madeleinemccanncontroversy Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
madeleinemccanncontroversy > The NEW HiDeHo CONTROVERSY Group > WELCOME to HDH Controversy & Info Go to subcategory:
Author Content
HiDeHo
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Date Posted:23/01/2018 1:07 AMCopy HTML







See discussions at Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14884-do-you-believe-something-happened-earlier-than-may-3rd-if-so-how-did-the-mccanns-manage-to-deceive-everyone-at-the-creche







DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MADDIE BEFORE 5.30PM MAY 3RD?

 
If so, that would mean that she did not attend the crèche during May 3rd or earlier.

Have you considered how this could be explained?  Catriona, her nanny, claims Maddie was in the crèche during Thursday (and before).  For the record, I DO NOT believe Catriona was lying.

 
Is the following scenario possible?
 
Suggesting that something happened to Maddie before Tuesday morning (when the major discrepancies/contradictions/lies started…likely to hide the truth) then Maddie would have only visited the crèche for a day or two.

What I feel is important to remember, is that the crèche did not follow the strict guidelines of a school, where children were expected to be present and accounted for during the full day.

Children were dropped off and picked up randomly and the register was likely used as a record of where to find the parents if needed  as opposed to a record of their use of the crèche (which was free, so no need to establish cost) 
There were approximately 13 children that used the kids club (3 – 5 yrs old) and were divided into two groups. Lobsters and Sharks. However they all shared the same crèche room and although assigned to specific nannies, were likely interacting together.










We are told that there were several little blonde girls and  I doubt for the first day or two the nannies were able to distinguish between them or notice if one or more of the young children were missing for the rest of the week.

Children arrived and left randomly, and were the records strictly kept where each nanny greeted the parents at the door as they arrived and signed the register, or was the register a requirement to locate the parents and was left‘on the side’ for them to responsibly sign in case the nanny needed to contact them?

Would the nannies scrutinize the register and take special note of who should be there at any specific time during the day? Likely  not.  Once children arrived and doors were closed, the nannies, at the beginning of the season when everything was new and lprobably not all in place, would likely be focused on keeping the children’s attention and dealing with minor issues between the children.

Catriona claims there were bracelets issued to each child and whether used or not, in a room of approximately 13 children, that were only going to be there for less than a week, and sometimes only a couple of hours, remembering their names would likely be secondary to keeping them occupied.  There was no expectation for every child to be in attendance every day and so if one or more was missing, I can’t imagine it being of importance.

Is this the reason that, whether during the week or only Thursday, it may not have been apparent that Maddie was not there?


How could the McCanns have accomplished this deceit? 
How could Catriona claim to have seen Maddie, even though she was not there?


Is it possible that this following scenario explains how the McCanns deceived everyone into believing Maddie was attending the crèche?


JaneTanners daughter was similar in appearance to Maddie. She was only 3 months younger and had similar hair colour..  Her shy personality was very different from what we have been told about Maddie but is it possible that Catriona was 'intimidated' by the knowledge, once Maddie disappeared,  to learn that SHE had been looking after Maddie until that afternoon.  












Did she SPECIFICALLY remember Maddie (by name) as being there or KNOWING (according to the McCanns) that she had been with Maddie that day maybe she was thinking she didn’t recall the name of the child that day (or before) but as far as she was told, Maddie WAS at the crèche and she could have second guessed herself and felt the child that had disappeared must have been the child that resembled who she later learned was Maddie.

If she couldn’t remember EXACTLY the child named Maddie was there that day, (or earlier) there is no way she could have jeopardized her job by claiming shedidn’t remember.

She had been TOLD Maddie was at the crèche that day and as the ‘abduction’happened from the apartment, the crèche was not involved.  However there WAS a BBC Whisteblower program that had criticized a Mark Warner crèche in another location only three weeks prior.  Admitting to not SPECIFICALLY remembering Maddie could jeopardize her credibility for the job



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GvjfPZ8dpgY?wmode=opaque" data-youtube-id="GvjfPZ8dpgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
.

She presumed that Maddie was the child that may or may not have been called ‘Ella’.  Is this the reason that Catriona and many of the other OC staff described ‘Maddie’ as being shy and had the personality of Ella?

It goes without question that,  even though she may not have remembered Maddie specifically, (especially if Maddie was actually only there during the first couple of days) she would give her statements about the child she now believed must have been Maddie.

Once acknowledged Maddie was there she could never retract her statement. There was no turning back. Was this the reason she went through a depressing time a few weeks later (as described to a friend) when she inwardly realized the scope of the case?

This brings us to HOW could the McCanns achieve their deceit of Maddie attending the crèche?
 
 
After scrutinizing the crèche records, and guided by the discrepancies/contradictions starting on TUESDAY MORNING, so with the possibility that they were trying to hide something at this point, Monday MAY have been the day something happened.

MONDAY AFTERNOON - Oddly, Maddie was signed into the crèche at 3.15pm and signed out after 15 mins.

Approximately half an hour later, Ella was signed in at 4pm, but not signed out.






 
TUESDAY morning, Gerry and Russell walked to the crèche along with Jez Wilkins.  Jez makes mention of Gerry telling him about the children being left alone and he responded by talking about children can go to evening crèche and carried home with a blanket.
 
Could this have been the first initial effort to suggest the children would be alone to facilitate an ‘abductor’ being the reason Maddie disappeared? Was it inspiration of bundleman?
 
Jez’ daughter was in the Sharks group but sharing the same room as Maddie’s group,the Lobsters and Russells daughter was also in the Lobster group.

At 12.30pm Gerry signed Maddie out but Russell did not sign the register.  Was this because there was only ONE CHILD?

TUESDAY AFTERNOON Gerry signs ONE CHILD in at 2.30.  Ella is signed in at the same time by CAT(Did Russell forget to sign or was there only ONE CHILD?)
 
At 5.30pm only Russell signs out ONE CHILD Maddie is not signed out (Blank) Is that because there was only ONE CHILD?  Kate signed the twins out at 5.20pm  They were at high tea together.  Why did she not sign Maddie out at the same time? Was Maddie there?






 
On WEDNESDAY MORNING both Gerry and Russell sign in their child AT THE SAME TIME(could there have only been ONE CHILD?) but at lunchtime Russell signed out ONE CHILD and it was CAT who signed out Maddie at the same time. 12.30pm.  Why and when did CAT sign Maddie out?
 
Kate and Russell both arrived at the same time on Wednesday afternoon. 5.30pm








 
THURSDAY is RIDDLED with discrepancies and one example is regarding picking up the McCann children for the crèche at lunchtime….
 
Kate and Fiona were SUPPOSEDLY at the rec area together.

Fiona claims they went together from the rec area to pick up the children(Maddie and Scarlet)
 
Kate claims she went back to the apartment to prepare lunch before going to the creche.

HOWEVER, Gerry claims HE went to the crèche to pick up Maddie and he specifically remembers taking the short cut
 
Kate signs the register at 12.25pm.  Did Gerry REALLY pick up Maddie as he claims?

Keep in mind that Catriona said she did NOT REMEMBER who picked Maddie up at lunchtime

Along with this, neither of them are certain who picked up the TWINS and curiously the twins crèche records for THURSDAY morning are MISSING from the files.



























Most of the above is from memory and along with the graphic is just an indication of why I feel it’s a POSSIBILTY so if any of the info is to be used elsewhere PLEASE confirm or contact me for a link.

As mentioned, for those that believe something happened to Maddie before 5.30pmon May 3rd there needs to be an explanation as to how it can be explained HOW Maddie was ‘missed’ in the crèche.

For those that believe something happened in the hour and half they were at the tapas on May 3rd, I would be interested to hear an explanation of how it could be accomplished in such a short period of time.

To date I have not heard a a viable explanation.






HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:24/01/2018 3:16 PMCopy HTML

This is not  NEW research... I have been sitting on this for more than 8 years!

