Re: The creche enquiry

by monkey mind 23.11.12 10:56

Aquila,

“Even if SY's remit (which is not clear even now imo) is just a review surely it would cover the importance of the creche records as this is a place where children could be targetted by a potential abductor or some other sinister scenario. The creche records are a vital picture of the time Madeleine was in PDL imo. SY has access to handwriting experts. Who knows if SY or PJ have explored this? One would expect they have. The McCanns also have an enormous amount of money in a fund which could easily afford handwriting experts. Have they explored this? who knows?”

I believe forum member Kikoratton delivered a detailed 32 page analysis of both the phone records and the crèche records detailing various anomalies and similarities between the hand writing of Gerry McCann and entries seemingly by other people on those crèche sheets to Operation Grange well over a year ago now.

I stand to be corrected on this, nay hope to be corrected, but the last I read on twitter from Kikoratton Grange have not as yet even acknowledged receipt of his report.

by Liz Eagles 23.11.12 11:58

Hi Monkey Mind

Thanks for that. Another piece of fantastic work done in the search for justice for Madeleine. Shame Grange haven't acknowledged receipt as far as is known.

by Guest 24.11.12 14:56

I don't really know a lot about the creche sheets but from what we know about the group and their evening shenanigans you'd expect they were a lot tighter as a group so apart from the first day or so when the kids might be a bit strange you'd expect one adult to take a few kids down to the creche especially considering they had so many activities lined up and they mostly had breakfast/lunch together.

You could overlook one parent signing another's name to the sheet ie GM might sign ROB's name because they'd be looking for ROB if there were any problems during that time. But if GM did sign all 3 children in why are there gaps in between the children and time differences? This would indicate that GM was hovering around for a considerable amount of time and surely that'd raise suspicions among other parents and nannies. Unless he simply skipped lines and other parents filled in the gaps.

On the other hand if the sheets were filled in after 3rd it'd explain the similarities in the signatures (one person doing several) but not the many discrepancies because they'd have been a lot more careful with names and times. And what about the other parents, surely they'd give the game away if the signatures on the sheets didn't belong to them.

It's the photos that tell the stories. If the tennis pic was taken on mini tennis day why was Madeleine wearing open toe sandals and if the last photo was taken directly after mini sail then why was Madeleine wearing the ~~peach~~ pink dress with no cardigan? You don't overlook these things, you don't want your child to miss out (having been sent home once or twice myself through the years).

by russiandoll 13.03.13 11:54

Want to read nanny statements again. current and recent MW reviews for Ocean Club in PdL make a lot out of the fact that facilities for children are good and creche workers nice but along with most Brit workers there they appear to be gap year students; will check if those working with children are nvq trained and first aid trained. Maybe so, but what about 2007?
I have a feeling [ based not on any evidence so is speculation,] that something very mundane but catastrophic happened to Maddie and that the only conspiracy is the cover up and that not all friends were in the know initially.
I wonder if after their arrival meeting and realising the charges for evening childcare [ the group were aware before arrival iirc that there was not a listening service at this resort].....they had a discussion about how to organise looking after the children in the evenings.

A majority might have been as inflexible as the McCanns, wanting children sound asleep by a set time and not disturbed by a pick-up from the evening creche at closing time. It is a weak excuse imo because a disturbed but sleepy child will soon settle back into a deep sleep.

Were the in-apartment childminding fees prohibitive? Looking after 3 children would carry a bigger fee than just for one.
Perhaps during the first full day, Sunday, when creche attendance began, the parents took aside a couple of the nannies and asked would an informal arrangement be possible for evening childcare? They might even have asked the girls minding their children daytimes, if they were not free evenings the coming week, could they ask around the nannies who would be free.....did they want to earn some extra cash? There were 4 apartments in use by the families, instead of paying for the 4 [ or possibly more ] nannies needed officially via MW, would it not be an idea for a couple of the girls, as long as not required by other families, or rostered for evening creche work, to sit in one apartment with all of the children sleeping there? There would not be the inconvenience of an evening creche pick up that way, a short distance to carry children back to their respective apartments, the girls would be paid cash in hand, a bottle of wine perhaps and some food would be left for them each evening. All appealing, who would say a firm no?

