Crèche signatures revisited

Ladyinred wrote:Most definately, j.rob.  The taxi driver mentioned up-thread who claimed RM was a passenger - could it have been someone else - a person who resembled him?

Tweeted earlier today:

Oddityfinder @oddityfinder	2h
@kikoratton @Justice_forum Hi Dewi ! Have further info on JCR for you, if your interested but its time for my evening dinner, see u tomorrow
View conversation ·

I don't know how credible the taxi-driver is as a witness. I think someone tried to talk to him and he demanded payment first which might indicate he is not an unbiased witness. 

Nevertheless. If there was a plan for an abduction hoax that week. Involving a photographic blonde three to four year old girl. Then it is possible that *someone* was going to stage a fake abduction one night that week - Thursday night, say (although not impossible that there was a plan to stage it earlier, but it was delayed for whatever reason). And that *someone* would walk through the streets of Luz carrying a blonde three to four year old girl at a crucial time. So as to be spotted and to lend weight to the idea of a random mystery abductor roaming around Luz looking for a blond four year old girl to steal from her bed.

If, as many have theorized, something happened to Madeleine early in the week, then the substitute child in the kids' club theory might make sense. And it is also possible that the substitute child, or indeed any of the, as Bridge O'Donnell put it, "blonde, pink and pretty" three to four year olds who attended the kids' club that week, could be carried by that *someone*at a crucial time on Thursday evening to make it look as though it was 'the abductor' scurrying away with Madeleine McCann in his arms to take her to a hellish liar. 

Analysis of the creche signing in register certainly seems to suggest that Gerry McCann signed in Madeleine (or Madalene perhaps?) and Elizabeth Naylor. Which, if it was Gerry signing in his daughter Madeleine and Elizabeth,  would suggest a close friendship between the McCann family and the Naylor family and specifically, one might think, Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth. So it is a bit odd, imo (or not perhaps!) that this is not mentioned in Kate's book. 

And if it is true that Elizabeth Naylor's best friend Madalene Rider, was with Elizabeth on that holiday and was signed in to the kids' club by Gerry McCann in place of Madeleine McCann, so as not to raise suspicion that Madeleine was not in the kids' club, then perhaps it is possible that *someone*, or several people, in this complicated scenario got cold feet at the last minute. Perhaps became aware that there was a darker scenario emerging. That it was possible that 'The Joker' was something of a psychopath, perhaps?

And pulled the plug at the last minute.

Kate: "The f****** b******* have taken her."
Gerry: "It's a disaster. There has been a disaster."
Murat: "The biggest c*** u** in history."

This would account for the cobbled together timelines, the implausibility of Tanner-man, the un-jemmied shutters and the many other inconsistencies. And perhaps account for why Jez Wilkins refuses to acknowledge the presence of either Jane Tanner or Tanner-man at around 9.15pm that night. Despite the 'fact' (ahem!) that Jane Tanner supposedly walked straight past him while he was, allegedly, chatting to Gerry outside apartment 5A. 

--------

Gerry's writing is actually quite distinctive. I think a graphologist would have a field-day with it. The creche signatures look very similar to the writing on the 'wider agenda' flip-chart. Very impersonal as it is in capitals. Some over-scoring, little 'hooks.'

And why the heck did the early poster campaign to find Maddie use the nickname Maddie, when Kate in her book is insistent that Madeleine only answered to Madeleine? And why did it make such a feature of 'Maddie's coloboma' when Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma but merely a few dark flecks in the pupil of one eye.

With thanks to kikoratton for the creche signature images which I have snipped from twitter.


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


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

Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needs to start his sequence of signing-in, because he has to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that the child entered as "Madeleine McCann" is really and truly his daughter. They will always swear that is so, because they will never know any difference. But why should he have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? Because Madalene (I spell her name like that for a reason) was and is the very close friend and possibly cousin of Elizabeth Naylor. They are in PdL on holiday together. They don't go to creche every session together, like twins joined at the hip. Stuff happens, like a short fever, or a tantrum, or an unmissable outing. But they are there together seven times out of ten. That's according to the creche records, although I believe that on two of those occasions Gerry "manufactured" the presence of "Madeleine/Madalene", who I suspect did not turn up that day (1 May). Elizabeth and Madalene live close together in a fairly privileged part of London. They go to the same primary school, and can even now often be seen together. (Note: not by me. Open and available source). Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as one of them (in theory) is to become known all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been Madalene's mother.

