Saturday, April 30, 2016

Something For The mccanns To Think About.

HONOLULU –  The parents of a Hawaii boy who has been missing for nearly 20 years have been charged with murder after authorities reopened the case and re-evaluated the evidence.
The boy's parents have long been suspects in the 1997 disappearance of then 6-year-old "Peter Boy" Kema, but prosecutors said there hadn't been enough evidence to charge them until now.
Peter Kema Sr. had told authorities he took his son to Oahu and gave him to a longtime family friend.
A grand jury indicted Peter and Jaylin Kema on second-degree murder charges Wednesday.
The boy's father is being held on $500,000 bail after being arrested Thursday on an unrelated traffic offense.
The mother was arrested in Hilo and her bail has been set at $150,000.
It's not clear whether the parents have attorneys.
The Hilo public defender's office said they couldn't confirm or deny they were representing the parents.

Twenty years kate and gerry, twenty years.

The parents thought they had literally gotten away with murder.

Cases once opened are only closed when they are solved, however long it takes.

A crime once done cannot be undone.

Words spoken cannot be unheard.
Words spoken cannot be unspoken.
Words seen cannot be unseen.
Words written cannot be unwritten from publicly available media.

The words you have spoken using the process of free editing cannot then be changed to mean something else when you realize you have incriminated yourselves.
A secret is only a secret when no one else knows about it or even suspects it exists.
Your best and most trusted friends today can be your worst enemies tomorrow.

How long kate and gerry do you think you can avoid justice?

How long can you escape the consequences of your actions?

How long do you hope your friends will stay silent?

How long can you survive the fear of every day wondering if today is the day it all comes crashing down?

How long can you continue to lie to your surviving children?

How long before your surviving children confront you with your deeds, your guilt and give you an ultimatum?

You are struggling now and it's only been 9 years.

You were struggling from the get go to convince the world of Maddie being abducted and failed miserably.

The PJ knew the truth from the beginning about your involvement in the HOMICIDE, CONCEALMENT OF A CORPSE and FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT.
Even the UK police in their home county could not be convinced:Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007):
“While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”. You may have convinced a few people of your so called non-involvement, a few wealthy donors even.

However, the people you have really needed to convince of your non-involvement are the police forces of Portugal and the UK.

These are the people you needed to convince in order for you not to be charged and then ending up spending decades in prison.

Not only for the
HOMICIDE, CONCEALMENT OF A CORPSE and FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT, something which will be what the PJ charge you both with, probably along with several of your tapas chums, also for obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting an offender and probably to round it off, charges relating to obtaining money and services by deception.

UK police  will be the ones to handle the fraudulent fund since it is based in the UK.

Since you knew Maddie was dead, the fund claiming to be used to search for Maddie, and which has generally been used to keep you in the manner to which you would like to be accustomed to, used for legal fees, paying the mortgage and possibly the extension as well as other goodies, will be revealed as a fraud, a multi million fraud.

It also means the media will more than likely sue for the return of any monies awarded to you, even if agreed out of court, those who gave money to you will also likely want their money back.
The same applies to the tapas chums who will likely need to hand back the money they got.
The money they allegedly gave to the fund.

Boy that will be fun as you all sue and counter sue each other in an effort to pay back the hundreds of thousands and possibly even millions donated by the public who might be able to file a class action.

Heck even America could get involved since donations were requested either directly or via your website with the handy dandy dollar button.
It is called wire fraud and the Americans don't mess around when it comes to sentences.
The tide is turning kate and gerry.
The media which were once sycophants of yours, rolling over and begging for the smallest tidbit are now openly referencing Dr. Amaral's book, the story about appearing on TV with Lorraine Kelly, or rather not appearing really makes you look bad.

Instead of using the TV exposure to call out to Maddie and tell her you will continue to look for her (even though you have never actually physically searched in the first place, something we learned about from you kate, dearest you are having a sulk in case you get asked questions relating to losing the damages case against the man who did search for Maddie.

Right there your priorities are revealed, you first, Maddie last.