An accident happening in these circumstances would have created difficulties for MW if. The official MW in -apartment childcare guidelines might have stated if there were a certain number of children in a certain age-range, more than one carer would be needed.
If the group decided on say 2 girls with whom to negotiate the childcare, that might have been insufficient for an evening when more than a few were awake at one time. Maybe sedation was given to ensure sleeping children, maybe not.
There would be trouble for the creche staff from MW, there would be insurance issues to consider. Over-sedation leading to a death or a serious, ultimately fatal, or immediately fatal injury would be a huge deal for the company as well as for the nannies present.

I think there might well have been a childminding arrangement as outlined above, that there was an accident that was to prove fatal in these circumstances, maybe an injury that festered over a couple of days, having happened close to the start of the holiday.

I do not believe that the children were left without adult supervision. Was it not Jane Tanner who made quite a deal of seeing a child being carried WITH BARE FEET IN THE COLD NIGHT AIR? And I do not accept that a doctor would leave his very young child who had been ill with diarrhoea, sleeping unsupervised in an apartment for even 15 minutes, when a vomit could easily lead to a choking. No evidence for my theory re the evenings, apart from the very dodgy daytime care records. Something went on involving one or more of those creche girls.

by Miraflores 13.03.13 14:33

Something went on involving one or more of those creche girls.

I'm not convinced about that, although one of them did go to Rothley in the November, but I thought that was more about pressurising her to make sure her story agreed with the script.

I feel sure myself it's more to do with the parents and their use of sedatives. I can't help wondering why they didn't just give a dose of Calpol and then take them off to the night nursery place. The kiddies would soon have gone to sleep, allowing the parents their 'me' time. Who would know that the children had been dosed up?

by Angelique 14.04.13 18:46

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

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
25 February 2013

TIME AND TIDE
Lobsters' attendance record, Monday 30 April 2007
"On the Sunday afternoon Ella O'Brien was staying in apartment G5D. The very next morning (30th April) she was staying in 5B, while, in the afternoon, none other than R. O'Brien himself attended the creche, though normally resident in 5D. The following morning (Tuesday 1 May) Emma (afterwards amended to Ella) O'Brien was back in 5B. She must really have liked it there, because it was her given address that afternoon also. And it would have been again on the Wednesday morning (2 May) had someone not altered it to read G5D where she remains for the afternoon and throughout Thursday."

I have just been reading through Dr. Roberts analysis about the creche records and I have read this paragraph many times but something has just made me wonder about the above snippet. Is it possible that Ella's apparent changing of residence is,in fact, the apartment for say, that day, where all the children would be looked after? Either day and/or evening ? Depending on convenience.

I know it's a bit of a stretch but isn't there always one in a crowd who keeps slipping up ? Rob is probably trying really hard to get things right and is actually being honest but then realises he is not meant to be honest in this respect, but in doing so seems to make it all fall apart.

Just saying.

by Guest 14.04.13 20:00

Hm ... there have been very early rumours that in fact all children were together in one apartment.
Add to that, that there was someone indisposed quasi every evening and not attending dinner.
And that the presence of mother-in-law [grandma] DW and her activities during the day were rather vaguely explained.

Just saying, too ...

by Estelle 18.10.13 6:32

I have often speculated that none of the Tapas9 were actually staying where they said they were. But 5A was the apartment they chose on May 3, 2007 to stage the faked abduction as it is close to the road. IMO it was also the scene of Maddie's death (or where her body was brought back to after an accident) which I suspect was earlier in the week and easier to clean up if they were not actually staying there. Perhaps they were all staying in a large villa.

Where is G5D?

