Re: Crèche signatures revisited

by The....truth 31.10.14 11:30

Atomic,

The question is ..is this picture of a girl with a coloboma?

Or is it a picture of MBM ?

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.14 12:07

Atomic Peanut wrote:I have a question about the alleged N-R-McC triangle and the founder of this theory: the tweeter kikoratton, who years ago used to post on forums under a slightly different spelling

It's clear that EN was signed in by the same person, along with MMcC, on most days. But that isn't suspicious

It's the alleged link with MR that I don't understand

If, as Kiko claims, EN and MR are best friends and that MR was substituted for MMcC, how would he/she know this was a feasible scenario?

Where were the Rs all week?

You'd have to be pretty close to the action to be able to suggest that the Rs were even in the vicinity, wouldn't you?

So who is the mysterious kikoratton and how does he/she fit into this?

What is known genrally about 'kikoratton' on this and other forums is as follows:

1. He is a British ex-pat living in Spain

2. He was 'santacoloma' on a number of forums, going back 5 or 6 years

3. He claims to have formerly worked for GCHQ and acquired his investigative experience and techniques there

4. Kiko Raton is a famous footballer whom he admires and sometimes he spells his username 'kikoraton' (one 'l')

5. He did extensive work on the various 'phone records and his work on this aspect of the case is generally held in very high regard, including some deductions he makes from those records

6. For some time now, and mostly on Twitter, he has effectively said many times over that he believes that there was a pre-planned plot to kill Madeleine which involved other families who went to Praia da Luz, one of whom had a child called 'Madeleine', though maybe spelt differently, who was lined up as a 'substitute'. The theory involves Madeleine being killed early on in the holiday, maybe in the first 24 hours, and then the substitute being put forward as the McCanns' own daughter. It is a theory which I have tried to probe with kikoratton but despite requests, he has not IMO produced anything like enough evidence to support his theory.

by Atomic Peanut 31.10.14 14:41

Kiko's work on phone and creche records does indeed look very thorough (though I admit the phone record info is complex and takes some understanding)

However what particularly intrigues me is his apparent understanding of the relationship between the three men in the alleged N-R-McC triangle, both professional and social, and the names of their children etc

Whether or not it's relevant to solving the case, that looks like inside knowledge to me - unless he got it from social media sites. But given the delicate nature of events, it seems unlikely such material would have remained on them

As far as the theory outlined in TB's post goes, that would be a fascinating storyline for Midsomer Murders, an all-time classic even, and I can see how it fits the evidence, but in real life the behaviour of all concerned would need rather a lot of explaining!

by comperedna 31.10.14 16:44

"he has effectively said many times over that he believes that there was a pre-planned plot to kill Madeleine which involved other families who went to Praia da Luz"

What a bizarre idea! Whatever for?

by Gaggzy 31.10.14 17:49

comperedna wrote:"he has effectively said many times over that he believes that there was a pre-planned plot to kill Madeleine which involved other families who went to Praia da Luz"

What a bizarre idea! Whatever for?

Exactly! Whatever for?

Unfortunately, it's 'theories' such as this which seem to tar us all with the same brush when we 'purport' much more feasible ideas about what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Conspirataloons, haters, anti-Madeleines are just some of the names branded to people just seeking the truth.

by NickE 31.10.14 18:54

Manuel Catarino:
"This story did not begin in the Ocean Club, but in London Where the 'official truth' was conspired and Established: an English girl was kidnapped in the Algarve."
Was this only his own opinion or what did he based this on?

by j.rob 01.11.14 15:46

comperedna wrote:"he has effectively said many times over that he believes that there was a pre-planned plot to kill Madeleine which involved other families who went to Praia da Luz"

What a bizarre idea! Whatever for?

How many children are injured. abused or killed each year at the hands of their parents, their relatives or other adults that have gained access to the child? I suggest you look up the statistics.

And are you suggesting that it is bizarre to suggest that sometimes the children who are abused are at the mercy of a number of adults? Think of the scandals around abuse at children's homes, abuse within religious organisations, abuse within families. And so on.