I suggest you silence clarrie since he is the one dropping you both right in it.

Is he perhaps, on seeing which way the wind is blowing and standing up to his knees in water as the big ship mccann, which whilst initially taking on water with the pumps managing to keep the ship afloat, has now become a rapid sinking with all the rats leaving, taking the only rubber life ring and throwing you to the circling sharks?

He may be your PR man (and a poor one at that) his only concern is his own skin and his own brand.
If he thinks he can make a bucket load of money out of you, he will.

He will have made copious notes and  meticulous record keeping which will lead to a nice book deal relating how he was conned by you and as soon as he realized the truth, he did his good deed and informed the authorities.

Heck, even Sean and Amelie will have the option of some super duper book deals and even a movie, revealing how they suffered at your hands, emotionally and perhaps even physically given your temper kate.

It seems everyone will get something out of this including and especially Maddie, whilst you are left with the ashes of what was once a successful career, a good life, high ranking friends and contacts and social standing, unable even to get a job as a shelf stacker or behind the counter of a fast food establishment.

If you thought the last couple of years were bad and this year, even worse since Dr. Amaral won his appeal and his book was published and available to the world.

It is going to get a lot worse and time passes and the guilt eats away at you.

You  are visibly aging due to the guilt and stress, kate, you in particular.
Can you manage:

10 years?

15 years?

20 years?

A lifetime?
The net s closing kate and gerry, it is now time to come clean.

onfess the truth and redeem yourself in some small way to your children, your families, your friends, your few remaining supporters, the world and your god.

If you do it now it will be to your benefit, it will help your case.
If you don't then the consequences will be truly harsh.

You want to talk.
We are listening.

Come forward and speak the truth and it will be alright.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Once More The Sound Of Rattling Sabres To Indicate The Presence Of The Panicky mccanns

It is all well and good the mccanns rattling their sabres and threatening to sue anyone who sells the book in the UK, how do they propose to fund the costs for such litigation?

They already owe hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal costs, even the twins are liable for costs thanks to kate and gerry.

I am sure the twins were ecstatic when they found out mom and dad had left them a doozy of a legacy

They lost this last appeal and are liable not only for all their own costs, they are also liable for all the costs incurred by the multiple defendants in the various cases..

This is on top of their outgoings to the pink princess and carter-ruck, whom i cannot believe would do pro bono work for people suspected of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report along with said clients self professed claims of nightly child neglect, regardless of the clients jobs, fame or infamy.

It boils down to money.

As long as you can pay they will do your work, if you don't have the money,or are likely to be unable to pay then it is no thanks and on your bike.

Given the rapidly mounting costs, i suspect carter-ruck are only used as and when the mccanns need an official letter.

I do wonder about all their other lawyers, the extradition ones, the Portuguese ones though.

Are they on a retainer?
Are they paid on an as needed basis?
I suspect so with the extradition lawyers.

All the mccanns had to do was have a nice chatette with a lawyer and make it known they 'hired' said lawyer (it was actually just a what can we do if they call us back chat)

Ditto for the Portuguese ones though they may have ID on a fixed fee and making sure they are getting their monies worth.

She may have initially seen it as a platform to get her name out there and get a lot of business as a result thus she would charge a reduced/discounted rate.

What about dear old clarrie, who has suddenly gone very quiet?

Is he on a retainer to get wheeled out every so often at anniversaries or when anything painting the mccanns in a poor light is about to come out?
Is he seeking legal advice regarding his own rather precarious position regarding the fund?

Remember the comment on the radio show regarding donations?

With thanks to hideho4

“Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. 

Obtaining money by deception, even if for a 3rd party is very naughty, especially if it doesn't go through the banks or directly into the fund.
After all, who would find out how much was donated that way?

Then we have the perverting the course of justice and obstruction of justice when he opened mouth and inserted feet comment we he told us:

"I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine's death"

As well as all the back tracking regarding the alleged smashed shutters, door hanging off details as uttered by various family members and friends.

The mccanns simply do not have the money to sue anyone.

