Why did the McCann's request an extra bed?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:There is no definitive list of occupants where Thomas Cook guests are concerned, but by looking at the OC daily lists, you can see that there is a huge amount of them staying in a T2 two bedroomed apartment, with only 2 people occupying it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps there was a business event going on and work colleagues travelled together?

Could be, Stella - a business holiday is plausible. Unfortunately, taking account of the date, a whole other reason for the big group comes into play, especially when all other indications are taken into account

Stella, a sudden thought - this may have been mentioned earlier in the thread - in answer to 'Why did the McCanns request an Extra Bed?' Could the answer be 'the alleged substitute'?
I'm not yet 100% convinced a sub was used - MW/nannies could well have lied for their own reasons - but it would make sense of the following -

1)the 'sub' would need to spend a large amount of time, if not all the time, with K+G (in G5A???) It could've just been a case of 'sweetie, would you like to stay with Auntie Kate and Uncle Gerry? It'd be fun, like a big sleep over!'
If this was the case, it could
2)Explain the dogs following a scent a short way to (another apartment? 'Sub' parents or pick-up point?) - the sub? (I believe they would've been safely on their way out of PT by 'alarm time'
3)It would explain the 'un-messed up bed' - if she was on the way home, it wouldn't have been slept in Thursday? The cleaner reported used beds on the Wednesday though, didn't she?

I must stress this has just popped into my head. Its far from a fully-formed theory, and evidence may contradict it, so thoughts (good or bad) very welcome

aquila wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:There is no definitive list of occupants where Thomas Cook guests are concerned, but by looking at the OC daily lists, you can see that there is a huge amount of them staying in a T2 two bedroomed apartment, with only 2 people occupying it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps there was a business event going on and work colleagues travelled together?

Could be, Stella - a business holiday is plausible. Unfortunately, taking account of the date, a whole other reason for the big group comes into play, especially when all other indications are taken into account

Stella, a sudden thought - this may have been mentioned earlier in the thread - in answer to 'Why did the McCanns request an Extra Bed?' Could the answer be 'the alleged substitute'?
I'm not yet 100% convinced a sub was used - MW/nannies could well have lied for their own reasons - but it would make sense of the following -

1)the 'sub' would need to spend a large amount of time, if not all the time, with K+G (in G5A???) It could've just been a case of 'sweetie, would you like to stay with Auntie Kate and Uncle Gerry? It'd be fun, like a big sleep over!'
If this was the case, it could
2)Explain the dogs following a scent a short way to (another apartment? 'Sub' parents or pick-up point?) - the sub? (I believe they would've been safely on their way out of PT by 'alarm time'
3)It would explain the 'un-messed up bed' - if she was on the way home, it wouldn't have been slept in Thursday? The cleaner reported used beds on the Wednesday though, didn't she?

I must stress this has just popped into my head. Its far from a fully-formed theory, and evidence may contradict it, so thoughts (good or bad) very welcome

a sub theory could also explain the sparkly shoes which were not spotted again.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

aquila wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:There is no definitive list of occupants where Thomas Cook guests are concerned, but by looking at the OC daily lists, you can see that there is a huge amount of them staying in a T2 two bedroomed apartment, with only 2 people occupying it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps there was a business event going on and work colleagues travelled together?

Could be, Stella - a business holiday is plausible. Unfortunately, taking account of the date, a whole other reason for the big group comes into play, especially when all other indications are taken into account

Stella, a sudden thought - this may have been mentioned earlier in the thread - in answer to 'Why did the McCanns request an Extra Bed?' Could the answer be 'the alleged substitute'?
I'm not yet 100% convinced a sub was used - MW/nannies could well have lied for their own reasons - but it would make sense of the following -

1)the 'sub' would need to spend a large amount of time, if not all the time, with K+G (in G5A???) It could've just been a case of 'sweetie, would you like to stay with Auntie Kate and Uncle Gerry? It'd be fun, like a big sleep over!'
If this was the case, it could
2)Explain the dogs following a scent a short way to (another apartment? 'Sub' parents or pick-up point?) - the sub? (I believe they would've been safely on their way out of PT by 'alarm time'
3)It would explain the 'un-messed up bed' - if she was on the way home, it wouldn't have been slept in Thursday? The cleaner reported used beds on the Wednesday though, didn't she?