Whether or not there was a pre-planned plot for *something* to happen to Madeleine prior to the holiday (and that is certainly not impossible) there is abundant evidence that there was a monumental cover-up going on There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a random mystery person. There are many pointers that TM know a great deal more than they have admitted. And that TM have lied, imo.

There are also many, many incidences of adults pre-planning crimes involving children. Often police find evidence from computer use or other paraphernalia that the adults had put in considerable preparation before carrying out the crime. The adult may have been viewing child pornography - which of course is a crime in itself - before moving on to acting out the 'fantasy' on a child. The adult may have been involved in 'grooming'. Groups of adults can and do 'work' together to enable them to have access to children for criminal reasons.

From what I have seen of Mc family life, Madeleine was not a much loved child. So, imo, it is not remotely 'bizarre' to suggest that there might have been some plan for something to happen to her.

by j.rob 01.11.14 15:55

NickE wrote:Manuel Catarino:
"This story did not begin in the Ocean Club, but in London Where the 'official truth' was conspired and Established: an English girl was kidnapped in the Algarve."
Was this only his own opinion or what did he based this on?

Even if it is 'only' his own opinion, he will have based his opinion on something.

by NickE 01.11.14 17:06

j.rob wrote:
NickE wrote:Manuel Catarino:
"This story did not begin in the Ocean Club, but in London Where the 'official truth' was conspired and Established: an English girl was kidnapped in the Algarve."
Was this only his own opinion or what did he based this on?

Even if it is 'only' his own opinion, he will have based his opinion on something.

Yes of course, I meant more that he speculated, or if it was based on information he had.
English is not my first language.

by comperedna 02.11.14 12:51

Please look back at what I said! I have no difficulty in considering the idea that something was planned to happene to MBM before the holiday. What I said was a 'bizarre idea' was that it was planned to kill the child and that other families were involved ... which seems to be approaching bonkers to me.

by j.rob 02.11.14 15:01

comperedna wrote:Please look back at what I said! I have no difficulty in considering the idea that something was planned to happene to MBM before the holiday. What I said was a 'bizarre idea' was that it was planned to kill the child and that other families were involved ... which seems to be approaching bonkers to me.

"it was planned to kill the child and that other families were involved ... which seems to be approaching bonkers to me."

Doesn't strike me as particularly bonkers. At some stage it was decided to kill MM, or at least not allow her to live. whether this was before the holiday or during the holiday, who knows?

Perhaps there was pre-planning for *something* to happen prior to the holiday eg: a staged faked abduction - but that this went wrong during the holiday. Or the plan took a dramatic turn. And someone/several people decided that Madeleine should not live.

'Other families were involved' - not necessarily in a plan to kill MM - but were involved in helping with a cover-up of what really did happen to Madeleine. That sounds spot on, to me.

Not remotely bonkers, imo.

by j.rob 02.11.14 15:17

More on the faked abduction theory in this thread:

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

by comperedna 02.11.14 15:38

j-rob. - Having said such a very odd thing... Can you say why you think that?... I hesitate to say what evidence do you have for that... but at least some kind of reason, because I still think it is a bizarre idea. Why should they want to do this?

by j.rob 02.11.14 15:58

comperedna wrote:j-rob. - Having said such a very odd thing... Can you say why you think that?... I hesitate to say what evidence do you have for that... but at least some kind of reason, because I still think it is a bizarre idea. Why should they want to do this?

What are the reasons that parents or family members cause harm to their offspring?

Why might parents pretend that their child had been abducted or kidnapped when they hadn't?

Why might parents/family or other people probably known to a child plan or pre-meditate something involving the child that was harmful or criminal?

Why might parents/family/friends cover up if something bad had happened to a child?

Many reasons, some of which could well apply to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

In the vast majority of cases where children go missing unexpectedly it is the parents/family/someone who is known to the child who is responsible.

I have not seen or heard a single thing that makes be believe that this case would be any different to the vast majority of cases involving children disappearing in sinister circumstances.

Not one thing.