I think if the creche and phone records are now forensically examined going back to the beginning of the week, the police can piece together what actually happened.

by concerneduser 18.10.13 13:43

Estelle wrote:I have often speculated that none of the Tapas9 were actually staying where they said they were. But 5A was the apartment they chose on May 3, 2007 to stage the faked abduction as it is close to the road. IMO it was also the scene of Maddie's death (or where her body was brought back to after an accident) which I suspect was earlier in the week and easier to clean up if they were not actually staying there. Perhaps they were all staying in a large villa.

Where is G5D?

I think if the creche and phone records are now forensically examined going back to the beginning of the week, the police can piece together what actually happened.

But didn't maddie go to nursey all week, according to the WITNESS TESTIMONY OF CATRIONA SISILE BAKER
who was looking after her on the day she went missing. Have I miss something?

by russiandoll 18.10.13 14:38

re Maddie's crèche attendance, there are anomalies in the files to do with entries for her also some for Ella O Brien.

There are indications that Gerry signed in 2 girls, not 1, because of giveaways with handwriting strokes. And that he forged the signature of this other girl's father.

The analysis of the phone and crèche records is on the forum and lots done by dewi lennard@ kikoraton on twitter. He has posted his theories here.

His thesis is that M died very early in the holiday and that Gerry signed in another girl as Madeleine and that the girl mentioned above [ not once signed in by her own father if you accept all the signings are by Gerry] , was the friend of the " substitute" Maddie. This was a girl who was always known as Madelene, never Maddie, hence the claim that Maddie McCann had to have her full title.

The early departure of Maddie McCann from crèche after only 15 mins on the Monday afternoon has been explained by Kiko as being necessary because the sub's friend was not at crèche with her and she would not stay.

It is quite a read and while far fetched and many disagree with this theory , I would recommend attention to it, in a case as surreal as this one, nothing is too bizarre to at least consider carefully before dismissing it.

btw Kiko states on twitter that he contacted the father of the subs friend and spoke to him for a few minutes. He asked him if he allowed Gerry to sign in his daughter and this man neither confirmed nor denied it. That could mean of course that the suggestion was so preposterous that he treated it with silent contempt. Who knows, this case is crazy.

by sallypelt 13.11.13 15:35

Could it be that some of these "similarities" in the handwriting, has come from a member of staff filling in the names? For example, where "Robert" has been written in, and then crossed out, this could mean that a member of staff has asked "name" and Robert Naylor thought that he was being asked HIS name. We have all done it, I'm sure. Also, where this mistake is made, it's Robert Naylor himself who has signed the child in. Anne Naylor is often the person to sign the child out.

So, could it be that the handwriting for Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann was written by MW staff? If one looks as other examples of the handwriting on various days, one can see many similarities with the handwriting on the 3rd May, for Madeleine and Elizabeth.

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 15:48

sallypelt wrote:Could it be that some of these "similarities" in the handwriting, has come from a member of staff filling in the names? For example, where "Robert" has been written in, and then crossed out, this could mean that a member of staff has asked "name" and Robert Naylor thought that he was being asked HIS name. We have all done it, I'm sure. Also, where this mistake is made, it's Robert Naylor himself who has signed the child in. Anne Naylor is often the person to sign the child out.

So, could it be that the handwriting for Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann was written by MW staff? If one looks as other examples of the handwriting on various days, one can see many similarities with the handwriting on the 3rd May, for Madeleine and Elizabeth.

Which is another hole in the "Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd May" theory.
what is left ?

by sallypelt 13.11.13 15:50

PeterMac wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Could it be that some of these "similarities" in the handwriting, has come from a member of staff filling in the names? For example, where "Robert" has been written in, and then crossed out, this could mean that a member of staff has asked "name" and Robert Naylor thought that he was being asked HIS name. We have all done it, I'm sure. Also, where this mistake is made, it's Robert Naylor himself who has signed the child in. Anne Naylor is often the person to sign the child out.