I must stress this has just popped into my head. Its far from a fully-formed theory, and evidence may contradict it, so thoughts (good or bad) very welcome

a sub theory could also explain the sparkly shoes which were not spotted again.

Oh yes! Do you mean the light-up trainers? The ones it would've been more sensible to wear in the 'tennis ball' pic rather than the silly sandals she had on???

kikoraton wrote:But I think (not that I'm infallible) that Maddie had "gone" by the morning of 29 April, therefore there would be no girl of her age for the sub to "sleep over" with. A bit lonely, eh? No, I think you're on the right lines, but the sub slept over with the girl whose name Gerry entered into the creche records. E Naylor.

tigger wrote:Tag onto the above post, not to make it too long:

So since the tennis lessons were planned, the dinky trainers are never mentioned by Kate and don't figure anywhere except in the testimony of the cleaner on Sunday, the likelihood is that they belonged to the sub? And it was the sub who was seen by the cleaner on Sunday morning?
That suits me fine! Stella too I should think, we're right back on the 29th/30th.

tigger wrote:Tag onto the above post, not to make it too long:

So since the tennis lessons were planned, the dinky trainers are never mentioned by Kate and don't figure anywhere except in the testimony of the cleaner on Sunday, the likelihood is that they belonged to the sub? And it was the sub who was seen by the cleaner on Sunday morning?
That suits me fine! Stella too I should think, we're right back on the 29th/30th.

Nina wrote:

tigger wrote:Tag onto the above post, not to make it too long:

So since the tennis lessons were planned, the dinky trainers are never mentioned by Kate and don't figure anywhere except in the testimony of the cleaner on Sunday, the likelihood is that they belonged to the sub? And it was the sub who was seen by the cleaner on Sunday morning?
That suits me fine! Stella too I should think, we're right back on the 29th/30th.

Hi Tigger. Madeleine did have on a pair of trainers boarding the steps to the plane, she also had on trainer, two left trainers imo in the playground photo. Sorry cannot do any pictures or videos.

But not sure about the flashing lights the cleaner saw.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Nina wrote:

tigger wrote:Tag onto the above post, not to make it too long:

So since the tennis lessons were planned, the dinky trainers are never mentioned by Kate and don't figure anywhere except in the testimony of the cleaner on Sunday, the likelihood is that they belonged to the sub? And it was the sub who was seen by the cleaner on Sunday morning?
That suits me fine! Stella too I should think, we're right back on the 29th/30th.

Hi Tigger. Madeleine did have on a pair of trainers boarding the steps to the plane, she also had on trainer, two left trainers imo in the playground photo. Sorry cannot do any pictures or videos.

But not sure about the flashing lights the cleaner saw.

You are right Nina, but it now leads on to the following questions:
1)Was it Madeleine in the plane vid/pics?
2)If yes, was it the journey to PdL that year, or elsewhere / other date?
3)Were they actually two left-footed trainers, or a REALLY bad photoshop job???

Team McCann have told so many fibs I'm now automatically suspicious of any 'evidence' which emanates from their camp!

jd wrote:What is interesting about the Pope, is that at the time it was high profile in the news and most peoples heart strings were touched & being sensitive especially catholics....so for the Vatican to pull their support from their website so quickly in this situation, they must have had very strong reasons why...and clearly not ones that support the mccanns story

monkey mind wrote:Rainbow-fairy,

Nope, the facts as shown above would not be explained by a guest, not to my satisfaction, anyway, we have no evidence of a guest.

What we are uncovering here potentially could be very significant.

Nor is my train of thought thinking of an error on the booking form other than the booking form showing the McCanns asT2 (instead of T1) along with the Paynes. I don’t believe that was the original request by the McCanns I believe their original booking was for one bedroom and that is why they requested the extra bed for Madeleine. This seems the only reasonable explanation for requesting an extra bed as confirmed by Fiona Payne who helped book the holiday saying that the Payne’s were the only ones to book a double bedroomed apt.

Where is it stated that Gerry and David had to move a cot on arrival? I haven’t seen this for myself as yet, and why and where do they say they moved the cot? If the theory is correct that they swapped apartments and never mentioned it then after examining the booking forms this is exactly what I would have expected to happen, in fact it HAD to happen. And they mentioned moving a cot but not apartments!

This is hugely significant and marries perfectly with the children being ‘inexplicably’ left alone every night. To help people grasp the import of this, consider this....

