Re: Crèche signatures revisited

by Verdi 08.03.16 12:40

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

It would be extremely helpful if you could explain, in the simplest form, how you see this information fits in with Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Not difficult admittedly but I'm totally confused as to where you're intending to lead debate.

As as aside I will just say, anyone who takes a brochure seriously, holiday or otherwise, is in desperate need of a reality check. Not suggesting that all are bog basic but I once booked in at a 5* hotel where the brochure bragged about their exemplary child care facilities at their Ocean Bay Kiddies Club - which turned out to be a man-made sandpit by the side of a minuscule paddling pool, situated in a corner of the hotel grounds. Supervised by a local lad with a penchant for the bikini clad girls and their hard earned holiday spending cash and a local lass with a penchant for - well, just about anything imaginable.

Such is life.

by Guest 08.03.16 13:48

skyrocket wrote:
On the sheets (first 4 days until 5 May) there are 223 families/bookings. All are in alphabetical order except the McCanns (the O'Donnell booking is explained by the apostrophe confusing the programme). The McCann name has moved forward about 8 names alphabetically and appears just above the two Naylor bookings (coincidentally I think). The point being that of all the names on the sheets, produced on 4 separate days, the McCann name is the only one out of place; also, on the last sheet (5 May) both the McCann and Mark Warner Naylor entries are written as nARKWARNER.co.uk (I know this point has been raised elsewhere along with the strange small 'r' alongside the McCanns entry on an earlier sheet).

Not meaning to echo Verdi above, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say in pointing this out. It's seems obvious to me that the name McCann moves because people aren't sure on the lower case 'c' should be a normal c or a special character.

I think you can get bogged down in irrelevant minutia. Though if you think it's relevant I'd be interested to hear why.

by skyrocket 08.03.16 15:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I might accept the lowercase 'c' argument if there were not 7 other Mc's above in alphabetical order, all typed as uppercase 'C'. I would have expected the 'c' in Mc to be consistent. It is relevant if for some reason the records have been altered. Nothing more nothing less. Hope that answers your query.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - not sure which info you're referring to in 'this information'. Not attempting to lead debate anywhere - just putting facts up as I come across them for others to check for themselves; ignore; or whatever else they feel like doing with them. I agree on your point about brochures but the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly and I apologise for that) is that MarkWarner had an opportunity after MBM's disappearance to put their house in order, knowing that eyes were on them. The old website pages were taken down in July 2007 and new ones created - the new pages didn't rely on a description of the childcare club locations anymore, they produced a map. Why produce a map with clubs placed randomly in incorrect locations to aggravate guests?? And, why would the locations match those described on the pre-July 2007 web pages? As I stated before - I don't understand it, but does that mean it should be totally ignored? (rhetorical - please don't draw me into another spat!!) As I said to @TB - I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion.

by Guest 08.03.16 16:11

I get that you're pointing out the possibility, but I'm not sure what purpose would be served. We already know where they stayed. We know their flight dates. We know there were five of them. Where the name McCann appears on the documents doesn't alter any of those things.

I'm just not sure what exactly you think could've been deliberately altered and why? Surely if something was being obfuscated they'd get it right not leave a typo trail?

by skyrocket 08.03.16 16:36

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

I have no idea if or what might have been changed but that's not really the point. Perhaps it's just me who thinks alarm bells should be ringing when, out of 223 names (x4 times), the Mc's name is the one which is not where it should be. IMO, the only scenario for none of the other records such as these and such as the creche sheets not to be of any interest/relevance would be that claimed by the Mcs.

And, if we work on the premise of accepting everything as being correct because no one would be so careless as to make mistakes then we might as well stop discussing every record from the period in question.

by kaz 08.03.16 16:45

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I might accept the lowercase 'c' argument if there were not 7 other Mc's above in alphabetical order, all typed as uppercase 'C'. I would have expected the 'c' in Mc to be consistent. It is relevant if for some reason the records have been altered. Nothing more nothing less. Hope that answers your query.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - not sure which info you're referring to in 'this information'. Not attempting to lead debate anywhere - just putting facts up as I come across them for others to check for themselves; ignore; or whatever else they feel like doing with them. I agree on your point about brochures but the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly and I apologise for that) is that MarkWarner had an opportunity after MBM's disappearance to put their house in order, knowing that eyes were on them. The old website pages were taken down in July 2007 and new ones created - the new pages didn't rely on a description of the childcare club locations anymore, they produced a map. Why produce a map with clubs placed randomly in incorrect locations to aggravate guests?? And, why would the locations match those described on the pre-July 2007 web pages? As I stated before - I don't understand it, but does that mean it should be totally ignored? (rhetorical - please don't draw me into another spat!!) As I said to @TB - I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion.

