Re: Crèche records

by Guest 31.03.10 18:39

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

dont know if that is any help, copy of some of the creche records with Madeleine's name

A Few Creche Records (More to add)

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

ROB Signatures

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

by Guest 31.03.10 18:45

On Sunday 29th April 2007, the first activation of Kate McCann’s mobile was at 9.23, but again there are no Vodafone logs or time bars to provide further detail. However, by internally matching the antenna records it appears that she called her husband at 12.26 and 17.02.

The crèche records indicate that he collected Madeleine at 12.15. He also picked up the twins around 17.00 but mistakenly recorded the time as “12.30”. Chances are that the calls from Kate McCann were to check that he had picked up the kids. At 10.13 Gerald McCann received a call from a UK mobile xxxxx3899. The last activation by Kate McCann’s mobile was at 19.30 and Gerald’s at 17.02.

A pattern on this sheet (and it applies to all of the Tapas 9) is that no activations took place at any time during the week while they were at dinner. So maybe Clarence Mitchell was right, after all, and that they were so “into each other” that they didn’t want to be disturbed while sardine munching and left their mobiles in their rooms. They were never specifically asked this question, but it is very important and the point will be addressed later.

On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCann’s telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the crèches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the crèche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the “Dispatches” team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that “Madeleine was a screamer”. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann’s handset was silent all day. Kate McCann’s mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the day’s calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The crèche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann’s call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 01.04.10 20:11

Cherry wrote:
Thank you.

On Sunday 29th April 2007, the first activation of Kate McCann’s mobile was at 9.23, but again there are no Vodafone logs or time bars to provide further detail. However, by internally matching the antenna records it appears that she called her husband at 12.26 and 17.02.

The crèche records indicate that he collected Madeleine at 12.15. He also picked up the twins around 17.00 but mistakenly recorded the time as “12.30”. Chances are that the calls from Kate McCann were to check that he had picked up the kids. At 10.13 Gerald McCann received a call from a UK mobile xxxxx3899. The last activation by Kate McCann’s mobile was at 19.30 and Gerald’s at 17.02.

A pattern on this sheet (and it applies to all of the Tapas 9) is that no activations took place at any time during the week while they were at dinner. So maybe Clarence Mitchell was right, after all, and that they were so “into each other” that they didn’t want to be disturbed while sardine munching and left their mobiles in their rooms.

Probably fair to say that most adults would switch off their mobiles in a restaurant or anything resenbling it.

They were never specifically asked this question, but it is very important and the point will be addressed later.

On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCann’s telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the crèches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the crèche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the “Dispatches” team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that “Madeleine was a screamer”. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann’s handset was silent all day. Kate McCann’s mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the day’s calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The crèche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann’s call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

I've looked at the photo of the creche records for 2 May which you posted up, Cherry. There seems every indication from those records that Madeleine was alive and in the creche that day, would you agree? She seems to have been signed in by a nanny, along with two others. Is there any reason at all to doubt the authenticity of those records for 2nd May?

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

by Guest 06.04.10 18:06

Hi Tony, according to the creche records she is signed in for the 2nd but I recall there was some discussion I thought on the old 3as were some people were questionning the accuracy of the records and whether Madeleine could have been signed in even though she may not have been there although I guess that is speculation unless anyone can prove otherwise.

by Autumn 12.10.10 1:55

Cherry wrote:Hi Tony, according to the creche records she is signed in for the 2nd but I recall there was some discussion I thought on the old 3as were some people were questionning the accuracy of the records and whether Madeleine could have been signed in even though she may not have been there although I guess that is speculation unless anyone can prove otherwise.

Cherry and Tony, heres a link to a very interesting discussion thread on old 3 As thread from HiDeHo's Website about whether or not Madeleine could have been signed in even though she may not have been there.

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

by Guest 12.10.10 13:32

It was Santacoloma on MCF, who was the first person to piece this idea together. At first I thought that maybe Gerry could have been walking to the creche every day with the Father of this other child and this would explain the timings. We then discussed the very close similarities in Gerry's handwriting with that of the entry of the other child. We need a handwriting experts opinion here, but even the layperson can see that some letters are extremely similar. It was said by Beachy that just a signature cannot be tested for authenticity, when in the US the ransom note left in the Jonbenet Ramsey house, could not be confirmed either way. But signatures are just as important. They are sometimes the only things mastered just to commit a crime. Remember Frank Abignale and the film Catch Me If You Can ?

Santacoloma never revealed his exact findings, which is a real shame, but when I posted up the following which is my take on what could have happened, I got a bit of a thumbs up from him, although he said he was not sure about the tennis photo.

I'm beginning to think that one of the "unknown" apartments is the key to pandoras box.

