MMC 15 minutes at the Creche

by tuom 17.07.12 22:47

I was looking at the creche signing in/out sheets.

On the 30th April (hope I have that date right now) MMC was signed in for only 15 minutes in the afternoon , as she was practically there twice a day , is it not strange that none of the creche workers remarked on it i.e. if it was me the fact that one of her parents or someone else took her back out in such a short time would be something I would remember , likewise if MMC had a tantrum or whatever one would remember that too, strange one that[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 17.07.12 22:57

keep reading tuom...........a lot of what the creche workers say is a bit strange ! as are those creche sheets, take a look at the entries for Elizabeth Naylor and Ella O Brien....

it is also strange that Kate is silent about most of this day in her book, despite it being rather out of kilter with the rather rigid routine...

by anil39200 18.07.12 0:16

Hope this doesnt sound silly. There does not seem to be much rigour in thr wsy the company recruitef childcare staff and pay would not have been great I imagine. So what level of accuracy can be attributed to the creche sheets as evidence? Just a thought having lived on a holiday park for a while, sometimes records like this can be a little erm relaxed.

by **tigger** 18.07.12 6:40

anil39200 wrote:Hope this doesnt sound silly. There does not seem to be much rigour in thr wsy the company recruitef childcare staff and pay would not have been great I imagine. So what level of accuracy can be attributed to the creche sheets as evidence? Just a thought having lived on a holiday park for a while, sometimes records like this can be a little erm relaxed.

Imo the creche sheets are interesting. The nannies - I imagine - would be easily distracted by other children. They had no qualifications in childcare and I'd be interested to know whether any of them had learned basic first aid. These were girls on a working holiday basically. The McCanns took particular care to befriend the two nannies who were most crucial to the investigation, Pennington and Baker.

In the above example, the 15 minutes creche attendance, one might look for other activities taking place.
The phone pings are fascinating and definitely point to something going on at an early date. Especially since the McCanns denied making many of the calls.

by Liz Eagles 18.07.12 7:12

tigger wrote:
anil39200 wrote:Hope this doesnt sound silly. There does not seem to be much rigour in thr wsy the company recruitef childcare staff and pay would not have been great I imagine. So what level of accuracy can be attributed to the creche sheets as evidence? Just a thought having lived on a holiday park for a while, sometimes records like this can be a little erm relaxed.

Imo the creche sheets are interesting. The nannies - I imagine - would be easily distracted by other children. They had no qualifications in childcare and I'd be interested to know whether any of them had learned basic first aid. These were girls on a working holiday basically. The McCanns took particular care to befriend the two nannies who were most crucial to the investigation, Pennington and Baker.

In the above example, the 15 minutes creche attendance, one might look for other activities taking place.
The phone pings are fascinating and definitely point to something going on at an early date. Especially since the McCanns denied making many of the calls.

Good morning Tigger,

There is also the point that it was very convenient for intelligent, 'caring', 'responsible' parents whose children were extra special due to the IVF struggle (their point not mine), to drop their kids off at a holiday resort's creche within a day, without checking on the credentials of the staff. How easy to blame other people. I wager they wouldn't have left their children in any old care in UK. It's just too convenient imo. I haven't seen the McCann's publish anything about the credentials of MW's staff in their search. All that money paid to private investigators and they haven't made a statement that MW's staff and staffing policies are acceptable.

by tuom 18.07.12 9:54

tigger wrote:
anil39200 wrote:Hope this doesnt sound silly. There does not seem to be much rigour in thr wsy the company recruitef childcare staff and pay would not have been great I imagine. So what level of accuracy can be attributed to the creche sheets as evidence? Just a thought having lived on a holiday park for a while, sometimes records like this can be a little erm relaxed.

Imo the creche sheets are interesting. The nannies - I imagine - would be easily distracted by other children. They had no qualifications in childcare and I'd be interested to know whether any of them had learned basic first aid. These were girls on a working holiday basically. The McCanns took particular care to befriend the two nannies who were most crucial to the investigation, Pennington and Baker.

