Re: The Creche Sheets

by Guest 27.01.17 12:46

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

Kate and Gerry McCann with twins and Catriona Baker - Rothley, November 2007

by JRP 27.01.17 13:03

The creche sheet debate was one of, if not the first discussion I got involved with after joining this forum last March.

It went along the lines of Cat Nanny being duped into believing Madeleine to be in the creche under her supervision, when, so the theory went, she wasn't there at all.

She existed as a signature only. Maddy signed in, Maddy signed out, but no Maddy in the creche, Cat Nanny was being duped by a phantom child.

A little different to the kikoratton (Dewy Leonard) theory that Madeleine was replaced by a borrowed child. Maddy signed in, Maddy signed out, and the borrowed duplicate Maddy takes "missing" Maddy's place.

Cat Nanny, according to this theory, was duped by a surrogate who at the age of 4, played the part so well, that in the passing 10 years Cat Baker never noticed.

At the time of the debate, I argued that yes, she could have been duped by a phantom, as it seemed more likely that the surrogate theory. A video was shown of how chaotic the creche could be, an undercover journo had infiltrated MW child care and made a film, which made the creche look like total chaos.

So maybe, a non existent child, signed in by her parents, could be lost in a sea of similar toddlers.

But, after a weekend of debate, it dawned on me...

The creche during the Mc's holiday wasn't busy at all, that video is extremely misleading in the amount of children in the film, when compared to the list of names on Cat nannies creche sheet. Cat Baker didn't have a classroom sized amount of children, she had a handful. It's highly unlikely she wouldn't miss a child who was signed in twice a day, and signed out twice a day, with a creche list so small.

Also, Cat Baker signed the sheet for this non existent child herself, "Cat nanny" is clearly written next to Madeleine's name. So what we are to believe is, not only is CB duped by a signature into thinking a child is there when she is not, she is also duped into signing for this phantom child out herself.

Either the creche sheets are a realistic representation of the attendance of Madeleine, or they are a work of fiction, designed to show Madeleine was alive and well until Thursday.

If you go with the latter, it makes much more sense if you take on board (pardon the sailing pun) that Nanny knew what was going on.

by JRP 27.01.17 13:05

The creche sheet debate...

Duplicate post by JRP - deleted by a Mod

by Guest 27.01.17 13:10

JRP - you've developed a stutter big grin

!

by JRP 27.01.17 13:13

Verdi wrote:JRP - you've developed a stutter !

I know, s s s s sorry about that. Perhaps a mod can remove one, my laptop has had an unexpected error.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.17 13:57

JRP wrote:The creche sheet debate was one of, if not the first discussion I got involved with after joining this forum last March.

It went along the lines of Cat Nanny being duped into believing Madeleine to be in the creche under her supervision, when, so the theory went, she wasn't there at all.

She existed as a signature only. Maddy signed in, Maddy signed out, but no Maddy in the creche, Cat Nanny was being duped by a phantom child.

A little different to the kikoratton (Dewy Leonard) theory that Madeleine was replaced by a borrowed child. Maddy signed in, Maddy signed out, and the borrowed duplicate Maddy takes "missing" Maddy's place.

Cat Nanny, according to this theory, was duped by a surrogate who at the age of 4, played the part so well, that in the passing 10 years Cat Baker never noticed.

At the time of the debate, I argued that yes, she could have been duped by a phantom, as it seemed more likely that the surrogate theory. A video was shown of how chaotic the creche could be, an undercover journo had infiltrated MW child care and made a film, which made the creche look like total chaos.

So maybe, a non existent child, signed in by her parents, could be lost in a sea of similar toddlers.

But, after a weekend of debate, it dawned on me...

The creche during the Mc's holiday wasn't busy at all, that video is extremely misleading in the amount of children in the film, when compared to the list of names on Cat nannies creche sheet. Cat Baker didn't have a classroom sized amount of children, she had a handful. It's highly unlikely she wouldn't miss a child who was signed in twice a day, and signed out twice a day, with a creche list so small.

Also, Cat Baker signed the sheet for this non existent child herself, "Cat nanny" is clearly written next to Madeleine's name. So what we are to believe is, not only is CB duped by a signature into thinking a child is there when she is not, she is also duped into signing for this phantom child out herself.

Either the creche sheets are a realistic representation of the attendance of Madeleine, or they are a work of fiction, designed to show Madeleine was alive and well until Thursday.

If you go with the latter, it makes much more sense if you take on board (pardon the sailing pun) that Nanny knew what was going on.

@ JRP       Thank you very much for yet another informative, carefully considered and in my view excellent analysis of the issues surrounding the Lobster crèche records in general and the role of Cat Baker in particular. I hope everyone on the forum, both members and guests, will give careful consideration to the logical way you have set out your very persuasive argument.
If I could award double or treble reputation points for your post, I certainly would.

You have also been most helpful on the photographic issues in this case, giving us your expertise, which is especially important given that we have little forensic evidence to go on. But the photographs, and all the issues around them, including their apparent absence after Sunday, are one important line of evidence that we do have. I do thank you for your valuabe input into the forum.

@ HideHo & JRP      It was your post, HideHo, 'No credible evidence that Madeieine was seen after Sunday', that lit up the forum a year or two and inspired many members on the forum to seriously consider that something bad may have happened to Madeleine as early as Sunday night.

In that post, you had patiently gone through all the evidence of all the independent witnesses (i.e. other than the 'Tapas 9') and carefully explained in each case why their evidence was 'not credible'.

This was your entry for Catriona Baker:

"Catriona Baker - Non credible with her statement riddled with discrepancies as well as her trip to visit the McCanns in Rothley does not help with credibility".

