Re: The Creche Sheets

by kaz 30.01.17 16:16

I’m really unsure of how the crèche sheets could be ‘forged.’ For a start wouldn’t the other parents have something to say if their children’s names appeared on a sheet fraudulently? I could understand better if Madeleine’s name always appeared first or last on the list but it appears in various places where insertion would be impossible. The timings generally tie in with the twins’ arrival/ exit at/ from their crèche too.

If this is a case of forged crèche sheets it concerns several families not just the McCanns . The net just keeps getting wider.

If Madeleine met her demise sometime Sunday evening or Monday why would the crèche records be ‘forged’ on the Sunday ? What would be the purpose? If someone could explain to me how it was all done , I’d be grateful.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.17 17:26

kaz wrote:I’m really unsure of how the crèche sheets could be ‘forged.’ For a start wouldn’t the other parents have something to say if their children’s names appeared on a sheet fraudulently? I could understand better if Madeleine’s name always appeared first or last on the list but it appears in various places where insertion would be impossible. The timings generally tie in with the twins’ arrival/ exit at/ from their crèche too.

If this is a case of forged crèche sheets it concerns several families not just the McCanns . The net just keeps getting wider.

If Madeleine met her demise sometime Sunday evening or Monday why would the crèche records be ‘forged’ on the Sunday ? What would be the purpose? If someone could explain to me how it was all done , I’d be grateful.

@ kaz These are good and fair questions. I am going to try and give a long and full answer.

Consideration of my suggestions will require (a) suspending certain previous assumptions and also (b) considering very carefully the chart of timings of drop-offs and collections of Madeleine and the twins that I've set out below.

So I begin with a scenario where something serious happens to Madeleine on, say, Sunday night. Not saying that that happened, but suppose for a moment that it did. Suppose, secondly, that the McCanns and Cat Baker knew each other before April 2007 (for which there is some evidence, but no absolute proof). Suppose, thirdly, that Cat Baker knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there. Bear in mind finally that, presumably, none of the other parents, apart of course from Russell O'Brien, would have known Madeleine prior to the holiday.

In answer to your question about Sunday, we may presume that Madeleine was at the creche as stated.

For the other days, if we go by the above scenario, then one of the McCanns drops off the twins as per usual, while one or other of the McCanns goes to the Lobsters, and signs Madeleine I nand out even though she isn't there. All that needs is the co-operation of one other person - namely, Cat Baker.

This is only a scenario, just thinking aloud.

Now please have a look at the chart below and consider the above scenario in relation to the strange timings seen below:

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

Crèche timings

As the crèche for the twins was at the Tapas restaurant, near Apartment G5A, and Madeleine’s Lobster group was several minutes’ walk away at the Main Ocean club reception, normal procedure would be to drop off the twins first and then collect Madeleine first and come back for the twins on the way back to the apartment.

Thus the normal routine should have been as follows.

Mornings:

Drop-off: TWINS first, then MADELEINE

Collection: MADELEINE first, then TWINS

Afternoons:

Drop-off: TWINS first, then MADELEINE

Collection: MADELEINE first, then TWINS

But it wasn’t – see here:

