The Creche Sheets

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

Tony Bennett wrote:

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night. 

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

MayMuse wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night. 

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club. 

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.  

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner. 

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable. 

REPLY:  Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

noddy100 wrote:If there was an accident the first thing a babysitter may do is call the parents. They could have come back and 'took over' the situation and convinced CB that she could be in trouble so let them deal with it???

Tony Bennett wrote:

MayMuse wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night. 

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club. 

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.  

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner. 

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable. 

REPLY:  Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

Tony Bennett wrote:

MayMuse wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

NickE wrote:Has anyone had that the thought that CB was paid under the table for babysitting in the apartment on Sunday night and a accident occurred?
Sedation involved from the McC's
Cover up was needed for both, MW and McC?

@ NickE and recent contributors

Your post on 2 February has clearly moved along the discussion to very interesting and potentially highly significant issues...once again, thank you.

Along with everything else that's happened in the past 10 days or so, I completely missed these latest posts - until last night - and I have these observations to add.

First, I think it highly likely that there was a private arrangement between the McCanns and at least some of their Tapas 7 friends for Cat Baker, and maybe also Charlotte Pennington and Amy Tierney, to provide evening/night-time baby-sitting for them. The Ocean Club management may or may not have been aware of such arrangement.

Second, I note that these three: Cat, Charlotte, Amy, were the most active after the event in backing up the McCanns' account of events, especially Cat & Charlotte in relation to the alleged 'high tea' on Thursday c. 5/6pm. Also, I think I'm right in saying that Robert Murat interpreted all their witness statements.

Third, I think there are strong indications that the McCanns and Cat Baker, at least, knew each other prior to April 2007.

Fourth, it has long been my contention that if there was a cover-up of Madeleine's death, it would not need dozens of people to be involved any such cover-up. The leading actors may have been just, say: The Tapas 9, Cat Baker (and possibly two other nannies) and the Manager of the Ocean Club, who I think must have been informed late on Sunday that something very serious had happened.

Fifth, the call for Robert Murat to come to Praia da Luz, and the arrival of Resonate, probably on the Monday, can best be explained by a serious event occurring on the Sunday evening/night.

Sixth, the urgent change of plan regarding the Tapas restaurant booking could well alos b associated with some sudden event Sunday evening/night. 

Seventh, 'NickE', you were looking for Ocean Club 'phone records. I believe some of them, for 3rd and 4th May anyway, can be found at this link:

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

Eighth, a call was made from Ocean Club reception, before 9am on Friday 4 May, to a Bruna Lourenco. I believe it has been established that she is a relative of Nuno Lourenco, who fabricated an alleged kidnapping attempt by Polish holidaymaker Wojcheiech Krokowski. Possibly it is his mother. This could suggest Ocean Club complicity in the attempt made by Lourenco on the morning of Friday 4 May to implicate Krokowski as the abductor. (Even Textusa agrees with me on this by the way). The plot to implicate Krokowski miust have been worked out in advance. Lourenco had to:
a) get a photo of his hired car
b) supply a registration number, and
c) organize a CCTV image of him.
Plus, also, as we now know, his description of Krokowski matched Jane Tanner's (given on 4 May) in every details, down to the cloth clothes, the classic shoes, and of course the inevitable 'didn't look like a tourist' which, coincidentally, Martin Smith used 13 days later in his statement. Loruenco's fabrications fooled Amaral and his colleagues so much so that passengers were held in their plane at Berlin Airport and the PJ investigation was massively diverted on only its second full day.
The fact that someone at the Ocean Club 'phoned Lourenco's home early on 4 May could be very significant.

If CB was babysitting and an accident occurred, why not report it?
If because Madeleine was sedated, how would CB be aware?

Why would the OC ( or anyone ) cover up an accident, surely they have insurances for such eventualities, it is a family holiday club. 

REPLY: Of course, the suggestion that Cat Baker, and/or any other nannies, were baby-sitting on the Sunday night, is pure conjecture - no more than a possibility.

But suppose she was.

If a very serious or fatal accident happened >>> then yes, CB reports this to parents. Suppose also this is a private arrangement. DISASTER for Mark Warner, they have employed a neglectful carer. DISASTER for McCanns - ditto. DISASTER for CB - ditto.  

If she fell into a coma or died as a result of sedatives administered by the McCanns >>> DISASTER for the McCanns, but CB in the clear, Mark Warner in the clear.

A third possibility would clearly be that a baby-sitter assaulted Madeleine. Then >>> DISASTER for CB, McCanns & Mark Warner. 

So there must be something more which links them all, which I have to admit I find baffling whether it be the swinging theory or paedophilia, either way all of those "reinforcements" for one little girls disappearance and the twists and tales that followed are remarkable. 

REPLY:  Agreed. I do not think that any of the above scenarios can go near to explaining why there was such a vast and immediate collection of top British politicans, senior government officials and the security services apparatus involved right from the very first day (and is STILL involved, 10 years on).

So, yes, we must look for something else. The evidence that the Make-Up/Lolita photo may have been taken on Sunday afternoon, 29 April, must be considered.

MayMuse wrote:

Thank you for your response Tony, it does all appear to be extremely operational from day one But why continue for ten years, why has this particular child continually been almost force fed to the public from many avenues, other missing children have not been afforded the same or their parents touted like celebrities? If it is a case of national security in what capacity would that be, because of high profile persons connected?  Perhaps the link is something which would open another can of worms which the public cannot find out at any cost? The deception is so blatantly obvious, why not let it fade into the background, if all these "authorities" are trying to hide something bigger, why keep it up, surely they could have shut it down years ago, this is something which I've thought about often. This case in my opinion has made a laughing stock of the police force and the government. 

The makeup photo is a strange one, not least as to how it was released, but why, it is as if it was either a message to someone or to instill more confusion and suggestions that paedophillia may be involved. Is this a red herring? 

There seems to be many "directions" with many interferences, if it was a simple case of an accident surely there would be no requirements for such involvement, likewise IF an abduction! 

What sticks in my mind is the hand written Fund Bucket so readily made in those early days... when has any other missing child's family done that?