Sharon Lewin (Nursery School Worker)

tigger wrote:Afaik they were not. I've been told that it's very unusual to have a passport stamped even then.

Someone here said not long ago that it's likely Maddie's passport was stamped if she wasn't travelling with her parents.

Kate must already have been busy with the next IVF treatment as she would have been pregnant by May 2004.

Hi Tigger - were the passport stamps from 2004 0r 2007?

I did read a rumour somewhere that Jane Tanner was seen in Amsterdam April 2007. Could be total rot, tho'.

missbeetle wrote:

tigger wrote:Afaik they were not. I've been told that it's very unusual to have a passport stamped even then.

Someone here said not long ago that it's likely Maddie's passport was stamped if she wasn't travelling with her parents.

Kate must already have been busy with the next IVF treatment as she would have been pregnant by May 2004.

Hi Tigger - were the passport stamps from 2004 0r 2007?

I did read a rumour somewhere that Jane Tanner was seen in Amsterdam April 2007. Could be total rot, tho'.

2004 definitely. In fact they would link to the photo by the tulips in Aptril. Kate has labelled this as the bulbfields but it looks to me like a garden with houses behind.
She'd be about 11 months and imo doesn't look at all well even then.

Thanks for clearing that up, Tigger.

2004 in Amsterdam...

I had a look at a photo of Madeleine, taken when she attended playgroup with Gerry, and I thought, hmmm...[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I then thought of other photographs from around this time, that have puzzled me in the past...

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

In those days, when it came to Madeleine, her parents did not think pink.

Not only my opinion but the last two photographs aren't Maddie. Kate looks far too young. Someone else, quite some time ago, proved that Gerry is pasted into the 'family' photo, together with the picture behind his head.

I would think Kate was posing with a friend's baby, trying it on for size you might say.

Compare these to the one in the garden with baby Maddie on her hip and Kate with a glass of wine. Even from that distance Maddie doesn't look right to me. Poor little mite.

There's a good discussion of this photograph on 'The Lost Marketing Ploy' blog.

Re the 'think pink': it's only in the last few years that it has been absolutely de rigeur to dress a girl in pink. I can't remember quite when this took hold but it probably hadn't got into full swing back in 2003-4. I used to dress my daughter in red, blue, orange, stripes....... as well as pink but she's in her thirties; times have changed.

Miraflores wrote:Re the 'think pink': it's only in the last few years that it has been absolutely de rigeur to dress a girl in pink. I can't remember quite when this took hold but it probably hadn't got into full swing back in 2003-4. I used to dress my daughter in red, blue, orange, stripes....... as well as pink but she's in her thirties; times have changed.

I can't remember my daughter ever being in pink. She hates pink.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

I can't remember my daughter ever being in pink.  She hates pink.

Mothercare is worst. All the girl's clothes are pink and say "Princess" and all the boys clothes are blue and say "Little Bastard" or similar.

To save anybody else the bother of finding out, Gerry is wearing a Leicester Tigers 2002/3 home shirt in the first photo above. It's pretty irrelevant; I just couldn't help wondering!

Off topic - sorry - but just for useless information, until fairly recent times, pink was the colour for boys and blue was for girls.

It's hard to imagine boys being draped in pink now though.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

I can't remember my daughter ever being in pink.  She hates pink.

Mothercare is worst. All the girl's clothes are pink and say "Princess" and all the boys clothes are blue and say "Little Bastard" or similar.

To save anybody else the bother of finding out, Gerry is wearing a Leicester Tigers 2002/3 home shirt in the first photo above. It's pretty irrelevant; I just couldn't help wondering!

Wasn't it Primark who brought out 'Little Miss Naughty' bikinis? There was quite a lot of adverse publicity about it and right on top of that the wretched blue eyeshadow photo was published. iirc it was an article in The Telegraph mentioning this under the title 'Why the McCanns should never have published this photograph.''

Miraflores wrote:Re the 'think pink': it's only in the last few years that it has been absolutely de rigeur to dress a girl in pink. I can't remember quite when this took hold but it probably hadn't got into full swing back in 2003-4. I used to dress my daughter in red, blue, orange, stripes....... as well as pink but she's in her thirties; times have changed.