If the Paynes booked a two bedroom appt and were allocated G5A, then they got exactly what they asked for, three beds for three adults, one bed for one child and a cot for one infant.

If they Mcanns booked a one bedroom appt with extra bed plus two cots and were allocated G5H then they too got exactly what they ordered with the bonus of an extra bed and an extra room. If they ordered a two bedroom appt with the same additions and again were allocated 5H, they still got exactly what they wanted except this makes little sense as it would have cost more and according to K she thought it was expensive as it was. Either way there is no valid reason for the McCanns and Paynes to swap apartments a move that would have necessitated the moving of a cot down a flight of stairs.

Now consider that and then contemplate the location of appt 5A and what makes it a more likely target appt than 5H to a potential abductor.

Final question to anyone who may have read Ks book, does she anywhere in that book say something like cursing the fates for them ending up in apt 5A, you know that it was near the car park and that was kind of unlucky as it was easier to watch or recce than some of the other appts. Does anyone know if she said anything like that in her book or in any interview??

tigger wrote:

Tinkerbell81 wrote:She says the pj told her that the apartment was an ideal target for criminals but that it didnt enter her mind because she thought she was in a safe child friendly holiday park.

Although on the trip to the beach they saw a suspicious man playing guitar, on various occasions they saw strange men, so despite their misgivings re these individuals, they felt safe.
Despite having been warned by OC staff that a number of burglaries had been committed in OC - even in the flat above 5a! - they felt safe.
These burglaries are a matter of record but are never mentioned by the McCanns who still felt safe enough to leave the door of the flat open. Allegedly.
Pick and Mix evidence.

jd wrote:

tigger wrote:

Tinkerbell81 wrote:She says the pj told her that the apartment was an ideal target for criminals but that it didnt enter her mind because she thought she was in a safe child friendly holiday park.

Although on the trip to the beach they saw a suspicious man playing guitar, on various occasions they saw strange men, so despite their misgivings re these individuals, they felt safe.
Despite having been warned by OC staff that a number of burglaries had been committed in OC - even in the flat above 5a! - they felt safe.
These burglaries are a matter of record but are never mentioned by the McCanns who still felt safe enough to leave the door of the flat open. Allegedly.
Pick and Mix evidence.

Despite leaving their kids with the resort nannies all day every day, they did not feel safe leaving them with the same resort nanny in the evenings!

Nina wrote:

jd wrote:

monkey mind wrote:....And if such an event was staged and a crucial part of that plan was the forced entry via the shutters, why weren't the shutters actually forced instead of being seemingly opened by K.

Thinking of the shutters....We have seen on TV interviews the mccanns telling their 'story' of the shutters being opened/jemmied, we have even seen kate doing a reconstruction in her Rothley home how she felt the breeze on opening the door because the shutters were open. Even in the summer of 2011 they are still telling the shutters were open story, But....we know for a fact that they were not open that they never were, its been proven and they admitted it. So why have they never been questioned about this totally blatant and proven lie they are still telling the public? Not only is this lying this is misleading the public with false stories

Yes Nina they are all lying pretty much about EVERYTHING! the thing is, it is all on record - witness statements, vieo, cctv, (bank/med/sex offender lists if it ever gets to court) - they are being protected now by Mardok and th UK media PLC, By G Brown (no longer the force he was, down in history as an utter failure who sold all our gold at rock bottom prices) - as Pat Brown says (and I am REALLY looking forward to seeing her in Portugal in February) Kate is, in particular, the gift that keeps on giving.
Pat Brown say she just will not shut up, with Gerry in a close 2nd place. This ever gets to court for homicide/premeditated/accidental death/neglect, whatever, they will quite rightly be crucified. Kate's bewk exhibit no 1.

Hi Jd. Yes indeed the McCanns went on and on about the shutters, to those without said shutters. However now like myself there are many expats with shutters and we all know 100% they cannot be jemmied up in a matter of moments without sound. They are security shutters so secure from opening from the outsde.

Here in Spain the fire fighters have a kind of hydraulic jack they use on shutters from the outside of a building to gain entry. Why, because it is the only way to get the shutters up quickly from the outside

They lie and this is one of the easiest to prove.

Marian wrote:That's a new one on me Sharon but maybe someone else will remember. It will be interesting if it was Uncle Hugh McCann who supposedly went to Donegal the previous month despite being reported dead in 1999!!

jd wrote:

Nina wrote:

Hi Jd. Yes indeed the McCanns went on and on about the shutters, to those without said shutters. However now like myself there are many expats with shutters and we all know 100% they cannot be jemmied up in a matter of moments without sound. They are security shutters so secure from opening from the outsde.