It includes two of the six reasons I gave above for thinking that Cat Baker might have known the McCanns before April 2007.

I agreed with your statement about Cat Baker when I first read it. And I very much still agree with it today.

by **HiDeHo** 27.01.17 17:28

Thanks Tony for having the patience to answer me on these questions again :)

We differ slightly in how we come to, what appears to be, very similar conclusions and I know you have answered me before with that list of 'evidence' which is certainly compelling, but as I may have said before I do not take anything as 'evidence' on board unless I have a link that I can view and decide if I come to the same conclusion. That would also include named sources for quotes, interviews and of course the files.

As mentioned before also, many people are not comfortable in the facebook group because of the strict guidelines I follow regarding links, etc.

I also do my best to quote all links to 'facts' on the videos which are mostly based on the files and try to do the same in my posts here. (Time permitting)

This doesn't mean that several indications can't point towards a possibility, but for me I need to see them individually and scrutinise them myself before deciding if they can be considered as an 'indication'.

Thats just me :) It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate others' opinions and certainly as with yourself, we both welcome being corrected, which is why we have respect for each other.

We are both searching for the truth, but we are using different methods, along with the other researchers and curiously all coming up with a similar scenario.

To answer your above comment regarding a previous comment I made about Catriona.. I still stand behind what I say...

"Catriona Baker - Non credible with her statement riddled with discrepancies as well as her trip to visit the McCanns in Rothley does not help with credibility".

Non credible with her statement does not mean I believe she was lying.

Briefly...

Approx 13 children in creche and not monitored with which children present like a school.

Children arrived randomly and we dont know if the register was outside the room or not, but it may have been primarily to have a location to contact the parents if needed.

(According to something happening Sunday/Monday) Maddie was there a day or two. Would she have specifically remembered what Maddie looked like if there were 13 three year old children in the creche?

Gerry and Russell signed the sheets every day but one child was signed in and one child signed out (Ella and 'Maddie')

Thursday night alarm.... Catriona was TOLD that Maddie was at the creche every day and rather than second guess herself and not wanting to lose her job she didnt openly question it.

However a short while after she became extremely upset according to a message sent to her friend. Could this have been when she realised the possibility that the McCanns may be complicit?

Its worthy of note that she does not claim Maddie was at high tea

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

From what I have 'seen' it is possible that she had no knowledge but maybe signing the creche sheets etc was to keep her job. (considering also the records were not highly monitored or possibly overly important). At the time she passed the creche records over there was no indication the records would become important as everyone believed Maddie was abducted from the apartment.

I believe in the possibility that she was 'intimidated' and 'used'.

To answer to the 'evidence'... I searched through several threads to confirm.. I'm afraid I didnt find anything that I was able to conclude as evidence... for this reason...

All the following have been discussed already on the forum, but for the record on this thread we have all the following evidence:

1. Jon Corner's daughter Chloe Corner and Cat Baker being FB friends in 2006 or before

I found a post by Lance de Boil suggesting this had been discussed on 3A and MCF. I searched both forums and found nothing.

There were links to a blog and Catriona and Chloe facebook but nothing to confirm to me they were friends before.

It seemed it was 'presumed' they became friends before 2007 because Chloe didnt go to PdL with her father in May, when it could have explained their being friends.

I would need to see something specific (screenshot with date) before I could agree its evidence.

2. Jon Corner's statement that he 'regularly' visited Praia da Luz

I don't see a connection to his visiting PdL prior to 2007 as being a link to Catriona being involved

3. Cat Baker's mistake, or evasion, about her having also been a Mark Warner creche nanny at the Ocean Club the year before (2006)

It appears to me there was a mistake made in the Rogatories and March 21st 2006 should read March 21st 2007

As explained she was contacted by Mark Warner in June 2006 and was given a year (March - Nov) contract for the FOLLOWING year as I read it (taking into account the error of the year)

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

From Catriona Thread wrote:In her Portuguese Statement
"In answer to our questions, she responds that she has been in Portugal since March 21st of this year and that this is her first visit to the country. Next, she says that she came to Portugal to work as a play leader, having obtained a contract of employment with the "Mark Warner" company. She states that her contract started on March 21st and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country."

In her Leicester Police Interview
"I work in childcare – I was contracted by Mark Warner in June of 2006. The first time I went to Portugal was the 21st of March 2006 where I worked as a childcare worker in the Ocean Club Village, Praia da Luz. I went to a work interview and was contracted for one year by Mark Warner in June of 2006."

4. The inconsistent accounts by Kate McCann of her 'initial' meetings with Cat Baker on Sat 28th and Sun 29th April, which might also suggest they had prior acquaintance

Is there a link that suggests they had prior aquaintance?

5. The fairly obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in her crucial evidence about the alleged 'high tea' at 5-6pm on Thursday 3rd May, which doesn't even accord with Charlotte Pennington's evidence on the matter, let alone the McCanns'

This is where I believe in the possibility that the McCanns 'reminded' her of what happened on her visit to Rothley.

6. The evidence of the close relationship between Cat Baker and the McCanns from those many pictures of them together with each other in Rothley in November 2007 (I posted them on the forum), at the time of the Panorama documentary and the Tapas 7 summit meeting at Rothley Manor Hotel the same month.

McCann intimidation to ensure she 'remembered' what happened

I have never believed Catriona was knowingly involved but McCann intimidation and a child she maybe only saw one day and maybe didnt recall for the rest of the week can create some issues with her statements.

by Guest 27.01.17 21:10

Catriona Baker's witnesse statement - 6th May 2007 [when her memory was fresh]

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities. Concerning the little girl, she states that she was an active and sociable child. Only on the first day was she more reticent with the group.

