MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Madeleine Beth McCann went missing from PDL in Portugal on the 3rd May 2007, there are so many unanswered questions, please discuss

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Dreyfus » Fri May 30, 2008 3:11 pm

blacksmith wrote:
MiceAnMen wrote:
lincoln green wrote:How does each new report manage to contradict the one before. :?

It's like trying to nail jelly to the wall trying to get a fix on anything.


lincoln, I think this is the direct result of printing PR releases as news. No-one has bothered their a**e verifying anything released by Mitchell. No probing questions, no investigation.

Dreyfuss, re the creche records, I would be amazed if the sign-in register was monitored at point of entry i.e. nobody standing over you whilst you write in the book. It's possible that these registers would only be examined if and when a need arose i.e. fire-drill, query etc. It may even be possible that M was in the creche but not signed-in, depending on how casual the operation was. Hence, I think, the swift arrival of Bell Pottinger to ensure that the MW house was in order.

-
Yes, but don't you think that if the creche records were not completely kosher in every way - and I believe that they come under legislation - then MW would have had Bell Pottinger and everyone else at work for months trying to prepare us gradually for the news? But no, all the indications are that MW have been completely unworried by any vulnerability in their record keeping - which leads me to conclude that they are watertight.


I know I can bore for England on this one, but really, you'd be amazed how many employees of well-respected companies quickly and quietly "touch up" the company's Health & Safety paperwork when an accident or crisis happens.

You'd be amazed how many inspection records and check sheets get miraculously filled in and back-dated in the hours before an official inspection by the HSE or Environmental Health Dept - or before a visit from the H & S Manager at Head Office. The procedures may be laid down properly to cover existing legislation, but unless the Management monitor things properly and keep up standards, employees get sloppy - I would imagine this to be true especially in a holiday environment in a friendly place like the Algarve
Last edited by Dreyfus on Fri May 30, 2008 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby helena » Fri May 30, 2008 3:18 pm

MiceAnMen wrote:
lincoln green wrote:How does each new report manage to contradict the one before. :?

It's like trying to nail jelly to the wall trying to get a fix on anything.


lincoln, I think this is the direct result of printing PR releases as news. No-one has bothered their a**e verifying anything released by Mitchell. No probing questions, no investigation.

Dreyfuss, re the creche records, I would be amazed if the sign-in register was monitored at point of entry i.e. nobody standing over you whilst you write in the book. It's possible that these registers would only be examined if and when a need arose i.e. fire-drill, query etc. It may even be possible that M was in the creche but not signed-in, depending on how casual the operation was. Hence, I think, the swift arrival of Bell Pottinger to ensure that the MW house was in order.


I have stated this before,when i went on a cruise a few years back and my son was then nnearly 7,he did go to the creche.He had to be signed in and out everytime.When we arrived at the creche there was normally a bit of chaos and a queue.My son run in and i waited my turn to sign in
Noone actually saw me signing,as at the same time a conversation was going on with the staff.
same when signing out
Not saying they didn't do their job properly,I was more than please with the staff,just trying to say,the register will probably only looked at if need to
Lets face it all these places run on minimum staff and there just isn't time to check what every parent wrote in
There is a sort of trust going on isn't there
As long as they can recognise you or your husband belong to xyz child everything is cosher
User avatar
helena
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: swindon

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby lincoln green » Fri May 30, 2008 3:18 pm

Dreyfus wrote:
blacksmith wrote:
MiceAnMen wrote:
lincoln green wrote:How does each new report manage to contradict the one before. :?

It's like trying to nail jelly to the wall trying to get a fix on anything.


lincoln, I think this is the direct result of printing PR releases as news. No-one has bothered their a**e verifying anything released by Mitchell. No probing questions, no investigation.

Dreyfuss, re the creche records, I would be amazed if the sign-in register was monitored at point of entry i.e. nobody standing over you whilst you write in the book. It's possible that these registers would only be examined if and when a need arose i.e. fire-drill, query etc. It may even be possible that M was in the creche but not signed-in, depending on how casual the operation was. Hence, I think, the swift arrival of Bell Pottinger to ensure that the MW house was in order.

