Cracked Mirror: Reflections on the McCann affair - The Policemen's Tales

Ladyinred wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:

NickE wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait!  That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand?  Who took who to the creche?  
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.

Ohh, very risky, if true, I would not be happy at all if I was Madalenes parents. A step too far IMO
Come to think about it, who would let their 3/4yr old go to portugal with a friend? I know I wouldn't .

Oh Wow!  Let me get this right.  

So, the Naylors allowed the Mcs to take their daughter Elizabeth and presumably also her little friend Madelene (whose parents did not go to the PDL but entrusted her to the Naylors)  to the creche 5 days consecutively?  
Why would the Naylors want to do that?   Why would they allow  Kate or Gerry to take the pair of girls to the creche daily?
 Could they not get out of bed in time?  What about afternoon session creche?  Surely no one spends all their time sleeping on holiday?

This is head spinning revelation if true.
Obviously that opens up the possibility of a substitute child, same name as Madeleine, except for slight variation in spelling, to be signed in as Madeleine.  Provided (1) the creche staff were not aware of the spare child Naylors brought along also named Madelene ; and (2) provided the PJ hadn't sussed this out thus not looked at this angle.

This is really mind boggling.  I need to go lie down in a dark room.

Aiyoyo, IIRC, MR and her family were at PdL but not staying at the OC and left on Thursday evening, 3rd May.  There is more info in the Creche Records and Creche Enquiry threads.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2922p370-the-creche-enquiry?highlight=creche+enquiry

Thanks for the correction  

Ladyinred wrote:After MBM's reported disappearance, members of the extended family referred to her in interviews as Maddie.  It's here on the forum, can't remember where.  MR was known as Madelene.

NickE wrote:

XTC wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:

worriedmum wrote:What stands out for me is the fact that there was criticism of the 'non-preservation' of the crime scene because of the volume of people in it, with GNR officers, Tapas friends and others present(including Yvonne Martin?)and yet AND YET the twins slept through it all...

That last line is key " YET THE TWINS SLEPT THROUGH IT ALL ". If it is to believed Maddie died the day before which is a real possibility , then not only have the parents committed a crime, they have the next day, drugged there children [ which due to them not waking , and Kate's visual checks is a IMO given .

But SURELY more likely they were all over sedated on the fateful day, resulting in the death of Maddie , as it would be beneath contempt to after losing a child say the day before, then drug / sedate  your children the next day . 

Which ever way the sleeping children [ and its implications ] is the glue that binds them all together . hence there will be NO break of the pact .

Yes . Thanks Peter.

Blacksmith can write some good stuff at times. As do many others on here and elsewhere.

If I may say I've been hanging round this extremely unusual case from the days of the 3a's and it's good to see a few familiar names still
theorising. I do it all the time and have many many theories as to what happened.

One to throw in the ring is whether any of the children were in 5a that night?

I like many can sometimes find myself sticking to a particular theory because it appears to be the logical one. Yet if it is revised due to info that wasn't known or someone makes an interesting and informative point then looking again in context of that point and relating it to my semi - fixed theory can give rise to a newish ( not necessarily new theory).

I/We  have assumed over a long period of time that all the action occurred in 5a. Mr Amaral thinks that the action happened in 5a. But just for a while could we postulate on a possibility that what happened did not happen in 5a? Say it happened elsewhere?

The story of the shutters and unlocked doors is not a great one for a staging of an abduction or anything else in my opinion. It has always been not a story badly told but a story quickly thought up possibly? If the accident happened elsewhere and the alleged staging in 5a was to cover up where the incident really happened then what can we make of say the cadaver scent or the neat bedding or the ruffled bedding on the bed near the window. Did someone ruffle up the wrong bed? Were MW sheets all the same style and could be swapped without losing a pair between apartments?

The cots were set almost to collapse from the PJ photo's and shelves didn't exist where the were meant to exist etc etc. All in 5a appeared to be done in hurry.


Linking to this: If Smithman wasn't GM as many think - who is he and where was he going at 10pm bearing in mind that if Mrs Fenn was correct in her timing ( 10.30 pm ) of the commotion beneath her flat the alarm may have gone off later than we assume?