In the above example, the 15 minutes creche attendance, one might look for other activities taking place.
The phone pings are fascinating and definitely point to something going on at an early date. Especially since the McCanns denied making many of the calls.

Thank you RD for that I am reading all the creche and times at present, I am going to concentrate on the creche workers statement and also the day re: the 15 mins , Tigger and Anil I take your point about how qualified these ladies were , I know here in Ireland anyone working in childcare or elderly has to be Garda vetted ( I work in the social work area) so that is how I am aware of that. I will be buried for much of this evening in the creche case files so will post later [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 18.07.12 12:02

Hello again tuom,
The problem with the creche sheets is that they do appear to be sloppily kept, some of the days there aren't any signatures for dropping off and/or picking up the children, someimes a nanny signs in place of a parent.
They do look as if they have been tampered with, either at the time of entries or before they were passed to the police, maybe both.
If you manage to take a look at the mistakes made with regard to Russell O Brien, not only do signatures look forged, the wrong name for his daughter is entered on one occasion and the wrong apartment number is entered.
There is a big flag over the entries for Elizabeth Naylor, look at the way the capital As are written in the names NAYLOR MADELEINE and MCCANN, there is a little flick on the A. Both entries look to be written by the same hand, so the question is was Gerry McCann entering another child as a favour to a man he did not know [ let's say this man was dashing off to some booked activity]? Why would anyone do this and how did he also manage to enter a mobile phone contact number for this person? And more odd, why did Gerry McCann not sign his own name, maybe double bracketing the signatures, to show he had signed in the Naylor girl along with Madeleine? Instead it looks as if Mr Naylor's signature has been forged.
I have asked myself numerous times about the plausibility of a sub being used, even wondering if, instead of signing in another girl as Maddie, Madeleine's name was entered when in fact Gerry did not have any girl with him, the nannies and children all milling around and there was an opportunity if creche workers were distracted. That seems more implausible than the sub theory when I think about it and try to visualise it happening.
The creche sheets are well worht studying if you find the time, something very strange was happening with them from the first full day of the holiday, 29th April.

by monkey mind 18.07.12 14:34

russiandoll wrote: Hello again tuom,
The problem with the creche sheets is that they do appear to be sloppily kept, some of the days there aren't any signatures for dropping off and/or picking up the children, someimes a nanny signs in place of a parent.
They do look as if they have been tampered with, either at the time of entries or before they were passed to the police, maybe both.
If you manage to take a look at the mistakes made with regard to Russell O Brien, not only do signatures look forged, the wrong name for his daughter is entered on one occasion and the wrong apartment number is entered.
There is a big flag over the entries for Elizabeth Naylor, look at the way the capital As are written in the names NAYLOR MADELEINE and MCCANN, there is a little flick on the A. Both entries look to be written by the same hand, so the question is was Gerry McCann entering another child as a favour to a man he did not know [ let's say this man was dashing off to some booked activity]? Why would anyone do this and how did he also manage to enter a mobile phone contact number for this person? And more odd, why did Gerry McCann not sign his own name, maybe double bracketing the signatures, to show he had signed in the Naylor girl along with Madeleine? Instead it looks as if Mr Naylor's signature has been forged.
I have asked myself numerous times about the plausibility of a sub being used, even wondering if, instead of signing in another girl as Maddie, Madeleine's name was entered when in fact Gerry did not have any girl with him, the nannies and children all milling around and there was an opportunity if creche workers were distracted. That seems more implausible than the sub theory when I think about it and try to visualise it happening.
The creche sheets are well worht studying if you find the time, something very strange was happening with them from the first full day of the holiday, 29th April.

I second all that....

by tuom 19.07.12 19:59

russiandoll wrote: keep reading tuom...........a lot of what the creche workers say is a bit strange ! as are those creche sheets, take a look at the entries for Elizabeth Naylor and Ella O Brien....

it is also strange that Kate is silent about most of this day in her book, despite it being rather out of kilter with the rather rigid routine...