So, could it be that the handwriting for Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann was written by MW staff? If one looks as other examples of the handwriting on various days, one can see many similarities with the handwriting on the 3rd May, for Madeleine and Elizabeth.
Which is another hole in the "Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd May" theory.
what is left ?

Petermac, this is one hell of a tangle.

by sallypelt 13.11.13 15:57

sallypelt wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Could it be that some of these "similarities" in the handwriting, has come from a member of staff filling in the names? For example, where "Robert" has been written in, and then crossed out, this could mean that a member of staff has asked "name" and Robert Naylor thought that he was being asked HIS name. We have all done it, I'm sure. Also, where this mistake is made, it's Robert Naylor himself who has signed the child in. Anne Naylor is often the person to sign the child out.

So, could it be that the handwriting for Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann was written by MW staff? If one looks as other examples of the handwriting on various days, one can see many similarities with the handwriting on the 3rd May, for Madeleine and Elizabeth.
Which is another hole in the "Madeleine was alive and well on 3rd May" theory.
what is left ?
Petermac, this is one hell of a tangle.

Petermac, I have reread what you've typed here. I think I got the wrong end of what you were saying at first. My thoughts on the crèche records, if it is MW staff writing in the names of the children, then there's nothing untoward going on. I have worked in many places where one has to sign in and out, and it's not unusual for others to do it for you, when one is there beside the person doing the signing, of course.

by sami 13.11.13 16:12

It all falls back to how reliable the "crèche" was. It is in effect no more than a drop in centre, very transient. A child might attend one morning for their whole holiday or for the whole week. No obligation, come and go as you please.

As for the staff, so long as they give out the same number of children as they took in, they are happy, all present, not necessarily correct.

So if for example Madeleine Beth was signed in for three days, then on day four another small blond girl answering to Madeleine was signed, even if she looked different in some respects, how likely were the staff to question it ? Would they really say Mr McCann why does your child seem different today ?

How interested were they really ? Not at all the same as a well run, proper childcare facility used by working mothers at home in UK.

Just opinion of course

by Guest 14.11.13 13:14

ROSA wrote:KIDS CLUB STAFF interviewed 4 May 2007 by Inspector M.Pinho

Processo Vol I pages 86 to 90; pages 91-103 being passport photocopies.

Today we, I and my colleague L.Madeira, spoke with Mrs Silvia Maria Correia Ramos B., director of maintenance and services for the company "GREENTROUST", which manages the "OCEAN CLUB" company, contactable by mobile phone 964....

Through her, we contacted Donna Louise R.H. (contactable by mobile phone number 964...) manager of the creche staff for the "MARK WARNER" company, [who were] responsible for Madeleine and the twins for several periods each day after the McCann family arrived in Portugal.

The latter advised us that all these employees are English nationals and that they came to work in Portugal from
March/April until November; that there are 13 people who work in the creche, their names and telephone numbers being as follows: [NOTE: Phone numbers withheld]
- Pauline Francis M.
- Emma Louise W.
- Sarah Elizabeth W.
- Susan bernadette O.
- Leanne Danielle W.
- Shinead Maria V.
- Jacqueline Mary W.
- Kirsty Louise M.
- Lynne R.F.
- Catriona Treasa Sisile B.
- Stacey P.
- Lyndsay Jayne J.
- Amy Ellen T.

--- It was determined further that all these girls live outside the complex [resort], although quite close to it, and that Catriona B. was responsible for Madeleine during the day yesterday.
--- Stacey P. was the staff member responsible for the McCann twins.
--- Usually, it is always the same young woman who cares for the same child.
--- The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007. --- The informant, responsible for coordination, distributed the children between the various girls, taking care that each child was unknown to their carer.
--- The informant noticed nothing abnormal up to today and that no one was absent from work except those who were on their day off.
--- All the carers have made themselves available to speak with the police.

Apologies for digging up old posts but this struck me as a bit odd. It says there are 13 people who work in the creche, then follows a list of 13 names. Then it goes on to say " The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007." Sarah W. is in the list of 13. So where did Charlotte Pennington work, and how come she is the only one named in full?