Via Kikoratton
Tweetlonger

NickE wrote:Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needs to start his sequence of signing-in, because he has to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that the child entered as "Madeleine McCann" is really and truly his daughter. They will always swear that is so, because they will never know any difference. But why should he have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? Because Madalene (I spell her name like that for a reason) was and is the very close friend and possibly cousin of Elizabeth Naylor. They are in PdL on holiday together. They don't go to creche every session together, like twins joined at the hip. Stuff happens, like a short fever, or a tantrum, or an unmissable outing. But they are there together seven times out of ten. That's according to the creche records, although I believe that on two of those occasions Gerry "manufactured" the presence of "Madeleine/Madalene", who I suspect did not turn up that day (1 May). Elizabeth and Madalene live close together in a fairly privileged part of London. They go to the same primary school, and can even now often be seen together. (Note: not by me. Open and available source). Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as one of them (in theory) is to become known all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been Madalene's mother.

Via Kikoratton
Tweetlonger

Kikoratton's research into the signing in sheets leads him to suggest that it began the first morning and must therefore have been pre-planned. This fits well with the taxi driver's story of picking up Madeleine, Kate and three men at Monte Gordo square and taking them the short trip to the Hotel Apollo car park(both places beside the Spanish border) on the night of 3rd May, where they all entered a Jeep type vehicle with Yellow Plates (UK).
If this was the "Sub" and her parents, the other two men were likely their friend RN and the facilitator who took them to PDL when they arrived and was now taking them back to their car a week later.
There would have to have been a hoax abduction being played out and that team had completed all their tasks and got the "sub" out of Portugal before the alarm was raised that the real Maddie had been abducted.
What the original plan was is a mystery but some played their parts out to the end, so why did the abduction plan go so badly wrong? Did Maddie die by accident or otherwise? Did they hand over a dead Maddie to the abduction courier? The Smith sighting may relate to this transfer of the body to someone else.

Latest from Kiko tweeted on TwitLonger earlier:

"I've given myself a bit of a rest from #McCann since exposing how somebody (who other than Gerry?) falsified the initials of Robert Naylor while taking that person's daughter to creche six times. I've told SY and PJ about this peculiarity. Except that it's not so peculiar, because I can explain why Gerry did it. Why take Elizabeth to creche? Because Maddie never got to go there, but on the other hand I strongly suspect that Elizabeth's life-long friend (still going strong together at 11 years old, in last year of Primary School in London!) accompanied her to the creche. That friend is called Madalene, which sounds exactly the same as Madeleine. Same age, and at that time virtually the same appearance, taking into account that due to the confusion over multiple and false photos sown so gleefully by Gerry, nobody can reliably remember what Maddie looked like. Obviously, I know Madalene's surname. It would have been madness for her parents to stay in Ocean Club accommodation with her, but they would have been nearby. Though not so near as to avoid the odd unfortunate hiccup taking place on her way to creche to act the part of Maddie McCann. And, since she was there from the first day, 29 April, and was presented as "Madeleine McCann", how could the staff know, to this day, any different? Just one other thing: it's strange that the Naylors took up Ocean Club accommodation (apartment BP01) WITHOUT REQUIRING FLIGHTS OR TRANSFERS. What is the point of a package holiday, if you travel independently from the UK and back? I think the Naylors travelled with their friends and sometime work colleagues, the parents of Madalene the substitute for Maddie. (I wouldn't mind betting that Madalene was NEVER, EVER known as Maddie)!"

Ladyinred wrote:Latest from Kiko tweeted on TwitLonger earlier:

 Just one other thing: it's strange that the Naylors took up Ocean Club accommodation (apartment BP01) WITHOUT REQUIRING FLIGHTS OR TRANSFERS. What is the point of a package holiday, if you travel independently from the UK and back? I think the Naylors travelled with their friends and sometime work colleagues, the parents of Madalene the substitute for Maddie. (I wouldn't mind betting that Madalene was NEVER, EVER known as Maddie)!"

Now this is really interesting. I was not aware that the Naylors made their own travel arrangements. Is there a record of when they signed out of the Ocean Club?

Naylors booked from 28/4, 7 nights to 5^th May
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
'No flights or transfers required'


How did they get there and then get back? I don't think we know, nor have any confirmation of an actual leaving date. There are no statements from the Naylors in McCannfiles, yet they must (?) have been interviewed at some time.