A post from nearly 8 years ago in Missing Madeleine Forum









HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:21 AMCopy HTML

Please keep in mind, although the creche records threads had thousands of posts on many different threads, identifying the possible in/out scenario has only been possible since I studied the (easier to read) graphics.  Although I recognised this possible scenario a long time ago, it is part of the big picture, which could not be discussed without the possibility of something happening to Maddie earlier in the week.

It's basically still a WORK IN PROGRESS research and I appreciate input.

Whether it is viable is something that I won' know without input so I can second guess my thoughts.

One thing I have learned is to be careful about making overall judgements on a possible situation.  It's very easy to make a blanket statement that care workers SHOULD know each child individually, but in reality, when a nanny is surrounded by approximately 13 children between 3 and 5, (7 allocated to Catriona) and as we are led to believe many 'pink and pretty' it's hard to imagine how it was.

One care worker (on another thread) has suggested that its more about head count than names, as they spent their time outside and trips to beach etc.

I do not mean to suggest in any way that the nannies and the care was not up to the standard suggested, but I do not think the records were scrutinised as being any ore than to assist with location of parents as well as a basic idea of which chidren should be there for a head count.

It was not filled in strictly and many blanktimes including CAT filling in herself.

What I am suggesting is that IF something happened to Maddie earlier and she only attended on Sunday and for a short time on Monday, would everyone be able to identify her from the photo of a younger child several days later?

The suggestion that Jane Tanners daughter would be recognisable after is interesting, but we don't know whether she was at the creche the following week (not within their 'holiday' times which finished on Friday for the creche) and lets not forget that by the following Friday (I believe) the nannies were moved to Greece.

That was very strange IMO.
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:22 AMCopy HTML

We know the creche was located above the main reception as per the photos taken for the trip to the beach.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BEACH_OUTING.htm


Enlarge this image



Enlarge this image





Enlarge this image


TAPAS CRECHE

Enlarge this image
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:28 AMCopy HTML

<iframe width="425" height="355" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jyr3EFCQJig" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>




IF Maddie was only at the creche Sunday and a few hours on Monday, would people easily identify her from a younger pic several days later?


Enlarge this image





There are certainly issues regarding the signatures.  Whether they were contrived or false I have no way of knowing, but they have been discussed at length in thousands of posts from 3A days

Here are a few


http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/The-Very-Best-of-the-Old-3A-s/CRECHE-RECORDS-thread-beginning-Sept-2008-1-951148.html

Thats why I included the sigs in the graphic.


Seems there WERE issues with the validity of the creche records.






HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:32 AMCopy HTML

Considering Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley were the instructors on the beach when Maddie was supposedly attending the mini sail.  They were interviewed 'unofficially' according to the files.

One would think their statements would have been important (more so than some of the other staff).  One has to wonder whether they DID NOT remember seeing Maddie on Thursday and therefore would have no input, or whether the mini sail DID happen on Thursday morning.

These issues move towards the 'Who saw Madeleine' topic.

Other nannies do NOT remember seeing Madeleine at some times they were transporting the children to another location (possibly beach)






One has to remember that Catriona does NOT claim to have seen Maddie at 'high tea' (from anything I have found...)







Emma Wilding was the other nanny in the same creche room.  She does not remember seeing Maddie in a trip they all took to the beach


Emma Wilding Sharks grou wrote:Emma Louise Wilding -working at the Mini Club for children between 3-5 years


on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine’s group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,

 May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.

She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.


Catriona was very vague about Madeleine and seemed to focus a lot on the TWINS (who were not in her group)



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

Most of the time in which I saw the family together, the children would be eating. The twins appeared tired at lunch, after a long day and also perhaps due to the heat, but I never became preoccupied by the children of by the comportment of the McCanns. 

I never saw Kate or Gerry in a car in Portugal. I visited the family in their home at their invitation to see how they were getting along in November of 2007. That was the first time I saw them in a car. 

On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. 



Is it possible Catriona was describing Ella?  If both children were at mini sail, I would suggest its more likely Ella that would be  scared and fearful.  I can't imagine Maddie would be scared with no mention that Ella was scared also.




Catriona Rogatory wrote:I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. 


She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time. 



I would like to continue to add that this is considered a possibility which supports something happening earlier and according to the research from the files that I have put together in amny other threads creating the 'big picture'

I am looking for input as the research isin progress and appreciate your comments.

I am NOT claiming this is what happened, only that it is a good explanation of a POSSIBILITY it could have happened in a similar way

The similarity between Maddie and Jane Tanners daughter is something to keep in mind (and their different personalities)



HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:36 AMCopy HTML

Interesting to note the findings of  BBC Whistleblower program that happened 2 weeks prior to the McCanns arriving in PdL. (MW Egypt used in the program)







HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:40 AMCopy HTML

IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, as the DISCREPANCIES started Tuesday morning, it appeared confusing because of the contradictions of probably trying to cover up the truth

What we are 'told' about the truth is not necessarily what actually happened, hence I spent a few years compiling all the statements into timelines and timetables for comparison. Hence I discovered the discrepancies.

Remembering Madeleine McCann Research Forum
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvjfPZ8dpgY
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml
Press Releases

Ofsted Whistleblower reveals widespread failings in the care of the under-fives



Category: Factual & Arts TVBBC One 
Date: 05.03.2008 
Printable version




WhistleblowerBBC One's flagship undercover series, will tonight (Wednesday 5 March, 8.00pm) lift the lid on how nurseries are putting children at serious risk by failing to check both the criminal records and references of staff employed to work with very young children – and the failure of Ofsted to police this.
 
In an exclusive interview given to the programme on condition that her identity was protected, a current Ofsted inspector alleges that Ofsted – the official body responsible for inspecting and regulating nurseries and childminders in the UK – is approving childcare facilities that should not be operating.
 
Ofsted inspector: "I am a mother of two young children and many of my colleagues have young children. Between us, I would say we would inspect roughly 700 crèches, nurseries, after-school clubs and childminders and there wasn't more than five that we would take our own children to."
 
Following the tip-off from the Ofsted inspector, BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks began an eight-month undercover investigation, during which she discovered that Ofsted is not only failing to adequately regulate the childcare industry in order to protect pre-school children in nurseries and in the care of childminders, but that political connections could have influenced Ofsted's decisions.
 
The programme uncovers Ofsted documents that indicate that the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne should have been closed following the accidental death of a child in its care and critical inspection reports, but was saved from closure due to concerns about the implications for Michael Fallon MP. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, was the Managing Director of the nursery at the time and the documents state:
 
"If we cancel this particular setting then there are implications for Michael Fallon, as he would be automatically disqualified."
 
Viewers will be shocked to see how Imogen Willcocks, a 21-year-old undercover BBC journalist with no experience of looking after children and no professional qualifications, is employed to look after young children under the age of five by two nurseries in Britain, and a leading British holiday company. Furthermore, they will see her approved as a registered childminder by Ofsted.
 
Imogen's undercover filming takes place at Just Learning in Cambourne (near Cambridge) and Buttons nursery in west London, as well as a Mark Warner holiday resort in Dahab, Egypt – an upmarket company that markets itself as offering "award-winning childcare".
 
The undercover footage in the programme reveals:
 
 A failure to make criminal record and reference checks – The companies that featured in the programme all employed Imogen to look after young children without obtaining CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks, or speaking to any of her referees.
 
 Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult tochild ratios were not always met – on several occasions at Buttons nursery, Imogen is seen left in sole charge of up to 13 pre-school children. At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is and, on one occasion at Just Learning, Imogen and another member of staff are left caring for 23 children. This was despite complaints from members of staff concerned about child welfare and safety.
 
 Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions – the undercover BBC reporter discovered, for example, potential choking hazards in the sandpit at Just Learning (which she removed and disposed of). At Buttons nursery she found pieces of glass in the garden and witnessed maintenance work, involving power tools, being carried out whilst the children were in the same room. At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
 
 No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.
 
 Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".
 
 Infrequent inspections – Ofsted fails to make frequent inspections of nurseries – with the Buttons nursery in west London having nearly four-and-a-half years between inspections.
 
 Illegally low pay – BBC undercover journalist Imogen Willcocks earned £100 a week (about £2.50 an hour) whilst at Buttons nursery – well below the national minimum wage. Staff at Buttons nursery are discouraged from discussing their pay – the nursery manager told Imogen: "a couple of months ago, we called people out because they've been discussing wages. That's confidential, you mustn't do that."
 
Imogen's findings go some way towards understanding the Ofsted Whistleblower's comments in the programme:
 
"Ofsted reports are not worth the paper that they're printed on."
 
"Anybody can approach Ofsted, talk a good talk and really become registered [as a childminder]."
 
"I've taken a great risk talking to you but I don't believe, and many of my colleagues don't believe, that we protect children anymore."
 
"Inspectors will go out to undertake an inspection and are literally skimming the surface. We are told consistently and constantly: 'if you go in and you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Get in there, take a quick look and get out'. The No. 1 priority for all inspectors is to meet their targets, because if they don't then they are disciplined. So targets take priority over safeguarding of children."
 
The critical Ofsted report, following the inspection of Just Learning in Cambourne that occurred after 10-month-old Georgia Hollick died accidentally at the nursery in April 2006, found serious problems there. There was no criticism of the nursery at the inquest. Documents obtained by the programme show that Ofsted took into account the consequences the closure of the nursery and disqualification from running it could have on the then Managing Director when considering what action they should take. The Managing Director at the time was Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, who remains on the Board of Just Learning.
 
Since filming, the directors of Just Learning have written to parents announcing the closure of their Cambourne nursery following the Ofsted reports and the BBC's investigation, and have admitted that the BBC has made them aware of "a serious breach of recruitment policy last year".
 
Notes to Editors
 
1. BBC undercover reporters Imogen Willcocks and Ashley Kennedy were CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked by the BBC prior to their undercover work for the programme but none of the companies that feature in the programme were aware of this.
 
2. BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:
- Just Learning in Cambourne from 7 to 27 November 2007.
- Buttons nursery in west London from July to August 2007.
Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.
 
3. A second undercover BBC reporter, Ashley Kennedy, followed up Imogen Willcock's findings by working undercover at Mark Warner's La Plagne ski resort, in France, for two days from 17 December 2007 to see if procedures had been tightened since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Portugal in May 2007. Again, she was employed by Mark Warner and working at the resort prior to her references and a CRB check being obtained.
 
4. On 18 February 2008, Jonathan Bell, the MD of Just Learning, wrote to parents announcing that the Cambourne nursery would close on Friday 29 February 2008. Quote from the letter: "You will be aware that the nursery recently received an "Inadequate" report from Ofsted. The directors of Just Learning have considered this and the increasing difficulty of recruiting staff against continuing media interest in the nursery. We have also been made aware, by the BBC, of a serious breach of recruitment policy last year involving a former member of staff. As a result of this, the nursery manager has resigned".
 
5. Mark Warner resorts are not required to work to Ofsted regulations.
 
6. Rights of Reply
 
Written statement from Michael Fallon MP in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"This is news to me, and a matter for Ofsted. I had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne. I resigned as managing director immediately afterwards. I strongly endorse the decision of the board to close the Cambourne nursery. The breach of the company's recruitment procedures was completely unacceptable."
 
Written statement from Buttons nursery in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"Buttons Day Nursery is a family-run nursery with a loyal following. Our aim is to provide a safe, happy and stimulating environment for our children. We try to foster trusting and supportive relationships between families and staff. The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"Buttons has regularly received favourable Ofsted inspection reports, one as recently as February, 2008.
 
"Buttons has a low staff turnover. New joiners undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
 
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
 
Written statement from Mark Warner in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"It's company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record. There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff.
 
"We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously. It is the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
 
"Guests who've been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is high.
 
"Eighty-nine out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. And every single one of our water sports instructors has a professional qualification."
 
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
 
Written statement from Just Learning in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
 
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery.
"The prescribed staff ratios should be maintained at our nurseries at all times and the company requires this. We do not condone any breaches the BBC has discovered.
 
"Choking hazards are very serious and any member of staff would be expected to be vigilant and to remove and dispose of them as well as raising awareness of other staff.
 
"The death of Georgia Hollick was the subject of a coroner's inquest. It did not find our first aid provision wanting – our staff did everything humanly possible to save Georgia's life. The company has expressed its regret and sympathy to Georgia's family. The health and safety investigation is still being carried out and we do not intend to comment upon it at present."
 
Written statement from Ofsted in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"Ofsted makes 70,000 visits a year to check children and young people are safe, healthy and happy. Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe.
 
"If Whistleblower has identified things that can be improved, we will want to consider them, including making recommendations to the government about possible future changes.
 
"Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job.
 
"Our policy of unannounced inspections keeps most nurseries and childminders on their toes.
 
"Parents have choices over where to place their children. Ofsted inspection reports are available on our website to help them.
 
"Childminders know a good report is important to their business. Where they don't improve, we take action."
 
We put to them our charge that they allowed Michael Fallon MP's position, as managing director of Just Learning, to influence their decision not to close the Cambourne nursery. They would not respond directly, but said: "Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour. Our reports are often critical of government initiatives. We make no apology for that."
 
[size=13]SB
[/size]


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7278514.stm



The shocking truth behind daycare at nurseries and creches
By IMOGEN WILLCOCKS
Last updated at 08:10 06 March 2008



Britain's childcare industry is booming.

Every working day, more than a million parents drop off their precious little cargos at childminders and private nurseries.
All of them do it firm in the belief that those they trust with their babies are highly-qualified, strictly regulated and genuine, caring people.
Terrifyingly, they are wrong. During an eight-month investigation for the BBC1 investigative programme Whistleblower, I uncovered a childcare culture where a new carer's criminal records and references are never checked, yet they will immediately be left alone with young, vulnerable children.
Scroll down for more...

Finding out the truth: Reporter Imogen Willcocks

I was initially alerted to the scandal by an inspector for Ofsted (the government agency that regulates childminders and nurseries). She said that, as a parent of two children and having inspected 700 nurseries with her colleagues, she had found only five that she would have let her own children attend.
She also said that Ofsted inspection reports - the only safeguards that parents have to go on when choosing a nursery - aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
"We are literally skimming the surface," she said.
"We are told constantly: "If you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Take a quick look and get out."
"The priority for all Ofsted inspectors is to meet their targets. If they don't, they are disciplined. Targets take priority over safeguarding children."
I decided to test these claims by going undercover and getting myself a job in a number of nurseries.
I thought I would encounter difficulties since I had no children and, apart from a couple of babysitting stints, no experience of looking after babies and toddlers.
Yet I needn't have worried. None of the nurseries with which I got jobs bothered to check my fake CV or fictitious references.
Even Ofsted, which at least checked my criminal record, registered me as a childminder despite the premises where I was looking after the children not being at all suitable.
My first job was at the Buttons nursery in Ealing, West London. We'd had a tip-off that its supervision of babies and toddlers was unacceptable.
After a cursory interview, I was appointed as a nursery assistant. No one checked my references in the five weeks I was there and even though the law states that everyone working with children has to have their background checked by Home Office agency the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the all-clear didn't come back until I had left.
Buttons is based in a rambling, 19th-century detached house and caters to the area's professional middle classes. It was not cheap, charging £1,100 a month for a child who is dropped off at 8am and collected at 6pm.
On my first day, I was terrified - partly afraid that my secret filming equipment would be discovered, but mostly because apart from a quick nappychanging lesson with a friend's baby, I had no clue how to look after children.
As it turned out, no one noticed my inexperience.
At 21, I was one of the oldest nursery assistants.
Many were trainees and had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. There was no on-the-job training. Instead, we were thrown in at the deep end.
At times I was on my own with as many as 13 children, even though the law says carers waiting for their CRB clearance should always be closely supervised at all times.
And they shouldn't be allowed to change nappies and take children to the toilet.
With so many children to look after, I could barely make sure they were safe, let alone care for them individually. Instead, it was just damage limitation - I found myself grabbing broken glass, sticks and sharp objects from children as young as three.
One day, builders were brought in to fit guards to the radiators because one little boy - weeks earlier - had badly burnt his hand on one.
Scroll down for more...