Maddie S & A Who was dropped off/ By how many minutes?
collected first

Sun

9.45

12.15

14.45 14.35 TWINS 10

17.30 17.10 TWINS 20

Mon

9.30 9.20 TWINS 20

12.10 12.20 MADELEINE 10

15.15 15.25 MADELEINE 10

15.30 17.20 MADELEINE 10

Tuesday

9.30 9.20 TWINS 10

12.20 12.20 Same

14.30 14.30 Same

- 17.20

Weds

9.20 9.10 TWINS 10

12.30 12.25 TWINS 5

14.45 14.40 TWINS 5

17.30 17.20 TWINS 10

Thurs

9.10 -

12.25 -

14.50 14.45 TWINS 5

17.30 17.25 TWINS 5

by kaz 31.01.17 9:41

Thanks for that Mr Bennett . A lot to think on. Just a couple of thoughts: It seems to me that the crèche sheets reflect reality right up to Monday afternoon when Madeleine was signed out of the crèche after being there for 45 minutes only. I can’t think that a short visit like this would be fraudulently entered if it hadn’t happened. Keep it simple would be the aim I’d have thought.
Interestingly it appears that Ella was also signed out early after only 45 minutes the previous afternoon , Sunday . I can’t see anything in the statements to explain why that was the case. Apparently the child’s foot was giving her trouble so she wasn’t taken to the crèche on Sunday morning but there’s no mention of a fleeting afternoon visit or why she was removed. Nothing about what the parents were doing that afternoon either…………………that I can see anyway…………….Sunday afternoon is hardly mentioned

by roz 31.01.17 12:08

This is what I have charted;
Sunday morning                K signs IN Madeleine 9.45          G signs Madeleine OUT 12.15
I do not see a problem here, apart from having no record of Sunday morning session for twins.
Sunday afternoon                 K signs twins IN 2.35                G signs twins OUT 5.30
                                      G signs Madeleine IN 2.45          K signs Madeleine OUT 5.30
I do not see a problem here. (Possibly the children were led to the Tapas for High Tea and parents signed there at 5.30.)
Monday morning               G signs twins IN first 9.20           G signs Madeleine OUT 12.10
                                      G signs Madeleine IN 9.30          G signs twins OUT 12.15
I do not see a problem here.
Monday afternoon              K signs Madeleine IN first 3.15   KM Mc signs Madeleine OUT 3.35
                                      K signs twins IN 3.25                  K (?) signs twins OUT 5.20
I do see a problem here.
Did Kate walk with Madeleine, with the twins in tow, to the Mini Club? If so, where was Gerry? (We have no tennis records for Monday.)
Did Kate walk with Madeleine, without the twins in tow, but left them with someone until she got back from the Mini Club?
Why did Kate walk straight back to the Mini Club after leaving the twins in the Tapas crèche?
Why did Kate sign Madeleine out after 20 minutes?
Kate used the initials KM for the first, and only time that week; KM Mc Cann (Kate Marie – 3.35)
I would question as to whether that is Kate’s signature -17.20

by Guest 31.01.17 12:34

.

Tony Bennett wrote:
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:

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

Ooops - I stand corrected sad

.

The odd bit of chastisement never did anyone any harm - I admit to being a trifle lackadaisical with detail + of course sometimes ones facetiousness is misunderstood.

smilie

I blame my laptop angrypcuser

.

by roz 01.02.17 7:02

I am having problems with the possible scenario that Cat Baker ‘knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there’. (TB I think it was.)
I do not believe the first part of that. I do not believe that anyone outside of the Tapas group, (apart from Murat, British government and security services), would have known that ‘something serious’ had happened to Madeleine, certainly not Cat Baker.
I do believe that Cat Baker was aware of Madeleine’s name being added and signed in and out each day. I do believe that once noticed, she would have been puzzled by this. I believe that possibly ‘gift-of-the-gab-Gerry’ met with Cat B on the Wednesday afternoon during beach trip – (See statement Kirsty Louise Maryan where Cat appears to be absent.)
Whatever G said to her, at whatever time, I do not believe that it would have been, ‘that something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

by JRP 01.02.17 11:22

roz wrote:I am having problems with the possible scenario that Cat Baker ‘knew that something serious had happened to Madeleine on the Sunday night and agreed to allow one or other of the McCanns to sign in Madeleine without her being there’. (TB I think it was.)
I do not believe the first part of that. I do not believe that anyone outside of the Tapas group, (apart from Murat, British government and security services), would have known that ‘something serious’ had happened to Madeleine, certainly not Cat Baker.
I do believe that Cat Baker was aware of Madeleine’s name being added and signed in and out each day. I do believe that once noticed, she would have been puzzled by this. I believe that possibly ‘gift-of-the-gab-Gerry’ met with Cat B on the Wednesday afternoon during beach trip – (See statement Kirsty Louise Maryan where Cat appears to be absent.)
Whatever G said to her, at whatever time, I do not believe that it would have been, ‘that something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

