Pages

Saturday, April 2, 2016

The Creche, The Records, An Intent To Deceive And By Whom?

Cat Baker's comment in her 6 May statement:

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

MBM was shown as attending on Sunday morning, whereas Ella is shown not attending.

Jane huffs and puffs a lot when asked about Sunday in her rogatory, and seemingly the only thing she does remember (or knows she's supposed to remember) is that Ella didn't attend in the morning:


 “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club. I can’t remember if Evie did, I think she probably did, I mean I can’t see any reason why she wouldn’t have done so I think she probably went to the kids club in the morning err I honestly can’t remember what we did that morning. I don’t know, I don’t think, I think the tennis lesson, I can’t remember whether the tennis lesson started that day or the next day but err so I think, no I can’t remember apart from the fact I know Ella didn’t go, so I presume we stayed with Ella or either Russell or myself you know stayed with Ella by the pool because there’s like a park area by the pool, so.”

This is incoherent even by  the mccann and tapas7 standards.
Lying is stressful.
The brain doesn't like stress and will try to tell the truth to ease the stress.
Outright lying is unusual, people would much rather minimize or omit what really happened than create a whole new reality (approx 10% of people will create a new reality)

Tanner shows she is being deceptive.
A simple question about whether her children were at the creche on Sunday produces a lot of evasion and confusing language.

It was their first full day, a parent would know if their children went to the creche on the first full day or not.

It is an easy question to answer.

They would have met the staff as they dropped the children off and the same when they collected them at lunch time before dropping them off again in the afternoon and collecting them at tea time.

It is not a once a day event which could have been overlooked whilst lots of other things were going on.

There would have been 4 points of contact which either one or both parents would have been present.

Instead we have tanner being evasive with her responses.
She can't even say she specifically remembers doing this or that and screws herself into the ground in an effort to avoid being pinned down to a specific event or a specific time or even a specific memory.

This is highly sensitive to tanner, a cluster of blues, which is unexpected, especially since it was the first full day of their holiday.

We have repetition of things in the negative, telling us what didn't happen as opposed to what did happen.

Because/ so is used to explain why something happened, it answers an unasked question, a question the subject thinks will be asked.

You know/obviously  is used to convince and convey, to accept without question, it also shows awareness of the interviewer.

How could she not remember if Evie went to the kids club?

She has two children, the maths is not that difficult unlike if she had a dozen or so.

She tells us what she can't remember as opposed to what she can remember.
In order to not remember something, you have to have an idea of what was supposed to be remembered, in this case attending the kids club on the Sunday.
She can't even be pinned down to who was actually with Ella, who, she eventually remembered, didn't go to the club.

It was the first full day of the vacation, she has two children, yet she cannot remember who did what with whom and where.

You would remember looking after at least one child on your first full day of your vacation.

Looking at this statement from tanner, all the sensitivities, i am wondering if something happened on the Saturday night, early Sunday morning that resulted in her going to pieces and contradicting herself, and avoiding anything definite on what should have been a normal Sunday, the first full day of the holiday.

I can recall what i did, where we went on my first trip to Houston in 2006.

Why was tanner so incoherent on the first full day of her vacation in a statement taken so close to the alleged abduction?

I would imagine, given the traumatic alleged event that took place, that every member would have remembered exactly what they did and when during that week, we are talking days or weeks not years and decades here.


It doesn't answer the question asked, it  lets the interviewer answer it themselves.


Regarding the creche and remembered seeing whom and when.

There is a thing called false memory.

There was a TV episode on it a while back and it also gets repeated.

A group of people were taken into the desert and during the trip came across a group of soldiers protecting something, allegedly a UFO.
Nothing was said and the group carried on as normal after being asked to move along.
A few weeks later, members of the group were asked individually about the trip and what they had seen.
They remembered seeing guns and other things, things that were never there using the process of free editing.

It is possible that the same thing could happen with the creche.
Given the age of the children in the group and knowing they would be using the creche facilities, it is entirely possible that the creche staff are remembering something that did not happen.

The obvious conclusion is that if the twins were at the creche, so then was Maddie, after all, why would a parent of three children drop the twins off and not drop Maddie of as well?
The records are a mess and it would not be the first or last time that someone has signed someone in or someone out because the parents forgot to.
The staff would not have known that at some point during that week, that one of their charges would allegedly be abducted and the records would become evidence.
They would not be able to identify a particular child out of a group unless they stood out, such as the twins.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of many.

The creche workers would not have been familiar with the parents in the group as pretty much the only time they would see them is at drop off and collection and when it is busy, kids running around doing what kids do, the parent is just another face.
Also, if multiple parents collected their children at the same time or dropped them off, who would remember which child belonged to which parent?

The records were not like a school register where, if a child is absent, the creche contacts the parent to ask where their child is, their concern is just a paper record for the boss as to who dropped their kids off and who collected them, and also to help with billing at the end of the vacation if more use was made of the creche than was agreed upon at the time of booking.
It was not compulsory for the parents to sign though they were told to sign in and sign out their children, it was just to cover their backs if something went bosoms up whilst the kids were in their care, who to blame and to make sure everything was paid for regarding trips etc.
What went on when the kids were with their parents was none of their concern.

I do wonder if there were other records for when the parents made use of the evening creche or the babysitting facility.
If so i wonder how those looked?

The only evidence we have that Maddie attended the creche every day is a slapdash sign in/out sheet for supposedly morning and afternoon, signed by the parents not the creche workers.
A parent could claim their child was present at a certain time on a particular day because they had signed the sheet.
Even if the creche worker had said, "i don't recall seeing  child XYZ at a certain time on a particular day", the parents just have to say" my child was there, see, i signed them in and out. Why would i do that if they weren't there?"
Paper evidence would trump memory, after all, no one would expect parents to be deceptive about dropping off and collecting their children each day.
You must have forgotten seeing her because she was behaved etc, see here is the evidence she was there.