Undercover: Imogen Willcocks is seen with children in this footage

The other staff told me that the owner, Satnam Parhar, had blamed the staff for not supervising the burned boy properly and that he was only getting the guards fitted because an Ofsted inspection was due.
The builders left their power tools inches away from where the children were playing and no one seemed to notice.
I spent that particular session on tenterhooks.
The nursery assistants at Buttons were poorly supervised and very poorly paid. I was on about £100 a week - less than the legal minimum wage. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the staff were less than high-quality carers.
I saw two nursery assistants hauling a boy across the nursery by his arm. Then I heard a child being called a "sh*t-bag" and saw a little girl's head being shoved into a mattress on the floor as she didn't want to go.

When I complained to the owner that I had been left on my own with 13 children, he refused to accept what I was saying and called the idea crazy.
When I contacted him later, saying I had been undercover for a TV programme, he issued a statement.
"The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"New joiners to our staff undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
My next childcare job took me to a nursery with the worst possible history.
In April 2006, a ten-month-old girl called Georgia Hollick had choked to death on a slice of apple at the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire.
The inquest found that her death was accidental and made no criticism of the nursery.
However, a subsequent investigation by Ofsted found that children's health and safety were being compromised at the nursery.
Nevertheless, it was allowed to reopen less than a month after her death. Just
One day, I had to stop babies eating - and potentially choking on - small Christmas decorations that a member of staff had placed in the sandpit.
It was unbelievable that just 19 months after a baby choked to death at this nursery, such chances were still being taken with child safety.
Within days of the result of my investigation being put to them, Just Learning closed the Cambourne nursery and issued a statement saying: "The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery."
But this still left the question of why such a failing nursery had previously survived a very critical Ofsted report following the death of a young child in its care.
The BBC has been given an internal Ofsted document that refers to the Tory MP Michael Fallon, who was managing director of Just Learning at the time of Georgia Hollick's death.
A passage says: "If we cancel this particular setting [nursery] then there are implications for Michael Fallon as he would be automatically disqualified [from running it]."
Mr Fallon has since responded, saying: "This is news for me and a matter for Ofsted. I have had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne.
"I resigned as MD immediately afterwards.
"I strongly endorse the decision of the Board to close the nursery. The breach of the company's procedures was completely unacceptable."
After these two nurseries, I decided to investigate the self-styled upper end of the child-minding business, where I soon realised that the problems are not confined to our own shores.
Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.
It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.
That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.
Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.
Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.
Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.
Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.
No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.
To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.
Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.
Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.
He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.
"There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise.
"We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures."
For the final part of my investigation, I discovered that even an inexperienced 21-year old with no qualifications can also fool Ofsted.
I borrowed a large house, made no alterations to accommodate young children - despite the fact that no youngster had lived there for 20 years - and applied for a childminder's licence.
I admitted to the Ofsted inspector who visited that I had no fireguard, no first aid kit, no stairgates, no safety glass or socket covers. I didn't even have a table for the children to sit at.
The building was completely unsuitable.
But I did say I had a wish-list containing all those items and planned to install them. That was enough for the inspector and I got the go-ahead.
No one ever came back to check up that I had put them in place.
When contacted, Ofsted said in a statement that it would consider making improvements based on the findings that I had uncovered.
But it said: "Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe. Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job. Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour."
I don't yet have children but having seen what I've seen, I can't imagine I'll ever risk putting my own into childcare.
? WHISTLEBLOWER is on BBC1 tonight at 8pm.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-526248/The-shocking-truth-daycare-nurseries-creches.html#ixzz1BORqIR1z


http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/790287/Whistleblower-Full-responses/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

Whistleblower: Full responses
12 March 2008, 4:07pm
The nurseries and organisations included in the Whistleblower expose on bad practice in the early years sector have been quick to respond to the programme's accusations. We have printed their statements in full.

MARK WARNER RESPONSE

It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and that we complete and submit a form to check their criminal record.
From the information given to us by the BBC ahead of the programme, there were clearly two occasions when we failed to do this. 
That is completely unacceptable and we apologise for this. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff so this does not happen again.
We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously.
That's why we were one of the first holiday companies in the UK to introduce criminal record checks for childcare staff, even though this has never been a legal requirement for staff working overseas. 
It is also the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
We recognised that it wasn't possible to provide room listening and guarantee that there would never be any safety or security issues of any kind. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and switched to drop in crèches.
Guests who have been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is very high. 
89 out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. The other four have proven childcare experience. And every single one of our watersports instructors have a professional qualification.
Over the past 25 years, we have taken over 150,000 families on holiday and won several awards for the quality of our service. We are determined to maintain that record.


Questions & Answers to issues raised in the BBC programme "Whistleblower" broadcast on March 5th 2008.

Q1. What is your reaction to the BBC Whistleblower programme?

A1. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, we let our customers down by failing to properly follow our established procedures for obtaining references before staff started working for us. That shouldn't have happened and we apologise for this. As a result, we have reviewed and strengthened our procedures for recruiting childcare staff, to stop this ever happening again.
Q2. What is your procedure for vetting childcare staff and how have you strengthened it following this programme?
A2. Prospective childcare staff must provide two references and, where relevant, original professional childcare qualification certificates before being offered a job. They must also provide personal information to enable us to submit a Criminal Bureau check. The two incidents highlighted by the BBC show that these procedures were not followed and so we have retrained our recruitment staff to ensure that this does not happen again.
Q3. Why did you let staff begin work without having received their CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) forms back?
A3. There is no legal requirement for any holiday company operating overseas to obtain a CRB check for their staff and the majority don't. These checks are required in other sectors, like the NHS and teaching, for staff who work with children. However, at Mark Warner, we decided five yeras ago to voluntarily introduce these checks for our nannies and we were one of the first holiday companies to do so. Unfortunately, we have no control over the length of time it takes for the check to be run and sent back to us. We would like the process to be quicker, but even companies and organisations legally required to run CRB checks face the same problem.
Q4. Your room listening service was criticised in the programme. What's your response to that?
A4. Our room listening service has always been very popular with guests. Unfortunately we stopped offering this service in 2007 because it was impossible to provide room listening and guarantee guests that there would never be any safety or security issues. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and replaced room listening with supervised evening crèche facilities at all our resorts.
Q5. The programme suggested that your nannies don't receive any training.
A5. To be able to join Mark Warner, all prospective childcare staff must already have a professional childcare qualification - such as an NNEB or NVQ - or a proven track record of working with children. After they start work, all childcare staff follow an induction programme which takes them through our own internal procedures such as fire and evacuation; lost child procedures; health & hygiene, as well as an explanation of their specific role and responsibilities.
Q.6 The programme suggested that children taking part in watersports aren't always supervised by staff who are competent in the water.
A.6 When children are involved in any beachfront activity, our professionally qualified watersports staff are responsible for their safety. In a typical summer, we employ over 200 of these staff and every single one has a qualification in watersports and life saving. Their qualifications are from internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the Royal Yachting Association and British Water Ski Federation.
Q.7 The programme suggested that your childcare is not "award winning". What is your response to that?
A.7 We have consistently received very high ratings from guests for the standard of childcare at our resorts. We have won an award from the children's baby charity Tommys for "Most Parent Friendly Tour Operator" as well as an award from Babygoes2.com and Ace Magazine awarded us a "Best for Families" award three years on the run for our resort - Lakitira in Greece.
Q.8 The programme mentioned the ratio of nannies to children. What is the ratio of nannies to children at your resorts?
A.8 In the UK, the Government's "Sure Start" guidelines on childcare state that the ratio should be one nanny to three Under 2's, one nanny to four 2 year olds and one nanny to eight 3 to 7 year olds. At Mark Warner, we not only comply with these ratios but, in some cases, better them.
Q.9 The programme claimed that staff in your resort in Egypt are working illegally and Mark Warner is therefore breaking the law?
A.9 The process of securing a work visa for staff in Egypt is lengthy and can take eight to nine months. We work closely with the Ministry of Labour to secure working visas for staff and the Egyptian authorities are aware that staff have to wait for their working visas to be processed.
Q.10 The programme was critical of Mark Warner, so what reassurance can you now offer to customers?
A.10 Over the past 25 years, we've taken hundreds of thousands of families on holiday. We've built our business on offering parents high quality childcare and a choice of first class resorts, with many guests writing to us each year to compliment us on the services we provided. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, the correct procedures for vetting and employing staff weren't followed. This is why we have already retrained staff and put in place measures to stop this happening again. We'd like to reassure customers that the safety, security and enjoyment of their holidays is our number one priority and always will be