Skyrocket, you remind me of a woman I used to work with many years ago . In meetings where we had to interpret new government legislation such as Maternity Pay , she could be relied on to come up with a question that nobody had thought of or if they had, they weren't prepared to vocalise it. Maybe they wanted to get home early or didn't want complications to what they'd already sorted in their minds. Everybody used to groan when they heard that, ''........ah ...but........'' Eyes would roll . There she goes again, they would imply. However I'm telling you now that she saw things that none of the rest of us did .They might have called it nit picking but boy did she highlight ambiguity in our collective interpretation . Keep at it Skyrocket.

by Guest 08.03.16 16:56

Here's a weird one for you. Why are the McCann bookings shown as being booked individually on consecutive days?

ETA: The Paynes are the only ones listed as booking on the same day (January 17th). I thought they all booked together?

by skyrocket 08.03.16 17:08

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

Thank you very much for that. I'm afraid it's a personality trait - can't help myself! But as you so kindly pointed out by example - sometimes the devil is in the detail and you never know I might stumble on something significant one of these days!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - that's more like it! I assume you're looking at the record from Faro Airport. Exactly - also note the return flight date for the McCanns - for some reason it is listed as 5/6 (June) instead of 5/5 (May).

by Verdi 08.03.16 20:25

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

"not sure which info you're referring to in 'this information'"

Your posts.

"Not attempting to lead debate anywhere - just putting facts up as I come across them for others to check for themselves; ignore; or whatever else they feel like doing with them."

With respect, I don't think you are presenting facts. It seems to me that you identify with nothing but circumstances and anomalies that you consider to be worthy of attention.

"I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion."

Then why raise the issues? Oh sorry, you've already said 'for others to check for themselves, ignore or whatever else they feel like doing with them'.

Still, who am I to stand in the way of good intention - if it feels good do it that's what I say. I'll leave you to it.

howdy

by skyrocket 09.03.16 7:38

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - Jolly good idea. I'll get on with what I do (analysing; commenting; and treating others with a modicum of respect) and you carry on with what you do. Sorted. high5

by JohnyT 09.03.16 21:01

Well, I don't find anything wrong with skyrockets' posts.
JohnyT

by Guest 09.03.16 21:09

Stay on topic, please.

by Doug D 09.03.16 21:46

dewi lennard
@kikoratton

9th Mar 2016 from TwitLonger

‘I had a strange reaction, when I rang Robert Naylor and told him of my discovery, that Gerry McCann had signed his daughter into creche on several occasions. (This news will come as a blow to those who try to insist that the handwriting in both cases (EN and MM) is not the same). Mr Naylor did not at any point dispute that Gerry had taken his daughter to creche. Wouldn't you think, that he would protest vehemently "Don't be so stupid, man, I took my own child to creche!" But no. He didn't say any such thing. Just asked me who I was, who I worked for, and finally said "Anyway, I've spoken to the CID (sic) about it". How very telling!’

by Verdi 09.03.16 22:48

Doug D wrote:dewi lennard
@kikoratton

9th Mar 2016 from TwitLonger

‘I had a strange reaction, when I rang Robert Naylor and told him of my discovery, that Gerry McCann had signed his daughter into creche on several occasions. (This news will come as a blow to those who try to insist that the handwriting in both cases (EN and MM) is not the same). Mr Naylor did not at any point dispute that Gerry had taken his daughter to creche. Wouldn't you think, that he would protest vehemently "Don't be so stupid, man, I took my own child to creche!" But no. He didn't say any such thing. Just asked me who I was, who I worked for, and finally said "Anyway, I've spoken to the CID (sic) about it". How very telling!’