The fund was stated not to be used for legal fees at its inception.
This lead to a very annoyed gerry who  complained about having all this money and not being allowed to use it

 By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007


The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."

Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.

But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.

"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.

This may have changed since the mccanns had a clear out of directors and pretty much now has them doing what he tells them or else.

There would be public outrage about them using the fund for legal fees as well as all costs to date.
Remember the outrage when it was leaked they took 2 months mortgage payments?

At this time, the mccanns really won't give a chit, it is all or nothing now.

They effectively bankrupt, they have and will lose everything.

They have nothing left to lose and they know it.

The question is, do they have a backer who will pay their not inconsiderable legal fees and costs plus compensation?

Will the backer also pay back all the money obtained fraudulently, the awards made to the media out of court, the very media who will now demand their money back plus interest?

What about the tapas 7 who allegedly gave their awards to the fund?
Will the tapas 7 now demand the return of their money in order to pay back their own money plus interest to the media as well as all the court costs etc?

I am not talking a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand.

This is likely to run into millions.
Is there seriously going to be some mega rich benefactor who will cough up multi millions to protect the mccanns?


Possibly if the mccann's have something on said benefactor and threatens them.

However, depending on the reason, said benefactor could say"sod that for a game of soldiers", refuse the money and whatever happens will happen.

I do expect to see the ol' begging bucket back out in force appealing for money to fight their battle against the nasty ex detective who is trying to make their two surviving, innocent children homeless.

Forcing them to live on the street, wear rags and live on a diet of pot noodles and crisps.

Their hypocrisy would be simply astounding if they went down that route, given that was exactly what they were trying to do to Dr. Amaral, even to suggesting he get divorced.

I also fear that the mccanns, now painted into a corner of their own making, especially kate, to perhaps looking to press the button she spoke of, killing the twins, gerry (justifiable) and herself.

The game is coming to a close and they know it.

Everything they worked for is down the pan.

Kate is unemployable in any medical position and probably in any skilled or unskilled role given she is a self confessed child neglector and a suspect in the death, disposal and coverup of her daughter Maddie.

Gerry's ego knows no bounds,when push comes to shove, it is him in the lifeboat first.

I fully expect him to throw kate and the tapas 7 under the bus, whilst painting himself as the heroic father trying to keep his family together despite his wife's mental issues (not guilty by reason of insanity, or not guilty due to (insert mental disease here)or not guilty due to diminished responsibility.

Kate goes to a hospital or maybe prison.
He is viewed as the loving, protective and caring husband who fought to keep his family together, even to covering up for his wife (and chums?)

He gets custody of the twins, a book and movie deal, possibly roles on boards, maybe political office when the furor dies down and finally an honor or two for services to whatever.

Will it come to first past the post wins the prize?

Will divorce rear its head?

If it does and there is a custody battle, then the fun will start as they blame each other for whatever happened to Maddie.

They won't stop to think or to listen to their lawyers.

It will be "there is no way you are getting the kids" and possibly (though i hope not) "If i can't have them, nobody can", particularly relating to kate.

We know she has a vicious and violent temper, the bruises on her wrists and arms from allegedly beating the wall, the kicking out and smashing of furniture showed us that.
Personally i saw them as restraint bruises on her wrists and upper arms.
How would she manage to get them in those locations from beating a wall, a wall which apparently had fingers.

Will she open mouth and insert feet not caring about the consequences.
She won;t mind doing time if it means gerry does as well and he doesn't get the kids.
The grandparents can fight it out between them.

Time will tell.
I see this are coming to a conclusion sooner rather than later.
I hope the tapas 7 are seeking advice regarding their legal position in relation to the events that week in PDL and subsequently.
How much they could be liable for.
If they can arrive at some kind of deal perhaps to minimize the impact on their finances and their lives.

I have a front row seat and plenty of popcorn.
The support acts have been and gone, it is almost time for the main feature.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

They've taken her! Shouted kate

They've taken her!
OK Kate, which her would you have been referring to, since you allegedly had two girls sleeping in the same bedroom?

Words once said cannot be unsaid.