Let’s say for one minute that the man staying in room G4N is Mr X and Mr X has a daughter called child Y. It could have been any room that was privately let out, but I will stick with G4N for now.

On the morning of Sunday 29th April, Mr X takes child Y to the reservations desk to make the block booking for all of his tapas friends. Mr X is a very important person, which is why everyone had to claim it was Rachel who made the booking, to protect the identity of Mr X.

Child Y who is not staying there that week on a recorded guest basis, is not technically registered for the crèche facilities. Child Y is very similar in looks and height to Madeleine. Child Y’s birth name is also Madeleine, a very popular name and this is the child who Gerry takes along to the crèche that week. This is why the receptionist identifies Madeleine as being the child who accompanied a man to make the reservations that was not her Father.

It is child Y who is the girl in the tennis ball’s photo and why she does not resemble the child in the pool photo. She probably left the resort sometime on the 3rd along with her dad Mr X and all without anyone noticing, as they didn’t need to officially check out with anyone being there on a private rental basis.

Why was the abduction arranged for May the 3rd ? Perhaps it was the only day that Mr X and child Y could get a flight out of Portugal. Perhaps the taxi driver who claims to have seen Madeleine leave in a taxi that day, did see a girl just like Madeleine. In real life of course it was actually child Y.

Unfortunately we never got the opportunity to hear Santa's actual take on all this, as a team of people complained and got the thread locked. It was suggested that the nannies would know if Madeleine had been swapped. But would they? What if child Y was taken along to the creche from day 1, the nannies would be none the wiser, right. winkwink

What if all the nannies were only ever shown a picture that was more like child Y instead of Madeleine. There were so many different pictures floating around, who knows which one they identified, if any at all.

Remember Bridget O'Donnell's comment along the lines of them all looking the same?

If it can be proved that the same person signed both names on those creche sheets, then something must have happened way before the 3rd. Which would mean a cover up started from the date of the first forged signature, it could also indicate a possible premeditated event.

I have already discussed with HiDeHo, what was the last credible sighting of Madeleine and in her opinion it was on Sunday the 29th May around lunch time, by Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada a cleaner, who saw Madeleine and the twins walk up the stairs to the Payne's apartment with bread in their hands, all wearing flashing tennis shoes. After that it becomes unclear.

by Guest 12.10.10 13:53

[quote Stella]

It was suggested that the nannies would know if Madeleine had been swapped. But would they? What if child Y was taken along to the creche from day 1, the nannies would be none the wiser, right. What if all the nannies wre only shown a picture that was more like child Y instead of Madeleine. There were so many different pictures floating around, who knows which one they identified, if any at all.

Hi Stella,

Sorry, but this scenario doesn't work for me. If they the nannies were with a substitute Madeleine from day 1,then they would have spent many hours with her, as she was signed in almost every am and pm. They would have had very close contact with her. Surely, when all the pictures of Madeleine were released to the press,( and they must have been the real pictures of Madeleine, because many people here in the UK would have known her), they would have thought somethings not right here, that doesn't look like the girl we knew as Madeleine. Two girls cannot look that alike imo that they wouldn't have noticed. The nannies would surely have told the PJ. Why would they want to cover this up, it just doesn't make sense to me. JMHO.

I still agree the creche records are a bit iffy and perhaps with all the good work you are doing for which you deserve a medal thumbsup

for trawling through all those complicated files, there is still good discussion to be had which may turn up something previously missed.

by Autumn 12.10.10 15:52

I think it very important that we keep an open mind as all possibilities in this case, as far as I am aware, a substitute Madeleine in the creche has never been discounted and, if you believe as I do that Madeleine died 1st May, this must have happened. The MCF is on dangerous ground if they are denying people the right to discuss this theory, especially given the inconsistencies in creche staff statements and signatures that appear to have been falsified - why on earth should this not be discussed?

Stella, I find this fascinating and would love to know more about the guests who left PDL on the 1st or 2nd May. As for the Naylors , up until now I had never heard of them but looking back on an old 3A thread, I see there were concerns about Robert Naylor's possible involvement long ago - thanks for bringing him to our attention here as I had not come across his name before.

by Guest 12.10.10 15:58

That is a very good question Candyfloss, one that has gone over and over in my head also. But I also keep thinking about the following:

I know I'm not alone in thinking that the pool picture and the tennis balls picture do not look like the same child.

How many different pictures were released on day one in Portugal?

Would the nannies have even been given a photo by the PJ to identify her?

How soon after the nannies gave their statements were they relocated to another country and what pictures would the media in that country have?

Could there have been a very good reason to release so many different pictures of Madeleine to be released?

