How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

by kikoraton 13.10.10 21:16

Hello folks!
I’m sure that on this forum we find people with open minds, who like to consider all possibilities without a disposition to decry the ideas and opinions of others. Posters who indulge in rational debate and criticism, rather than those who seek to deflect the argument to support their own theories. There are plenty enough opportunities for everyone to air their own opinion, in their own space.
Let me put forward a possibility which I have been developing for some time now. It hinges on the conclusion I reached about two years ago, which is that Madeleine died at a very early stage in the holiday at PdL. Probably on 29 April – the first full day. (I can explain how I came to that conclusion in another thread, if you're interested).
The big objection to this theory has been, that a certain number of witnesses claim that Madeleine was present in the Lobster crèche until the last possible moment before KM cried “abduction”. That is, until 1730 on 3 May. But on another forum HiDeHo has shown that this “certain number” of people is actually very small. Probably only Cat Baker, in fact.
Until recently, I used to admit that I didn’t know how to get round this problem, whilst clinging on to my belief that Maddie died on or around 29 April. But once I had resolved this in my own mind, and put forward a theory as to how this apparent anomaly could be explained – my God, all hell was let loose on that forum. Organised opposition became the norm, with reasoned arguments from supportive posters being sent careering off-road at the slightest excuse. And with lots of “don’t tell us we didn’t warn you – you’re putting yourself at the mercy of Carter Ruck” from the mods.
So with much apprehension (I’m a very timid poster, with no posts to my name as you can see) I merely introduce myself as kikoraton, and ask if anyone here would care to hear my opinion as to how it was made to appear that Madeleine McCann was present in the Lobster group until 1730 on 3 May.

by Judge Mental 13.10.10 21:31

@ kikoraton

Encore. SVP

by Guest 13.10.10 21:41

kikoraton and welcome. I'm sure many would be interested to hear your theory. Noone gets shouted down here. We discuss and debate freely and everyone is entitled to their opinion. So post away...........

by littlepixie 13.10.10 22:16

I would definitely like to hear your theory thumbsup

by macy 13.10.10 22:22

Me too !

by Guest 13.10.10 23:17

Me too. I feel she died before the 3rd May.

by Autumn 14.10.10 1:49

Hello Kikoraton, good to see you here smilie

As someone who also believes that Madeleine died early on in the holiday, I too would be very interested to read your theory.

by Guest 14.10.10 8:13

At last !! exalt

I personally cannot wait to hear this and will be waiting patiently pop2

All of course in your very own good time. thumbsup

by hentie 14.10.10 16:36

Welcome Kikoraton

I would be very interested to hear more thumbsup

by kikoraton 14.10.10 19:32

Time for a bit more background. I spent two years studying the phone records of the “Madeleine (or Tapas) Group” and the “Murat Group”, as they were described in the released PJ files. I came to the conclusion that Robert Murat and his friends were coerced or persuaded by influential people in PdL to allow their mobiles and landlines to be borrowed so that the cover-up - necessary to get the tapas suspects off scot-free - could be carried out without raising immediate suspicion. In other words, Murat and company's phone activity looked innocent, or at least it could be explained away, whilst in fact being directly related to the cover-up of Maddie's death and the concealment which took place afterwards.
I concluded that suspicious phone calls were being made from as early as 2200 on First of May, and that we ought to be looking at that time or thereabouts for the first signs of Maddie's demise. Just nine hours later, KM began wiping calls from her mobile history, and GM embarked on his series of received voicemails – twelve in all – to which he made not a single reply on his own mobile. This suggests to me that he was only interested in receiving instructions or confirmation of upcoming plans. The senders of those voicemail messages have never been identified.
If I had really tried, I could have made a case for suspicious phone calls going still further back, to the early morning of 29 April. But at this point, the crèche records gave a better insight into KM’s state of mind and of something peculiar going on, because it was the afternoon of 30 April that she signed “Maddie” in at 1515, and out again 15 minutes later. And at 1600, just when the remaining kids were being made ready for tea at the end of the afternoon session, O’B comes along and signs his daughter into the group.

Well, all of that summarises about 100 pages spread over two threads (!), but it serves to bring us to the point where we can look more closely at the pages of the crèche records, as released by the PJ. And although it might seem incredibly early, I am not surprised to see that the dubious behaviour begins as early as 29 April.

by **HiDeHo** 15.10.10 0:34

Hi all!

Just been redirected back here...Lost the link a while back while changing computers..

I am. of course, interested in all theories, particularly relating to the creche.

I didn't participate in the CRECHE RECORDS thread in 3A but came across it recently (all 5,000 posts) and have started posting it in Madeleine Forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As kikoraton has ponted out, I have been scrutinising EVERY witness statement to establish if they are credible. (there are a few odd ones left to do, but none will be specific)

For obvious reasons I left Catriona until the end.

Catriona's credibility, is what the case hinges on regarding the time Madeleine died...

If Catrionas statement is 'proof' that Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm on Thursday then it negates all possibilities that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

I was quite shocked and surprised to find something in the files to show that she was less than truthful.

It is not an opinion...it shows in the files that her statement is not to be believed.

I will not hijack this thread with the details as I want to see how the theory checks out, but I will add it to a new thread if thats OK.

I felt I should add to this thread as it leaves the open possibility of kiko's theory.

Catriona told the police there were only TWO trips to the beach and the mini sail on Thursday was not included.

Seems like the mini sail with Madeleine may not have happened after all.

I think it is a major 'find'...hope you do too.

Catriona's statement is not credible and should not be used as 'proof' Madeleine was alive that night.

An earlier death is possible (as in the theory in this thread)

by kikoraton 15.10.10 10:35

Nice to see you here, HiDeHo.
Readers who are not familiar to us, will wish to know that HiDeHo is much respected for the serious and painstaking research which she carries out, and which is now bearing fruit.
On the other hand, I have tended, as I've grown older, to eschew the painstaking in favour of thinking outside of the box. But I had almost 30 years in the intelligence business, so once I find something significant, I work it over like a dog with a bone. From the phone records I'm 98% sure that RM was conned or persuaded into assisting the McCs with the help of a powerful local ~~lawyer~~ personage, and the peculiarities in the creche records tend to make me even more sure that Maddie had left us by around 29 April.
Quite why that should have led to so much opposition and warnings about litigation on another forum, I don't know. It's not going to lead me to accuse anyone of anything specific, other than my conclusion about date-of-death. I think it was probably because there was a potent lobby on that forum which absolutely insisted that Cat Baker had told the truth, and that she could positively identify Maddie McCann from any other girl called Maddie. Also, that lobby had been intent for 3 years on convincing posters into believing without question that Maddie died by some accident after 1730 on 3 May, and that Gerry was so distraught that he carried her body through the streets of PdL four hours later, conveniently passing in front of an Irish family on his way.
I don't think they ever told us where he was taking her.

by Guest 15.10.10 11:42

It is so good to see two of the best grafters I have ever seen over the last 3 years, still together in one place, to piece this altogether. There is still much to do, which needs to be done without all the hassles of threatening the very people who have been doing all the leg work.

Amongst other things, I'm very interested in seeing a clearer picture of who did what at lunch times? Who saw these people going where? What pictures we have them from these lunch meetings, that sort of thing. HiDeHo, I know you were talking about this the day I left MCF, so I'm not sure where you are with all this?, is there anything I can do to help?

I'm also very concerned about the integrity of Catriona's statement. She talks about identity bracelets for the children which includes their names and information like allergies. But where are the bracelets on these children?

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

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

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

Tanner’s daughter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by kikoraton 15.10.10 13:45

"The mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment". - Francisco Moita Flores, author, criminologist and former member of the PJ."

We know nine of these "elements", Stella, but I wonder who the others were? Maybe we shall have a better idea quite soon! Should we try to contact Sr Moita Flores, for a discussion and exchange of ideas?

by Guest 15.10.10 15:24

Why not ? what do we have to lose ? onphone

by kikoraton 17.10.10 20:10

On another thread, Stella has been posting the lists of names booked into the Ocean Club. Most of the families, couples and singletons represented there have nothing whatever to do with the Madeleine McCann affair - Stella and I are agreed on that. But amongst them, there may be one or more who knew the McCs and/or the Tapas9, but who have passed beneath the radar of investigation.
For example, Charlotte Gorrod is there. She and her husband are friends of Jane Tanner – close enough friends to have arranged a barbecue for the day after Madeleine’s disappearance. JT was vague about their relationship, claiming to the PJ that CG had just happened to be at the OC at the same time. As far as I know, it was never established whether the rest of the Tapas group were due to attend the barbecue.
There is another name which causes a ripple of excitement, and which occurs not just in the booking-lists, but also in the attendance records of the Lobster crèche group.
Have a dispassionate look at this, an extract from 2 May. I’ve done the best I can to reproduce it, but you may need to enlarge it to see the detail. Let us know if you see anything which might be interesting.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by littlepixie 17.10.10 20:26

I was looking at this on another forum and thought that some letters in the childs' names look similar. Whoever wrote the phone numbers and the time 9.20 are the same person IMO

by Shibboleth 18.10.10 10:16

kikoraton wrote:On another thread, Stella has been posting the lists of names booked into the Ocean Club. Most of the families, couples and singletons represented there have nothing whatever to do with the Madeleine McCann affair - Stella and I are agreed on that. But amongst them, there may be one or more who knew the McCs and/or the Tapas9, but who have passed beneath the radar of investigation.
For example, Charlotte Gorrod is there. She and her husband are friends of Jane Tanner – close enough friends to have arranged a barbecue for the day after Madeleine’s disappearance. JT was vague about their relationship, claiming to the PJ that CG had just happened to be at the OC at the same time. As far as I know, it was never established whether the rest of the Tapas group were due to attend the barbecue.
There is another name which causes a ripple of excitement, and which occurs not just in the booking-lists, but also in the attendance records of the Lobster crèche group.
Have a dispassionate look at this, an extract from 2 May. I’ve done the best I can to reproduce it, but you may need to enlarge it to see the detail. Let us know if you see anything which might be interesting.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I would say, as only a casual glance, that the same person wrote both entries. I am not an expert, but I did have my own handwriting scientifically analysed once, so I know what to look for.