-
Yes, but don't you think that if the creche records were not completely kosher in every way - and I believe that they come under legislation - then MW would have had Bell Pottinger and everyone else at work for months trying to prepare us gradually for the news? But no, all the indications are that MW have been completely unworried by any vulnerability in their record keeping - which leads me to conclude that they are watertight.


I know I can bore for England on this one, but really, you'd be amazed how many employees of well-respected companies quickly and quietly "touch up" the company's Health & Safety paperwork when an accident or crisis happens.

You'd be amazed how many inspection records and check sheets get miraculously filled in and back-dated in the hours before an official inspection by the HSE or Environmental Health Dept.


Many years (too many years ago for comfort :oops: ) I used to work in an engineering firm where all the machines had the safety guards removed.
Until the H&S inspector popped by - when I had to ply him with coffee and conversation for about half an hour while all was made good.
However, to read the machine logs they were all guarded at all times.
Sometimes one of the guys actually remembered to use a different pen for different days.
User avatar
lincoln green
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Whatever » Fri May 30, 2008 3:26 pm

I can accept that the staff or whoever would be willing to retrospectively fill Madeleine's name in the register if someone was certain that they'd seen her inside the creche, but I can't believe they'd be willing to do it solely on the basis that the Mcc's claimed she was there, (but no staff member actually saw her) ......or at least, if they were willing to add her name, someone would mention this to the police at some point. Surely??
'okay, we've tried really hard and we've come up with nothing' - K. McCann
User avatar
Whatever
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby blacksmith » Fri May 30, 2008 3:26 pm

I've probably been talking too much today but perhaps I can sum up.

I don't think there is any reason to get too maddened by all the different stories of who saw whom when and that it takes one almost back to square one. We can now be pretty sure in a way that we couldn't be nine months ago that a high proportion of the T9 have been lying from day one. For months we tried to reconcile the "checking" stuff on the assumption that there was some truth there before realising that their entire description of the evening was suspect. The same now goes for virtually everything that the 9 have said - and fed to friendly journalists - about the entire holiday: so we can discount it, concentrating on what the lies might be designed to conceal rather than the lies themselves.

That said I cannot agree with tylersmum that no distinction should be made between the 4 and the 3. I think one has to make the finesse, assume that we have identified a "high lies" group and a passive or "low lies" group and evaluate statements and actions by them accordingly. Since people who were initially more sceptical about the 7 than I was more or less predicted such an inner core many months ago then I am strongly inclined to see the split as confirmatory.

My instincts all tell me that the information now coming out is convergent, ie is filling out the case in accordance with the PJ's broad descriptions of the lines they have been following, not taking it off into different directions. The objection to a death before 6.30 PM on May 3 is that it doesn't fit into this convergence and doesn't help us integrate the evidence we already have and are continuing to get.
blacksmith
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby mercedes2 » Fri May 30, 2008 3:32 pm

Hopefully when Mr. Amaral's book is published all the events will be made clear......although Paulo Christovao has also mentioned recently about the creche records........and his book also says died on the evening of the 3rd.

C da M...........(Amaral)....The investigator, who has distanced himself from the police force and now prepares to write a book, believed that the child died on the evening of the disappearance.

Whilst everyone can choose to believe or not, articles books etc. I have yet to see anything coming from Portugal that infers Madeleine died earlier than May 3rd.
mercedes2
Local Lag
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:05 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby sentinel » Fri May 30, 2008 3:39 pm

Whatever wrote:I can accept that the staff or whoever would be willing to retrospectively fill Madeleine's name in the register if someone was certain that they'd seen her inside the creche, but I can't believe they'd be willing to do it solely on the basis that the Mcc's claimed she was there, (but no staff member actually saw her) ......or at least, if they were willing to add her name, someone would mention this to the police at some point. Surely??



yes, whatso.