It's been in full swing for about 10-12 years now.

Buying my son clothes I'd have to wade through seas of pink and glitter to get to the corner where the boys' section would have a choice of 3 t-shirts and 2 pairs of trousers   

I used to say to Mr Poe that I didn't know which would be worse - having a boy with almost no choice of clothes or a girl and only being able to dress her in pink!

tigger wrote:

Rasputin wrote:

Genbug wrote:In her statement, Kate's friend Karen McCalman also claims to look after Madeleine some days and afternoons. Sorry, can't give a link or anything, I have a new laptop and have absolutely no idea how to do it!

McCalman was Campaign Coordinator for the fund for Over 3 years  , helped with the findmadeleine website and worked for Blackhorse finace , now in the energy sector ... a high flying babysitter !

We should add to that the McCann family who said they helped out and Maddie stayed with them off and on.
Somebody suggested that Kate"s remark on CW that they mostly missed her at family gatherings was because that was mostly when they saw her, suggesting she was elsewhere most of the time.

Eta: fairly recently I translated the comments of a Dutch creche assistant who looked after Maddie. Iirc she said 'talk about dumping your kids! '  apparently Kate would deliver Maddie and be off, no social niceties.

Maddie was only 8 months old when they went to Amsterdam.

Other thing that's always puzzled me is that Maddie's passport shows two Schiphol stamps : the 4th and 7th of April.
Was she visiting Amsterdam for three days or away for three days?

The Paynes looked after Maddie during the Mallorca holiday so the McCanns could have quality time with the twins, who on past evidence were probably fast asleep and less than 6 months old.
So what did the quality time consist of?  Checking to see if they were breathing?   

Maybe the second one was for staying longer than 3/6 months (I don't know what the current timer term is)?

Could you point me to the comments of the Dutch creche assistent and or the entry stamps. I am absolutely hopeless in searching.

bristow wrote:Sounds like poor Madeleine was cared for by everyone, apart from her parents.

Which might have been a blessing.

That's an opinion CR.

lj wrote:

bristow wrote:Sounds like poor Madeleine was cared for by everyone, apart from her parents.

Which might have been a blessing.

That's an opinion CR.

And how strange that people in MBM's nursery school were drafted in on ad hoc arrangements to babysit in the UK but for some reason the Mcs didn't use their established pattern of solving babysitting problems in Portugal. Instead, they calculated it would be safer to go out every night, leaving the children in a dark apartment giving onto a public road and leaving front and back doors unlocked rather than trust the English nannies who cared for them by day, every day.

And what a shame that at least one OC nanny friendship blossomed too late to save MBM.

canada12 wrote:So, my understanding is that Kate only worked part-time during Madeleine's early childhood, while Gerry worked full-time.

Do Kate's part-time working days coincide with the days that Madeleine was in the nursery school? Was she at home when Kate was at home? According to the above, Madeleine was at the nursery school Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Were these the days that Kate worked? Where were the twins, if that was the case? Who was looking after them?

If it turns out these aren't the days that Kate worked, does this mean she packed Madeleine off to the nursery school because she just couldn't cope with a small child at home as well as twin babies?

I'd be interested to know Kate's work schedule at this time.And who was looking after the twins.

According to Kate in her book, she returned to work part-time in November 2003 and Madeleine started at a nursery near their home. "I also knew that nursery would bring a little more variety into Madeleine's world. Leaving her was an incredible wrench at first, but as we settled into our new routine I found it gave me a break of sorts, in terms of something different, at least, and mixing with people." No mention of leaving her at their cleaner/friend's house for two days a week? (Unless the cleaner took her to (day care) nursery for part of the time - but given that Madeline was pre-nursery school age and therefore 'nursery' would mean 'day care' surely you would not pay for both a nanny/child-minder AND day care? Plus it would be disruptive in terms of routine I would think to  have to go from your home to the child-minder's home and THEN to day-care.)

So, according to Kate's book,  Madeleine started at a (day care) nursery at around 6 months old and this arrangement lasted only until January 2004.