Were these statements some of the withheld ones?

Ladyinred wrote:Latest from Kiko tweeted on TwitLonger earlier:

"I've given myself a bit of a rest from #McCann since exposing how somebody (who other than Gerry?) falsified the initials of Robert Naylor while taking that person's daughter to creche six times. I've told SY and PJ about this peculiarity. Except that it's not so peculiar, because I can explain why Gerry did it. Why take Elizabeth to creche? Because Maddie never got to go there, but on the other hand I strongly suspect that Elizabeth's life-long friend (still going strong together at 11 years old, in last year of Primary School in London!) accompanied her to the creche. That friend is called Madalene, which sounds exactly the same as Madeleine. Same age, and at that time virtually the same appearance, taking into account that due to the confusion over multiple and false photos sown so gleefully by Gerry, nobody can reliably remember what Maddie looked like. Obviously, I know Madalene's surname. It would have been madness for her parents to stay in Ocean Club accommodation with her, but they would have been nearby. Though not so near as to avoid the odd unfortunate hiccup taking place on her way to creche to act the part of Maddie McCann. And, since she was there from the first day, 29 April, and was presented as "Madeleine McCann", how could the staff know, to this day, any different? Just one other thing: it's strange that the Naylors took up Ocean Club accommodation (apartment BP01) WITHOUT REQUIRING FLIGHTS OR TRANSFERS. What is the point of a package holiday, if you travel independently from the UK and back? I think the Naylors travelled with their friends and sometime work colleagues, the parents of Madalene the substitute for Maddie. (I wouldn't mind betting that Madalene was NEVER, EVER known as Maddie)!"

The Mcs really messed up on this one, imo. Kate makes a big thing of claiming that Madeleine did not answer to the nickname Maddie. Yet there is considerable evidence that Madeleine McCann had been known as Maddie. And the early poster campaign even used the nickname Maddie! With the coloboma heavily featured. 

Yet, according to Madeleine's parents, Madeleine McCann was not known as Maddie and she did not have a coloboma.

How could the Mcs get such fundamental details wrong?

If Madeleine McCann didn't have a coloboma, who did?? Who was known as Madalene/Madeleine if it wasn't Madeleine McCann?

Another blonde, pink, pretty girl of 3 to 4 years old? Maybe even one with a similar name? After all, according to journalist and former Crimewatch producer Bridget O'Donnell, all the girls in the kids' club that week looked the same. So it would have been quite easy to muddle up names and faces. Especially if the names were similar.

Was *someone* supposed to stage an abduction at 9.15pm on Thursday evening with a child who looked like Madeleine McCann? But this didn't happen, for whatever reason. Forcing TM to invent the improbable Tannerman at the last minute?

Is this related to TV producer Jez Wilkins supposedly wandering around Ocean Club resort with a pram at such a crucial time that Thursday evening and supposedly bumping into Gerry McCann right outside apartment 5A after Gerry had, supposedly, checked on all THREE of his children and found everything fine? And, in fact, according to Kate and Gerry, Gerry stood and admired Madeleine and thought to himself that Madeleine was so beautiful.

I doubt the conversation between Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins - if it indeed took place at that particular time and in that particular place - was chit-chat. Far from it. 

The *script* was in disarray and Jez had been the messanger, imo. There were no jemmied shutters and with early clamour as reported by several eye-witnesses as early as 9.15pm or 9.20pm is completely inconsistent with Kate claiming in her book that she did not discover that Madeleine was missing from her bed until 10pm. Therefore there should have been no 'clamour' about a missing child before 10pm. None whatsoever. As Matt allegedly went to apartment 5A at around 9.30pm and all was 'dead quiet'. 

So what was the 'clamour' that early eye-witnesses reported hearing as early as 9.15pm or 9.20pm? Could this have been a 'clamour' brought about by the little chit-chat that Jez Wilkins had with Gerry McCann at around this time, perhaps? Was this when Kate cried out: "The f****** b******* have taken her?"

Which might account for how the McCann family at home were not informed of the last minute *disaster* and stuck to the original script which had included jemmied shutters.

Jez Wilkins, imo, had the unenviable task of informing Gerry that the script had gone to pot. Team McCann run around like headless chickens and, in their panic, concoct the highly implausible Tanner-man who Jane Tanner is supposed to have seen. Despite the 'fact' that Jez Wilkins claims he saw neither Jane Tanner or Tanner-man yet Jane Tanner says she walked right past Jez and Gerry while they were chatting and at the same time that she saw Tannerman.