All of this is still very hard for me to accept. But at the moment, I cannot understand why those creche entries look to be written by the same hand and for what reason. I'm really hoping that Santa comes over here too and lets us know exactly how he thinks it might have worked.

by Guest 12.10.10 16:07

Autumn wrote: I think it very important that we keep an open mind as all possibilities in this case, as far as I am aware, a substitute Madeleine in the creche has never been discounted and, if you believe as I do that Madeleine died 1st May, this must have happened. The MCF is on dangerous ground if they are denying people the right to discuss this theory, especially given the inconsistencies in creche staff statements and signatures that appear to have been falsified - why on earth should this not be discussed?

Stella, I find this fascinating and would love to know more about the guests who left PDL on the 1st or 2nd May. As for the Naylors , up until now I had never heard of them but looking back on an old 3A thread, I see there were concerns about Robert Naylor's possible involvement long ago - thanks for bringing him to our attention here as I had not come across his name before.

Hi Autumn,, I agree every possibility should be discussed in this case, nothing should be discounted until thoroughly checked. I too find it strange the way MCF wouldn't allow any discussion on this, although we must be careful what we say about other guests that were staying there. Although I do not subscribe to the substitute theory for the reasons I have stated in my post. I tend to lean towards Mr. Amaral's theory of something happening on 3rd May, as to me there would have been too many people involved, and the more people involved the bigger the risk imo.

by Guest 12.10.10 16:15

Autumn, the other guests have been a thorn in my side for a very long time and this is why I decided to lift all the entries off those original lists and put them into their respective blocks.

This whole case has been filled with many coincidences. But when one particular name is not only on the MW guest list, but is recorded as a privately owned apartment and in use the exact same week, it has to make you wonder if they were related to each other? Then on top of that there is this amazing resemblance in the Naylor and McCann handwriting with the same arrival and leaving times frequently, anyone would ask themselves a) did Gerry know one of these Naylors and b) was he meeting up with this chap to go to creche, or c) was he signing in his child, if so why?

Which opens up the bigger question, did he admit to knowing this person to the PJ?

by Autumn 12.10.10 16:50

In the early days, I assumed that whatever had happened took place on 3rd May but several things have caused me to change my mind. Mrs Fenn's statement about crying, the row between Gerry and Kate when they slept in separate bedrooms, 'where were you when we were crying' remark following morning, kate creche signature on the 2nd which appears to be falsified, their insistence that the 'pool side' photo was taken on the 3rd (no others taken that same day, as you might expect on holiday), 'today has been the best day of my life' remark.
I believe they spent the following 2 days planning and preparing for the 'performance' set for 3rd May.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.10.10 18:16

I feel we must not ignore Murat in all of this.

We know that he lied 17 times to the Portuguese police when telling them (on 14 May) what he did from 1 May to 4 May (on 10 and 11 July he changed his statement in at least 17 respects (see our 6-part article on Murat)).

We can reasonably infer from Gerry's sharp 'I'm not going to comment on that', when asked if he already knew Murat, that he DID already know Murat.

Then you look at Murat doing the translating and so on - very handy!

Then you look at Kennedy and his lawyer Smethurst jetting out to Portugal to meet with Murat and his lawyer Pagarete (November 2007).

I can't help thinking that we won't complete this jigsaw without explaining why Michaela Walczuk summoned Murat out to Praia da Luz, late on 30 April, with him flying out hours later.

Had something happened?

Or was something going to happen?

by Guest 13.10.10 9:19

It is my understanding that Santacoloma is from ex military intelligence and this is how he came to be able to decipher the telephone records. Just like you Tony, I know that he also believes Murat is a key player in all this and up to his ears in it.

Whilst I think that Murat knew this group beforehand, I have a funny feeling that it was in another context. Remember this bit:

From Panorama on May 13th 2007

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria

DA COSTA: There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

BILTON: When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....

DA COSTA: People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

On May 15th two days later Robert Murat is declared arguido

Just a coincidence or did Robert know too much and needed to be silenced?

The changing of some arrangements could account for an increase in phone activity. It could also explain Gerry's comment and why Robert felt compelled to help them with translations. I am going with my gut feeling here and by reading his body language in that interview, it tells me all he is guilty of is knowing too much. If he was guilty of anything much worse, would he really be taking Jane Tanner to court? He knows he is innocent and is determined to prove it. But that's just my opinion and I will have a good read of the 6-part article sometime.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.10.10 9:28

I by no means discount the 'swingers' theory.

I am afraid it has been shown that those who practise swinging frequently find that even that is not enough to satisfy their lust for ever-new sexual experiences, and move on to other practices.

Can I summarise the Robert Murat invovlement. He was probably...

THE FALL GUY.

Think about it.

The finger was pointed at him by...

Clarence Mitchell

Lori Campbell

CEOP staff

Control Risks Group and MI5 staff [see Amaral's chapter on this]

..and finally, from the police van, by Jane Tanner.