Well the creche records make very interesting reading , I would certainly question the validity of them , I have read the posts and the records however I still come back to my original question , in all the interviews and statements the fact that MMC only spent 15 in the creche is weird , it has never been mentioned by TM , the nannies , something caused this to happen . If KMC and GMC were planning on going somewhere surely they would have collected the twins also , if this timing is truthful IMO I would have expected an explanation like " We wanted some one to one quality time with MMC" I know I know you all think I have lost my reason.

The other fact I find strange and I know its been posted before is the nanny went to visit the MC at "their" invitation ........ hello what is that all about [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by anil39200 19.07.12 20:13

Has anyone had access to previous creche records from other weeks to see if they were as sloppy. Like I said earlier holiday places are not always the nest at keeping records. Othrr than money records that is.

by tuom 19.07.12 20:24

anil39200 wrote:Has anyone had access to previous creche records from other weeks to see if they were as sloppy. Like I said earlier holiday places are not always the nest at keeping records. Othrr than money records that is.

My feeling would be that the creche records for weeks prior to MMC would be very sloppy indeed , I think the ones for 28/4 3/5 have IMO been tampered with to make things fit , while there was probably nothing wrong with them (as in the odd parent not signing out etc) when MMC went missing they MW may have felt the need to tie up loose ends , not knowing how this story was going to go worldwide and the records would end up in the public domain as on this forum where they are open to scrutiny.

by One 19.07.12 21:18

I've spent a lot of time with the records trying to logic it all too. I liked the substitute idea because it explained a lot and offered some possibilities.

I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible. I also feel that the others wouldn't have cooperated as easily even if they had been mislead. Who would risk their whole future?

I find it interesting that on the first day the McCanns didn't seem to be at all bothered by any activities like the creche or tennis. But by the following morning they seem to have a schedule for their holiday that maps everything out in more detail than a hectic day of work. Breakfast, creche, tennis, photo shoots, broken shutters, shopping, creche again, lunch, more creche, more tennis/jogging, creche and kiddies dinner, bath, supper, stories, NZ wine, tapas, some bickering and crying thrown in and then bed. I know Kate isn't a typical mother (because after all she's too skinny and has no boobs) but I don't buy the routine, even the creche. I think that maybe records were a bit thin on the ground and it might have been suggested to someone that a bit of fudging here and there would be appreciated. From reading the witness statements the pay was pretty bad. And why would a few changes in the earlier few days make if the "abduction" happened on 3rd? CP was helpful to a fault and CB was too close to the couple for my liking. I'm not suggesting they intended being dishonest.

I think that something happened in a wider circle than T9. And I think it involved something in the circle of someone who can't be mentioned. I also think that they were given their lines and their roles and some were executed well and some weren't. I think there was mistrust and defiance and consequences.

by **tigger** 19.07.12 21:22

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

Have you had a look at the above as well? HideHo's blog.

by tuom 19.07.12 22:44

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

Have you had a look at the above as well? HideHo's blog.

Thank You .......lots to read there [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 20.07.12 9:09

tuom ,the 15 minutes in creche is certainly a big issue in the context of this holiday, many other members including myself have remarked on Maddie being absent from creche for a couple of hours until twins were collected as usual at tea time. She was elsewhere presumably under adult supervision and I have asked in more or less the same words as you, why in her diary or book has Kate not included as part of her narrative what she has done for every other day of their holiday even if briefly, and here especially as it went outside what appeared a rather rigid routine.....there was perhaps a spontaneous decision as you said for some quality time between Maddie and one or both parents. There might have been a decision to put her down for a nap but mid afternoon is rather late if they wanted her to be tired and sleep soundly for their evening out. Spontaneity was not a feature of this holiday, so remarkable if an impulse to do something with Maddie has not been spoken or written about.
The fact that these hours in the afternoon of 30th April are shrouded in silence is a red flag imo, especially when every mundane detail of bath milk biscuits story is repeated for the evenings.
What I did get bothered about was one poster asking repeatedly a while ago about why Maddie was late for creche one day. This was a drop- in service for parents' convenience [ they were on holiday, not dropping off children when they were on their way to work] and children's fun. So not arriving at 9.00 was no big deal, I would imagine they were free to arrive and leave at any time within opening hours. Not even formal nurseries are run like schools to the best of my knowledge, with L entered in the register for late arrival.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 14:43

One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.