Pure speculation this though. If the man the Smiths saw was not GM and they were able to describe vaguely his common features then RO is very tall. MO is taller ( possibly GM was wearing his jacket on the night of the torchlight appeal?)  than GM and DP is bald. Lump these together and prove beyond doubt via Tapas Bar witnesses that GM was at the table at 10pm then it wasn't any of the known Tapas men. If it was someone else carrying Madeleine who could it be and where was he going or coming from? Possibly not 5a? He has not ' revealed himself
a la JT Bundleman despite the Crimewatch appeal. Perhaps he never will - who knows.

p.s Despite the theory it is equally possible that an earlier demise occurred in 5a I wouldn't dispute that yet Mrs Fenn's testimony sticks deep in my mind. She may have been old but she wasn't an old fool in my opinion. She knew the time alright. Fortunately you can't libel a deceased person.

Just an opinion and food for thought.

p.p.s. Petermac's Anaethetists points are exceptionally well made. Makes a lot of sense.

Where was this man around 10pm??
The missing element??

Ladyinred wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:After MBM's reported disappearance, members of the extended family referred to her in interviews as Maddie.  It's here on the forum, can't remember where.  MR was known as Madelene.

... because MR was Madelene, then MBM had to become Madeleine after her reported disappearance even though, it would seem, she was usually known as Maddie.  IMO

Dee Coy wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:After MBM's reported disappearance, members of the extended family referred to her in interviews as Maddie.  It's here on the forum, can't remember where.  MR was known as Madelene.

... because MR was Madelene, then MBM had to become Madeleine after her reported disappearance even though, it would seem, she was usually known as Maddie.  IMO

So we have a girl a year or so younger than MM (nearer to 3 than 4 - taken from the linked thread) which would account for MM's unusually small height of 90cm, who liked to be called Madelene, not Maddie. So Madeleine also had to prefer to be called Madeleine despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, Madelene was abroad without her parents but as a guest of a family who were acquainted if not friends with the McCanns. This is one coincidence too many, so it must be inferred that Madelene was in PDL for a reason. Which must also suggest the possibility that Madeleine's disappearance had already happened prior to the holiday or was planned to occur during the holiday (the dogs' evidence would suggest the latter).

The alternative - another Madelene, without her family and available for possible use as a substitute with her guardians' apparent blessing, just happening to be there coincidentally with the accidental disappearance of another Madeleine is a step too far for me.

All in my opinion and not stated as fact.

Are we certain Madelene was a guest of the Naylors and her parents weren't in PDL?

Cristobel's riddler is singing in my ear again.

Ladyinred wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:After MBM's reported disappearance, members of the extended family referred to her in interviews as Maddie.  It's here on the forum, can't remember where.  MR was known as Madelene.

... because MR was Madelene, then MBM had to become Madeleine after her reported disappearance even though, it would seem, she was usually known as Maddie.  IMO

So we have a girl a year or so younger than MM (nearer to 3 than 4 - taken from the linked thread) which would account for MM's unusually small height of 90cm, who liked to be called Madelene, not Maddie. So Madeleine also had to prefer to be called Madeleine despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, Madelene was abroad without her parents but as a guest of a family who were acquainted if not friends with the McCanns. This is one coincidence too many, so it must be inferred that Madelene was in PDL for a reason. Which must also suggest the possibility that Madeleine's disappearance had already happened prior to the holiday or was planned to occur during the holiday (the dogs' evidence would suggest the latter).

The alternative - another Madelene, without her family and available for possible use as a substitute with her guardians' apparent blessing, just happening to be there coincidentally with the accidental disappearance of another Madeleine is a step too far for me.

All in my opinion and not stated as fact.

Are we certain Madelene was a guest of the Naylors and her parents weren't in PDL?

Cristobel's riddler is singing in my ear again.

I believe MR was in PdL with her family but not staying at the OC.  I also remember reading here (one of Russian doll's post IIRC) that MR would not attend the creche without her friend, EN.

NickE wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:After MBM's reported disappearance, members of the extended family referred to her in interviews as Maddie.  It's here on the forum, can't remember where.  MR was known as Madelene.

... because MR was Madelene, then MBM had to become Madeleine after her reported disappearance even though, it would seem, she was usually known as Maddie.  IMO

So we have a girl a year or so younger than MM (nearer to 3 than 4 - taken from the linked thread) which would account for MM's unusually small height of 90cm, who liked to be called Madelene, not Maddie. So Madeleine also had to prefer to be called Madeleine despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, Madelene was abroad without her parents but as a guest of a family who were acquainted if not friends with the McCanns. This is one coincidence too many, so it must be inferred that Madelene was in PDL for a reason. Which must also suggest the possibility that Madeleine's disappearance had already happened prior to the holiday or was planned to occur during the holiday (the dogs' evidence would suggest the latter).

