Re: The creche enquiry

by bobbin 21.12.13 21:54

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

So it looks as though Lily was not at any afternoon playgroup.
So what did Dianne Webster mean by saying that because the 'kid' was not with them/ presumably Fiona/David and herself, they could go to the beach. Which kid was she referring to and 'where was this kid' if not with them and not in playgroup, if it was Lily being referred to.

by NickE 21.12.13 22:37

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.

And why did Gerry sign in Robert Naylors daughter Elizabeth??
I would like to see a picture of this girl,I have a feeling that she looks like Maddie.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The "GCHQ" man "Kiko" have analyzed this and sent it to PJ.

by OOPSIDAISY 22.12.13 1:10

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

by NickE 22.12.13 22:36

Statement Catroina Baker
"She states that her contract started on March 21st 2006 and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country".

"......Mark Warner moved me from the Ocean Club about one week after—13th of May, I believe".

Why was Maddie´s nanny,Catroina Baker moved from the "Ocean Club" 10 days after Maddie disappeared?

by russiandoll 30.12.13 23:46

tired so not making sense maybe, but niggling me is no record of twins crèche attendance morning of May 3rd as far as I have looked.
The only day Kate picked up Maddie at lunch time....12.25. sign-out.

At the same time Gerry was on his phone........
At 12.24 Gerald McCann received a call from a UK Mobile xxxx1746. Again there is no clue in the file to the subscribers name.

Was this all to do with the agenda for the afternoon and did it have any bearing on the odd signings in and out that afternoon ?

will look closely again tomorrow...sorry if caused confusion.

by Doug D 31.12.13 5:09

RD.
The twins creche records for that morning are 'missing' from the files.
There is no record of who the .....1746 number is that I can see.

by russiandoll 31.12.13 10:45

thanks DougD, thought that had to be the case when I could not find it anywhere, also twins crèche sheet for morning 29th missing. Why would that be?

There was def a call taken by Gerry at exact time Kate did the lunchtime Maddie pick-up, creatures of habit and that was the only day the routine changed and Gerry did not pick up Maddie for lunch. There were other changes in routines on abduction day, a massive red flag.

Did Gerry pick up the twins while Kate went for Maddie? According to Fiona Payne, yes, she was with Kate and Gerry picked up the twins.

Kate could not be in 2 places at once, but did she then pick up the twins while Gerry was busy on this call and is this why the sheet is missing?

I hope this incoming number lunchtime 3rd is known to police now.

THE SIGN INS FOR ELLA O BRIEN 3RD ARE VERY STRANGE, LINE DIVIDING PRE AND POST LUNCH, WITH THE LATTER LOOKING VERY LIKE GERRY'S HAND WHICH I HAVE STUDIED CLOSELY, THIS AND THE INITIALS ARE NOT IMO MADE BY THE SAME PERSON BOTH SESSIONS.

by russiandoll 31.12.13 17:47

Yes Kate did pick up the twins 5 mins after she picked up Maddie according to the twins' crèche nanny, who was interviewed by police 4th May :

*STACEY P.*

In informal conversation with Stacey P., she stated:

1. That it is she and her colleague, Shinead, who usually cares for the twins;
2. That yesterday, it was the informant who cared for the twins, her colleague was on her day off;
3. That the children were dropped off by their parents at 9.30 and that the mother picked them up at 12.30.

Gerry's call was 1 minute before Maddie pick up . Significant?

FP clear that Gerry picked up twins and that her husband was with him. Maybe so, but not at the crèche if the above is true and there appears to be no doubt from SP that Kate was at the twins' crèche at 12.30

and here is the McCann phone activity for 3rd : highlighted =simultaneous. Interesting that after Gerry's lunchtime call, silence all afternoon and evening, even though he was away from 5a at tennis for an hour after 6pm and that he and Kate were apart after joint tennis in the afternoon, she went running. Am surprised not in touch re children's tea time pick up, to see if an agreed arrangement was still on....Kate might have had another dog bite, Gerry might have had a tennis injury....separate locations for late afternoon and early evening, but no contact. Strange, that.

Both McCanns had zero phone activity that afternoon. Not needed if they were together. Maybe they were.