If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 14:51

The afternoon of the apparent 15 minute in out visit is interesting. The Maddie entry is immediately followed by the O’Brien girl booked in at 4.30pm I believe which seems a rather ridiculous time, and clearly, if that was supposed to be Richard O’Brien signing her in then he forgot how to sign in his own name compared to the morning. She wasn’t signed out either. And it appears he forgot what apartment he and his child were staying in, in the morning it was 5B and in the afternoon, 5D.
Strange afternoon.

by **tigger** 20.07.12 15:06

monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?

by tuom 20.07.12 16:22

tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?

Tigger good point, I think I remember reading this , I will try and find the link iirc it was KMC who said to their horror they found the shutters could be opened from the outside , or words to that effect . I too have an uneasy feeling that JW was a spanner in the works , after all if TM & Tapas had been up and down all week as they say they would know if the place was empty and quiet at those times.

by Guest 20.07.12 16:33

tuom wrote:
tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?

Tigger good point, I think I remember reading this , I will try and find the link iirc it was KMC who said to their horror they found the shutters could be opened from the outside , or words to that effect . I too have an uneasy feeling that JW was a spanner in the works , after all if TM & Tapas had been up and down all week as they say they would know if the place was empty and quiet at those times.

This is a very interesting thread on the shutters with lots of information.............

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

by One 20.07.12 21:31

monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

You're right, Monkey Mind, it would have been a different case entirely. But I've been thinking lately about Kate's disclosure moment. I can't find a statement from outside the group for anyone who witnessed it. So if it did happen it was for Diane's benefit. But it meant they had enough time to get things together before people began to arrive. And it would have been the perfect time to tinker with the shutters under the guise of checking to see what went wrong. But instead they did other things like media and the sticker book. To me if it was pre planned they wouldn't have overlooked the detail or needed to rip the sticker book.

by tuom 20.07.12 21:41

One wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

You're right, Monkey Mind, it would have been a different case entirely. But I've been thinking lately about Kate's disclosure moment. I can't find a statement from outside the group for anyone who witnessed it. So if it did happen it was for Diane's benefit. But it meant they had enough time to get things together before people began to arrive. And it would have been the perfect time to tinker with the shutters under the guise of checking to see what went wrong. But instead they did other things like media and the sticker book. To me if it was pre planned they wouldn't have overlooked the detail or needed to rip the sticker book.

I know that this 15 mins in the creche will probably drive me nuts, but, I think there is something to it , as I said before something caused this action.

Now looking back on all the holidays we hae been on there has always been a meltdown with some one of the kids and I have seen other families with children of the ages of the MC have meltdowns. In the statements the daily routine never changed except for the one day they spent "family time" at the beach and even that seems to have been a dismal failure. Now just imagine that MMC was just tired and did ot want to be in the creche and had a tantrum which resulted in the nanny contacting the parents and she was taken out , well there is nothing wrong with that ! like all in this case the silence about this action speaks volumes , I may repost this in "questions I would like to ask TMC" thread. roll

by **tigger** 20.07.12 21:44

There is a lengthy account of a tantrum by Jane Tanner - but it's about her own daughter. However, someone suggested it may have been transference -and may have been Maddie, who by all accounts wasn't an easy child. It might be in the rogatory.

by One 20.07.12 21:46

tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?

I think Kate gives it away in the book in her sentence "Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there". If it wasn't so serious it'd be comical.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 22:12

tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?