The informant reports that during the time that Madeleine was entrusted to her care, at no time did it seem to her that the little girl was sad or unhappy, and she never made any comment about being cross, sad or discontent about anything. She also reports that she was an obedient child who never wandered from the group and who never spoke to strangers.

When asked, the informant responds that it was always the parents who brought Madeleine and fetched her from the "Mini Club."

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.
----------

No mistaken identity to be detected there. However one year down the line, having visited the McCanns at their Rothley home by invitation (not by force), this is her recollection as recorded during her rogatory interview in April 2008, where her memory appears to have significantly improved..

I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.

Mark Warner has a standard procedure, the signature on a page when a parent leaves or checks-in a child. There is a separate page for the morning and one for the afternoon. The page contains the name of the child, the hour of sign-in and the hour of pick-up for the afternoon. Only the parents have authority to take the children, except when there is some other agreement. When Gerry and Kate came to pick up Madeleine there were loving and the child would run into their arms.
----------

No apparent mistaken identity there, only greater detail - but not by force.

In short, nobody has forced or compromised Catriona Baker into making a false declaration, her visit to Rothley was after her contract with Mark Warner had ended so she wasn't in fear of losing her job. There can be no reason to presume she was threatened or manipulated by the McCanns as an independent witness.

The creche register as recorded in the PJ files (can't locate copy at present) is far from a professional approach to Mark Warners renowned child care facilities.

by Guest 27.01.17 22:33

I select these two days specifically because they are not only a complete shambles but they show Catriona Baker signing out children and Kate McCann reverting to her maiden name on 2nd May for some reason.

As I've said many times, Tuesday 1st May 2007 appears to be very significant - followed by Wednesday 2nd May, so conveniently glossed over by the group as regards detail.

AGE 108 LOBSTERS CRECHE REGISTRATION 01 MAY 07

/processopdf01page110-CrecheRecords1.jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.17 22:49

Verdi wrote:Catriona Baker's witness statement - 6th May 2007 [when her memory was fresh]

Questioned, she responds that since she has been working with the little girl, it has seemed to her that the parents were attentive to their daughter given that they asked what Madeleine had done in the creche and that they even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities...

----------

No mistaken identity to be detected there...

I was always struck by the sheer vagueness of Cat Baker's first statement.

If she is to be believed, she spent about 5-6 hours a day with Madeleine, maybe 25-30 hours in the week..and that is all she has to say? No detail about anything?

According to Cat Baker, the McCanns: "...even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities..."

Funny, then, is it not, that in Chapter 4 of Kate McCann's Book of Truth, 'The Holiday' (pp. 44-61 of 'madeleine', hardback version), there is not one single account of the McCann 'accompanying Madeleine in certain outside activities'.

Eighteen whole pages - and not one mention of accompanying Madeleine in any activities.

Instead, we just get these dry, bland comments: 'We dropped them off'...'we collected them'.

It looks like Cat 'n Kate couldn't get their stories right

by **HiDeHo** 27.01.17 23:23

I have introduced a possible scenario that I feel is very possible and would explain Catriona's discrepancies but not include her as being complicit and involved, which I don't believe is something that she should be accused of without evidence.

I have seen no evidence as I explained above.

Anything is possible but to ignore the possibility of a young girl being able to stand up at the time and say... 'Ohh by the way, I honestly dont recall seeing Maddie in the creche the last few days'.

The pressure to follow with the McCanns abduction from the apartment, even if she did second guess herself, would not allow for anyone to speak up...never mind Catriona.

MAYBE after being TOLD that Maddie was in the creche all that week was something that she may have felt she couldnt question and that maybe she was wrong after all...

What happened in Rothley I dont know...but a few chats of recollection and ohhhh how Gerry want there at hight tea because he was off playing tennis (when we are told he was there) and her careful comments about high tea not making any mention of Maddie...

I am more than uncomfortable with Catriona being accused of being involved knowingly (initially) There MUST be evidence to accuse her (whether its correct or not) and I haven't seen any yet...

The creche records of Tuesday and Wednesday highlight the one child in and one child out scenario which Catriona may have added her name to prior to the PJ taking the forms in an effort to appear competent and not letting children come and go without a signature... which is EXACTLY how it was possible that Gerry and Russel could appear and sign only one child in.

Whistleblowers was known by then and pressure was on the creche.

I also dont believe the register was considered a big deal as it would be in a school..

Rather than mark all children present and accountable each day it appears to be used as a record to locate the parents if needed and only secondary to detail how many hours the children spent in the creche..

It was free so no need to monitor times.

If one looks at the records of Ella and Maddie being recorded and relative to their activities at the time it can be seen how Gerry and Russel go to the creche at the same or similar times and yet only one child is signed in and one child is signed out...

CLICK TO SEE: Highlighted times Mon Tues Wed Creche forms:

Catriona appears to me to have filled in the missing times as something related to her job competence assessment as opposed to anything sinister.

Like everyone else she didnt know the records wold become important as Maddie was abducted from the apartment AFTER leaving the creche.

by **HiDeHo** 27.01.17 23:46

Verdi wrote:

I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.

I find it very odd that she only mentions the twins and not Maddie and the twins

The initial statements are not word for word and just interpretations of their answers to the questions.

It possible/likely that in some cases they were repeating what was on the creche records to help their memory and we certainly know VERY LITTLE about what happened during that wek.