GM	KM
03-May	03-May
	8.23
	8.24
12.24
	12.31
	13.34

23.14	23.14
23.17	23.17
23.40
23.52

by Doug D 01.01.14 14:08

Jellyfish 29^th April (pm Sheet)

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

Page 110

Shows Amelie & Sean booked in by KM at 14.35 & signed out by GM at 12.30!!!!! No am sheet on files.

The other records shown make sense for the afternoon session.

On the sheets around this date, the MW staff also get confused as to whether it’s called the ‘starfish’ or the ‘jellyfish’ crèche, so what hope is there of them knowing & remembering what kids they were looking after.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.01.14 18:10

Great thread. Without meaning to disrupt the flow of the thread.

Referring back to a post by Guest at the bottom of page 42, on the Tapas list at 7pm a name was removed by covering it up. Was it ever established whose name this was ?

by Doug D 07.01.14 19:48

Tapas Bookings

There is a stream on it as follows:

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

I had a quick look but can’t see an answer there, but I may be wrong. It also talks about a Textusa thread, but I haven’t looked for that one.

My guess is its: Mann 0008 (see 1^st May) but it may be wishful thinking.
The tops & bottoms of the deleted letters seem to tie up & I think I can see a 0 with an 8 at the end. The Mann party also ate there on 3^rd.

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

1^st May sheet
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.01.14 23:42

Thanks Doug D, I will have a read of that link you provided.

by MissesWillYa 08.01.14 0:34

I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

by HelenMeg 12.01.14 22:31

sami wrote: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

Hi
In my experience of such creche's, the staff are all very young, 18 - 20 ish and it would be extremely easy to sign someone in fictitiously. As you say, as long as the same number leaves as have been signed in, thats
all that matters. They tend to be lovely well-meaning staff, but at this age, they are just doing a job for a 'gap year' etc. I am certainly of the opinion that Madeleine died before the 3rd May. Gerry is not stupid, he would have taken some time to devise his plan and conceal a body. Noone was really concentrating on 'whose child is where' .. he could very easily have simulated her presence for 48 hours in order to
control the situation. Don't underestimate Gerry. I think it would have been very difficult to hide the body and come up with an 'abduction' scenario in teh same day she died. He would have needed time to absorb the shock at the situation and realise that telling the truth would send them to jail....

by **tigger** 13.01.14 7:18

MissesWillYa wrote:I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

by Guest 13.01.14 9:16

tigger wrote:

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

There is a cryptic comment on Dewi Lennard's tweets.

What's up with #McCann ? He took a 3yo stranger (ahem) 2 creche, but when she wasn't available, he stayed away & let Kate take "Maddie"! ODD

So "Maddie" was actually still around despite the sub being taken to creche? I hadn't figured on that. He could be wrong of course. Even about the whole thing, possibly.

by russiandoll 13.01.14 9:36

Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

by Guest 13.01.14 9:41

russiandoll wrote:Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

Sorry RD, I did know all that! It was just that one tweet that stood out as odd - Sub not available so Kate takes "Maddie" instead? I'm not a twitterer or would ask him to clarify.

For the record, I can't see how MBM dying earlier in the holiday fits with a sub being available unless it was premeditated murder. The one thing I never really thought it was.

by **tigger** 13.01.14 15:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

Sorry RD, I did know all that! It was just that one tweet that stood out as odd - Sub not available so Kate takes "Maddie" instead? I'm not a twitterer or would ask him to clarify.

For the record, I can't see how MBM dying earlier in the holiday fits with a sub being available unless it was premeditated murder. The one thing I never really thought it was.

Why did poor Cat Baker nearly have a nervous breakdown? Why her total recall a year later and totally different statement in May? Was she the nanny who said early on that she'd never noticed the coloboma ( early report never repeated ) and why did the McCanns arrange a hotel for her around the time of the Rothley meeting? With a church visit complete with Cat Baker for an organised photoopportunity and subsequent job for CB in New York?

A sub doesn't have to mean murder imo. But a part-time sub doesn't work, imo the photographic manipulation must have taken place some time before theholiday as -again imo - there was neither time or opportunity. Apart from it being unlikely that one would travel with these pictures as they were not found on the camera.
I'm pretty sure that they didn't take a laptop with them
One would expect those to be impounded by the police - eg emails to demand ransom. They did expect the mobiles to be impounded, otherwise there was no need to delete the calls.
So there was a certain amount of forensic awareness I'd say. If not foresight...

by MissesWillYa 13.01.14 20:04

tigger wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

Hi tigger, thanks for your reply. I did notice after posting that the creche had been searched. I must have missed it before. Unfortunately, I also lean toward M never having been in the creche at all. The sign-in sheets are just weird and as someone else mentioned, CB's emotional reaction and the subsequent pow-wow with Gerry and Kate all seem very strange in light of M's disappearance.