Smithman could, imo, have been *someone* (even Gerry) forced to enact a staged faked abduction of a blonde 3 to 4 year old girl at the later time of 10pm. After the 9.15pm script got messed up. 

Or, alternatively, I think Smithman could simply be a concoction to put Gerry McCann and/or one of his party firmly in the frame as being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It seems too much of a coincidence that the Smiths only came forward after Robert Murat had been made arguido. And Mr Smith was adament that the man he saw was NOT Robert Murat.

I cannot believe that the Smithman sighting was welcome to the McCanns. It messes up their time-frame for the 'abduction' which Jane Tanner is adament was at 9.15pm. And Kate is obliged to morph Tannerman and Smithman together in her book. Despite the 45 minute gap between the sightings. 

But the early artist's impression of Tannerman shows a (faceless) man with dark black hair which is not close-cut at the back or sides and reaches his collar at the back. Whereas the Smithman e-fits produced by the police show a man with a completely different haircut: close-cropped all around. And the hair is a bit lighter. 

Significantly, imo, there is no image of Smithman in Kate's book. Yet the Smiths spoke to police three weeks after the 'abduction' and some of them even visited police in Portugal, I do believe. Yet Kate does show images of Tanner-man, ugly pimple-man and three other witness sightings. 

Also, significantly imo, Tannerman is holding the child in a completely different way to Smithman. Smithman is holding the child in a way you would expect an adult to carry a sleeping child. Whereas Tannerman is holding the child in a very awkward manner. In the manner you might hold a child who is dead, imo.

Whatever the truth of what happened, 9.15pm and 10pm are times of considerable interest that fateful Thursday evening. As, I am sure, were the earlier periods.

Doug D wrote:Naylors booked from 28/4, 7 nights to 5^th May
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
'No flights or transfers required'


How did they get there and then get back? I don't think we know, nor have any confirmation of an actual leaving date. There are no statements from the Naylors in McCannfiles, yet they must (?) have been interviewed at some time.


Where these statements some of the withheld ones?

I'm beginning to think that there was a staged abduction, it looks like there was something planned, whether it all went wrong or not and Madeleine died is the question.
Could she still be alive somewhere and they are going to "find" her when the political situation is suitable? This would mean that the dogs were set up to fail, is that possible? The Secret Services could probably arrange planting scents where required. Just my thoughts.

Rob Royston wrote:

Doug D wrote:Naylors booked from 28/4, 7 nights to 5^th May
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
'No flights or transfers required'


How did they get there and then get back? I don't think we know, nor have any confirmation of an actual leaving date. There are no statements from the Naylors in McCannfiles, yet they must (?) have been interviewed at some time.


Where these statements some of the withheld ones?

I'm beginning to think that there was a staged abduction, it looks like there was something planned, whether it all went wrong or not and Madeleine died is the question.
Could she still be alive somewhere and they are going to "find" her when the political situation is suitable? This would mean that the dogs were set up to fail, is that possible? The Secret Services could probably arrange planting scents where required. Just my thoughts.

No need for planting scents when the analysis of the samples were done in the UK. Very easy to say 'no match'.
It might be that not all the statements given to Leicester Police were sent to Portugal.

Rob Royston wrote:

Doug D wrote:Naylors booked from 28/4, 7 nights to 5^th May
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
'No flights or transfers required'


How did they get there and then get back? I don't think we know, nor have any confirmation of an actual leaving date. There are no statements from the Naylors in McCannfiles, yet they must (?) have been interviewed at some time.


Where these statements some of the withheld ones?

I'm beginning to think that there was a staged abduction, it looks like there was something planned, whether it all went wrong or not and Madeleine died is the question.
Could she still be alive somewhere and they are going to "find" her when the political situation is suitable? This would mean that the dogs were set up to fail, is that possible? The Secret Services could probably arrange planting scents where required. Just my thoughts.

I think that may have been the original plan. I think Madeleine (or a child who looked like Madeleine) was going to miraculously reappear Elizabeth Smart style with great fanfare and be a wonderful photo-opportunity. With the beaming Mcs photographed with politicians and lots of celebrity endorsement. Plus massive media coverage.