Maybe they did attend grass play or other activities at some point. We dont know that.

We also don't know that her recollection of 'Maddie' was actually Maddie and for those of us that believe in the possibility of something happening earlier, its quite possible she was referring to the wrong child...

13 children in that creche and no reason to be vigilant as to which child was which as long as they were playing and being looked after.

by Guest 27.01.17 23:47

So there you go again HiDeHo, always the paragon of virtue as regards sticking to what you consider to be fact or evidenced material and then steaming headlong into maybe this and maybe that and maybe the other, invariably evidence by press reports and your own opinion alone.

Catriona Baker's witness statements alone are testimony to undeniable deception without any extenuating circumstances. If she was/is totally innocent what has she got to fear - how could the McCanns or any of their representatives influence her innocence if indeed she be so innocent? If she were being pressured, why would she agree to visit the McCanns at their home in Rothley for a friendly catch-up - catch-up on what I ask?

The McCanns themselves named Catriona Baker as a key witness to be interviewed by rogatory at their request. If she wasn't complicit in some way, why would they do that - more to the point why would she agree to be interviewed? By all accounts Madeleine didn't disappear from the creche, she disappeared from apartment 5a whilst on the parents watch - how could she thus be considered a key witness?

Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document by Mark Harrison - 23rd July 2007

Mark Warner Creche at Praia Da Luz.

This is the location of the last confirmed sighting by a person independent of family members of Madeleine McCann. Although this location was within the original search area it may well benefit from a further search using enhanced detecting methods for human remains. This will depend on the size of any outside grounds and concealed areas inside the building.

You have to question why Mark Harrison thought this pertinent.

by Guest 27.01.17 23:58

Tony Bennett wrote:According to Cat Baker, the McCanns: "...even accompanied Madeleine a few times in certain outside activities..."

Funny, then, is it not, that in Chapter 4 of Kate McCann's Book of Truth, 'The Holiday' (pp. 44-61 of 'madeleine', hardback version), there is not one single account of the McCann 'accompanying Madeleine in certain outside activities'.

Nor is there mention anywhere else of the McCanns accompanying Madeleine 'in certain outside activities' - at least not creche activities.

You have to question why Catriona Baker made that statement when it is clearly untrue. Even IF she couldn't recall detail of Madeleine's presence at the creche on any particular occasion, surely she couldn't be so vague as to imagine the parents presence during the children's outdoor activities.

I can quite understand Catriona Baker's need to adhere to company policy when interviewed by the police in connection with a missing child (if indeed it's ever happened before) but she goes way beyond the line of duty.

by **HiDeHo** 28.01.17 0:01

'So there you go again HiDeHo, always the paragon of virtue as regards sticking to what you consider to be fact or evidenced material '? Is that a necessary comment Verdi.

I was relating an ALTERNATIVE possibility to explain Catrionas actions as opposed to accusing her of being complicit.

I have not seen proof of her being involved initially. I may change my mind if I do see it.

Until then it appears we will have to agree to disagree as I have mentioned ... I am more than uncomfortable with accusing Cartiona without evidence.

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

Since putting the above graphic together and reading his statements again I realise the possibility that he wa mistaken about naming the creche, not realising they went to the tapas for high tea.

I could be wrong.

by **HiDeHo** 28.01.17 3:36

Verdi wrote:So there you go again HiDeHo, always the paragon of virtue as regards sticking to what you consider to be fact or evidenced material and then steaming headlong into maybe this and maybe that and maybe the other, invariably evidence by press reports and your own opinion alone.

I would just like to address this accusation.

Yes... I do like to stick to facts that I can show a link to so others can decide for themselves.

Yes... I use the word maybe, possibly etc because I CANNOT claim anything as proof.

I do not use press reports to make claims unless they are sourced quotes.

You claim its my own opinion? Nobody knows my opinion. That is something personal to myself as some of it is not proven and therefore not something I choose to share.

I believe public opinion should be based on facts.

As in this case, however, I look at the creche files and they 'tell' me a story and as you can see its a FACT that there were occasions on Tuesday that between Maddie and Ella only ONE child was signed in and another signed out and yet Gerry and Russell walked together to the creche.

This could mean NOTHING but with those FACTS in mind I offered the possibility that Maddie may not have been at the creche and suggested a circumstance that would explain how Catriona may have felt she needed to hide her inability to remember Madeleine specifically and there is NO DOUBT (in my mind) that the intimidation at the time meant adults would not question the McCanns story, never mind a young girl!

What you see is what I believe MAY have happened according to the files info that I refer to.

I have no idea if its correct, thats for members to decide for themselves, but BASED ON THE FILES its how the scenario may be explained.

Occasionally I will see a news report that may have some significance, possibly based on truth but I will ALWAYS make that known.

I apologise if I make you feel it necessary to call me a 'paragon of virtue' because I refuse to believe what Im told without checking there is some kind of evidence, but that should not restrict me from offering possible scenarios based on the files info.

Verdi, all I would like to be known for is for showing the groundwork of the weeks happenings to allow myself and others to interpret what may have happened within those day.... possibilities, and thoughts based on knowledge.

Please don't accuse me of using baseless press reports and using my own opinions to influence people. Although the odd possible exception, everyone that knows me is aware its not something I do.

I suggested to look at the creche records in addition to their activities surrounding the drop off and pick up times and it 'tells a story'.

Whether its the same 'story' it tells me I can't say.

Now... the definition of 'Paragon of Virtue'...

model of excellence or perfection of a kind; one having no equal

Ahhh yes... thats me to a 'T'... well maybe for a couple of hours back in the mid eighties! laughat

Please explain whether this is still considered evidence of Catrionas involvement....