In this hypothetical situation, if I had planned it, the shutters would have been seen to be forced for sure leaving the police and anyone else in no doubt of a break in.And to leave nothing to chance, that particular touch would have had to have been added before the alarm were raised. Ideally I suppose around about the time G returned to the appt in the vague region of 9.15pm. But alas the spanner in the works was pushing his child around the streets in his buggy. He wouldn't add credibility to our hypothetical situation rather he would positively feck it up. From then on it would be a salvage operation for an unstoppable train of events was set in motion and that train was moving so very quickly. All that remained was a hope of salvation, but in my dream situation, a window never arose to salve that ation.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 22:20

One wrote:[
You're right, Monkey Mind, it would have been a different case entirely. But I've been thinking lately about Kate's disclosure moment. I can't find a statement from outside the group for anyone who witnessed it. So if it did happen it was for Diane's benefit. But it meant they had enough time to get things together before people began to arrive. And it would have been the perfect time to tinker with the shutters under the guise of checking to see what went wrong. But instead they did other things like media and the sticker book. To me if it was pre planned they wouldn't have overlooked the detail or needed to rip the sticker book.

I am picturing a hypothetical situation with myself at the centre. In the scenario we are considering here there was no time to put right that which went wrong. Since the spanner was thrown in the works the perfect time did not exist. There would have been a small window of opportunity to salvage the scene, for the windows to be seen to be forced but in our hypothetical situation the only person that could have been assigned to set matters right would have been MO, and for whatever reason, he clearly did not do it, and if I were in his shoes, nor would I. But the plan was set in motion and had to continue, in my mind, there would still be time to finesse the matter but once the alarm was raised that all went up in smoke despite my anticipated delay in calling the police. People arrived on scene too quicly and who knows when the police would arrive, called by someone else. In a word, mayhem beyond anticipation. All that is left is to stick to the original plan and set the abduction wheels in motion come what may. Had it not been for the spanner it would have been oh so rosy.
This is just my hypothetical situation you understand and in order to get the story that deviated from the script clear in my own mind I should set it down on paper. Any old bit of paper will do. Perhaps two bits of paper, That first one doesn’t read right.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 22:34

tuom wrote:[I know that this 15 mins in the creche will probably drive me nuts, but, I think there is something to it , as I said before something caused this action.

Now looking back on all the holidays we hae been on there has always been a meltdown with some one of the kids and I have seen other families with children of the ages of the MC have meltdowns. In the statements the daily routine never changed except for the one day they spent "family time" at the beach and even that seems to have been a dismal failure. Now just imagine that MMC was just tired and did ot want to be in the creche and had a tantrum which resulted in the nanny contacting the parents and she was taken out , well there is nothing wrong with that ! like all in this case the silence about this action speaks volumes , I may repost this in "questions I would like to ask TMC" thread.

Tuom, all that could have happened certainly, but it's not just the fifteen minutes is it? As I posted earlier on this thread, the records show that the O'Brien child was signed in at 4.30 pm that day, a most odd time, and she wasn't booked out either. Strangest of all, whoever signed her in in the mornign and afternoon doesn't seem to have been the same person despite trying to do the same person's signature, and whoever that was couldn't remember what apartment they were living in. There appears to be a lot going on that afternoon, indeed, the 30th appears to have been a most unusual day for a number of reasons.

by **Nina** 20.07.12 23:30

monkey mind wrote:
tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?
In this hypothetical situation, if I had planned it, the shutters would have been seen to be forced for sure leaving the police and anyone else in no doubt of a break in.And to leave nothing to chance, that particular touch would have had to have been added before the alarm were raised. Ideally I suppose around about the time G returned to the appt in the vague region of 9.15pm. But alas the spanner in the works was pushing his child around the streets in his buggy. He wouldn't add credibility to our hypothetical situation rather he would positively feck it up. From then on it would be a salvage operation for an unstoppable train of events was set in motion and that train was moving so very quickly. All that remained was a hope of salvation, but in my dream situation, a window never arose to salve that ation.