 "When Madeleine was seven months old, we rented out our house and moved for a year to Amsterdam, where Gerry had a scholarship to study cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)."

Yet according to their cleaner Amanda Coxon: 

I got to know Gerry and Kate in the year 2000, I worked as a cleaner in their house in Queniborough, once a week. From the beginning they were always a very friendly couple.
During the time I worked there, Kate had her first daughter, Madeleine. Kate asked me whether I would look after Madeleine twice a week when she returned to work part time. I agreed and she would leave Madeleine at my house and come and pick her up later in the day. 


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

So why does Kate in her book say that Madeleine stared at nursery when she went back to work in November 2003? This is contradicted by two  people (there may be more of course!) . Not only by their cleaner Amanda Coxon who claims that she looked after Madeleine at her house when Kate returned to work part-time. But also by nursery school teacher Sharon Lewin who claims that Madeleine started at the nursery when she was about two years old. 

According to Sharon Lewin, Madeleine's nursery school teacher 

"I got to know Madeleine and her parents Kate and Gerry through my work at the nursery school. Madeleine started at the nursery when she was about two years old. <So this would be approx 12th May 2005> When she was two and a half  she joined the group supervised by me, I think it was in 2006, and she remained there for about 6 months. Madeleine attended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to nursery school teacher Hayley Plummer (now owner of the nursery , I do believe, who also used to babysit for the McCann children in the evening with her boyfriend James, Kate's cousin:

Madeleine initially went to the nursery in the mornings but as she got older she would spend the whole day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at the nursery – which she enjoyed very much. Kate would take care of Madeleine on Mondays and Fridays, often taking her for swimming lessons. I have known Madeleine for about three years and she was always under my responsibility at the Laurels nursery.
 
Kate and Gerry would take turns in dropping off and fetching her from the nursery.

Given that Hayley gave this statement to police on 6th May 2008, if she had know Madeleine for three years at the time she gave the statement, that would mean she had known Madeleine since approximately May 2005. So that would be since Madeleine was two years old. Which would appear to be consistent with Sharon Lewin's statement that Madeleine started at the nursery when she was around two years old. 

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

Odd.

However, Kate in her book also records how she returned to work part-time once again when the twins were just over one year old. She got a part-time job as  a GP and also as a clinical tutor to medical students for half a day every week shortly after Sean and Amelie turned one. So that would be in February/March 2006. At which point Madeleine would have been two years and nine months old approx. 

So, WHY does Kate claim that Madeleine started at nursery (day care) at six months old? When it actual fact her nursery teachers say Madeleine started nursery at two years old? Therefore Kate omits any reference to Amanda Coxon working as a nanny/child-minder for Madeleine two days a week from November 2003 until January 2004 when the moved to Amsterdam?.

And WHY does Kate not elaborate on Madeleine's nursery school arrangements at the age of two when both Madeleine's nursery school teachers appear to confirm that Madeleine starting attending the nursery. Firstly in the mornings and then all day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday? No mention in her book of Madeleine (returning?) to nursery in 2005. Which is odd, imo.

While Kate records starting work part-time again when the twins were just over one, in early 2006, she does not elaborate on the child-care arrangements that she made. Which is one hell of an omission. Given that this would necessitate child-care arrangements for two one-year olds and a toddler of two years and nine months! I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it would be to get off to work with three children of this age in the morning! You would need a really good nanny/child-minder to make it work.

And while a day care center is a reasonable option for one (or possibly two) babies/toddlers, it would be incredibly difficult to get three children of this age out of the house in the morning. Not to mention very expensive.

So why no mention at all of child-care arrangements when Kate allegedly returned to work part-time as a GP and as a clinical tutor to medical students in early 2006?

Amanda Coxon rogatory statement:

Kate, Gerry and Madeleine moved to Amsterdam for a year and when they returned Kate was pregnant with the twins. The twins were born in February 2006 and from that time I helped to look after them. 


But the twins were born in 2005, according to Kate's book. 

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

Okay, I can now see that Kate does make a reference to Amanda in her book. On page 38 she describes how the twins were easy babies and 'Madeleine adapted to the changes incredibly well....'