If I was Robert Naylor (or anyone else for that matter) and some stranger phoned me with tales of discoveries and/or asking questions, I would tell whoever in the least polite terms to naff off. Certainly wouldn't react in the way expected by the caller as detailed above.

A more revealing response in my opinion was made by Philip Edmonds when asked by Tony Bennett about the photographs taken during his holiday at PdL, allegedly showing Madeleine in the background. Now he confirmed that said photographs had been forwarded to the McCanns and the police - to a request made by a total stranger? Something I certainly wouldn't expect under the circumstances.

Seen the name scores of times but otherwise know nothing of this twitterer, on the surface appears to be a bit of a sensationalist. Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of the person can verify authenticity?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.03.16 23:02

Verdi wrote:
If I was Robert Naylor (or anyone else for that matter) and some stranger phoned me with tales of discoveries and/or asking questions, I would tell whoever in the least polite terms to naff off. Certainly wouldn't react in the way expected by the caller as detailed above.

I think you've made a fair point there

A more revealing response in my opinion was made by Philip Edmonds when asked by Tony Bennett about the photographs taken during his holiday at PdL, allegedly showing Madeleine in the background. Now he confirmed that said photographs had been forwarded to the McCanns and the police - to a request made by a total stranger? Something I certainly wouldn't expect under the circumstances.

I was quite taken aback when I got a reply at all - though it's clear my enquiry wasn't welcome

Seen the name scores of times but otherwise know nothing of this twitterer, on the surface appears to be a bit of a sensationalist. Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of the person can verify authenticity?

Real name Dewi Lennard, says he used to work at government spy agency, GCHQ in Cheltenham

by Verdi 09.03.16 23:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
If I was Robert Naylor (or anyone else for that matter) and some stranger phoned me with tales of discoveries and/or asking questions, I would tell whoever in the least polite terms to naff off. Certainly wouldn't react in the way expected by the caller as detailed above.

I think you've made a fair point there

A more revealing response in my opinion was made by Philip Edmonds when asked by Tony Bennett about the photographs taken during his holiday at PdL, allegedly showing Madeleine in the background. Now he confirmed that said photographs had been forwarded to the McCanns and the police - to a request made by a total stranger? Something I certainly wouldn't expect under the circumstances.

I was quite taken aback when I got a reply at all - though it's clear my enquiry wasn't welcome

Frankly I'm astounded you got a reply. I would have thrown it in the trash or forwarded to the police - depending on the severity of content.

Seen the name scores of times but otherwise know nothing of this twitterer, on the surface appears to be a bit of a sensationalist. Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of the person can verify authenticity?

Real name Dewi Lennard, says he used to work at government spy agency, GCHQ in Cheltenham

What another one? OK, I should have said fantasist.

by Guest 10.03.16 6:34

Kikoraton is still a member here.

I understand from reading his posts and tweets that he has been arguing for several years that something happened earlier in the week. He's not a fantasist, IMO. Like most of us here, he wants the truth exposed.

by Nina 10.03.16 9:20

Ladyinred wrote:Kikoraton is still a member here.

I understand from reading his posts and tweets that he has been arguing for several years that something happened earlier in the week. He's not a fantasist, IMO. Like most of us here, he wants the truth exposed.

No he is not a fantasist, a more down to earth chap you wouldn't meet. My husband and I have met him and his wife and he is a genuine straightforward fellow who like many more on this forum spent hours of his time researching the case, in particular the telephone records and the creche records. Yes Tony, he did work at GCHQ.

by **Jill Havern** 10.03.16 9:55

Nina wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Kikoraton is still a member here.

I understand from reading his posts and tweets that he has been arguing for several years that something happened earlier in the week. He's not a fantasist, IMO. Like most of us here, he wants the truth exposed.
No he is not a fantasist, a more down to earth chap you wouldn't meet. My husband and I have met him and his wife and he is a genuine straightforward fellow who like many more on this forum spent hours of his time researching the case, in particular the telephone records and the creche records. Yes Tony, he did work at GCHQ.

I also don't think he's a fantasist. I think he's very passionate about this case and just wants the truth to come out, like so many more of us.