If you can provide a single piece of evidence that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann falls within the 16 per cent of abduction cases that involves abduction by a stranger*, then please provide it.

(* Statistic as provided by Kate McCann in her book, page 378. "The majority of completed child abductions are parental/family abductions, with 16 per cent involving a stranger.")

Just how rare this 'stereotypical' (stranger) kidnappings are is demonstrated by the statistic quoted on page 378-379 of Kate's book: "There are approximately 115 cases of 'sterotypical' (stranger) kidnapping per year in the USA. 40 per cent of these victims are killed, 4 per cent are not found and 56 per cent recovered alive."

The US statistics quoted above relate to the year 2002. Not sure that the population of under 18s in the US was in 2002 but it would presumably be over 50 million. So that is 115 children out of over 50 million. Incredibly rare.

by GrizzleyBear 02.11.14 16:13

To add another reason:
Three year olds begin to talk and tell things...
Just saying.

by j.rob 02.11.14 16:15

GrizzleyBear wrote:To add another reason:
Three year olds begin to talk and tell things...
Just saying.

Yes. Another reason which could well be very relevant to this case.

by juliet 02.11.14 16:27

From the evidence of the photos alone there is something very wrong about Madeleine and the McCann family. All the holiday photos seem photoshopped. In the pool one her head seems pasted on a different and much younger body than the tennis pic.In that latter pic she is hunched, bruised and marked. In most pre holiday photos she is either in fancy dress or looks an unhappy spare part. Apart from the pics where she is made up and in questionable poses.
Even in "happy family" pics, with the twins or parents or grandparents, she looks either miserable or part of a fake set up. A grimacing open mouthed Gerry has been pasted into baby pix. The twins change size and age at random.
Can anyone point to a genuine happy family picture?

by juliet 02.11.14 16:37

Trying to present the pumpkin photo as never seen before suggest there are no more pics of Maddie to put out. So the child was almost four...and supposedly adored. Is the mish mash of dodgy photos we have seen the best they could do?

by j.rob 03.11.14 13:15

juliet wrote:From the evidence of the photos alone there is something very wrong about Madeleine and the McCann family. All the holiday photos seem photoshopped. In the pool one her head seems pasted on a different and much younger body than the tennis pic.In that latter pic she is hunched, bruised and marked. In most pre holiday photos she is either in fancy dress or looks an unhappy spare part. Apart from the pics where she is made up and in questionable poses.
Even in "happy family" pics, with the twins or parents or grandparents, she looks either miserable or part of a fake set up. A grimacing open mouthed Gerry has been pasted into baby pix. The twins change size and age at random.
Can anyone point to a genuine happy family picture?

There are none that I have seen. Not one. Every family photo in the book is weird. Even the wider family ones are weird, imo.

Madeleine was not an 'adored child' despite what has been claimed, imo. I suspect that the family 'projected' their issues on to her. And this is not at all uncommon in dysfunctional families. It is a very well known phenomenon and can easily have tragic consequences if everyone in the family colludes or turns a blind eye and if there is no outside intervention.

The tragedy is that if the parents had not been doctors, there may well have been more outside intervention and Madeleine might have survived, imo.

Yes - the mismatch of dodgy photos must be the best they can do.

What about birthday party photos? Or a group photo from nursery or kids' club? Or an individual photo from nursery school? Or a photo from someone's else's birthday party? Or a photo from a holiday - the holiday in Majorca with the Gaspers, say (well, I can understand why they don't want to draw attention to that particular holiday).

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this photo creepy. And GM, in particular, reminds me of someone else...but who?

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

by missbeetle 03.11.14 19:17

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

Kate seems to have a bit of a goitre going on in the above picture.

Gerald - there's something about him that reminds me of this chap :

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

Perhaps it is the similar quiffy hairdos, big honkers and ability to (as they say in Scientology) 'push buttons'.