"On weekdays my friend Amanda would come in for a few hours every day, which freed me up to get some of the household chores done and to collect Madeleine from nursery. It mattered to me that I was the one to pick her up. I wanted her to feel as important and as loved as she always had."

So this, therefore, confirms (or not, as the case may be...) that at some point following their return from Amsterdam in December 2004, Madeleine did start attending (or return to, if we are to believe Kate's version) day-care nursery. If the nursery workers version of events is accurate, this would have been around May 2005, when Madeleine was two years old. So Madeleine would have started in day-care, according to staff there, when the twins were four months old. 

(There is one photo of Madeleine sitting cross-legged next to the twins (eating an apple) who are both babies in bouncy-cradle things. I would say she is just over two years old and the twins maybe 4-6 months? I have always found it to be one of the few 'genuine' photos of the McCann children and, imo, it is a picture that tells a thousand words.)

This is all massively glossed over in Kate's book, imo. And I think it is misleading to describe day-care as 'nursery'. The two things are quite distinct. A nursery school is a 3/4 year old child's gentle introduction to the educational system. It is specifically tailored for very young children's first forays into an institution outside family life. Only a few hours a day and very much based on play.

Day-care is a different thing. It offers an alternative to a childminder or a nanny in that babies and pre-school children are looked after in a group setting by staff, sometimes for very many hours in the day and up to five days a week throughout the year. 

Kate muddies the waters of their child-care arrangements, imo. And downplays the logistics and difficulties that are inherent in any kind of babysitting/childcare arrangements for young children.

Nursery child care would cost me in the region of £700-800 a month for 2 kids to attend 2 full days.

Shhh wrote:Nursery child care would cost me in the region of £700-800 a month for 2 kids to attend 2 full days.

There are a few dodges available such as voucher schemes available to certain (public sector?) workers which allow some of the costs to be borne pre-tax but yes, that's the going rate. Not to be taken lightly in conjunction with home improvements, and multiple foreign holidays.

As the day care nursery is owned by a woman whose partner is Kate's cousin, I would not be at all surprised if there was some kind of family 'deal'. The Mcs seem keen on offers, deals. And saving money on child-care. Hence the cleaner doubles up as a babysitter/childminder rather than hiring a nanny. And they don't pay for a babysitter in the evening when they are on holiday. And they use relatives to babysit which might mean it is free, or at least a favor.


And as Kate tells us in her book. There was a day not long after Madeleine disappeared when the parents actually had to go to the Ocean Club creche themselves to pick up the twins at lunch time as all their party had gone to a cafe near the beach.

Poor old Kate and Gerry actually had to interrupt the proceedings at their meeting to go to the Toddler Club themselves and pick up the twins!

But don't worry. They phoned around and found someone else to come back and give the twins lunch!

Phew!

Wouldn't want attending to their two year olds lunch to get in the way of setting up The Fund or arranging media interviews now would we?


Yes, looking after their own children was never high on their list of priorities, imo, as Kate has confirmed in her book.

And I stand by what I wrote up-thread that the glossing over of the childcare arrangements that would have had to have been put into place when Kate went back to work with two one year olds and a two year old is nothing short of extraordinary.

You would probably be quite hard pushed to find a nanny who would want to look after three children of this age as it would be incredibly demanding. The term 'terrible twos' was not coined for nothing. And one year old twins would also be tricky as by this stage babies are becoming quite mobile. Twins are really hard work even if you have no other children. But with a two year old it would really be challenging, imo. Unless you had a big support network and a lot of help.

And given that their cleaner Amanda in her rogatory clearly states that she looked after Madeleine several days a week at her house when Kate went back to work, why does Kate claim in her book that Madeleine started nursery at this time?

A friend of mine had twins when she already had a two year old. Her partner had not been especially keen to have a large family and would have been happy to stick with one but was persuaded that two would be much fairer than having an only child.

She described the first two years as 'hell.'

How does Kate describe day to day life with two one year olds and a two year old and returning to work part-time.

"We were living the family life we'd always wanted and it was everything we dreamed it would be."

Hmmm....