The alternative - another Madelene, without her family and available for possible use as a substitute with her guardians' apparent blessing, just happening to be there coincidentally with the accidental disappearance of another Madeleine is a step too far for me.

All in my opinion and not stated as fact.

Are we certain Madelene was a guest of the Naylors and her parents weren't in PDL?

Cristobel's riddler is singing in my ear again.

I believe MR was in PdL with her family but not staying at the OC.  I also remember reading here (one of Russian doll's post IIRC) that MR would not attend the creche without her friend, EN.

Still friends 2013. 
Classmates at Larmenier and Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School. 
http://larshrc.lbhf.sch.uk/sites/default/files/file_uploads/newsletter-_issue_117.pdf



I would like to see a photo of MR and compare it with an age progression image of MBM

Woofer wrote:@ DeeCoy - "So we have a girl a year or so younger than MM (nearer to 3 than 4 - taken from the linked thread)"

MHER was born in October 2003, so only 5 months younger than MBM. Parents can be found on Ancestry. 

Yes, as NickE showed - a school friend of E. N*****.

People often take their child`s school friend on holiday with them.

But they were too young to be at school in 2007, although I suppose they could have gone to the same nursery school. 

I can`t find any statements for the Naylors - anyone know why?

Where did the Naylors live and what was the wife`s name - anyone know?

NickE wrote:

Woofer wrote:@ DeeCoy - "So we have a girl a year or so younger than MM (nearer to 3 than 4 - taken from the linked thread)"

MHER was born in October 2003, so only 5 months younger than MBM. Parents can be found on Ancestry. 

Yes, as NickE showed - a school friend of E. N*****.

People often take their child`s school friend on holiday with them.

But they were too young to be at school in 2007, although I suppose they could have gone to the same nursery school. 

I can`t find any statements for the Naylors - anyone know why?

Where did the Naylors live and what was the wife`s name - anyone know?

No statements for the Naylor´s and no statements for the Edmonds.....hmmm

Ladyinred wrote:

Last night I read DP & FP's rogs - the part where they discussed sailing activities - and there was no mention of RN, although they alluded to another person.  Did they forget his name, or were they reluctant to name him?

Research_Reader wrote:

Praiaaa wrote:

Woofer wrote:In Fiona Payne`s statement, she said it was weird that KM kept checking the twins to see if they were still breathing. 

Was she grassing on her friend ?  Why else would FP bring attention to the twins being comatose?

double dose -very interesting, would explain the complicity of the T7

YES! Exactly! 

Explains one of the most potentially perplexing aspects of the case in a very simple fashion.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I really go back and forth on when an event occurred, but perhaps the circumstances of an event can help identify when it may have occurred.


Dr Martin Roberts provides the revealing analysis of the following statements.....

In GM's claim......"And if she died, while we were in the apartment, or fell injured, why would we cover that up?" suggests that MBM did not sustain an accidental injury (otherwise they would have reported it).

Also,........"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." so if they weren't leaving their children asleep, then they were there.

So, in the words of GM.....it was not an accident....and they were there, or had knowledge of it happening.

(Again, above is thanks to Dr Roberts).

It is possibly significant that it is Gerry saying these words and not Kate. Did Kate strike MBM causing her to die ?

MBM was clearly a very intelligent and challenging child - a handful for any parent. Has some event tipped Kate over the edge ?

When were tensions running high ?

The Quiz night was Tuesday, but there was also one on Sunday.

For consideration.

IMO.

j.rob wrote:
And Matt, in police statements and also in the 'Madeleine was Here' reconstruction about the 'final check at 9.30pm states that he looked into the apartment and saw the twins chests moving. In other words he saw the twins breathing. 
.

The Royal College of Nursing is quite clear about this.
In “Standards for assessing, measuring and monitoring vital signs in infants, children and young people - RCN guidance for children’s nurses and nurses working with children and young people”

they say, very simply
Infants and children less than six to seven years of
age are predominantly abdominal breathers
therefore, abdominal movements should be counted.”