He is taken in for questioning the day after Tanner identifies him.

And, hey presto! - the heat is off the McCanns.

So why did Kennedy and lawyer Smethurst fly out to meet Murat and lawyer Pagarete in November 2007.

NOT TO FIND MADELEINE but...

TO STITCH UP A DEAL AND ASK HOW MUCH MURAT NEEDED FOR HIS PERMANENT SILENCE.

[All allegedly and in my humble opinion if this post ever sees the light of the sun]

by Guest 13.10.10 10:47

I agree Tony, it is not looking very good for him at all at the moment.

As for the "fall guy", he could also have been the one person who had nothing to lose by revealing everything that he knew. If so, it's no wonder so many people all stepped forward to point the finger at him, he hardly had a professional career to think about. Was it all of these peoples actions that led to Murat being made arguido, or did the PJ do it to keep a tight lid on other important information? It certainly prevented him from talking to anyone. How did the description of Tanner's bundleman wearing no glasses, turn into Murat wearing thick, black very noticeable ones? How could anyone think he fitted that description? Remember the burnt out car with "talk" painted in red beside it? Could that have been a warning to someone else who also knew too much not to talk? There is more to this than we know about, that's for sure.

by Guest 14.10.10 8:19

Creche direct links

Lobsters Sunday 29th April (not dated, so not absolutely sure)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lobsters Monday 30th April
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lobsters Tuesday 1st May
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lobsters Wednesday 2nd May
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lobsters Thursday 3rd May
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Sunday 29th April PM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Starfish Monday 30th April AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Starfish Monday 30th April PM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Tuesday 1st May AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Tuesday 1st May PM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Wednesday 2nd May AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Wednesday 2nd May PM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Jellyfish Thursday 3rd May AM
MISSING

Jellyfish Thursday 3rd May PM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 14.10.10 8:24

Whilst trying to list all of the above links in correct date order, a few things stood out.

1. Why is the Lobsters creche sheet for the 29th not dated, but left completely blank?

2. Why is Sean and Amelie booked into Jellyfish on some days and in Starfish on others?

3. Why is the Jellyfish records for the afternoon of the 3rd missing?

by Guest 14.10.10 10:12

When you flip between the records for Lobsters and Jellyfish/Starfish, Kate's signature appears to differ quite a bit in style?

by Guest 14.10.10 10:40

Stella wrote:When you flip between the records for Lobsters and Jellyfish/Starfish, Kate's signature appears to differ quite a bit in style?

I've been looking at these for the past hour and yes Stella, I would have to agree the signatures do not look quite the same. Having said that people's sigs do change slightly, but it seems to me the sig is not as joined up and the "n" looks different,??

Is there anyone here who could put these side by side?

by Guest 14.10.10 11:32

It's the Lobsters one on the 3rd at 12.25 that is the strangest, with this kind of circle thing going on around it, that I have not seen in another one of her signatures.

There are people out there who can detect character behaviour from a persons signature. I would love to know what circling your signature means.

by Guest 14.10.10 13:13

From Cat Baker’s Rogatory interview:

“I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children’s bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner”.

The age requirements of the various clubs are:

3-11 months (baby Club)
12-23 months (Toddler Club)
24 months to 3 years (Toddler 2 Club)
3 to 5 years of age (Mini Club)
6 years to 9 years of age (Juniors Club)
10 years to 15 years of age (Kids Club)
14 to 17 years of age (Indies Club)
The Baby Club and the Mini Club are situated directly on top of the 24-hour reception. The Toddler Club is located close to the tapas Bar and the others close to the “Millennium” Restaurant.

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

Above is a picture of the Payne eldest child at breakfast. Where is her identity bracelet for the week?

They have to be non-removable to ensure that each child’s information remains with the child.

All greyscale photo’s, no bracelets visible here either.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by kikoraton 17.10.10 20:48

Excellent discussion. I've just surfaced from various duties and pleasures which have taken me away from the forum, and I have resumed posting on the thread How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged" - which should perhaps have a question mark after it, in order to encourage different opinions. Such as those being posted here.
It really shouldn't require exchanges of mobile calls to pick up children from two distinct locations. Most people on holiday, and putting their kids into care day in, day out, would be sufficiently together to carry out the task without resort to mobiles. Perhaps a third person had to be factored in?

by littlepixie 17.10.10 21:08

Who is the Robert Naylor signed out by A(i)nne Naylor in Lobsters on 30/4?

These records are really a shambles arent they.

by Guest 21.10.10 12:52

I agree Littlepixie.

They didn't book for daytime creche before they left for that holiday, as it's not in their reservation requests.
No one mentions booking it on arrival.
No one is asked about it in their rogatory interviews.

So one hell of a mystery from every aspect, if you ask me.