All the following have been discussed already on the forum, but for the record on this thread we have all the following evidence:

1. Jon Corner's daughter Chloe Corner and Cat Baker being FB friends in 2006 or before

I found a post by Lance de Boil suggesting this had been discussed on 3A and MCF. I searched both forums and found nothing.

There were links to a blog and Catriona and Chloe facebook but nothing to confirm to me they were friends before.

It seemed it was 'presumed' they became friends before 2007 because Chloe didnt go to PdL with her father in May, when it could have explained their being friends.

I would need to see something specific (screenshot with date) before I could agree its evidence.

2. Jon Corner's statement that he 'regularly' visited Praia da Luz

I don't see a connection to his visiting PdL prior to 2007 as being a link to Catriona being involved

3. Cat Baker's mistake, or evasion, about her having also been a Mark Warner creche nanny at the Ocean Club the year before (2006)

It appears to me there was a mistake made in the Rogatories and March 21st 2006 should read March 21st 2007

As explained she was contacted by Mark Warner in June 2006 and was given a year (March - Nov) contract for the FOLLOWING year as I read it (taking into account the error of the year)

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

From Catriona Thread wrote:In her Portuguese Statement
"In answer to our questions, she responds that she has been in Portugal since March 21st of this year and that this is her first visit to the country. Next, she says that she came to Portugal to work as a play leader, having obtained a contract of employment with the "Mark Warner" company. She states that her contract started on March 21st and ends on November 7th 2007, the date on which she will return to her own country."

In her Leicester Police Interview
"I work in childcare – I was contracted by Mark Warner in June of 2006. The first time I went to Portugal was the 21st of March 2006 where I worked as a childcare worker in the Ocean Club Village, Praia da Luz. I went to a work interview and was contracted for one year by Mark Warner in June of 2006."

4. The inconsistent accounts by Kate McCann of her 'initial' meetings with Cat Baker on Sat 28th and Sun 29th April, which might also suggest they had prior acquaintance

Is there a link that suggests they had prior aquaintance?

5. The fairly obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in her crucial evidence about the alleged 'high tea' at 5-6pm on Thursday 3rd May, which doesn't even accord with Charlotte Pennington's evidence on the matter, let alone the McCanns'

This is where I believe in the possibility that the McCanns 'reminded' her of what happened on her visit to Rothley.

6. The evidence of the close relationship between Cat Baker and the McCanns from those many pictures of them together with each other in Rothley in November 2007 (I posted them on the forum), at the time of the Panorama documentary and the Tapas 7 summit meeting at Rothley Manor Hotel the same month.

McCann intimidation to ensure she 'remembered' what happened

I have never believed Catriona was knowingly involved but McCann intimidation and a child she maybe only saw one day and maybe didnt recall for the rest of the week can create some issues with her statements

by **HiDeHo** 28.01.17 3:36

Verdi wrote:So there you go again HiDeHo, always the paragon of virtue as regards sticking to what you consider to be fact or evidenced material and then steaming headlong into maybe this and maybe that and maybe the other, invariably evidence by press reports and your own opinion alone.

I would just like to address this accusation.

-----------

Duplicate post. Deleted by a Mod

by JRP 28.01.17 10:50

HiDeHo wrote:I have introduced a possible scenario that I feel is very possible and would explain Catriona's discrepancies but not include her as being complicit and involved, which I don't believe is something that she should be accused of without evidence.

This is the Phantom Child scenario discussed last year, where a child is signed into the creche but isn't delivered. She only exists as a signature and Cat Baker doesn't notice because she's distracted by the amount of children she has.
There aren't many children on those creche sheets though, are there.

I have seen no evidence as I explained above.

She signed the sheet against Madeleine's name.

Anything is possible but to ignore the possibility of a young girl being able to stand up at the time and say... 'Ohh by the way, I honestly dont recall seeing Maddie in the creche the last few days'.

No, only two things are possible. Either Madeleline was there or she wasn't.

She can't say she doesn't recall seeing Maddie in the creche the last few days, because Madeleline's name is all over cheche sheets which she is responsible for.

The pressure to follow with the McCanns abduction from the apartment, even if she did second guess herself, would not allow for anyone to speak up...never mind Catriona.

There is no evidence to say anyone was pressured. You seem to stress that Cat Baker was some sort of timid person, what is the basis for thinking that is the case?

MAYBE after being TOLD that Maddie was in the creche all that week was something that she may have felt she couldnt question and that maybe she was wrong after all...

Why would she need to be TOLD Maddie was in the creche all that week? Madeleine's name is all over the creche sheets. Cat Baker signed for Madeleine.

What happened in Rothley I dont know...but a few chats of recollection and ohhhh how Gerry want there at hight tea because he was off playing tennis (when we are told he was there) and her careful comments about high tea not making any mention of Maddie...

I am more than uncomfortable with Catriona being accused of being involved knowingly (initially) There MUST be evidence to accuse her (whether its correct or not) and I haven't seen any yet...

The creche records of Tuesday and Wednesday highlight the one child in and one child out scenario which Catriona may have added her name to prior to the PJ taking the forms in an effort to appear competent and not letting children come and go without a signature... which is EXACTLY how it was possible that Gerry and Russel could appear and sign only one child in.

Whistleblowers was known by then and pressure was on the creche.

I also dont believe the register was considered a big deal as it would be in a school..

I bet Mark Warner thought they were important, otherwise they wouldn't have one with explicit instructions how they were to be filled in.
Imagine little Johnny having an accident, and the parents making a claim against the creche. Those sheets would prove if Johnny was there or not. It's not a school register, but without them, anyone could make a claim and MW wouldn't be able to prove Johnny wasn't there.