There are a couple of theories surrounding the creche sheets.
A guy called Dewy Leonard, who I believe is a member here but mainly posts on Twitter as @kikoratton has a theory that Madeleine was replaced by a child whom Gerry borrowed from another family. Her name was also Madeline (different spelling).
Dewy Leonard's theory has us believe that Cat Baker didn't notice the swap, even though she must have met the real Madeleine at some point during Saturday and/or Sunday.
It is all very interesting, but of course, this theory relies on the McCanns confiding in another family their need to borrow a child.

The other theory belongs to Hideho, where Gerry or Kate turn up every day and sign Madeline in and out of the creche, but they don't deliver Madeleine in person. She exists only as a name on the creche sheet, and isn't physically present. Hideho's theory is based upon Cat Baker being too busy to notice she is one child down, despite the fact that she only has between 7 and 4 children under her care during the week. It is only 6 - 3 children if we take the phantom Madeleine out of the actual figures.

The Lobster group creche sheets state:
Sunday morning 6 children attended the Lobster group under Cat Bakers supervision, and in the afternoon she had 5.
Monday morning 6 attended creche, and in the afternoon there were 5.
Tuesday shows 6 in the morning, and 7 in the afternoon.
Wednesday shows 7 in the morning, and 4 in the afternoon.
Thursday shows 6 signed in during the morning, and only 4 signed in for the afternoon.

I guess the argument could be made that the creche sheet is on a desk out of sight of the nannies, I don't know if that is true, and I doubt anyone else does. Or, an argument could be made that Cat Baker didn't look at the creche sheets too closely as they aren't important.
But... she signs the sheets herself. She signs Madeleine out as "Cat nanny" and other children too, on various occasions.
How does Cat Baker sign a child out of the creche, if that child is not physically there?

Kate McCann stated that on Thursday 3rd she became Kate McCann because that's what the press called her. Up until this point in time she had used her maiden name, Kate Healy. So why are the creche sheets signed Kate McCann?

Which is more likely?
Cat Baker kept accurate creche sheets and Madeline attended as shown.
Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns because they used a borrowed child.
Cat Baker was duped into thinking Madeleine attended creche because her name was on a sheet.
Cat Baker knew Madeleine wasn't attending the creche.

by kaz 01.02.17 13:48

I think it’s quite possible that Cat Baker was duped into thinking Madeleine attended the creche because her name was on a sheet.

She obviously was a very poor record keeper allowing parents ( did she even check? ) to take their children without signing them out. Quite possibly after the last child left the creche for the afternoon she just signed her name in all the blanks where signatures should have been. Maybe she felt intimidated by the ‘professional status’ of the parents and didn’t have the confidence to insist on proper record keeping as she should have. Possibly she was distracted with other children as kids came and went.
Monday afternoon presents a different scenario with only Kate signing in all the children. As Roz says there’s no sign of Gerry but why would Kate struggle on her own with all three children? Could she even cope with it? Why would she drop off Madeleine , then the twins and then pick up Madeleine again? Like Gerry said, confusion is good. Was it all designed to confuse the poor nanny? My guess is she kept quiet whatever her reservations were because she was afraid of being found out as an incompetent. Maybe she was told HER negligence was actionable. Make no mistake, it WAS negligent. . Possibly it suited them all. Warners included.

I can’t find it now but there is a statement where Cat gets the number of children in her charge on the Thursday incorrect. ………………………..short of one I believe.

by JRP 01.02.17 14:39

Was Cat Baker also duped into stating the Mc's went on trips or activities with her and Madeleine? I just don't get this at all.
I wonder, why would any parent accompany their own child on a creche activity with a nanny?