Excited utterances are admissible in court

You may have thought you could cover any oopsies by changing your statements and alleged utterances when you realized how incriminating they were.

You found it clearly impossible to remember who told what to whom and when, hence all the changes and 'corrections' in the media and during subsequent interviews.

Your actions however are too late.
We saw and heard what yours and gerry's initial words were.

We saw, and heard the almost word for word identical statements from family and friends who you called in those first few hours.

We saw, and heard them telling the open window, shattered shutters and open door version of events, something they had all had to have been told, since no way would they have all come up with the same scenario on their own.

The PJ saw immediately the lie you were telling, as did MW when they checked.

No shutters were smashed open, the window was closed and the door was undamaged and not hanging open.

Crisis moment.
It was all going to come crashing down if you didn't get the all new and shiny 'corrected version' out, and blaming your families for getting it so wrong, when in fact what happened was...

Even with the now amended story, it still didn't work.
Even clarrie was forced to admit that maybe it hadn't been a forced entry after all, and kate was reduced to admitting maybe it was a red herring (never a truer word spoken there kate. Man, i love leakage)

Perhaps you thought the media wouldn't interview the families, the families wouldn't open mouth and insert feet (philomena i am talking mostly to you)

Maybe the grannies saw the truth of the lie and had to be exiled back to the UK to stop them asking awkward questions, or worse, opening mouth to the PJ and the Media.
Especially when mom healey called you out on it and said she could shake you (as you so wonderfully demonstrated when you spoke about Maddie allegedly crying and asking why you didn't come, and then she dropped it. Such wonderful parenting skills there kate.)

I wonder, kate did you inadvertently show us what you did to Maddie?
As a GP you would be well aware of shaken baby syndrome.
It can affect children of any age.

Perhaps it may be why you never returned as a GP?

Did you resign your part time job even though you were in financial straits?

Did they ask you not to return given you had allegedly left your three children home alone every night for a week and then losing one whilst not admitting any guilt?

I bet that went down well with the staff at their next meeting.

Do we really want to employ a self confessed child neglector, who may come into contact with abused and neglected children in the line of her work?

What would happen if she reported a parent for neglect as obliged by law ,and the parent then uses the excuse , well the doctor did it and she lost one?

Not good for business that.

Was it a case of jump before we push you out?

Is this perhaps why you have let your license lapse?

It would be hard to find any practice that would take you on, and what to do if a parent complained?

It's a shame really.

All those years of hard work, studying hard at school to get the grades and then Uni and then all the on the job training, getting experience and specializing all for it to go poof.

Unemployable in the healthcare system in pretty much anywhere in the world (maybe some of the poorer nations might be willing to take a chance)

Everything you worked for is gone, never to return.
Now you are famous but for all the wrong reasons, or should that be infamous?

Not a world renowned doctor, or a world class GP

Not the go to specialist for difficult anaesthesia cases.

Not even a bog standard doctor who did OK in the practice.

Instead, you and gerry are famous the world over for allegedly leaving three children home alone every night (which i don't believe but you had to claim it to allow for an abduction)

For you, kate, refusing to answer 48 questions despite admitting it would hinder the investigation.

Both of you refusing to cooperate in a police reconstruction even though you were legally compelled to.

Instead, you got your tapas chums to set all sorts of impossible demands knowing if they didn't take part, you wouldn't have to either.

Running straight back to the UK on being made an arguido and then hiring expensive extradition lawyers.

Suing pretty much anyone who didn't buy your story.

Threatening anyone else when money was tight and complaining to the Leveson inquiry and anyone else you could  get to when  people were posting and commenting on every discrepancy in your story and inconveniently pointing out how good cadaver dogs are when they find bodies in canals or hidden under a dead pig  several feet below 

I won't even go into the emotional damage you have done your surviving children  (though i believe emotional abuse is now a crime)

What a legacy to leave behind, forever the black sheep of your families through all the decades  and generations to come.

Now is the time to come clean, before it is all taken out of your hands and things end up worse than you could ever possibly imagine.

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?