Rather than mark all children present and accountable each day it appears to be used as a record to locate the parents if needed and only secondary to detail how many hours the children spent in the creche..

No I don't think so, for the reasons above.

It was free so no need to monitor times.

Really?... it wouldn't be free if a claim was made, it would be expensive and embarrassing, and undermine a reputation they prided themselves in.

If one looks at the records of Ella and Maddie being recorded and relative to their activities at the time it can be seen how Gerry and Russel go to the creche at the same or similar times and yet only one child is signed in and one child is signed out...

CLICK TO SEE:

Catriona appears to me to have filled in the missing times as something related to her job competence assessment as opposed to anything sinister.

Like everyone else she didnt know the records wold become important as Maddie was abducted from the apartment AFTER leaving the creche.

by **HiDeHo** 28.01.17 12:02

Thank you for responding JRP.

I continue to stand by everything I said as a POSSIBILITY of something that may have happened as an ALTERNATIVE to Catriona being complicit

CLICK TO SEE: Alternative possibility:

Its apparent to me that the 'human behaviour' aspect of my suggestion seems to be misunderstood in what seems to be an effort to discredit any other option except Catriona was (initially) complicit.

My suggestion is based on the files creche records showing the POSSIBILITY of only one child at the creche and has nothing to do with prior suggestions of a 'phantom' child that was contrively signed into the creche. A child with a name and the 'theory' based on handwriting matches with another family involved.

I am suggesting that Catriona may have been oblivious to Gerry and Russell both arriving at the creche at the same child but only one child was signed in.

In a room of approx 13 children, dropped of randomly and with Maddie NOT THERE (if something happened to her earlier in the week) I claim it is possible that Catriona may not have been aware during the days prior to the disappearance and then felt she could not admit to not remembering specifics once the uproar had started.

Anything is possible with the creche sheets. Outside the door....inside... Catriona or Emma? approaching the door each time a child arrived or maybe the child running in to play.

We just dont know and we dont know how Mark Warners expectations were followed but REGARDLESS it is possible that two parents could attend and only one child signed in...

Did it happen similar to what I suggest? I dont know but I offered it as an ALTERNATIVE to those claiming Catriona was complicit not because I expect anyone to agree or take it on board as something that happened

If I question those that claim Catriona is complicit then its my responsibility to give an alternative possibility to support her NOT being complicit. Which is what I have done.

The truth of what happened could be so very different to any 'theory' currently in place. We know a drop in the ocean about what happened that week but we can offer suggestions based on what IS known.

That is what I have done.

I would like to see the 'evidence' as it stands after I have responded to the list showing at least one accusation does not appear to be based on fact.

by Guest 28.01.17 12:19

HiDeHo wrote:'So there you go again HiDeHo, always the paragon of virtue as regards sticking to what you consider to be fact or evidenced material '? Is that a necessary comment Verdi.

To complete the sentence.... "and then steaming headlong into maybe this and maybe that and maybe the other, invariably evidenced by press reports and your own opinion alone."

In the context it was intended, yes I thought it was necessary - that is how I perceived your interpretation of the subject. Although, in the interest of clarity, perhaps I should have said 'your own interpretation' as opposed to 'your own opinion' but amounts to the same thing.

I'm sorry the comment caused so much confusion and so much of your valuable time taken to explain. Rest assured I have no delusions about your methodologie nor the amount of time you have spent over the years in quest of justice for little Madeleine McCann.

Clearly we are poles apart here so, as you rightly suggest, best to agree to disagree - or is it the other way round.. big grin

by Guest 28.01.17 12:30

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

"By all accounts Madeleine didn't disappear from the creche, she disappeared from apartment 5a whilst on the parents watch - how could she thus be considered a key witness?"

I should have added - Catriona Baker couldn't even be called on as a character witness to the McCanns general demeanor if she didn't know them outside of dropping off and collecting Madeleine from the daycare facility.

I see no logical reason to specifically name her as a key witness to be re-interviewed by rogatory. What knowledge could she share over and above her initial witness statement one year later - that is the six million dollar question!

by Guest 28.01.17 20:41

Catriona Baker was interviewed informally by the PJ prior to her formal interview on 6th May 2007..

In our informal conversation with Catriona Trease Sisile Baker., also known as CAT, she stated:

That she arrived on March 21st 2007 and that she plans to return to the UK on November 7th 2007

That she cared for Madeleine since Sunday April 29th 2007, daily until yesterday and that she always worked the same hours

That yesterday Madeleine arrived at 9.10. It was her father, Gerry, who brought her

That her mother, Kate, picked her up at 12.25

That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14.50 and picked her up at 17.30

That in the same room as Madeleine, there were 6 other children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (including Madeleine)

That she did not see any strangers in the complex during that time or previous days

That on the first day, Madeleine was shy. On the following days she was more calm and uninhibited. Yesterday she was joyful

That she was never far from Madeleine, keeping her under visual supervision at all times when she was her responsibility, even asking her permission to go to the bathroom

That, over the days, she noticed no change in the behaviour of the child's parents

That she noticed no abnormal situation relating to this family

That Madeleine had not told her about any person who had contacted [spoken to] her in recent days, nor [about] any possibly suspicious conversation
----------

I am assuming this informal interview took place on Friday 4th May 2007 because of Catriona Baker's comment during her rogatory interview. I quote..