The M and N have been written the same way in both.
The A has been written in the same order. Start at the top, go down, go back up, form the apex (almost a right angled triangle) then down almost vertically.
The B and D in both cases haven't been closed off at the bottom.
The letters start with heavy pressure then the pressure tails off, almost as if the writer's got bored and can't wait to start a new letter. This is particularly evident on the N. The writer is not a completer-finisher.

And that is just for starters. I could spend another couple of hours on this, but I think you will all get the picture.

by kikoraton 18.10.10 10:57

That's really interesting and potentially valuable, shibboleth. You'll have gathered that I'm trying to remain neutral about the two entries, having got myself into trouble on another forum for risking libel accusations! Blimey, how can it be "libel" to say that a certain person might have been friendly enough with another OC guest to enter two children under the same hand, when others are cheerfully accusing Gerry of carrying a dead Maddie through the streets, and implying god knows what about Maddie's fate?
I'll post some more examples later. A shopping expedition calls.....

by Guest 18.10.10 11:25

IMO the 7 looks very similar as does the 2 and the 0 in the other columns. Not many people cross the sevens. It isn't usually a Brit thing. Interesting to do a survey on here and ask how many do? I actually do because my mother was not born here, and I have always copied her sevens.

by Autumn 18.10.10 12:43

Seems like double standards to me and, as you say kikoraton, absolutely nothing libellous in discussing possibilities - my understanding is that, as long as theories are put forward as possibilities rather than fact, we are on safe ground legally. Without doubt you, Stella and HiDeHo have done a tremendous amount of research and analysis in certain areas and its great that you are here to share your thoughts with us smilie

As the saying goes 'the devil is in the detail' and I believe that to the case here.
It strikes me as odd that there would appear to be quite a lot of doctors, excluding the tapas group, staying at the PDL complex at the same time as the McCann group. It would be interesting to list the doctors/people connected with the NHS who were staying at the MW complex during the fortnight preceding the 3rd May. Didn't Jim Gamble request that holiday-makers who had stayed at MW up to a fortnight prior to the 3rd May, forward their hol snaps to him? Hmmmmm was he looking for someone significant who may have been identified on holiday snaps thinking

by Guest 18.10.10 14:30

Shibboleth, your findings are very interesting and quite encouraging that we are on the right track. If I am not mistaken, you are the first person we have had who has handwriting analysis experience. Which is very exciting.

For me the letter N in both names are so unusual and completely identical. I cannot accept they have been done by two different people. The clincher for me is the time 9.20, as it is written not only in the exact same style, but in exactly the same position longitude on the page, as each other. Also the telephone number, the first three digits especially, 077. They are also identical.

by Shibboleth 18.10.10 14:55

The 7s are European-style 7s, but the rest of the letters don't look "European". I would hazard a guess (and it is purely a guess) that it's been written by a Brit, but someone who has worked in Europe and so has gotton used to writing crossed 7s. The 1 doesn't have a top stroke, which European 1s tend to have (the purpose of crossing the 7 is to differentiate it from 1). Now look at the L and the E. Both letters start at the top, work down, then go right and trail off. The capital E has started out as an L, but has the upper and middle strokes added later. Most Europeans (in my experience) write E with one stroke, or as two strokes with the middle bar being added separately. The H has also been completed in separate strokes, in fact the middle bar is so tiny it looks as if it's missing altogether. A different pen or pencil has been used the first and second times, but the pressure is the same, as is the ratio of the letters to the space available for them. I is a single stroke, undotted, without serif, and approx 2/3 the size of the letter next to it in both cases. Both samples display the same angle, slightly leaning to the right. None of the letters are joined up in both cases, they stand alone, almost like printing - but it's not very neat printing. It seems very slapdash, like the person was in a hurry.

Now I am no expert, I just know a tiny bit about it, and the above is all MHO only. I have been trying to remain impartial with this but TBH, I cannot see anything in these two samples that would differentiate them.

by Guest 18.10.10 15:19

When I first started work, one of my first jobs for a year or so was working in the production department for a small news paper. As such, I had to write things down to pass onto the typesetters. In a rush 1's and 7's can easily be mistaken, so I was advised to cross my 7's, as wrong telephone numbers are a big no-no. Now it may be that someone who works in an environment that needs to clarify between 1's and 7's, such as a Doctor, would also need to adopt this practice ??

I wonder if this Mr Naylor crosses his 7's ?