http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
avatar
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:42 AMCopy HTML

I agree that the invitation was 'odd' and coincided with the Secret Meeting at Rothley

This would be the time before the rogatories that I see the possibility that they may have 'reminded' Catriona of some of the details they wanted known.


SECRET MEETING Mirror Article wrote:'Tapas 9' in secret McCann meeting






By Rod Chaytor and Victoria Ward 11/12/2007

Kate and Gerry McCann (Reuters)

Kate and Gerry McCann held a secret meeting with the rest of the "Tapas Nine" amid reports that Portuguese police are coming to Britain to re-interview them, it was revealed yesterday.

The friends met last month for the first time since the McCanns' four-year-old daughter Madeleine vanished in Portugal seven months ago.

They were all dining with the couple in a tapas bar near the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine was sleeping with two-year-old twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie.

Portuguese police were furious about the meeting. A source close to the investigation claimed it was "highly suspicious" that they had met up to "talk tactics".

Detectives are said to be awaiting formal clearance to come to Britain and question the nine again about alleged discrepancies in their statements.

But the couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell denied that the nine had gathered to square their accounts before a police visit.
He said the emotional reunion "a few weeks ago" at a hotel near the couple's home in Rothley, Leics "was just to discuss the overall situation.

"They weren't comparing notes or doing anything untoward. It was an operational meeting to discuss what might be coming up in the next few weeks.

"They are in touch all the time by phone and emails anyway but decided to meet face to face. They were together for a few hours and discussed the overall position. They wanted to see each other because they hadn't done so for some time."
He added: "It was a private meeting and I therefore don't want to say more about it."
The other seven members of the party are heart specialist Dr David Payne, 41, his doctor wife Fiona, 34, hospital consultant Dr Russell O'Brien, 36, his partner Jane Tanner, 37, endocrinologist Dr Matthew Oldfield, 37, and wife Rachael, 36, and Dr Payne's mother Dianne Webster.

They are key witnesses who gave police crucial evidence supporting the couple's belief that Madeleine was kidnapped.
Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a small child in pink pyjamas like Madeleine's away from the flat. Three have given statements claiming they saw Robert Murat, the first official suspect, outside the apartment - though he claimed he was at home with his mother.

A friend of the couple claimed the meeting gave the lie to a rumour that some of the party had fallen out with the McCanns and were preparing to change their statements.

The source said: "It was a show of solidarity under police claims that one or two had wanted to change their stories. That is not the case and the meeting showed that.

"It was a meeting to express support by the friends and just to see each other again. They hadn't all seen each other for months."

The friend said the reunion last month was kept secret because of the huge interest it would have generated.

The McCanns were officially made suspects on September 7 by Portuguese police, who believed they accidentally killed Madeleine and hid her body. Some detectives are said to have suspected that some or all of the seven helped cover up the crime.

A furious Portuguese police source said: "This meeting is highly suspicious.

"The McCanns left Portugal and flew home the moment they were made suspects and refused to answer many key questions about what had happened.

"Now, they and their friends are about to be re-interviewed and it is revealed they have met up in secret in a hotel.
"The McCanns are suspects and their friends are witnesses who could soon also have arguido (official suspect) status. They should not be meeting to discuss the case and certainly not the evidence."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2007/12/11/tapas-9-in-secret-mccann-meeting-115875-20232103/
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:43 AMCopy HTML

I maintain that I find anything suggesting Catriona  was lying (indicating she was complicit) is very wrong.  It's not an opinion, I see it as an accusation and regardless whether I find her rogatory statement questionable I do not for one second see ANY indication that she was complicit during that week.

As I have explained many times she was a young girl doing her job and I OFFERED a suggestion how it MAY have happened.

I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, in fact I may be wrong, but I prefer that anyone that disagrees, offers an alternative to show how it MAY have happened.

I do not have an agenda on this case.  Its not important to me if I am right or wrong because the TRUTH of what happened to little Maddie surpasses any need to boost an ego.

I did many years of research and am offering what I have put together to try to make sense of the situation.

For those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then its IMPORTANT to base that belief on what we know from the files and HOW it was accomplished to deceive everyone about how Maddie was presumed to be in the creche when she wasn't.

Just 'guessing' she was not around the Ocean Club does not give credibility to something happening earlier.  It needs to be explained HOW it was accomplished, apart from T7 statements that were contrived and suggested she was seen.

I believe something happened earlier so I am attempting to back up that thought with the research I have done.... and the POSSIBILITY of how the creche could be explained.

The police files tell us that Maddie died in the apartment and the parents hid her body and faked an abduction.

Could all that be accomplished in an hour and half?

I don't believe so.

I would be interested to hear a timeline of that hour and half to explain it and all we have learned from the statements and facts from the case.  

It is my responsibility to back up my thoughts with an explanation of how it was all accomplished.  I certainly could not explain how it happened during the dinner that night.

I welcome someone that can, take the time to explain it to me.

I am not here to presume guilt for someone who may be innocent.... I am here to help make sense of what happened by using the files....

I would be interested in hearing from someone that DOES feel the OP could have some possibility.

This is research in progress... It's not a fully fledged conclusion.
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:44 AMCopy HTML

There are some people that believe she died between the times they were at the tapas.  Some believe it was after 5.30pm  Some believe it was Wednesday. Others believe she died earlier in the week.

Personally I have seen nothing to indicate when she died.

Ella was 'Ella' at the creche as I tried to explain in the OP.

As far as Alice Stanley and Chris Unsworth... One would have thought they were just as important to interview as all the other OC staff.

I have done my best to offer a possible scenario... Just as it is possible that, eg, Catriona knew ALL the childrens names, but that would need an explanation about how (if Maddie WASN'T in the creche) it can be explained that the McCanns were able to deceive everyone.

I'm not seeing anything offered to suggest HOW it could have happened if that is the case, based on what we 'know' from the files.
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:46 AMCopy HTML

I sometimes wonder whether members think I 'create' a scenario and just throw it out there because I can make it fit.

Far from it.

When you have scrutinised all the T9 statements and separated them all into about 200 timelines and timetables for each 15 mins or hour during the holiday (including the rogatory statements) and then compared them against each other, for every 15 mins of the holiday, one tends to retain a lot of information that is not always apparent for most people from only reading each statement independently.