"I did not see Kate or Gerry that night. The next time I saw them was on Saturday at breakfast, as on Friday I spent most of the morning with the Portuguese police giving a statement."

by Guest 28.01.17 21:23

Then there is another name to conjure with - that of one Charlotte Pennington who appeared to be quite eager to get stuck in, so to speak.

Good old every reliable Russell O'Brien had these few things to say about Charlotte Pennington during his rogatory interview..

We were taken out of the airport and out onto the buses waiting nearby, we sat in the middle of the coach on the right hand side. I recall that Charlotte PENNINGTON who was a nanny at Mark Warner was also sat on the bus- I believe that she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids.

Reply    “Erm, the first three paragraphs are fine. I think, I suppose, the only comment is, when I’m talking about Charlotte PENNINGTON in the fifth paragraph, erm, I said that she, ‘I believe she looked after Dave and Fiona’s kids’, then, then there’s a separate, a sort of a separate sentence there. Erm, and it might be worth clarifying that, at least in popular Press, she erm, she, there was a report that she said she saw Kate and Gerry at the Airport, but I think she’s, and I don’t think that would have been possible, because we had left the Airport on the coach with her, so I think she’s probably confusing that with, with one of us. So that’s, that’s only a report from the popular Press rather than anything that she said”.

1578    “So how do you wish us to word that'”

Reply    “I suppose, erm, ‘I believe she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids’, full stop, erm, ‘In the media at least she has reported seeing Kate and Gerry at FARO Airport on our arrival, but I don’t think, I think she’s mistaken because they had not arrived by then’”. I mean, it, it is potentially, theoretically possible that she was nipping in and out of the bus, but I don’t think she would have, erm, they were, they were a good hour landing after us and we weren’t extensively delayed at the Airport, from my recollection, it seem, probably less like”.

Erm, and it’s been a bit difficult, kind of, erm, you know, he was trying to knock a square peg into a round hole here, because I certainly had a great deal of faith in what I said at the time, you know, there was no, I didn’t have any doubts, was it the evening, sorry, was it the night, was it the next morning, but with him denying it, with no further evidence coming out, with no questions in here whatsoever that kind of led, that would, that sort of said, you know, ‘What about Robert MURAT’, I can only speculate that there’s, that there is no further evidence, erm, that kind will push, will push the case further on him. Erm, and then I also got the information from the likes of Charlotte PENNINGTON and, and, erm, at least earlier on, Sylvia, erm, well sort of the Housekeeper, and Press reports saying that other people also placed him there on the night, that kind of made me think, well this is, that I, you know, that I am correct”.
----------

Charlotte Pennington's name was not originally included in the list of childcare workers for the 2007 summer season. She appeared as a named care worker (or as she preferred to call herself an educator) at a later date. She was on the same flight out from the UK to Portugal as O'Brien & co. She was not caring for Lilly Payne as she was in the toddler group with Sean and Amelie supervised by carer Sinead, so she could only be was caring for their other child in the baby group. From memory I think David Payne said they only used the creche facilities in the mornings.

by roz 29.01.17 7:38

KIDS CLUB STAFF interviewed 4 May 2007 by Inspector M.Pinho
Mrs Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista., 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_Rafferty_Hill (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 latest arrivals in Portugal were Sarah W. (Williamson) 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.
Jane Rog - “There was err, just on this point, err when we actually were driving there, there was two of the nannies sat behind us on the bus, that’s the only people I can remember on the bus and one of those was Charlotte PENNINGTON and one of them was another nanny that was starting that, err that week, but they were actually sat behind us on the bus because I can remember hearing them when they were talking.”
4078 “Right. Did you speak to them or did you just…”
Reply “No I didn’t, well not, I don’t think so no. I think it was just they were just talking and you could tell that, I just knew they were both starting that day.”
Rachael Rog - 'Just talk us through, talk us through the journey then from the Airport, over, over to, to the apartment''
Reply 'Erm it was just on a coach, erm with some of the Mark WARNER staff, erm they kind of came round and talked about child care and we had various forms to fill in'.
Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington Date/Time: 2007/05/07 14H30
In the context of the current investigation, the informant advises that in the course of her job at the OCEAN CLUB, there were various times when she was with a child called MADELEINE MCCANN. Although not belonging to the group for which she is responsible, it is normal, given that the two groups are in adjacent rooms.
The informant states that it was usual during "siesta time" which is approximately between 9am to 10.30am and between 2.30pm and 3pm, for the informant to get involved at the "reception" for children in her group but also for her colleagues, given that the children she was looking after were sleeping.
Yes indeed Verdi. And I wonder how exactly did they take care that each child was unknown to the carer?

by roz 29.01.17 13:54

Re- Can the records have been signed out of view?
I can only surmise that once you go upstairs to the Baby Club and Mini Club area, there are coat hooks for each child, and a reception desk which contains the crèche attendance sheets; for the Baby Club and both Mini Club groups.
(One parent had signed their child in to the Lobster group by mistake, and has crossed it out - Tuesday pm. -so sheets side by side.)
Bridget O’Donnell - (Re Friday morning but relevant to creche.) We walked towards the kiddie club. No one else was there. We felt awful, such terrible parents for even considering the idea. Then we saw, waiting inside, some of the Mark Warner nannies. They had been up most of the night but had still turned up to work that day. They were intelligent, thoughtful young women and we liked and trusted them. The dance show was cancelled, but they wanted to put on a normal day for the children. Our daughter ran inside and started painting. Then, behind us, another set of parents arrived looking equally washed out. Then another, and another. We decided, in the end, to leave them for two hours. We put their bags on the pegs and saw the one labelled "Madeleine
If Bridget could see that her daughter had ran ‘inside and started painting’, then obviously there was a door leading inside to the playroom, and that playroom door was open. (The door leading into the baby room is adjacent.)
Charlotte Elizabeth Anne Pennington Date/Time: 2007/05/07
The informant states that it was usual during "siesta time" which is approximately between 9am to 10.30am and between 2.30pm and 3pm, for the informant to get involved at the "reception" for children in her group but also for her colleagues, given that the children she was looking after were sleeping.
From this I can surmise;
That at various times neither Cat or Emma were at the reception area; they would be inside the room with the children.
That there were periods of time when Charlotte would not be there. (For example, if Lily was left to the Toddlers group at 9.20am, (see crèche records Monday 30^th) then Scarlett would have been left at the baby club at approx. 9.25am. (Seeing to child’s ‘siesta’.)