I am fully aware of the various "issues" surrounding Miss Pennington BTW.

by Guest 14.11.13 16:53

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
ROSA wrote:KIDS CLUB STAFF interviewed 4 May 2007 by Inspector M.Pinho

Processo Vol I pages 86 to 90; pages 91-103 being passport photocopies.

Today we, I and my colleague L.Madeira, spoke with Mrs Silvia Maria Correia Ramos B., director of maintenance and services for the company "GREENTROUST", which manages the "OCEAN CLUB" company, contactable by mobile phone 964....

Through her, we contacted Donna Louise R.H. (contactable by mobile phone number 964...) manager of the creche staff for the "MARK WARNER" company, [who were] responsible for Madeleine and the twins for several periods each day after the McCann family arrived in Portugal.

The latter advised us that all these employees are English nationals and that they came to work in Portugal from
March/April until November; that there are 13 people who work in the creche, their names and telephone numbers being as follows: [NOTE: Phone numbers withheld]
- Pauline Francis M.
- Emma Louise W.
- Sarah Elizabeth W.
- Susan bernadette O.
- Leanne Danielle W.
- Shinead Maria V.
- Jacqueline Mary W.
- Kirsty Louise M.
- Lynne R.F.
- Catriona Treasa Sisile B.
- Stacey P.
- Lyndsay Jayne J.
- Amy Ellen T.

--- It was determined further that all these girls live outside the complex [resort], although quite close to it, and that Catriona B. was responsible for Madeleine during the day yesterday.
--- Stacey P. was the staff member responsible for the McCann twins.
--- Usually, it is always the same young woman who cares for the same child.
--- The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007. --- The informant, responsible for coordination, distributed the children between the various girls, taking care that each child was unknown to their carer.
--- The informant noticed nothing abnormal up to today and that no one was absent from work except those who were on their day off.
--- All the carers have made themselves available to speak with the police.
Apologies for digging up old posts but this struck me as a bit odd. It says there are 13 people who work in the creche, then follows a list of 13 names. Then it goes on to say " The latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. and Charlotte Pennington who arrived last Saturday, April 28th 2007." Sarah W. is in the list of 13. So where did Charlotte Pennington work, and how come she is the only one named in full?

I am fully aware of the various "issues" surrounding Miss Pennington BTW.

Good question. And why was it thought necessary to stress that care was taken to distribute each child so that it was unknown to its carer?

If that was really the case, doesn't that then mean that Maddie, being relegated to Catriona B could in fact have been known to any of the other crecheworkers, as for instance Charlotte Pennington?

Why check if there's someone who knows her, and then avoid handing her over to precisely that person she would be familiar with?
What purpose would that serve? Why unsettle such a small child unnecessarily, by choosing a complete stranger, when you have someone around she is familiar with?

And what remains now of the McCs stated claim they couldn't put Maddie in the babysitting service because there she would have been among strangers?

Not much, as with so many other claims, I'm afraid

by NickE 21.12.13 14:00

Is there any explanation why Russell O'Brien signed in his daughter as "Emma" in the first place?

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

by Rasputin 21.12.13 14:07

NickE wrote:Is there any explanation why Russell O'Brien signed in his daughter as "Emma" in the first place?

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

Looks more like Ella to me ...just sayin

by Guest 21.12.13 14:07

I'd hazard a guess that someone else wrote the name originally and Russell then corrected it.

I'd say that he is the writer of the correct name nearer to the end of the list; that and the other name appear to be from two different writers.

by Guest 21.12.13 14:14

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'd hazard a guess that someone else wrote the name originally and Russell then corrected it.

I'd say that he is the writer of the correct name nearer to the end of the list; that and the other name appear to be from two different writers.

Ella at the end of the list is signed in by Cat Nanny

by Rasputin 21.12.13 14:33

Portia wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'd hazard a guess that someone else wrote the name originally and Russell then corrected it.

