 61:
Analysis of events described by McCann parents
Date 3 May 2007
7 - Anexos 63 and 64:
Analysis of creche registers
Dated 30 April (Anexo 63) and 1 May (Anexo 64)

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

by kikoraton 21.01.12 19:50

That's right, Stewie - tho we have seen the creche records for 30 April and 1 May. I'd certainly agree they require serious study, along with 29 April, too. On those days the Madeleine/Madalene substitute trick very nearly came unstuck.In fact, I'd say it did, but nobody in the PJ or SY has picked up on it yet.
The PJ records have edited out the identity of phone numbers in contact with one or other of the McCs on 29 April, and 1 May. That must indicate they either know they are sensitive, or have been instructed by the McC lawyers to omit them.
If only we had someone on here who could get their hands on them, otherwise we shall go round in circles.

by Guest 01.02.12 9:31

kikoraton wrote:That's right, Stewie - tho we have seen the creche records for 30 April and 1 May. I'd certainly agree they require serious study, along with 29 April, too. On those days the Madeleine/Madalene substitute trick very nearly came unstuck.In fact, I'd say it did, but nobody in the PJ or SY has picked up on it yet.
The PJ records have edited out the identity of phone numbers in contact with one or other of the McCs on 29 April, and 1 May. That must indicate they either know they are sensitive, or have been instructed by the McC lawyers to omit them.
If only we had someone on here who could get their hands on them, otherwise we shall go round in circles.

Either way, it clearly demonstrates that all was not well as early as the 29th !!!

by mank 03.02.12 15:17

I have just seen this link on another forum.

I hadn't seen it before, but thought it might interest kikoraton

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

by mank 03.02.12 15:19

Sorry about that, it works better if I add the link[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... ie-at-all/

by mank 03.02.12 15:27

That link doesn't work, try this one

[url=http://thentherewere4.wordpress.com/201 ... ie-at-all/][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... ie-at-all/[/url]

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