Surely the point of leaving your child in the care of a creche or a nanny is so you can go and do other things?
Otherwise you might as well forget the walk to the creche, pack all your kids up and go and do what families do... see the the local sights, go for a meal, enjoy watching your children play, go to the beach, take them on the water, hire a damn boat, tire them out... it just doesn't add up.

by roz 01.02.17 14:43

I think Cat must have realized at some point – possibly Tuesday towards the end of the crèche session (where Madeleine’s name had been written in the two lines between am and pm.) Maybe Cat phoned G or K. Possibly Cat agreed to meet with G the next day. Possibly Cat was duped by Gerry saying something like; We are going to sign Madeleine in to the crèche, but it is for tax/insurance purposes of course wee bonny lass, nudge, nudge. And we Scottish, like a lot of people, do love a wee bargain…We doctors can claim it back on our holiday expenses…. And of course we intend to take her for bonny little outings instead, but nobody else needs to know that ya wee bonny lass ya….……
I think more likely that type of scenario, than Cat being told that ‘something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

by JRP 01.02.17 14:49

roz wrote:I think Cat must have realized at some point – possibly Tuesday towards the end of the crèche session (where Madeleine’s name had been written in the two lines between am and pm.) Maybe Cat phoned G or K. Possibly Cat agreed to meet with G the next day. Possibly Cat was duped by Gerry saying something like; We are going to sign Madeleine in to the crèche, but it is for tax/insurance purposes of course wee bonny lass, nudge, nudge. And we Scottish, like a lot of people, do love a wee bargain…We doctors can claim it back on our holiday expenses…. And of course we intend to take her for bonny little outings instead, but nobody else needs to know that ya wee bonny lass ya….……
I think more likely that type of scenario, than Cat being told that ‘something serious had happened to Madeleine’.

Childcare is and was free for children aged 2 to 17 years at MW resorts, it was a big selling point.

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

by kaz 01.02.17 15:25

JRP wrote:Was Cat Baker also duped into stating the Mc's went on trips or activities with her and Madeleine? I just don't get this at all.
I wonder, why would any parent accompany their own child on a creche activity with a nanny?

Surely the point of leaving your child in the care of a creche or a nanny is so you can go and do other things?
Otherwise you might as well forget the walk to the creche, pack all your kids up and go and do what families do... see the the local sights, go for a meal, enjoy watching your children play, go to the beach, take them on the water, hire a damn boat, tire them out... it just doesn't add up.

I think you've totally misunderstood my post.

I’m not is suggesting that Cat was duped into believing that Madeleine was there when she wasn’t for the whole week or that the McCanns accompanied Madeleine on activities ( despite what Cat says in her statement ) I do believe that as far as record keeping she was incompetent and that possibly the McCanns tried to exploit this on the Monday afternoon . She may well have gone along with the McCanns version of events with a threat of negligence action against her and maybe also Warners . It seems from the crèche records that anybody could have waltzed in and taken a child …………………………no signature necessary.

by JRP 01.02.17 21:36

Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], my post wasn't in reply to yours.

What we have is evidence that a child could be taken from the creche without a parents signature on the sheet.
That doesn't mean that Cat Baker didn't know the child had been taken, it simply means she allowed a child to leave without a parental signature.

I think there is more to this than meets the eye, but I don't know what it is.

by NickE 02.02.17 12:30

Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

by sar 02.02.17 12:53

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

Hi NickE, hope your well. Some great developments recently, good news!

Yes, always thought some sort of un official babysitting went on.

by kaz 02.02.17 12:59

I can’t help but think there was a ‘quid pro quo’ situation between Cat, the McCanns and possibly Warners. The situation would have to have been one that incriminated the McCanns quite heavily . Otherwise it would have been compensation time! It would certainly explain Cat baker’s subsequent statements, continued relationship with the McCanns and hasty removal from the complex. IMO.

by JRP 02.02.17 22:57

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes I have thought similar.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Taking that scenario, it also goes some way to explaining the arrival of risk management.

by MayMuse 03.02.17 2:38

sar wrote:
NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occured?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?
Hi NickE, hope your well. Some great developments recently, good news!