this is the crux

by morning on the 4th the creche and MW staff knew madeleine was missing.

they are surely going to remember whether the lovely little girl they were looking after was there the day before or not.
TBH i'm still not clear if it was the creche or the kids club.
"We, with Coldwater's help, have let our imaginations run wild"
User avatar
sentinel
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:10 am

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Fenugreek » Fri May 30, 2008 3:48 pm

If Madeleine was at the creche and was still alive at 6 o'clock, it is pretty phenomenal that they managed to a) kill her b) clean up c) formulate a plan involving others of the party and devise a coherent media strategy d) put the twins to bed and e) having done all this, appear at the Tapas bar at 8.30. Did I ever believe that?

May 2nd (which I mean some time from 10 o'clock May 2nd to mid afternoon May 3rd) makes so much more sense. But how on earth did they do this without someone noticing she wasn't at the creche? Surely, if she wasn't alarm bells would have rung with the police. The only explanation I can think of is that she was never sent to the creche on May 3rd, everyone knew that, and one of the reasons for the massive push towards an "abduction" is to distract from the significance of her absence. Presumably there must have been witnesses who claimed they saw her, but perhaps the witnesses were the friends? I agree, it's very tenuous too.

And the abduction would be the most believable scenario, if it wasn't for cadaver dogs, the McCann behaviour, total lack of forensic evidence etc etc.

No wonder I've got two Donna Leon novels still to read on my shelves!
Fenugreek
On Parole
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:29 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Dreyfus » Fri May 30, 2008 3:56 pm

Whatever wrote:I can accept that the staff or whoever would be willing to retrospectively fill Madeleine's name in the register if someone was certain that they'd seen her inside the creche, but I can't believe they'd be willing to do it solely on the basis that the Mcc's claimed she was there, (but no staff member actually saw her) ......or at least, if they were willing to add her name, someone would mention this to the police at some point. Surely??


Would you?

I honestly don't know if I would.

What may have happened is that none of the staff actually remembers if Madeleine was there or not on that particular afternoon, remember they would be being asked about this a good 24 hours after the event.

The Bell Pottinger site advertises our friend Alex Woolfall's useful PR skills honed on all those unfortunate events like rail crashes. Alex knows that in cases like this the first thing you need to do is make sure the paperwork's right.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that he actively encouraged or told MW employees to falsify the records, he probably didn't need to. It would just be made known to staff in PdL that on his arrival he would be expecting to see the attendance register for the creche, which, of course, he would be expecting to see completed as per MW Company guidelines with the IN and OUT times logged for each child.
Dreyfus
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Location: Devil's Island

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby mercedes2 » Fri May 30, 2008 4:04 pm

I'm sure the PJ have concrete evidence whether Madeleine was in the creche or not, and have done from early in the investigation.
mercedes2
Local Lag
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:05 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Fenugreek » Fri May 30, 2008 4:04 pm

On May 4th, everyone was running around saying "Madeleine's been abducted." If she wasn't at the creche on Wednesday, how suspicious would that have been? I can imagine how this would not have seemed significant at the time, especially if everyone thought she was with her parents and someone else (friends?) said they'd seen them together.

The HUGE problem is why this hasn't leaked out, especially as the police became suspicious relatively early on. It is an immense red flag. I can't believe the creche record was altered, or someone else substituted. Is it possible the police made a monstrous error in not following this up properly (and before our Portuguese friends start throwing eggs at me, I was thinking of the UK Yorkshire Ripper investigation which employed some brilliant police work which was undermined by a couple of very basic errors.) I find this very hard to believe but it is an explanation that does at least have precedents.
Fenugreek
On Parole
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:29 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby mercedes2 » Fri May 30, 2008 4:08 pm

There are probably hundreds of statements that we know nothing about.
mercedes2
Local Lag
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:05 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Whatever » Fri May 30, 2008 4:09 pm

Dreyfus wrote:
Whatever wrote:I can accept that the staff or whoever would be willing to retrospectively fill Madeleine's name in the register if someone was certain that they'd seen her inside the creche, but I can't believe they'd be willing to do it solely on the basis that the Mcc's claimed she was there, (but no staff member actually saw her) ......or at least, if they were willing to add her name, someone would mention this to the police at some point. Surely??