My opinions only.

by TheTruthWillOut 03.11.14 19:35

@ j.rob Ronnie O'Sullivan ? (Snooker player) big grin

by sallypelt 07.11.14 23:09

This has probably been posted before, but it's the first time for me to see it:

OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS
ANOMALIES IN THE CASE FILE : THE CRECHE

The McCann case: anomalies in the case file

Since a small part of the case file - the DVD version was made accessible to the public, a great deal of ink has flowed. We note that it is necessary to be cautious as to its contents. In fact, it is only 17% of the complete case file and certain details are only of interest in relation to the complete file and not taken out of their context.

You probably know that our team, at the association, is comprised mainly of professionals from the field of police work. As such, we have analysed the case file and from the first pages, we have identified a few anomalies. Thus, the registers from the Kids Club appeared to be incomplete. Certain gaps have not been explained.

Thus we note that on May 1st 2007, Madeleine McCann's name is on the Kids Club register. She arrived at 9.30am, dropped off by Gerry. According to the register, Gerry spent the morning playing tennis. He went back to fetch Madeleine at 12.20pm. Where things seem stranger to us is in the entries for the afternoon. Gerry drops Madeleine off at the Kids Club at 2.30pm and he spends his afternoon, again according to the register, playing tennis and at the swimming pool. Oddly, no one went back to fetch Madeleine in the evening! No signature for the evening of May 1st 2007. Why? Why did no one sign the register that evening?

Various explanations are possible.

It could be imagined that the parents arrived late to pick up Madeleine and that they didn't take the time to sign the register. In that case, why isn't that made clear in the case file? Why is there no mention of this possible lateness? And above all, why were they late? Right in the middle of an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of a little four year-old girl, these details are important. But the anomalies continue the following day.

According to the register for May 2nd 2007, the day before Madeleine's disappearance, Kate dropped Maddie off at the Kids Club at 9.20am. Madeleine was picked up at 12.30pm but it's not Kate or Gerry's signature on the register. Someone else has signed the register in the space for parents. The signature of Cat nanny, in other words, CATRIONA BAKER is found there.

Here too, you could imagine various explanations. The parents arrived late (once again?) and in a hurry (why?), they didn't sign the register. You could think that they forgot, for the second time, to sign the register. You could imagine that Catriona had finished her shift and as the parents had not yet come to fetch Maddie, Catriona signed the register then took Madeleine to her parents. You could imagine lots of things. But no explanation is provided in the case file. Catriona didn't mention it in her interview, the parents neither. But this kind of detail raises questions that need to be resolved. Too many unanswered questions, too many whys, too many gaps, not enough explanation.

These explanations could go in both directions. Thus, the investigators must wonder if Maddie didn't disappear sooner than May 3rd? If she was indeed present present at the Kids Club on the afternoon of May 1st? Why didn't anyone sign the register? Was she actually present at the Kids Club on the morning of May 2nd? Why did Catriona sign in the space for parents? Why does Kate's signature on the register for May 2nd seem different from Kate's other signatures? Where were the parents if someone else signed for them?

Certainly, these anomalies may only be trivial details, but these details could equally be significant, even fundamental to the investigation. Don't forget we are talking about the disappearance of a little four year-old girl. We cannot allow ourselves to leave these questions unanswered.

These anomalies, which are the first of a long series, were communicate to whom they may concern. And it is in referring to the article on SOS Madeleine of November 19th, we discover that a hand-writing report would be necessary. This confirms our suspicions and implicitly confirms certain rumours mentioning forged pieces of writing, forged signatures....manipulated documents...signatures added several days after the date indicated...etc.

If this report, that SOS Madeleine speaks of, confirms our our suspicions (and the rumours) these details which we have officially revealed, are then clearly less "trivial" !!!!

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

by Guest 07.11.14 23:49

First time for me, too, sallypelt.

I'm intrigued and pleased that Kikoratton is not a wild card purporting theories based on just his interpretation. The official files also raised significant questions about the creche records.

Are those official records 'not yet released' also raising similar questions about the phone data to Kikoratton?

Thank you, sallypelt.

by Hicks 08.11.14 10:46

And first time for me. Thanks for posting.

This info adds to my suspicions about a certain nanny at the kids club.

One things jump out , after May 1st we see the strange anomalies.