They are far too complicated to understand and to mentally compare to other statements.

It's far too difficult to even read them once they have been compiled, but this is the basic information that I use when compiling posts and videos.  It's like a big picture of what we are TOLD happened during the holiday.

I don't expect anyone else to have that info retained.


Timetables
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/All-Timetables-1-79313


Initially (during 2007) I realised two main things

1) That she died before Thursday evening

2) That the children were not left alone in the apartments and the 'neglect' was claimed to facilitate the possibility of an 'abductor' entering the apartment.

What I DON'T think was planned but was of tremendous value to the McCanns is that 'neglect' became the trade-off for what REALLY happened that night.

The continued claims of leaving the children alone has been the ONLY negative comment that continues to be allowed by the media.

Why would they not suppress the media?

Two reasons...

1) By allowing the 'neglect' issue it inadvertently supports an abduction.  When people 'McCann bash' about them leaving the children alone they are indirectly suggesting that Madeleine disappeared because she was left alone (ie abducted)

We know that isn't the case.

2)  The OTHER reason they must love the accusations of neglect is because it is a TRADE-OFF for what REALLY happened.

Thursday night wasn't about leaving Maddie alone...it was about putting everything in place for the FAKED ABDUCTION.

It took  3 years of continually posting about neglect and having noone respond or believe it was a worthwhile scenario to consider...

Finally in 2010 it became an accepted possibility and someone coined the phrase  'No Neglect = No Abduction'

Following the acceptance of the 'neglect' issue I attempted to encourage members to consider the more than 50 major discrepancies (non memory related) and one by one they are starting to be recognised.

With many of the discrepancies in place (that started on Tuesday morning...(suggesting something had happened prior to Tuesday) I chose to scrutnse ALL the people that claimed they saw Madeleine.

I had NO IDEA which day would be the statement that convinced me she was seen at the Ocean Club.  I felt that the discrepancies by Tuesday morning, although indicating they were hiding something by then, could be corroborated by discovering WHICH day she was last seen.  

I needed to find statements that specifically identified Maddie that I could consider 'proof' she was seen and that could give me the day that something happened.

After going through them all the ONLY one that I felt was credible 'proof' that she was seen was the cleaners daughter Fatima that saw her SUNDAY LUNCHTIME! Many statement may be valid but they ALL had a degree of question to them and could not therefore be considered 'proof'

At that point it dovetailed with the discrepancies starting Tuesday, suggesting something happened AFTER Sunday lunchtime and BEFORE Tuesday morning.

This was 2010 and it took several years before my posts were considered as possibly credible.  The scenario relied on the 'no neglect' issue and the Discrepancies being recognised to help with crediblity.

I challenged others many times to have someone show me ANY evidence that it was NOT possible.  To date I have heard lots of 'noise' about witnesses and their statements but in nearly 8 years I have seen NOTHING to make me second guess my conclusion.

Be assured that if Fatimas statement was referring to WEDNESDAY, then THAT would be the day I would focus on, and look for some other reason they were trying to hide something by Tuesday morning.

Now that something happening earlier seems to be more of a possibility and with all of the supporting details in place, I decided maybe it was time to bring forward the possibility of how the creche deceit could be explained...

Hence this thread...

Its NOT something I have suddenly decided to put together.  I have been 'sitting on it' for years but could not expect it to have any credibility until neglect, discrepancies and who saw Madeleine issues had been accepted as possibly credible.

Members need to have the big picture before it could be contemplated as to how it was achieved.

HOWEVER I am second guessing myself as to whether its the right time to expect members to understand what I have  put together without having entered into discussions previously?

I felt sure that most have enough of a 'big picture' to finally consider this scenario involving the creche a possibility.

Am I wrong?

Here is a post I made nearly 8 years ago on this topic (forgotten about but surprisingly found by accident tonight), but it was too early to expect any responses that could give any input.

(Please also know that I have more topics and info not yet known or discussed) 

This is basically the same as the original OP on this thread, but may be easier to understand?



Enlarge this image


Enlarge this image


Enlarge this image


Enlarge this image
avatar
HiDeHo
Researcher

Posts :2850
Reputation :856
Join date :2010-05-07

View user profile Send private message http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:48 AMCopy HTML

This is the reason I compiled an easier to read 'creche records, so we can see exactly the drop off and pick up times and whether the statements coincide.

If a nanny claims to have seen Madeleine at specific times, I needed to know whether the 'logic' of the creche times fited with their statements or whether they could have been mistaken as to which child they saw and thought was Maddie.


http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Creche-Records-Timeline/Nanny-Info-Statements-Highlighted-1-930240.html

HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:53 AMCopy HTML

I'm not sure if the reference about 'everyone' is from something I have said, but if so, it was likely referring to their statements which really has nothing to do with them being in separate locations.  Not sure if Ive responded correctly, just let me know.

Cat was allocated 7 children for the LOBSTER group 5 girls 2 boys

Madeleine McCann
Emma O'Brien
Jessica Berry
Tia Patel
Elizabeth Naylor
William Topman
Alexander Mann


+ SHARKS (approx 7)

She shared the room above main reception with the SHARKS (Emma Wilding) and the Baby Club (Charlotte Pennington) so there would have been approximately 13 children mixing together and  likely interacting with all the children, as well as possibly sharing the same activities.

It would likely be a room similar to this with approx 13 children  and two Nannies looking after them (Catriona and Emma)


Enlarge this image




Enlarge this image




Enlarge this image




Enlarge this image



Bridget O'Donnell wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Bridget O'Donnell (Jez Wilkins partner)


 'Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys.'


Emma Wilding









I don't know if Catriona stayed with them but she was certainly with them on November 25th, the day after (what is likely)  the Secret Meeting in Rothley








HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 5:56 AMCopy HTML

I'm not sure I understand the reason to highlight the clubs are in four different locations with the baby club as per Charlotte Pennington)  '....the physical space where the children groups are located is contiguous; '

I'm confused why 4 locations is relevant










HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:00 AMCopy HTML

There was an area above the main reception that was for the Baby Club and the Kids club

There were TWO groups for the 3 - 5 year olds.  One was called LOBSTERS with Catriona looking after them and the SHARKS had Emma looking after them. 

 I don't know the name of the Baby groups (three of them)


Outside the Main Reception


Enlarge this image





Entrance to Mini Club and Baby Club


Enlarge this image




Directions from Main Reception to Mini Club and Baby club up the stairs


Enlarge this image





I have attempted several times to explain the likely volume of children in the creche of children between the ages of 3 - 5 with Emma Wilding having SHARKS (which included Jez Wilkins daughter) and Catriona with  children (5 girls and two boys)

Emma's SHARKS group played mini tennis on THURSDAY (the mini tennis that Rachael claimed to have seen Maddie)

Catriona's LOBSTER group played TUESDAY morning

I can see that the misunderstanding has led to confusion.  

Hopefully it can now be recognised that there was likely (approx) 13 children in the creche room (with Baby's club in an adjoining room)

Both groups spent times together as we can see from Emma





Approx 13 children likely sharing the same area.  Unlike school, only there to be kept occupied during the random times they attended.

I showed the video as an EXAMPLE of how it may feel in a room full of 13 children and tryng to keep them occupied. ie the REALITY of how it may feel.


This video is from BBC Whistleblower investigating the creche in this portion of the program  (Buttons) as well as Mark Warner in creche in Egypt)


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvjfPZ8dpgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></iframe>



We can see from the program that its not always as organised as presumed (not to say there were any issues with PdL but this thread is about a POSSIBILITY, not what is known)





I hope that explains all the misunderstandings and to show why this thread is something that I feel is important to address.

Please let me know if there are still issues that you disagree with.





HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:03 AMCopy HTML

Jez Wilkins DAUGHTER is in the SHARKS mini club and his SON is in the baby group located in the same area above the Main reception.