But there was a *disaster* that week, imo. Robert Murat flew out at the last minute to help sort out the mess. And of course be privy to vital eye-witness statements. It is no coincidence at all, imo, that he worked as a police translator in the UK. 

Given his police contacts both in the UK and in Portugal, did Murat agree all along to be the 'patsy'? To take the finger of suspicion off the Mcs and Tapasniks? He was handsomely rewarded for this role. £600,000 is a nice lump sum for someone who used to work in a turkey processing factory. And he remained living in the Luz area so it would appear that he did not become a pariah. 

The recording of the telephone conversation between Sky News' Martin Brunt and Jennifer and Robert Murat is, imo, ridiculously staged. With Sky News' chief crime correspondent even affecting not to know what the term 'arguido' means. Yeah right. Nice try Martin.

The decision to employ cadaver sniffer dogs has always puzzled me a bit. As if the whole thing has been a giant state cover-up and the plan was to protect the McCanns and their friends, then why bring in dogs that might come up with incriminating evidence?

Again, I think the explanation for this might lie with the *disaster* theory. The pre-arranged plan went wrong and/or was derailed or sabotaged in some or several ways. The *disaster* that Gerry spoke of was shoe-horned into the pre-arranged script. But, rather like Cinderella's glass slipper, it doesn't fit.

Only a few people at the outset (Mcs plus Tapas?) know what really did happen that week, imo. The family members in the UK at first believe it was the pre-arranged script with the jemmied shutters but, when they start to have suspicions that the script changed and all is not what it seemed, Gerry loses his temper and dispatches the non-believers back home pronto on the Granny Express.

The media, especially Sky News, are at first singing from the TM abduction hymn-sheet. But rumours mutiply. What really did happen that week? I suspect Jez Wilkins knows. Hence his being put very firmly in a key place at a key time that fateful evening. Whether he was actually there or not. There is no question in my mind that he is a key witness as well, of course, as being a potential suspect in one way or another. Detective Amaral was certainly very interested in knowing more about Jez' relationship with the McCanns. And it is on record that Jez' partner Bridget lied about the Portuguese police not bothering to contact them. I presume this was a deliberate ploy to try to downplay any role they had in this debacle. And downplay the FACT that Portuguese police were extremely interested in them.

Were the cadaver dogs  sent in to find out if the rumours were true, perhaps? Or to provide firm evidence against the McCanns that would keep them in their place? To let them know that they had not managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes maybe?


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

To J. Rob

Re Cadavar dogs being sent in to control McCanns,

That could well be right and probably is.

What I was thinking about earlier was if the brains behind the whole affair misled us all, and the dogs and the PJ, leading us up a blind alley to keep the case frothing away for years until the time is felt to be right to "find" Madeleine. The Smith's would have seen a live Madeleine being carried away to be delivered to whoever was delegated to take her into hiding.
It just seems to have gone on too long for that to be the case. The "accident" makes more sense and the cover up probably means that the staged abduction was planned at Government level.

Rob Royston wrote:To J. Rob

Re Cadavar dogs being sent in to control McCanns,

That could well be right and probably is.

What I was thinking about earlier was if the brains behind the whole affair misled us all, and the dogs and the PJ, leading us up a blind alley to keep the case frothing away for years until the time is felt to be right to "find" Madeleine. The Smith's would have seen a live Madeleine being carried away to be delivered to whoever was delegated to take her into hiding.
It just seems to have gone on too long for that to be the case. The "accident" makes more sense and the cover up probably means that the staged abduction was planned at Government level.

That is the way it looks to me given the extraordinary level of support that the McCanns appeared to receive in the early days and months.

Someone or several people put a spanner in the works at some stage ........deliberate sabotage/exposure of something......

the dreaded paedo rings maybe....(not suggesting that is the whole story but maybe an important part of it?)

j.rob wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:To J. Rob

Re Cadavar dogs being sent in to control McCanns,

That could well be right and probably is.

What I was thinking about earlier was if the brains behind the whole affair misled us all, and the dogs and the PJ, leading us up a blind alley to keep the case frothing away for years until the time is felt to be right to "find" Madeleine. The Smith's would have seen a live Madeleine being carried away to be delivered to whoever was delegated to take her into hiding.
It just seems to have gone on too long for that to be the case. The "accident" makes more sense and the cover up probably means that the staged abduction was planned at Government level.

That is the way it looks to me given the extraordinary level of support that the McCanns appeared to receive in the early days and months.

Someone or several people put a spanner in the works at some stage ........deliberate sabotage/exposure of something......

the dreaded paedo rings maybe....(not suggesting that is the whole story but maybe an important part of it?)

 That would fit. They could have been engaged in a scheme to promote the chipping of everyone at a young age, there used to be more stories about this back then but they seem to have subsided.
Like you say, the establishment paedo's would have been in on any scheming and maybe saw it as not in their own best interests and did whatever was necessary.

Rob Royston wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:To J. Rob

Re Cadavar dogs being sent in to control McCanns,

That could well be right and probably is.

What I was thinking about earlier was if the brains behind the whole affair misled us all, and the dogs and the PJ, leading us up a blind alley to keep the case frothing away for years until the time is felt to be right to "find" Madeleine. The Smith's would have seen a live Madeleine being carried away to be delivered to whoever was delegated to take her into hiding.
It just seems to have gone on too long for that to be the case. The "accident" makes more sense and the cover up probably means that the staged abduction was planned at Government level.

That is the way it looks to me given the extraordinary level of support that the McCanns appeared to receive in the early days and months.

Someone or several people put a spanner in the works at some stage ........deliberate sabotage/exposure of something......

the dreaded paedo rings maybe....(not suggesting that is the whole story but maybe an important part of it?)

 That would fit. They could have been engaged in a scheme to promote the chipping of everyone at a young age, there used to be more stories about this back then but they seem to have subsided.
Like you say, the establishment paedo's would have been in on any scheming and maybe saw it as not in their own best interests and did whatever was necessary.

On the other hand increased surveillance, State control and micro-chipping and tagging of children would be an absolute God-send to the establishment paedos and indeed others who have malevolent intentions. So I think it is more likely that a whistle-blower or two put a spanner in the works. Maybe even elements of the media who wanted to expose corruption. One can but hope.

From what I have seen of the 'missing' children charities and the child help lines they are not necessarily the benevolent institutions they purport to be.

And we all know what can happen to children in State 'care homes'.

And elements of the Catholic Church have not exactly come out smelling of roses. 

I think Blair was obsessed with increasing state control over the individual. Also aggressively enforcing and increasing mass medical procedures such as vaccination of babies and children. With dissenters being dealt with harshly. These types of measures were very much in the mood of the later days of the Blair Government.

Hello all I'v been ready the case for years what I haven't seen be questioned is why Ella obrian on the crèche files changed from 5d to 5b why hasn't this been noticed or questioned who was even in 5d if there was a d?? This case confuses me so much!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(With thanks to Dewi Lennard)

Why would McCann do this? McCann signed EN into creche SIX times in all. He has never admitted (nor been asked, as far as I know) to a friendship with her father. And yet the identical handwriting, and the near 100% proximity, time-wise, in entering both names in the register, tells me that they had a certain "arrangement" going on between them at the Ocean Club. Here's how it would work: I don't believe that EN's father attended the act of signing-in. Gerry - and I imagine another person, in which case probably a female - drop off two girls at the attendance book. One is EN. The other is purportedly (one of Gerry's favourite words!) Madeleine McCann. I DON'T BELIEVE MADELEINE McCANN EVER ATTENDED THE CRECHE. My position is this: Maddie went missing during this period. What the heck is Gerry doing, repeatedly signing-in a second girl who wasn't one of the so-called Tapas Group and of whom we've been told nothing? Are the two events connected? You bet they are. More later![You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

More from Dewi....http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod53cRemember that the signing-in of EN by Gerry McCann started on the morning of Sunday 29 April - the very first day on which the new intake attended the Ocean Club creche. That tells us that the scam was already in place (that is, it had been planned in advance), and that the real Madeleine McCann was never going to attend. Once a substitute was in place, she had to be kept going! And just because she kept going, the creche staff genuinely believed that the child presented as Madeleine McCann really was her. How should they be expected to know otherwise? Now we can understand why the McCanns had a photo of a two-year-old Maddie, little more than a baby, ready to be printed-off on the night of 3 May. That image got hard-wired into the police and public brain. By the time subsequent photos were released to the Press, and the carers had been dispersed to Greece and other destinations, small differences between the face and hair of the girl who attended the creche, and the many different faces of Maddie beamed by newspapers and TV, could no longer be brought to mind. and...http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod5jkIf Maddie had really attended the Lobster group from 29 April to the afternoon of 3 May, then Gerry wouldn't have required the services of Robert Naylor as co-conspirator, allowing his three-year-old daughter to be taken by Gerry to the creche. What purpose would it have served? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]#McCann

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

Personally think all of that is wild imaginings on  DL's part .

Roidininki wrote:Personally think all of that is wild imaginings on  DL's part .

Do you believe that Madeleine was abducted on Thursday, 3rd May.  Or that something happened to her earlier in the week?

Ladyinred wrote:

Roidininki wrote:Personally think all of that is wild imaginings on  DL's part .

Do you believe that Madeleine was abducted on Thursday, 3rd May.  Or that something happened to her earlier in the week?

I do not think Madeleine was abducted full stop.
 I believe something happened to her  earlier.

Gerry did not sign EN and MM in.

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

1/5/07

EN at 9.10  (plus Naylor phone number).
MM at 9.30

Two children in-between.

Too much is being made of this.

BlueBag wrote:Gerry did not sign EN and MM in.

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

1/5/07

EN at 9.10  (plus Naylor phone number).
MM at 9.30

Two children in-between.

Too much is being made of this.

it interests me how Madeleine is signed in am/pm on adjacent lines. And she isn't signed out.

worriedmum wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Gerry did not sign EN and MM in.

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

1/5/07

EN at 9.10  (plus Naylor phone number).
MM at 9.30

Two children in-between.

Too much is being made of this.

it interests me how Madeleine is signed in am/pm on adjacent lines. And she isn't signed out.

I don't know about anybody else--well, except for DL---but there isn't much doubt in my mind that EN and MM were signed in by the same person. The handwriting is practically identical. The only difference I see is a slight variation in the upper case E of EN's name as opposed to the two in MM's name. Even the habit of using upper case letters in the body of the names is the same. Both names contain several capital 'A's', for example.

Now, who has admitted to signing both of these children into creche? Nobody, right? Then it IS suspicious. It is an act that was repeated several times, and it is something they were attempting to hide.

I don't know about anybody else--well, except for DL---but there isn't much doubt in my mind that EN and MM were signed in by the same person. 

Well I have big doubt.

The "A" is similar but the "N" is different.

And as I said... 20 minutes apart, two children in between and Naylor left a phone number which I'm sure has been checked out.

BlueBag wrote:

I don't know about anybody else--well, except for DL---but there isn't much doubt in my mind that EN and MM were signed in by the same person. 

Well I have big doubt.

The "A" is similar but the "N" is different.

And as I said... 20 minutes apart, two children in between and Naylor left a phone number which I'm sure has been checked out.

I tend to agree with BlueBag that rather too much is being made of the 'signatures' issue.

I offer to this thread a little analysis I have produced on the stated drop-off and collection times during the week for (a) Madeleine and (b) the twins.

Here are three issues to bear in mind:

1. The distance from Apartment G5A to the Tapas bar crèche (TWINS) was about 100 yards, say 1 to 2 minutes' walk. There would then be a 'hand-over' from parent(s) to nanny: 'Hallo', 'Good morning', 'Hallo Sean! Hallo Amelie!', 'Bye, we'll see you at lunchtime' etc. etc. Say 2 or 3 minutes. THEN Madeleine would need to be taken to HER crèche which was on the 1st floor of the Ocean Club reception area, about 500 to 600 yards walk away, I think. Probable time, if Madeleine wasn't in a pushchair, say 6 to 12 minutes.    

2. The significance of Gerry saying that he had found a 'short cut' from the Tapas bar to the Ocean Club reception. Was there one? Where was it?

3. Can it be established which parent did the dropping-off, or collecting, from each venue, on each of the 20 occasions below?  