I've sent him an email telling him that his account is still active here should he want to re-visit to add to the debate.

by whatsupdoc 10.03.16 10:32

I have chatted with Dewi on Twitter some time ago and I think he is genuine and trying his best to solve the case.

He has done some good work imo.

I certainly don't think he is a Walter Mitty so would the members involved please apologise.

by Estelle 10.03.16 11:15

I have the utmost respect for Dewi Lennard and his research on this case. He definitely wants the truth to come out.

by Verdi 10.03.16 11:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Nina wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Kikoraton is still a member here.

I understand from reading his posts and tweets that he has been arguing for several years that something happened earlier in the week. He's not a fantasist, IMO. Like most of us here, he wants the truth exposed.
No he is not a fantasist, a more down to earth chap you wouldn't meet. My husband and I have met him and his wife and he is a genuine straightforward fellow who like many more on this forum spent hours of his time researching the case, in particular the telephone records and the creche records. Yes Tony, he did work at GCHQ.
I also don't think he's a fantasist. I think he's very passionate about this case and just wants the truth to come out, like so many more of us.

I've sent him an email telling him that his account is still active here should he want to re-visit to add to the debate.

I very much hope he does take up the offer - if nothing else I'm very interested to read and hopefully understand the substitute Madeleine theory in detail.

Nina, as you've met with Kikoraton I apologize for the trite remark about being a fantasist. This case seems to attract con merchants with claims of professional qualifications and expertise, in the cyber world o anonimity, it's almost impossible to determine who's genuine and who's not. Indeed, I've seen quite a few who claim to be ex-GCHQ when trying to add weight to their theories.

by Grande Finale 10.03.16 13:23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Bennett on 5/3/2016, 16:46

"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."
The numbers need checking here but I do think it is a great idea of yours to investigate these times
Monday
9.30 9.20 TWINS dropped off first 20 mins

Also I researched your question
"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?"
It looks like this might be a 'short cut'

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

by **Tony Bennett** 10.03.16 14:11

Grande Finale wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Bennett on 5/3/2016, 16:46

Also I researched your question
"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?"
It looks like this might be a 'short cut'

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

Thank you very much for that.

It also shows very well the route that The McCanns would normally have taken, i.e.

Morning and afternoon drop-off: G5A >>> Tapas restaurant >>> Ocean Club reception

Lunch-time and evening collection: Ocean Club reception >> Tapas restaurant >> G5A

Looking at the proposed 'short cut', and using scales available to me, the distance from Tapas bar (twins creche) to Ocean Club (Madeleine's Mini-Club) still looks like around 600 yards.

An adult at normal walking pace would take about 7 minutes to accomplish that.

With a child aged 3, without a buggy/pushchair, a longer time would be needed, say 9 to 12 minutes.

That still leaves a number of queries about the chart of drop-off and collection times that I posted up the thread

by Verdi 10.03.16 15:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
Grande Finale wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Bennett on 5/3/2016, 16:46

Also I researched your question
"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?"
It looks like this might be a 'short cut'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Thank you very much for that.

It also shows very well the route that The McCanns would normally have taken, i.e.

Morning and afternoon drop-off: G5A >>> Tapas restaurant >>> Ocean Club reception

Lunch-time and evening collection: Ocean Club reception >> Tapas restaurant >> G5A

Looking at the proposed 'short cut', and using scales available to me, the distance from Tapas bar (twins creche) to Ocean Club (Madeleine's Mini-Club) still looks like around 600 yards.

An adult at normal walking pace would take about 7 minutes to accomplish that.

With a child aged 3, without a buggy/pushchair, a longer time would be needed, say 9 to 12 minutes.

That still leaves a number of queries about the chart of drop-off and collection times that I posted up the thread

When estimating the time it took to walk from A to B, shouldn't one take into consideration that curious procedure they apparently adopted, Kate and children leaving by the patio door (negociating those hazardous stone steps on her own with three very young children), whilst Gerry locked the patio door from within and left, himself, by the front door?

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

Where did they reunite I wonder. If anyone can offer an explanation as to why they opted for this strange way way of leaving the apartment every day, I would be extremely grateful. I'm still thinking it might have been part of an elaborate plan to justify why they were not seen together as a family of five during the week.