by Guest 29.01.17 20:39

roz wrote:Re- Can the records have been signed out of view?
I can only surmise that once you go upstairs to the Baby Club and Mini Club area, there are coat hooks for each child, and a reception desk which contains the crèche attendance sheets; for the Baby Club and both Mini Club groups.

Before getting too carried away, I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was a reception desk. If the thought comes from Charlotte Pennington's witness statement, you need to look at the quote you selected in context. She makes another two references to the word 'reception'..

1. The principal space where the children from MiniClub and BabyClub are situated is in the same building as the Ocean Club complex reception and this is why the witness had personal contact with the identified child.

2. Madeleine McCann belongs to the group called the "Mini Club" with children aged between 3 and 4 years and, she explains that the "Mini Club" group and the "Baby Club" are in the same building , close to the OCEAN CLUB's reception, the reason why the informant has been personally in contact with the missing minor.

I could of course be wrong but I think you'll find she was referring to the location of the 'Mini Club' and the Baby Club'. Not that I believe a word of it, I seriously doubt she had any direct contact with Madeleine McCann - just analyze her statement.

Bridget O'Donnell, partner of Jeremy Wilkins, was never formally interviewed as a witness. Her account of events is taken from a rather protracted article written for the Guardian in December 2007. The article bears no resemblance to reality, it is a fantasy story written for sensationlism. I'm guessing either she was commissioned to write the piece or she thought by doing so might enhance her career and/or earn a few quid. In case anyone hasn't already read it..

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

Charlotte Pennington is a fantasist with a somewhat colourful CV, ranging from fairy to actress to model to promoter of something to New Zealand soap opera starlet to supernanny and more - phew - all before reaching the ripe old age of 20 years. She got well and truly stuck-in putting herself in the limelight with media interviews and many fantastical stories relating to Madeleine's alleged disappearance. She had more tales to tell than cuddlecat!

Although interesting to observe in there own right, I don't think they add much value to discovering the truth behind Madeleine McCann's disappearance - apart from yet another example of the lengths the McCann defence team have gone to in order to deceive.

NOTE: Let's not forget both the witness statements of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington were translated by Robert Murat working in some quasi-official capacity for the PJ !!! I don't however think he can be held responsible for Bridget O'Donnell's fantasy.

by roz 30.01.17 5:58

All very good points in response Verdi. We can but try.....

by roz 30.01.17 13:04

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

by roz 30.01.17 13:05

I was trying to get some idea as to where the crèche attendance sheets were signed, but could not post these photographs yesterday. So do you think there is only a reception desk downstairs?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.17 13:46

Verdi wrote:NOTE: Let's not forget both the witness statements of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington were translated by Robert Murat working in some quasi-official capacity for the PJ !!!

I think @ Verdi you have made a couple of uncharacteristic errors there.

I think it would be much more true to say that Murat 'was working in some quasi-official capacity for the British government and security services'.

Please see my article (about 2 years ago) below, from which it seems clear that Murat was recommended as an interpreter to the PJ by 'staff from the office of Bill Henderson, British Ambassador'.

Not only that, but of course when the PJ, in the person of Inspector Varanda, discovered Murat trying to look at secret police documents, started suggesting all manner of lines of enquiry to him, and behaving in all sorts of odd ways, so the PJ soon got shot of him.

2nd offence: You'll notice I used the word 'interpreter' in preference to your word 'translated'. When, a few months ago, I made a similar reference to Murat 'translating' for the PJ, I got a Royal, very public telling-off from 'aquila', who forcefully reminded me that oral translations are properly described as 'interpretations'. I have never quite got over this and suffer a kind of mild Pavlovian reaction whenever I see 'translate' used where it should be 'interpret'.

I hope you will take no offence at this reprimand from the forum grammar police: winkwink

===================================

A different explanation of how Robert Murat became a translator on the Madeleine case

But elsewhere…

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

…we find an alternative explanation for how Robert Murat became a translator in Portugal in connection with Madeleine’s disappearance:

QUOTE

Staff from Bill Henderson’s office suggested the name of Robert Murat as a reliable translator who could be used in the police inquiry, in the days following Madeleine McCann disappearance. Murat was already known among diplomatic staff, as he had letters of recommendation from Norfolk Police, where he worked for Bernard Matthews, one of the largest poultry farm companies in UK, which employs hundreds of Portuguese workers. The fact that Robert Murat has acted, before, as translator for Norfolk Police, and the recommendation issued by Bill Henderson’s office, at the time the British consul in Algarve, took police to accept the suggestion, according to PJ [Portuguese Police] sources. After Murat was named a formal suspect, the police went through all translations he had done, checking their accuracy, but no problem was found, according to the same sources. Bill Henderson retired from his diplomatic post and went back to the U.K. in August.

UNQUOTE