Here is the schedule of drop-off collection times:

  
Madeleine   Sean &         Who was collected/          By how many minutes?
                    Amelie            dropped off first?
Sunday

9.45            No info

12.15          No info

14.45          14.35           TWINS dropped off first           10 mins

17.30          17.10           TWINS collected first                20 mins

Monday

9.30              9.20           TWINS dropped off first            20 mins

12.10          12.20            MADELEINE collected first      10 mins

15.15          15.25            MADELEINE dropped off first  10 mins

15.30*        17.20            MADELEINE collected first       10 mins

(* possible error for 17.30)

Tuesday

9.30             9.20            TWINS dropped off first           10 mins

12.20         12.20            Same time exactly

14.30         14.30            Same time exactly 

No info       17.20

Wednesday

9.20             9.10             TWINS dropped off first           10 mins

12.30         12.25             TWINS collected first                 5 mins

14.45         14.40             TWINS dropped off first             5 mins

17.30         17.20             TWINS collected first                10 mins

Thursday (alleged high tea day)

9.10          No info   

12.25        No info  

14.50         14.45              TWINS dropped off first              5 mins

17.30         17.25              TWINS collected first                   5 mins

 
==========================

I have my own interpretation of these and other data relating to the crece records - but simply reproduce this table now as a contribution to the debate and in an attempt to move the discussion away from a narrow focus on the signatures  

Is there categoric evidence that MBM's mini club was being held at the location of the 24 hour reception building in April/May 2007?


From their start up date in Portugal in spring 2006 all the way through to July 2007 when the Praia da Luz web pages were taken down and re-vamped, Mark Warner were advertising the following:


Located in the Waterside Garden is our fully equipped childcare centre offering our award winning childcare for children aged 4 months and upwards. There is a colourful crèche with an outdoor play area and the nannies organise regular beach trips and other supervised fun activities for the children. Hours are 9am till 12.30pm and 2.30pm to 5.30pm.

We offer a ‘dining out service’ (only available for parents using the Millenium and Tapas restaurants). in the crèche on a drop-in basis in the evenings for children aged 4 months to 9 years. For those parents wishing to dine at alternative restaurants in the village, babysitting is available on request at additional charge. Our Indy Club for 14-17 year olds is situated near the Ocean Club Gardens.

Waterside Gardens is the Tapas Restaurant site with the 'tented roofed' childcare centre measuring about 10 metres square. Ocean Club Gardens is to the North and encompasses the Millenium Restaurant. The main 24 hour reception is situated at the edge of this part of the resort i.e. the main reception comes under the Ocean Club Gardens, not Waterside Gardens. This is how the Mark Warner also described it:

The Ocean Club is a ‘village-style’ resort made up of apartments situated in three different locations around the village of Praia da Luz.

Ocean Club Gardens is set on the hillside in the north of the village, with apartments either overlooking one of the pools or set further south, close to the indoor pool and reception. The older Kids Club, MIllenium Restaurant and 3 of the tennis courts are located here, a 10-minute walk from the beach.

Waterside Gardens is located in the west of the village, beside a pool with a separate children’s paddling pool. There are 2 tennis courts, the younger children's club and the Tapas Restaurant and Bar also situated here.

Waterside Village is located right beside the beach, with swimming pools and tennis courts a 5-minute walk away. One-bedroom apartments sleep 3-4 people in a twin bedroom, and on a sofabed in the separate living area. Two-bedroom apartments sleep 4-5 people in either two twin rooms or a twin and a double, with space for an extra bed in the living area.

In October 2007, at the latest, Mark Warner then introduced new web pages, including a Resort Map (Resort Map 1). This map clearly indentified the above described areas as those being used for childcare. They also introduced a photo of the tented childcare centre showing about ten 4/5 year olds, with nannies. Resort Map 1 remained until spring 2009.

In spring 2009 the Resort Map was changed to show all the children's clubs at the Millenium site, apart from the minis (Madeleine's/Ella's club) which was shown as being in the main reception building.

I accept that having just set up the resort as a panic strategy in spring 2006 (after Pedras del Rei fell through), that the childcare might have been jiggled around. However, despite numerous changes being made to Mark Warner's website between April 2006 and spring 2009, it always showed the younger children's clubs being located at the Tapas Restaurant site. There is no mention of any clubs being located in the main reception building. Why, if the mini club had started at the Tapas site and had been subsequently moved to the main reception building, would the website and the LATER produced Resort Map 1 not have been changed to reflect this and keep guests fully informed? Particularly as Resort Map 2 was introduced in 2009 showing the mini club in the reception building (i.e. why was this map not introduced earlier?).

Did the mini club (and baby club for that matter) start at the Tapas site in 2006 (as advertised), only to be moved to the main reception building (without any notification of this change being made on the website) at some time during the 2006 summer season or at the start of the 2007 summer season, finally to be moved 'back' to the Tapas Restaurant site in mid/late summer 2007, as shown on Resort Map 1 (which was only introduced after July 2007)?

More to follow in next post.