The staff are not going to say hang on that child wasn't there that day and i forged the parents signature on the sheets, it would cause all sorts of issues for the  member of staff, MW etc, as well as giving the parents something to hold over their heads, especially in today's litigious society where people sue at the drop of a hat.
MW would take the word of the parents over that of the creche worker.
Worker gets sacked, possibly prosecuted or sued and the parents get away scot free due to all the muddying of the water.

Maddie was at the creche every day as she was signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
The twins were the creche every day as they were signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
If Maddie had not been 'abducted' the creche sheets would have been irrelevant, they would not have been needed to prove someone was present or not.
The twins may have been a bit more memorable simply because they were twins, although none identical.
Had they been identical, they would have been very memorable.
Had a twin gone missing then despite what the sheets were saying, a creche worker is going to far more certain if one had not shown up.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of similar looking little girls.

Whether the sheets were taken into account prior to Maddie going missing, i don't know.
What i do know is, that the slapdash signing in/out worked to the mccanns favor.
It was a paper trail showing Maddie was alive on particular days at particular times.

No one is going to ask why would the parents sign their child in when said child wasn't there, and sign them out when the child was never there.
Why sign a non existent child in and out?
They had booked their child(ren) in for a week all day every day, why would they then not make use of the facility they have paid for and keep their child(ren) at home with them?

The creche workers were fed a false memory and when questioned talked about something that never happened.
The paperwork would back up the said false memory simply because it would not cross anyone's mind that the signing in and out was for a non existent child.
Maddie was there only because the paperwork, the creche sign in/out sheets said she was.

How else could the discrepancies and contradictions work?
One claimed certain activities took place one one day and someone else said it was a different day.
She was there, she wasn't.
She was in this group, she wasn't.
The tennis ball photo is a good example, they couldn't even agree which day it took place on let alone what time.

The creche workers are going to go with what the parents are claiming simply because
A) They are professional, doctors. Doctors would have no reason to lie.
B) The parents version of events, especially given their daughter was allegedly abducted, is going to be believed over that of a creche worker.
C) Why would the parents lie over such a trivial matter (when the trivial matter conceals a none trivial matter with bad consequences)
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events because they cannot remember anything of the week regarding which children were where and when.
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events as disagreeing will have consequences such as being sacked and getting bad references since clearly as a creche worker they were terrible and the bosses will back the parents rather than them.

No one can definitively say, nor is there any actual evidence, that Maddie was alive the whole week up to the Thursday night.
All we have to show that Maddie was alive that week is slapdash creche records with inconsistent signatures and even names, vague memories of her being at certain activities which did or did not not happen  on the day or times claimed, vague witness statements from staff and the public seeing someone who may or may not be Maddie, a couple of photos which could have been taken on days other than when was claimed (the pool and the tennis balls) and contradictory statements from the parents and members of the tapas 7.

There is no independent witness, no independent evidence that shows Maddie was alive at any time after she arrived at MW on the Saturday or after Sunday AM.

We have an incoherent statement from tanner regarding the Sunday, a day which should have no reason to cause sensitivity regarding who did what and where.
Something happened the Saturday night/Sunday morning to cause tanner to go into a verbal meltdown when there was no reason to do so.
That she is almost incoherent would cause me to delve deeply into the Saturday night/Sunday morning to learn what really went on.

I can recall what i did, who i was with on the first day of my vacations to Canada and The States.
Heck i can even remember what i did at the airports here and abroad, the passengers on the plane ( it was talk like a pirate day and it all got very silly)
This was from 2006 and 2008.
How come tanner could not recall a particular day days or a few weeks after?

8 comments:

  1. You are extremely thorough. Very thought-provoking......

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Tania

    The clusters of blue are off the scale! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Tania

    The Tapas dining arrangements are another area ripe for harvesting.

    Beyond any revealing characteristics to be discovered within a given utterance, might the displacement of context be of relevance?

    I was literally startled to read a remark of Russell O'Brien's which, quite simply, does not belong where he places it, at least as regards the official narrative. If one should subscribe to the unofficial narrative however....

    In the course of his first Rogatory interview, and sandwiched neatly between a cursory description of the Monday morning (30 May), followed by the Monday afternoon, we get this:

    "After Madeleine disappeared we all began eating lunch at Dave and Fiona’s apartment."

    (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id221.html).

    Madeleine is supposed to have disappeared on the Thursday. So what relevance does the group's behaviour afterwards have to the Monday particularly, and O'Brien's being invited to give a detailed account of events leading up to Madeleine's 'disappearance'? Is O'Brien unwittingly telling us that Madeleine's 'disappearance' belongs elsewhere in time?

    Regards

    M.R.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good post, Tania. As per xx Am sharing with Aletheia. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. We're getting further and further away from Thursday as the day of disappearance . I have to ask myself. Did Madeleine ever go on that holiday? Oh I know we have the very convenient video taken by David Payne which strangely enough is all about the McCanns and Madeleine. His own wife and family barely get a scene and certainly not one to themselves in this jolly little video. Hmmm.
    Love your interpretations Tania. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post as always, suggestion is that video showing them bording the plane was not going to PDL. Someone suggested plane was too small, I dont know but looking at the flight records something is amiss and needs further checking!, Tania?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fiona Payne has stated in her PJ interview that she walked with Kate on May 3rd to pick up her daughter and Madeleine from their crèche. She then states that she and her daughter and Kate and Madeleine all walked back to their apartments together. I do not see her name or her daughters name on the May 3rd crèche register.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The crèche records prove nothing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment