Crèche signatures revisited

AndyB wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:I don't understand how a pre-planned fake abduction involving a bogus lookalike, who has been standing in for the real child all week, could work
Once you have carried it out, and the lookalike has been whisked off home, you are still left with the real one. What then?
On the other hand, if the real one has met some fate earlier in the week, thus leading to the plan, it's a bit of a coincidence that there's another similar-looking child with the same name, whose family are friends with the real one's family, who just happens to be on holiday at the same resort, isn't it?

I cannot believe in the "pre-planned fake abduction involving a bogus lookalike"  but I can believe in the real Madeleine meeting a tragic fate and then, due to a need to cover up her death so that other activities are not  exposed, they use another girl  to hide the time of death...

Why would the other parents agree to allow their daughter to be involved in it?

Dee Coy wrote:Carrying her through the streets of Luz to the taxi home, you mean?

I always thought Redwood's Crecheman had to be based on a loose truth, in case he's ever needed in court.

This is the description given by Jose Cardoso:


António Castelo says the girl was wearing pink pyjamas and is certain she was in fact Madeleine.

A taxi driver for the past 17 years, he says he noted her eye, “As my son, who is a police officer, has a similar defect”. “Madeleine was with three men, one of whom looked like Robert Murat, and a blonde woman,” he said.

“The blonde woman with them looked to me like Madeleine’s mother but I couldn’t say whether or not it was her,” he said.

These are the clothes and blanket Crecheman's child was dressed in, thanks to the Daily Mail:

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

Atomic Peanut wrote:I don't understand how a pre-planned fake abduction involving a bogus lookalike, who has been standing in for the real child all week, could work
Once you have carried it out, and the lookalike has been whisked off home, you are still left with the real one. What then?
On the other hand, if the real one has met some fate earlier in the week, thus leading to the plan, it's a bit of a coincidence that there's another similar-looking child with the same name, whose family are friends with the real one's family, who just happens to be on holiday at the same resort, isn't it?

Atomic Peanut wrote:I don't understand how a pre-planned fake abduction involving a bogus lookalike, who has been standing in for the real child all week, could work
Once you have carried it out, and the lookalike has been whisked off home, you are still left with the real one. What then?
On the other hand, if the real one has met some fate earlier in the week, thus leading to the plan, it's a bit of a coincidence that there's another similar-looking child with the same name, whose family are friends with the real one's family, who just happens to be on holiday at the same resort, isn't it?

Joss wrote:

Hicks wrote:

NickE wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:This is really interesting - again I really think all of these people were bonded together by something - some activity

Yes it is, we just have to figure out what it is, if we do, we might have a motive for the cover-up.

Money? Sex? Fame? Political ambitions? Not necessarily in that order.

I definitely think money & fame as we have already seen that play/ing out. I think certain people in this case sold their souls for that. The sex part i don't know, but politics in this case is also involved. I read elsewhere that this case is a code for something, and when we look at all the players involved that could well be. In my personal opinion there are definitely big cover ups going on and have been right from the start. Some people have discussed microchipping, but i don't think its that. I guess we will see how it all pans out.

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Carrying her through the streets of Luz to the taxi home, you mean?

I always thought Redwood's Crecheman had to be based on a loose truth, in case he's ever needed in court.

This is the description given by Jose Cardoso:


António Castelo says the girl was wearing pink pyjamas and is certain she was in fact Madeleine.

A taxi driver for the past 17 years, he says he noted her eye, “As my son, who is a police officer, has a similar defect”. “Madeleine was with three men, one of whom looked like Robert Murat, and a blonde woman,” he said.

“The blonde woman with them looked to me like Madeleine’s mother but I couldn’t say whether or not it was her,” he said.

These are the clothes and blanket Crecheman's child was dressed in, thanks to the Daily Mail:

So we know it is a FACT that Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma.

The taxi driver is sure that the girl in pink pajamas that looked like Madeleine McCann had a coloboma as his son has one.

Does Madeleine Ryder have a coloboma??

Was she the girl in the taxi?

Rob Royston wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:I don't understand how a pre-planned fake abduction involving a bogus lookalike, who has been standing in for the real child all week, could work
Once you have carried it out, and the lookalike has been whisked off home, you are still left with the real one. What then?
On the other hand, if the real one has met some fate earlier in the week, thus leading to the plan, it's a bit of a coincidence that there's another similar-looking child with the same name, whose family are friends with the real one's family, who just happens to be on holiday at the same resort, isn't it?

Yes, but what if it was to be a real abduction, hidden away for a long term and then dramatically found. If she was to be well gone before the alarm was raised then the "sub" would be a necessity. When the "disaster" happened only some of the players would need to know, the rest continued playing their parts.

Rob Royston wrote:

Hicks wrote:Lets go out on a tangent for a moment and assume that we are on the right track in that the Naylor's, Joe Rider and his partner were involved. What would bind them? why would both couples be complicit in covering up for the McCann's?

Maybe these two couples were not complicit in covering up for the McCanns. They could have been complicit in the original plan. If the couple with the assumed "sub" daughter were delivered to a car with UK plates by the taxi, then it is most likely that they arrived from the UK by car. Was this so that they could slip away to Spain before the alarm was raised at PDL as the timing seems to suggest.
It also follows that when they arrived, or when they left their car at the Hotel Apolo, they must have been transported to their accommodation at PDL. Was the third man the person who arranged the accommodation and drove them from there to PDL, and back to Monte Gordo on the 3rd May to transfer to a taxi for the short trip to the hotel?
It would suggest that the "sub" would need to have been part of the plan from the beginning? Was Maddie to be taken away early in the week but the alarm was not to happen until the Thursday night?
It is quite possible that the "sub's" parents were unaware that there had been a "disaster".
All IMO of course.

Rob Royston wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Carrying her through the streets of Luz to the taxi home, you mean?

I always thought Redwood's Crecheman had to be based on a loose truth, in case he's ever needed in court.

This is the description given by Jose Cardoso:


António Castelo says the girl was wearing pink pyjamas and is certain she was in fact Madeleine.

A taxi driver for the past 17 years, he says he noted her eye, “As my son, who is a police officer, has a similar defect”. “Madeleine was with three men, one of whom looked like Robert Murat, and a blonde woman,” he said.

“The blonde woman with them looked to me like Madeleine’s mother but I couldn’t say whether or not it was her,” he said.

These are the clothes and blanket Crecheman's child was dressed in, thanks to the Daily Mail:

So we know it is a FACT that Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma.

The taxi driver is sure that the girl in pink pajamas that looked like Madeleine McCann had a coloboma as his son has one.

Does Madeleine Ryder have a coloboma??

Was she the girl in the taxi?

They did not get in this taxi in Luz. They got this taxi at the Taxi Square in Morte Gordo, about an hour from Luz. The girl in the taxi could not have been carried by Crecheman at the times quoted by Jane Tanner.

sharonl wrote:

Hicks wrote:

NickE wrote:

Hicks wrote:Lets go out on a tangent for a moment and assume that we are on the right track in that the Naylor's, Joe Rider and his partner were involved. What would bind them? why would both couples be complicit in covering up for the McCann's? Swinging maybe?

I have read elsewhere that it is possible that Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien already knew the Naylor's.

JT mentions something about the Naylor's in her statement. Something about meeting them on the beach. Tanner refers to Ainne Naylor as 'Oryna' .

All imo.

Mr Naylor worked at "Landsbanki Securities" at the time and later at "The Matrix group".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Joe Rider is a video game guru.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I think Rider had an office in the same building as Landsbanki where R Naylor worked in 2007.
This "beach statement",Was it Jane who also mentioned something about a person she thought was called "Rob"?
According to "Kiko" did Naylors and Tanner/O'Brien knew each other through sailing.

JT statement May 10th.

2 May...... she went to the beach where she met DP and FP. She and other members of the group made the aquaintence of, in the course of their tennis lessons, a lady called O. The deponents husband ROB, also knew the lady's husband named Rob from windsurfing classes. The couple Rob and O were also guests at the complex. That morning having been to her daughters tennis class, the deponent went to the beach meeting ROB there. From what she knows the couple, Rob and O, have two children ( a girl of three and a younger child not knowing whether boy or girl)She think they were Londoners. Just Normal people'.

In your link Joe Rider appears to be a director of Magma Ignite.  I have looked him up as a director and found nothing.  Also, there are two companies registered at companies in October 2010, Magna Ignite and Magna Ignite Digital, both dormant and neither of which he appears to have ever been a director.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  

Dee Coy wrote:

Hicks wrote:
Perhaps the fake Madeleine and her parents fled PDL on the evening of the 3rd( in the taxi) as they were not prepared to continue with the scam. Was the simulated abduction planned for a later time?  Is that why GM had no other choice but to remove the body quickly, as seen by the Smiths. A disaster indeed!

All my opinion. Nothing stated as fact.

"They've taken her!"

j.rob wrote:


That all sounds quite plausible to me. 

TM made a mess of the original plan. 

But they thought they would get away with it because of the 'wider agenda.'

Those pesky old dogs, eh? Unlike TM, they just don't lie!

Hicks wrote:

sharonl wrote:

Hicks wrote:

NickE wrote:

Hicks wrote:Lets go out on a tangent for a moment and assume that we are on the right track in that the Naylor's, Joe Rider and his partner were involved. What would bind them? why would both couples be complicit in covering up for the McCann's? Swinging maybe?

I have read elsewhere that it is possible that Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien already knew the Naylor's.

JT mentions something about the Naylor's in her statement. Something about meeting them on the beach. Tanner refers to Ainne Naylor as 'Oryna' .

All imo.

Mr Naylor worked at "Landsbanki Securities" at the time and later at "The Matrix group".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Joe Rider is a video game guru.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I think Rider had an office in the same building as Landsbanki where R Naylor worked in 2007.
This "beach statement",Was it Jane who also mentioned something about a person she thought was called "Rob"?
According to "Kiko" did Naylors and Tanner/O'Brien knew each other through sailing.

JT statement May 10th.

2 May...... she went to the beach where she met DP and FP. She and other members of the group made the aquaintence of, in the course of their tennis lessons, a lady called O. The deponents husband ROB, also knew the lady's husband named Rob from windsurfing classes. The couple Rob and O were also guests at the complex. That morning having been to her daughters tennis class, the deponent went to the beach meeting ROB there. From what she knows the couple, Rob and O, have two children ( a girl of three and a younger child not knowing whether boy or girl)She think they were Londoners. Just Normal people'.

In your link Joe Rider appears to be a director of Magma Ignite.  I have looked him up as a director and found nothing.  Also, there are two companies registered at companies in October 2010, Magna Ignite and Magna Ignite Digital, both dormant and neither of which he appears to have ever been a director.  Can anyone shed any light on this?  

Hi sharonl, I think his correct name is Jonathan Rider. Joe for short perhaps?

j.rob wrote:

Joss wrote:

Hicks wrote:

NickE wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:This is really interesting - again I really think all of these people were bonded together by something - some activity

Yes it is, we just have to figure out what it is, if we do, we might have a motive for the cover-up.

Money? Sex? Fame? Political ambitions? Not necessarily in that order.

I definitely think money & fame as we have already seen that play/ing out. I think certain people in this case sold their souls for that. The sex part i don't know, but politics in this case is also involved. I read elsewhere that this case is a code for something, and when we look at all the players involved that could well be. In my personal opinion there are definitely big cover ups going on and have been right from the start. Some people have discussed microchipping, but i don't think its that. I guess we will see how it all pans out.

Think how many people have made money out of this 'abduction'. The media, lawyers, detectives, the McCanns...it's been a nice little gravy train. It was a good story to bury bad news, imo. Among other things. And I do think it was designed to induce paranoia in people/parents so as to pave the way for increased surveillance which was/is very much on the agenda with the 'war on terror.'

A good vehicle to take the public's eye off what might really be going on. Why else would there have been all this emphasis on silly world-wide sightings? When it was so obvious from the very beginning that it was all a scam?

It's astonishing that TM have got away with it for so long. Their version of events has never stood up to scrutiny. So why the very high level support, if it was just an accident/drug overdose and the parents decided to fake an abduction to cover up for Madeleine's death?  Why wold that be a matter of 'national security'? Detective Amaral was astonished at the high level of intervention.

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Hicks wrote:
Perhaps the fake Madeleine and her parents fled PDL on the evening of the 3rd( in the taxi) as they were not prepared to continue with the scam. Was the simulated abduction planned for a later time?  Is that why GM had no other choice but to remove the body quickly, as seen by the Smiths. A disaster indeed!

All my opinion. Nothing stated as fact.

"They've taken her!"

WOW!!!

'The bastards have taken her!'

So this might have been the reason for the weird bowing......because they  were literally praying to God to save their necks as they knew they were up to their necks in it!

Dee Coy wrote:

Rob Royston wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Carrying her through the streets of Luz to the taxi home, you mean?

I always thought Redwood's Crecheman had to be based on a loose truth, in case he's ever needed in court.

This is the description given by Jose Cardoso:


António Castelo says the girl was wearing pink pyjamas and is certain she was in fact Madeleine.

A taxi driver for the past 17 years, he says he noted her eye, “As my son, who is a police officer, has a similar defect”. “Madeleine was with three men, one of whom looked like Robert Murat, and a blonde woman,” he said.

“The blonde woman with them looked to me like Madeleine’s mother but I couldn’t say whether or not it was her,” he said.

These are the clothes and blanket Crecheman's child was dressed in, thanks to the Daily Mail:

So we know it is a FACT that Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma.

The taxi driver is sure that the girl in pink pajamas that looked like Madeleine McCann had a coloboma as his son has one.

Does Madeleine Ryder have a coloboma??

Was she the girl in the taxi?

They did not get in this taxi in Luz. They got this taxi at the Taxi Square in Morte Gordo, about an hour from Luz. The girl in the taxi could not have been carried by Crecheman at the times quoted by Jane Tanner.

Thanks, Roy.

If it's the Riders, then, that's a complicated journey. Transport (somehow) to  Morte Gordo, taxi to hotel, rendevous with van at hotel.

Read yesterday that the taxi driver wanted money for further interviews, which always makes me extremely sceptical.

HelenMeg wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Hicks wrote:
Perhaps the fake Madeleine and her parents fled PDL on the evening of the 3rd( in the taxi) as they were not prepared to continue with the scam. Was the simulated abduction planned for a later time?  Is that why GM had no other choice but to remove the body quickly, as seen by the Smiths. A disaster indeed!

All my opinion. Nothing stated as fact.

"They've taken her!"

WOW!!!

'The bastards have taken her!'

So this might have been the reason for the weird bowing......because they  were literally praying to God to save their necks as they knew they were up to their necks in it!

I though the weird bowing was done to conceal what was lying on the bed - the items of clothing etc that should not have been there...

Snifferdog wrote:Now that is an interesting statement j.rob.aA perfect fit for the puzzle piece. Imo.