Regarding 'no interest' (which of course is your prerogative) I would like to point out that this is NOT the same old subject.  Its a topic that has NOT been discussed before, but it does rely on full understanding of how many children were in the creche room with Maddie which could explain how the McCanns were able to manipulate the creche records to indicate Maddie was there when she wasn't

I tried very hard to explain it all in the OP and the subsequent posts, but, as I mentioned earlier, maybe members dont have the full knowledge of all the details (and thats understandable) that need to be understood before it is recognised how IMPORTANT it is to understand the concept of this thread




It is IMPORTANT to this thread to recognise that there could have been 13 children playing together in the one room and until that is recognised as a possibility/probability I can see where the concept of the thread makes no sense.

Glad we have it sorted! (Hopefully)

Just one thing to recognise skyrocket...and thank you for confirming the creche photo is from the brochures available in  2007 its not a photo of the creche above the main reception, (which is where the mini club Sharks and Lobsters were) but does give us an idea of what the creche may look like



Enlarge this image



This is the outside view of the Main reception and the creche is on the floor above...


Enlarge this image




This is the Toddler 1 and 2 location next to the tapas bar...



Enlarge this image




This is the map showing locations of the two creche and the Millenium Restaurant



Enlarge this image

HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:12 AMCopy HTML

I ABSOLUTELY believe this is one of the most important threads as it may help explain, (if something happened to Madeleine before Thursday) HOW they managed to dupe everyone into believing she attended the creche until Thursday pm.

Becausse I believe Maddie was not around the OC starting earlier in the week, I feel it is my responsibility to justify my thoughts by offering a possibility of how  they managed to deceive everyone and how it could have been achieved.

Its important to offer the possible explanation of the creche and how it may have been achieved to give the claim credibility.

This thread has offered MY suggestion.

I have welcomed OTHER suggestions but have not seen an alternative (so far anyway)


---------

The amount of children in the creche with Catriona is critical for this suggestion to explain HOW she may not have remembered seeing Maddie after (approx) MONDAY..

I emphasise its a POSSIBILITY for this thread.  If there is NO possibility then there HAS to be another explanation, or the claim of something happening earlier would not be credible.

You agree with the suggestion that it was more about head counts and keeping the children occupied than it was about ensuring all children were in attendance as with a school scenario, where they would also likely teach the children about interactions etc. which would require names to be known.


----------

Yes, I am in agreement about the picture which I have addressed many times...

As with everything they do... they NEEDED to make sure that the photo used RESEMBLED one of the other children.

We were told by Miguel Matias at the Paraiso that he was CERTAIN that Maddie was at the restaurant dancing with her daddy when we know for a FACT she wasn't there.

This tells us that ONE OF THE TAPAS CHILDREN RESEMBLED MADDIE!





HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:14 AMCopy HTML

 Something I could use some help on please...


Has the main reception been renovated or has it changed locations?

Does anyone know?



Enlarge this image





Enlarge this image

HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:16 AMCopy HTML


Is it POSSIBLE that he was talking to Emma at that time and mistakenly wrote down her name as it was so similar? A bit far fetched, maybe, but it IS a possibility (especially if mind occupied)

We can see that Alexander Mann was signed in as 'Richard' in the afternoon.

HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:17 AMCopy HTML



Thanks very much for that Doug The photos I provided were from two different sides of the building :)

Sometimes I need to engage my brain  laughat


BUT.... Does the Palm Bay photo have more floors above? OWN QUESTION ANSWERED... There is another floor on side view.

Thanks Doug :)



Enlarge this image




Enlarge this image
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:20 AMCopy HTML

I agree that much of Catrionas statements were subject to discrepancies and contradictions, relevant to the issues with 'Discrepancies' and other issues but regarding THIS thread I am trying to find how the McCanns managed to sign the creche records if Maddie wasn't there.

I think there is no question that Catriona was 'guided' and 'reminded' what to say and who knows what went on in the Secret meeting (which she likely attended)

It seems she was possibly 'helped' after and though the McCanns refused to say where she was, it was no secret she went to New York with a dramatically changed appearance.

HOWEVER, this is about the signatures and HOW the McCanns managed to have everyone believing that Maddie attended the creche.

I do NOT believe that Catriona knew ANYTHING prior to the disappearance and was likely (imo) a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have tried to explain what I believe could have happened.

I am still asking for an alternative that is based on what we are aware of.

Catriona was (likely) in a creche room with both SHARKS and LOBSTERs intermingling together and her job was to look after them and keep them occupied for whatever time they were in the creche.

My thoughts are that if something happened to Maddie before Tuesday then she wouldn't have seen her in the creche but after beig TOLD Maddie was there she second guessed herself and related her comments to a child she THOUGHT could have been Maddie.

She could NOT say she didn't remember seeing her....

All the names of those that were asked to give a statement are very interesting and like Sharon says... worthy of another thread.

Would they know this Secret Rothley Meeting that Catriona likely attended, be made known and have the approximate date published?

Catrionas visit and the Secret Rothley meeting were likely the same weekend.

I think it will be a very interesting thread.
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:21 AMCopy HTML

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7278514.stm



The shocking truth behind daycare at nurseries and creches
By IMOGEN WILLCOCKS
Last updated at 08:10 06 March 2008

After these two nurseries, I decided to investigate the self-styled upper end of the child-minding business, where I soon realised that the problems are not confined to our own shores.


Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.


It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.


That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.


Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.

When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."

This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.


Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.


Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.


Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.


Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.


Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.


Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.


No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.


To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.


Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.


Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.


He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.
"There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise.
"We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures."














http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/03_march/05/whistleblower.shtml
Press Releases

Ofsted Whistleblower reveals widespread failings in the care of the under-fives


Category: Factual & Arts TVBBC One 
Date: 05.03.2008 



Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult tochild ratios were not always met – on several occasions at Buttons nursery, Imogen is seen left in sole charge of up to 13 pre-school children. [size=16]At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is and, on one occasion at Just Learning, Imogen and another member of staff are left caring for 23 children. This was despite complaints from members of staff concerned about child welfare and safety.[/size]
 
 Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions – the undercover BBC reporter discovered, for example, potential choking hazards in the sandpit at Just Learning (which she removed and disposed of). At Buttons nursery she found pieces of glass in the garden and witnessed maintenance work, involving power tools, being carried out whilst the children were in the same room. At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
 
 No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.
 
 Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".




(...)


2. BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:
- Just Learning in Cambourne from 7 to 27 November 2007.
- Buttons nursery in west London from July to August 2007.
Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.
 
3. A second undercover BBC reporter, Ashley Kennedy, followed up Imogen Willcock's findings by working undercover at Mark Warner's La Plagne ski resort, in France, for two days from 17 December 2007 to see if procedures had been tightened since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Portugal in May 2007. Again, she was employed by Mark Warner and working at the resort prior to her references and a CRB check being obtained.
 
4. On 18 February 2008, Jonathan Bell, the MD of Just Learning, wrote to parents announcing that the Cambourne nursery would close on Friday 29 February 2008. Quote from the letter: "You will be aware that the nursery recently received an "Inadequate" report from Ofsted. The directors of Just Learning have considered this and the increasing difficulty of recruiting staff against continuing media interest in the nursery. We have also been made aware, by the BBC, of a serious breach of recruitment policy last year involving a former member of staff. As a result of this, the nursery manager has resigned".
 
5. Mark Warner resorts are not required to work to Ofsted regulations.





Written statement from Mark Warner in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
 
"It's company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record. There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff.
 
"We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously. It is the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
 
"Guests who've been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is high.
 
"Eighty-nine out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. And every single one of our water sports instructors has a professional qualification."
 
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:22 AMCopy HTML

I TOTALLY understand why most people wouldn't agree.  Thats why I have 'sat' on this topic for more than 8 years, but what I would REALLY like to know, is whether, even though you dont agree it happened, whether you think its POSSIBLE.