Here in Spain the fire fighters have a kind of hydraulic jack they use on shutters from the outside of a building to gain entry. Why, because it is the only way to get the shutters up quickly from the outside

They lie and this is one of the easiest to prove.

Here is kate saying the shutters were open.



Kate admits no one came through the window of the children's bedroom. Yes, after years of insisting that someone broke into the apartment by tampering with the shutters and forcing the window open, Kate now backs down from that claim, agreeing with the Policia Judiciara that an abductor did not climbed into or out of the room

And on the 24th July 2011 she is still telling the shutters were jemmied open lie on Australian TV to their public

kikoraton wrote:I think the Tapas Chums were billeted exactly where they wanted to be - perched on the end of a residential area, with plenty of open space in the form of roads and gardens around them. A nucleus of co-travellers which would attract police questioning like moths to a light-bulb, whilst allowing the important participants to live elsewhere on site, and slip under the radar. I mean, of course, Robert Naylor and the substitute Madalene's father. (I don't want to get into where the latter might have been accommodated, just yet).
Nice and handy for persons slipping quietly between 5A and Murat's residence, too!

Stewie wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

If they were allocated the apt no. ahead of time surely on seeing 5A anyone with children would reject that, especially when they already had adult time in mind.

Its interesting to read the statements of former occupants of 5A in the PJ files. They tend to be wary of its location and feel a bit vulnerable. Noneofthose who had children left via the patio doors because they only locked from the inside, so they all would leave via the main door and leave the apartment locked up, and of course none of them left their children unattended night after night. Good to see that at least some people who stayed in that apartment had parental instincts.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Stella wrote:There is no definitive list of occupants where Thomas Cook guests are concerned, but by looking at the OC daily lists, you can see that there is a huge amount of them staying in a T2 two bedroomed apartment, with only 2 people occupying it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps there was a business event going on and work colleagues travelled together?

Could be, Stella - a business holiday is plausible. Unfortunately, taking account of the date, a whole other reason for the big group comes into play, especially when all other indications are taken into account

Stella, a sudden thought - this may have been mentioned earlier in the thread - in answer to 'Why did the McCanns request an Extra Bed?' Could the answer be 'the alleged substitute'?
No. If they had been planning something, would they really have requested an extra bed they did not need? I think we have to trust Fiona here, when she says they were the only ones to book a 2 bedroom apartment. IF the McCann's originally booked a 1 bedroom, they would need that extra bed.

I'm not yet 100% convinced a sub was used - MW/nannies could well have lied for their own reasons
This obviously is the only other possible consideration we have, BUT, that would mean all of the other parents who ALSO signed those sheets, lied with them? Nah, I don't think so somehow.

- but it would make sense of the following -

1)the 'sub' would need to spend a large amount of time, if not all the time, with K+G (in G5A???) It could've just been a case of 'sweetie, would you like to stay with Auntie Kate and Uncle Gerry? It'd be fun, like a big sleep over!' Not necessarily.
If this was the case, it could
2)Explain the dogs following a scent a short way to (another apartment? 'Sub' parents or pick-up point?) - the sub? (I believe they would've been safely on their way out of PT by 'alarm time' Maybe, or they somehow had use of 5J?
3)It would explain the 'un-messed up bed' - if she was on the way home, it wouldn't have been slept in Thursday? The cleaner reported used beds on the Wednesday though, didn't she? If Madeleine left us on the 28th, the bed would never have been slept in.
I must stress this has just popped into my head. Its far from a fully-formed theory, and evidence may contradict it, so thoughts (good or bad) very welcome

kikoraton wrote:If I have it right (and I'm still researching) the girl who substituted for Madeleine was about 6 months younger, and I have a photographic indication that she may have been small for her age. I don't have any indication that her fore-name was ever shortened to Maddie. I'm pretty sure her mother and her school always knew her, and still do, as Mad*lene. (What she is called at home, I have no idea). It seems to fit the "90cm + never wanted to be called Maddie" story rather well.

I'll post the who-entered-the McC-kids-into-creche data on The Creche Records thread. ETA: no, I shan't. It's locked. But if you can find it under Research and Analysis, you'll see that Stella has made two charts showing details of sign-ins.