I'd say that he is the writer of the correct name nearer to the end of the list; that and the other name appear to be from two different writers.

Ella at the end of the list is signed in by Cat Nanny

My bad ...thankyou Portia :-)

by bobbin 21.12.13 18:12

Which playgroup was Lilli Payne in. The thing that has me thinking is, what did 'Dianne Webster' mean when she said, that on the last day (3rd May) when they all went to the beach, she could not remember seeing Madeleine that day.
This is the day that Kate had gone jogging, waved to everyone at the tea rooms, had collected Maddie at 5.30, yet had joined Maddie at 5.30, already apparently in the tea rooms, and Kate hadn't, in her words, known about the beach visit and Madeleine had apparently been left alone in her playgroup and Kate had asked Maddie, who was so tired that Kate eventually had to carry her home, if she had been upset or didn't mind not going to the beach with all the others.
Now in that same statement, Dianne Webster said that because they didn't have 'the kid' with them that day, when they had gone to the beach....
Now, I thought that it was only the McCanns who got rid of their children morning and afternoon, by dumping them at the creche and that the other families, barring the odd Jane Tanner child going sometimes in the afternoon, especially the Paynes, claimed that their children slept in the afternoon, and didn't go to afternoon creche.
Is Dianne Webster referring to Lilli Payne as being 'the kid' who was not with them, and if so, was Lilli signed into her playgroup for that afternoon.
I cannot see Lilli Payne in the 'lobsters' group, and consider it odd that as friends, who had travelled together, these two children would not have been in the same playgroup.
Effectively, there is a photograph of Lilli Payne and Madeleine, and you would scarcely be able to tell the difference.
Was Lilli being used as the stand in.
If anyone can help to bring the playgroup pages up to see if Lilli attended elsewhere and if she was ever present at the afternoon creches, then this thought can be eliminated. Thanks in advance.

by Nereid 21.12.13 18:53

bobbin wrote:Which playgroup was Lilli Payne in. The thing that has me thinking is, what did 'Dianne Webster' mean when she said, that on the last day (3rd May) when they all went to the beach, she could not remember seeing Madeleine that day.
This is the day that Kate had gone jogging, waved to everyone at the tea rooms, had collected Maddie at 5.30, yet had joined Maddie at 5.30, already apparently in the tea rooms, and Kate hadn't, in her words, known about the beach visit and Madeleine had apparently been left alone in her playgroup and Kate had asked Maddie, who was so tired that Kate eventually had to carry her home, if she had been upset or didn't mind not going to the beach with all the others.
Now in that same statement, Dianne Webster said that because they didn't have 'the kid' with them that day, when they had gone to the beach....
Now, I thought that it was only the McCanns who got rid of their children morning and afternoon, by dumping them at the creche and that the other families, barring the odd Jane Tanner child going sometimes in the afternoon, especially the Paynes, claimed that their children slept in the afternoon, and didn't go to afternoon creche.
Is Dianne Webster referring to Lilli Payne as being 'the kid' who was not with them, and if so, was Lilli signed into her playgroup for that afternoon.
I cannot see Lilli Payne in the 'lobsters' group, and consider it odd that as friends, who had travelled together, these two children would not have been in the same playgroup.
Effectively, there is a photograph of Lilli Payne and Madeleine, and you would scarcely be able to tell the difference.
Was Lilli being used as the stand in.
If anyone can help to bring the playgroup pages up to see if Lilli attended elsewhere and if she was ever present at the afternoon creches, then this thought can be eliminated. Thanks in advance.

Lily would have been in the Toddler Group with Amelie and Sean, but wasn't signed in on the afternoon of the 3rd of May.
[url=http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01pages108-118 [112-120]/processopdf01page119-CrecheRecordsJ.jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is no record of the morning Toddler session on the 3rd of May. Not that I can see anyway.

Sorry, I can't seem to put the link in right.

by Rasputin 21.12.13 19:12

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

Log in for more topics