Yes, always thought some sort of un official babysitting went on.

Unofficial babysitting plus one Tapas????????
Thinking out loud!

by NickE 03.02.17 22:17

kaz wrote:I can’t help but think there was a ‘quid pro quo’ situation between Cat, the McCanns and possibly Warners. The situation would have to have been one that incriminated the McCanns quite heavily . Otherwise it would have been compensation time! It would certainly explain Cat baker’s subsequent statements, continued relationship with the McCanns and hasty removal from the complex. IMO.

I would gladly pay a dime or two for access to the phone records that belonged to the OC mangement and the outgoing phonecalls from OC landlines, Sunday evening and forward that week.

by roz 11.02.17 5:54

I do not believe that the day-time crèche facilities were all free. Here is examples from Mark Warner, Rhodes. (not 2007 prices.)
Mini Club (3-5 years)
The Mini Club runs a daily schedule of fun throughout the week, supervised by a high ratio of nannies to children, with a good balance of indoor and outdoor activities. We strongly recommend pre-booking this club in the UK.
6 Mornings: 9am to 12.30pm - FREE
6 Afternoons: 2.30pm to 5.30pm - FREE
6 Full days: 9am to 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm - £180 per week
2 Year olds: In Toddler 2 Club we strive to maintain a ratio of one nanny to four children and the same nanny for each child throughout the week.
6 Mornings: 9am to 12.30pm - FREE
6 Afternoons: 2.30pm to 5.30pm - FREE
6 Full days: 9am to 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm - £180 per week

by roz 11.02.17 10:12

I have just come across something from HideHo- so I have to do the same as her/him and retract my previous comments re cost of crèche.
by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 23.10.15 22:31
One thing I would like to correct is an earlier comment regarding creche charges...

I had posted this as it corresponded with the charges from when I posted earlier in the case...it was INCORRECT INFORMATION and I apologise... There were NO EXTRA CHARGES for the mini club in 2007. (Only Baby Club and Toddlers 1) I haven't confirmed the day it started (January 2008 possibly)

by **Tony Bennett** 11.02.17 10:48

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night.

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

by MayMuse 11.02.17 15:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?
@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night.

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club.
So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable.

Must have missed the info of the phone call to Lourenço possible relative, very strange, and now cement she for me all the subsequent "not a tourist " , did the Pj pursue this call, or find out who was manning the desk at that time ? Many "hotel receptions" ( granted from my experience it may be the Uk ) have codes to press which shows who is using the phone or a number which gives an outside line to show non use from a member of staff, I wonder if the OC had a similar system?

by noddy100 11.02.17 15:10

If there was an accident the first thing a babysitter may do is call the parents. They could have come back and 'took over' the situation and convinced CB that she could be in trouble so let them deal with it???

by **Tony Bennett** 11.02.17 15:44

MayMuse wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?
@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night.

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.
If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club.

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner.

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable.

REPLY: Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

by **Jill Havern** 11.02.17 16:17

noddy100 wrote:If there was an accident the first thing a babysitter may do is call the parents. They could have come back and 'took over' the situation and convinced CB that she could be in trouble so let them deal with it???

Really?

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

by MayMuse 11.02.17 17:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?
@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night.

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.
If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club.

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner.

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable.

REPLY: Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

Thank you for your response Tony, it does all appear to be extremely operational from day one But why continue for ten years, why has this particular child continually been almost force fed to the public from many avenues, other missing children have not been afforded the same or their parents touted like celebrities? If it is a case of national security in what capacity would that be, because of high profile persons connected? Perhaps the link is something which would open another can of worms which the public cannot find out at any cost? The deception is so blatantly obvious, why not let it fade into the background, if all these "authorities" are trying to hide something bigger, why keep it up, surely they could have shut it down years ago, this is something which I've thought about often. This case in my opinion has made a laughing stock of the police force and the government.