As mentioned before, this is NOT a solution to what likely happened, it a RESEARCH thread to discuss and gather input to see (if something happened to Maddie earlier in the week) the McCanns managed to  convince everyone that Maddie was at the creche until Thursday.

That is something that HAS to be explained if one believes she was not around the resort after a couple/few days.

To have the creche issues remain  unchallenged gives credibility to Madeleine DYING on THURSDAY.

Thats why I felt it was TIME to discuss and find an answer as to how it was accomplished.

Not to give a scenario and have everyone decide whether they agree or not.

I CONSIDER THIS (HOPEFULLY) A RESEARCH THREAD

I think its one of the most important topics that NEEDS to be addressed if one is to believe something happened earlier and I am attempting to put as much effort into explaining and posting all the info that I have on the subject.

----------------------------------------

I SUSPECT, although I haven't seen anyone post it, that some may consider Catriona COMPLICIT because her statements give some credibility to Madeleine being present in the creche until Thursday...

If her early statements claim that, are some people thinking that she was 'in it' from the start otherwise her early statements would not have the detail about Madeleine?





I have made it CLEAR that my thoughts do not head in that direction.  I do NOT believe she was complicit in 'helping' the McCanns during the holiday.

As I have explained many times, I DO believe she was 'intimidated' 'reminded' and details 'suggested' to her at a later date, particularly during her stay visiting the McCanns and possibly attending the ROTHLEY SECRET MEETING.

An example could be 'Ohh yes Catriona, remember at high tea I was wearing a sporting outfit and don't you remember Gerry was at Tennis'  (Gerry claims to have BEEN there and not playing tennis)

'Do you remember how tired Madeleine was especially at high tea.'

etc. etc.

Or maybe a contrived discussion of everything they wanted her (and others?) to 'remember'?

There had to be SOME way they managed to have the statements show some of the details they wanted known.







For those that believe the early statements tell the REAL story, you may be interested to learn that she was able to be REMINDED of what she said in her early statements and change them accordingly.

CATRIONA'S EARLY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED!


Thanks to Joana Morais for this news article Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008

Please visit to see Comments 
https://joana-morais.blogspot.ca/2008/11/tvmais-at-what-time-did-maddie-leave.html





[size=35]TVMais: At what time did Maddie leave the crèche?
by astro 9 years ago[/size]




Some have doubts about the Ocean Club’s crèche records. The doubts increase if we pay attention to the depositions from Maddie’s last nanny

by Hernâni Carvalho

“The disappearance took place during the time period between 5.35 and 10.05 p.m. on the 3rd of May 2007”, reads the report from the 4th Brigade of the PJ in Portimão. A premiss that is now questioned. Catriona Treasa Sisile Baker was the nanny who worked at the crèche and was responsible for Maddie since the McCanns arrived in Praia da Luz. The statements that the nanny gave to the police raise doubts. After Maddie’s disappearance, she was heard by the PJ in Portimão. One week later, she was transferred to another location by her employers. Soon afterwards, she returned to England. At Leicestershire police, she was also heard, but corrected the statements that she had given in Portugal.

“I was allowed to refresh my memory by reading the translated version of my original statement to the Portuguese police”, one can read in the report that was taped by Leicester police. The contents of the nanny’s statements was such that she was heard three times on the same day, and had to have her memory refreshed. At Leicestershire police headquarters, Catriona Baker was heard by detective Gierc between 10.09 and 10.54 a.m. on Monday, the 14th of April 2008. Between 11.57 and 12.12 a.m. on the same day, she was heard again by the same detective and between 1.35 and 1.45 p.m. on the same day she was again questioned by the same detective.

«They Showed her the PJ's Report to Refresh her Memory»

The nanny revealed that she only met the McCanns in Portugal; she recognized that after returning to England she visited the couple upon their invitation, in November 2007. “I visited the family at their home following an invitation to see how all of us were doing.” The McCann couple is worried about searching for Maddie and about knowing how the nannies are doing. Catriona explained how the McCanns behaved in Portugal. “The twins sometimes looked tired at tea time, after a long day and maybe also because of the heat, but I never saw a reason for concern with the McCanns children or their behaviour.”

Maddie’s last nanny remembers extraordinary details about that last day, but she doesn’t remember who picked up Maddie and at what time. “On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry dropping Madeleine off at the club between 9.15 and 9.20 a.m. I don’t remember who picked her up for lunch that day, but in the afternoon she returned for a swim. We carried out activities with other children. On that day, we practiced sailing and I remember meeting friends of Madeleine’s parents on the beach, David and Jane. At around 2.45 p.m., Madeleine returned to the Minis Club above the reception, but I don’t remember who brought her. On that afternoon, we went swimming. Kate picked up Madeleine in the Tapas Bar area, and as far as I remember, she was wearing sports clothes at that time and I deducted that she had been jogging. It was around 3.35 – 6 p.m.”

At what time did the little girl leave after all?

Catriona can’t remember. She remembers Kate’s jogging suit. That’s not too bad. Coincidentally, Catriona Baker didn’t go out with her friends that day (the 3rd of May 2007). “Some of my colleagues were going out, but I was too tired to accompany them.”

Catriona Baker stated to the Portuguese and British police that on that day she went into her room to sleep because she was tired. And that’s why she only noticed that Madeleine McCann had disappeared when her colleagues from the crèche went to alert her. On that night, Mark Warner invited all the resort’s employees to cooperate in the searches for Maddie. “The director told us where to search. We searched everywhere. I walked most of the routes that Madeleine passed through and that could be familiar to her”, the nanny told the British police. Catriona Baker took part in the searches, but found neither Maddie not the McCanns. “I didn’t see Kate or Gerry that night.”

The Ocean Club crèches

There is a number of children clubs at the Ocean Club resort. The children are grouped according to their age. Clubs for 3-11 months (Baby Club), 12-23 months (Toddler Club), 24 months to 3 years (Toddler 2 Club), 3 to 5 years (Minis Club), 6 to 9 years (Juniors Club), 10 to 14 years (Kids Club) and from 14 to 17 years (Indies Club). In May 2007 there were 16 nannies at the Ocean Club. Catriona Baker is one of them. The importance of her deposition derives from the fact that she was the nanny who cared for Madeleine McCann.

Samples from the crèche records

Reports

The workings of the Ocean Club crèche was explained to the British police by Catriona herself: “Mark Warner has the usual procedure of signing a form whenever the parents leave the child in the club’s care, which they sign again with the name and the time at which the child was collected. There is a separate sheet for the morning shift and another for the afternoon shift. The sheet contains space for the child’s name, the time and the parent’s signature. Only parents are allowed to take the children, except when an agreement is made in another sense, in due time.”

In Portugal, the experts that can evaluate calligraphy are from the PJ. It was explained to Tvmais that the crèche’s reports reveal inconsistencies in the writing. One of the doubts that the analysts raise concerns the identity of the authors of the form filling and their signatures in the form. The nanny’s signature and her handwriting appear on the sheet where only the parents were supposed to sign. Did anyone notice?

Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008
HiDeHo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Diamond Member
  • Score:2851
  • Posts:2851
  • From:USA
  • Register:26/01/2013 4:34 PM

Re:How did McCanns deceive about Maddie in CRECHE. Is THIS scenario POSSIBLE?

Date Posted:29/01/2018 6:23 AMCopy HTML

Thanks for that Phoebe and THAT is my point 'None of the minders ever bothered to learn her name. ' It doesn't need to be PROBABLE at this point...only POSSIBLE

We have a long way to go to figure out how the creche issue was accomplished and I appreciate all the input.  (Even if sometimes I haven't managed to acknowledge individual posts)

Keep the suggestions coming.  I believe we WILL get there and one day learn the truth about what happened to Maddie.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

web analytics
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.