Would you?

I honestly don't know if I would.

What may have happened is that none of the staff actually remembers if Madeleine was there or not on that particular afternoon, remember they would be being asked about this a good 24 hours after the event.

The Bell Pottinger site advertises our friend Alex Woolfall's useful PR skills honed on all those unfortunate events like rail crashes. Alex knows that in cases like this the first thing you need to do is make sure the paperwork's right.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that he actively encouraged or told MW employees to falsify the records, he probably didn't need to. It would just be made known to staff in PdL that on his arrival he would be expecting to see the attendance register for the creche, which, of course, he would be expecting to see completed as per MW Company guidelines with the IN and OUT times logged for each child.



Yes, but the crime under investigation wasn't that Madeleine had been abducted from the creche. Surely, the police would have been initially interested in who saw her last. Then they worked backwards at some point and would have asked the creche staff, fully aware that registers and the like can be inaccurate. If asked the question, 'Did you see Madeleine here on May 3rd?' why would anyone lie? People generally tell the police the truth, especially if they have nothing to hide. What's the problem for MW if Madeleine's name wasn't on the register and no-one remembers seeing her in the creche? None. What would be the incentive for falsfying the records? she didn't die of some accident she had in the creche earlier, she wasn't poisoned or molested in the creche. These are not the claims being made. The only value in falsifying the records would be if the staff all said 'yes, we had her here on May 3rd' but the register had no record of that. Even then, the police wouldn't give a shoite about some missing tick in a register. If the kid was there, someone would be willing to swear under oath that they saw her. If not, no-one in their right mind would do such a thing. What would they? Or am I missing something here?

If someone dies as a result of unguarded machinery I can see why those reponsible for H&S would fiddle the records. Ditto, hospital mishaps, food poisoning etc, doors being left open on Cross Channel ferries....but Madeleine's disappearance had nothing to do with the Creche did it? The parents claimed they put her to bed and then she was taken from it.
'okay, we've tried really hard and we've come up with nothing' - K. McCann
User avatar
Whatever
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Whatever » Fri May 30, 2008 4:15 pm

Fenugreek wrote:On May 4th, everyone was running around saying "Madeleine's been abducted." If she wasn't at the creche on Wednesday, how suspicious would that have been? I can imagine how this would not have seemed significant at the time, especially if everyone thought she was with her parents and someone else (friends?) said they'd seen them together.

The HUGE problem is why this hasn't leaked out, especially as the police became suspicious relatively early on. It is an immense red flag. I can't believe the creche record was altered, or someone else substituted. Is it possible the police made a monstrous error in not following this up properly (and before our Portuguese friends start throwing eggs at me, I was thinking of the UK Yorkshire Ripper investigation which employed some brilliant police work which was undermined by a couple of very basic errors.) I find this very hard to believe but it is an explanation that does at least have precedents.


Yes, but even if the PJ's didn't check the creche records/staff memories etc....the staff themselves would absolutely remember whether or not she was there, surely? This was the most exciting event to have ever happened to the entire resort. There was media everywhere, police, dogs, Embassy staff, god knows what....like you'd not remember whether you'd seen that child the day before? and you work there? I mean, she may be just another blonde English kid, but she'd been there a few days already, she had a name and you'd absolutely want to have your say - 'I saw her' or 'I didn't see her' and you'd never forget which it was.
'okay, we've tried really hard and we've come up with nothing' - K. McCann
User avatar
Whatever
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby nessie » Fri May 30, 2008 4:15 pm

I am sure I read somewhere that creche and nursery was closed 1 day a week to allow staff a day off anyone else remember this and if so was the day it was closed mentioned.
nessie
New In Town
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Justice for Madeleine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
cron