The makeup photo is a strange one, not least as to how it was released, but why, it is as if it was either a message to someone or to instill more confusion and suggestions that paedophillia may be involved. Is this a red herring?

There seems to be many "directions" with many interferences, if it was a simple case of an accident surely there would be no requirements for such involvement, likewise IF an abduction!

What sticks in my mind is the hand written Fund Bucket so readily made in those early days... when has any other missing child's family done that?

by NickE 11.02.17 20:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?
@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night.

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.
If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club.

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner.

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable.

REPLY: Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

Do you think it's just a coincident that "Anexo 37" (Tapas 9 phone contacts April 28-May 1) is a"missing file" or is it another sign that indicates that something happened on Sunday?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.02.17 21:02

MayMuse wrote:

Thank you for your response Tony, it does all appear to be extremely operational from day one But why continue for ten years, why has this particular child continually been almost force fed to the public from many avenues, other missing children have not been afforded the same or their parents touted like celebrities? If it is a case of national security in what capacity would that be, because of high profile persons connected? Perhaps the link is something which would open another can of worms which the public cannot find out at any cost? The deception is so blatantly obvious, why not let it fade into the background, if all these "authorities" are trying to hide something bigger, why keep it up, surely they could have shut it down years ago, this is something which I've thought about often. This case in my opinion has made a laughing stock of the police force and the government.

The makeup photo is a strange one, not least as to how it was released, but why, it is as if it was either a message to someone or to instill more confusion and suggestions that paedophillia may be involved. Is this a red herring?

There seems to be many "directions" with many interferences, if it was a simple case of an accident surely there would be no requirements for such involvement, likewise IF an abduction!

What sticks in my mind is the hand written Fund Bucket so readily made in those early days... when has any other missing child's family done that?

Many good questions and points there @ MayMuse - but few of which we can answer, all we can do is look for clues in all of this.

Here are a few clues IMO

1. The career of Clarence Mitchell.
2005 - moves from Chief Crime Correspondent at the BBC to head up Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit >>> May 2007 diverted to head up the 'Madeleine McCann-abduction' PR efforts (for 10 years now!) >>> David Cameron appoints him Deputy Director of Communications, under former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson, in 2010, to help his campaign to become Prime Minister >>> selected to become Conservative Party candidate at 2015 General Election. CONCLUSION: He is a big fish in a big pond and swims right alongside the highest figures in the British establishment THEREFORE something very big indeed is involved

2. The strangely close nexus between the McCanns and Jim Gamble. I won't elaborate on that here but would refer you to Jill's recent piece on Gamble in 'Rogue of the Day' and my article on CMOMM: 'The McCanns and Jim Gamble - Joined at the Hip'
QUESTION: Why, why does Jim Gamble stick to the McCanns 'closer than a brother'?

3. The use to which the McCanns have been put...
A. Promoting various Missing Children schemes, like the Amber Alert scheme promoted by the European Union (the McCanns addressed the European Parliament I think in 2008)
B. Specifically, heavily promoting the controversial Missing Persons group as their Ambassador
C. Attacking 'internet trolls' and calling for a clampdown on he internet, leading to the death of Brenda Leyland
D. Being used mightily as 'front man and woman' for the ghastly 'Hacked Off' campaign which aims to suppress press freedom, and
E. Raising lots of money - who really knows how much money has been raised and exactly where it has all gone?
CONCLUSION: Powerful people and organisations make use of the McCanns

by MayMuse 11.02.17 21:33

@TonyBennett

Thank you the information, more food for thought.
Money laundering and/or gathering and diverse tactics comes to mind.

Connections, Portugal, Uk, Irish and Scottish.
Who knew who where and when?

Talk of Freemasons etc may be a remote link but not, I think the sole reason for such a cover up over a crime on a little girl, and what a crime it is in my opinion.

Therefore whatever happened to Madeleine, needless to say to hide or even support the crime, could it have been been presented as an opportune time to do "big business"?

Thinking outloud!