Good evening monkey mind. It would have been impossible though to have forced the shutters. They can only be raised from the inside with the strap which would have shown just that as the mechanism would have been turned and locked. From the outside the shutters couldn't have been forced up and stay up as the mechanism wouldn't have been turned and been locked. They would just crash down. So if the shutters had been raised when the police arrived they would have known that they were raised from inside the bedroom.

by Ollie 20.07.12 23:43

Nina wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
One wrote:I think if there was a substitute it'd almost have to point to something that was pre planned and with others before the holiday. I feel if this was the case the abduction scene would have been more credible.
If indeed there was no abduction then perhaps, as I have suggested previously, the abduction scenario was intended to appear far more credible than it ultimately did. Even the best laid plans are subject to elements beyond one's control. Personally speaking, if I knew in advance that I was going to tell the world that the shutters to my apartment had been forced, then I should factor into my plan that they should be seen to be forced, to not do so would be the grossest act of stupidity/. The fact that they were not I suggest was not due to bumbling stupidity rather an unforeseen spanner in the works, and that spanner may well have been the unwitting Jeremy Wilkins.

How much more convincing to this day would the abduction appear if the shutters had been seen to be forced. There would be no need for any of this leaving the apartment unlocked and front and back door going in one and out the other seeming nonsense.

Could JW have occasioned a last minute change because he would be a truly independent witness and therefore add to the credibility of the story. Gerry rushed outside immediately after the alarm was raised and tried to raise the shutters. I think there is a witness DW?
According to the bewk they could be raised from outside, but the PJ found them stuck a few inches above the sill?
Perhaps that was one of the many factors that made it a 'disaster'.
So the last minute improvisation proved to be a fatal flaw?
In this hypothetical situation, if I had planned it, the shutters would have been seen to be forced for sure leaving the police and anyone else in no doubt of a break in.And to leave nothing to chance, that particular touch would have had to have been added before the alarm were raised. Ideally I suppose around about the time G returned to the appt in the vague region of 9.15pm. But alas the spanner in the works was pushing his child around the streets in his buggy. He wouldn't add credibility to our hypothetical situation rather he would positively feck it up. From then on it would be a salvage operation for an unstoppable train of events was set in motion and that train was moving so very quickly. All that remained was a hope of salvation, but in my dream situation, a window never arose to salve that ation.

Good evening monkey mind. It would have been impossible though to have forced the shutters. They can only be raised from the inside with the strap which would have shown just that as the mechanism would have been turned and locked. From the outside the shutters couldn't have been forced up and stay up as the mechanism wouldn't have been turned and been locked. They would just crash down. So if the shutters had been raised when the police arrived they would have known that they were raised from inside the bedroom.

I am with monkey mind on this, I posted on another thread a while ago that imo things were supposed to of been set up but was disturbed so couldn't carry it through. Perhaps someone was under the impression that it would be easy to raise the shutters from the outside, never having done it before.

by monkey mind 20.07.12 23:52

Nina wrote:[Good evening monkey mind. It would have been impossible though to have forced the shutters. They can only be raised from the inside with the strap which would have shown just that as the mechanism would have been turned and locked. From the outside the shutters couldn't have been forced up and stay up as the mechanism wouldn't have been turned and been locked. They would just crash down. So if the shutters had been raised when the police arrived they would have known that they were raised from inside the bedroom.

And a very good evening to you Nina!
You yourself know they couldn't be forced from the outside because you have shutters just like those, but would it be apparent to someone not familiar with them? This in itself could explain why the shutters weren't actually forced, quite simply it wasn't possible. In my hypothetical situation, I would tend to vere away from this as an explanation though, for the simple reason that it would be a crucial aspect and even if I discovered at the last minute they couldn't be forced I should at least, thinking on my feet, endeavour to leave evidence that someone had tried, but there was no such evidence.
Asa point of interest wasn't Kate in one of the documentaries describing the window being open and wind blowing the curtains in? If a person did indeed know it was impossible to force those windows from the outside them it is difficult to imagine them saying such a thing.....