I agree about the sheets. I really can't see where Kate would ever have signed her own name wrong, especially after years of being known professionally under Healy; it doesn't seem plausible that she'd somehow slip and use her married name once in awhile. I actually don't know; is she legally Kate McCann at all? She made such a big deal out of discussing her name "before and after" in the book that it seems a little fishy. I can only speak for myself, but I can remember slipping and starting to write my maiden name a few times after I got married, but I always corrected myself and I don't think it happened at all after I'd been married about six months. IMO, if she was used to writing KH and didn't even go by KM, as she claims, it makes no sense to me why she'd go back and forth between the two names.

by **tigger** 13.01.14 20:10

I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

by Guest 13.01.14 20:19

tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Off Topic, but the other night I was so bored that I watched "Confessions Of A Holiday Camp" on Youtube. Now, I've long thought that Tony Blair was the worst man who ever lived, but I've decided now that his father in law runs him pretty close. What a palpably odious cretin, and so menacing in a way that I sensed wasn't just an act. And then consider what he unleashed upon the World....

What a hellish couple. Blair/Booth and McCann/Healy deserve each other's eternal company.

by **sharonl** 13.01.14 20:29

Tigger

Cat Baker is an interesting character, she is on of the four nannies that were despatched to a MW resort in Greece just after Madeleine disappeared.

Two of these nannies started work at the OC the week that McCanns were there, they were on the same transport bus as Jane Tanner.

Cat was born in 1987 and went to Nottingham University, in 2007 she told the PJ that she had years of experience (work that one out)

According to one news article (shall have to find it) the four nannies were known to members of the Tapas 7

Cat claimed that she first met Kate when Madeleine was enrolled at the crèche on the morning of April 29th

Kate claimed that she warmed to Cat immediately when she was introduced to her, as Madeleines nanny, on April 28th, a day before Madeleine was enrolled.

Cat was responsible for the Lobster group.

Creche records seem to be specific to each group, notice the wording "Lobster" at the top of the register that Madeleine was on

by MissesWillYa 13.01.14 20:35

tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Now, there's a thought. They do seem to aspire to the glamorous life and they both seem very self-important, IMO. The feeling I get from both is that they see themselves as the classic bootstrap-puller-uppers, but in a way maybe she's even more emphatic about it because she's a woman. Her own mother was young when she had Kate and didn't have a career, as far as I know. It seems like she wants to distance herself. I wonder how her mother feels about the very public way she has done that. As for the names, I personally don't care what name a woman chooses to use - her maiden name should be hers to keep if she prefers to do so - but it felt a little like she was hitting the reader over the head about it with the "before and after" claims. Protesting too much, IMO.

by Guest 13.01.14 21:22

MissesWillYa wrote:
tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Now, there's a thought. They do seem to aspire to the glamorous life and they both seem very self-important, IMO. The feeling I get from both is that they see themselves as the classic bootstrap-puller-uppers, but in a way maybe she's even more emphatic about it because she's a woman. Her own mother was young when she had Kate and didn't have a career, as far as I know. It seems like she wants to distance herself. I wonder how her mother feels about the very public way she has done that. As for the names, I personally don't care what name a woman chooses to use - her maiden name should be hers to keep if she prefers to do so - but it felt a little like she was hitting the reader over the head about it with the "before and after" claims. Protesting too much, IMO.

This is spot on. I mentioned in post a couple of months ago that the McCanns are a lower-middle-class couple striving to become middle-middle. The typical aspiring middle classes. As these sort of people try to (as they see it in their own minds) 'better themselves' they ape the behaviours of those they perceive to be their social superiors and inevitably become embarassed by their roots. This means distancing themselves from their perceived lower-class families. In reality, such people are undermined by their own social gaffs and vulgarities.

One of the reasons we all find the McCanns so distasteful is because their upwardly-mobile desires are worn on their sleeves. And they're simply not very good at it. Honesty and truth to yourself is always the best policy, imo. The McCanns, perhaps, have a few issues here...

Then again, Gerry's got a big job on distancing himself from Phil...

Log in for more topics