The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Crèche signatures revisited

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by plebgate on 29.10.14 20:37

@PeterMac wrote:
@plebgate wrote:
I must admit they don't look very harrassed to me in that pic.
You have misunderstood. That is not them looking harassed
that is them showing  this . . .
They claim
£215,000 each
for emotional distress

They say they suffer
'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite,
irritability and an indefinable fear'.

The writ also says Kate McCann is
'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.
Thanks for reminding us PeterM. thumbup

I am wondering if that pic. was taken when the dossier was being drawn up?

plebgate

Posts : 6003
Reputation : 1705
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by j.rob on 29.10.14 22:26

@canada12 wrote:Perhaps a simpler explanation might be that the sign-in sheets just weren't that closely monitored by the nannies in the creche. Perhaps this was noticed by the McCanns, who then took advantage of this by signing Madeleine in and out, even if she wasn't actually there. This might explain why the nannies were whisked away very quickly - perhaps after Madeleine disappeared they, and MW, had a closer look at the sign-in sheets and realized that they hadn't been monitored very well, and this would leave them open to all kinds of accusations and liabilities and reputation-damaging results.

This is a much more easily imagined scenario...

IMO only.
This is a very good point. IMO. 

In terms of the 'baby listening' arrangements, I think TM had done their home-work. At least some of them had been on Mark Warner Holidays before. They knew how the baby listening system worked. I think they could even have had a conversation along the lines of: 'if you wanted to steal a baby, it would be so easy.' Simply because the nannies cannot be outside every door at every moment. And all the doors are unlocked. 

So, in carrying out their own 'baby listening' they would have been well aware of the limitations of this arrangement. And the reason that it was not offered at Ocean Club was because the resort was too spread out. 

So, given that I believe TM had already established the potential 'weakness' of the baby-listening service, I would imagine they would have done exactly the same with the creche/kids' club system, In particular the sign-in and sign-out sheets.

Maybe they had also noticed from previous holidays that the creche/kids' club sign-in sheets were very hit and miss. With people signing in other people's children. Or forgetting to sign their child in or out. And, simply by virtue of the fact that it is a holiday creche, children are dropping in and out in a very ad-hoc fashion, so staff will not necessarily know who is who. And children and adults will arrive together creating confusion about who is dropping off who. Plus children get picked up early or dropped off late.

All in all, great potential for CONFUSION. And of-course confusion is good, according to GM.

If is still odd, though, if GM was signing in another person's child. I mean, why?

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Guest on 30.10.14 7:10

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2551-creche-sheets-and-attendance-charts

This chart gives (again) a very good overview who attended the creche an who not:

gender and attendance

  Guest on Mon May 16, 2011 3:19 pm
AM2930123
inoutinoutinoutinoutinout
Berry9.1012.009.0012.009.0012.009.3012.309.0012.15
Naylor9.1012.309.2512.309.1012.309.2012.309.10
Mann9.1512.309.3012.309.2512.209.4512.309.2512.30
Totman9.1512.309.0012.259.2012.259.4512.209.2512.20
McCann9.4512.159.3012.109.3012.209.2012.309.1012.25
O'Brien9.1512.359.009.3012.309.5012.30
Patel9.4512.30
PM2930123
inoutinoutinoutinoutinout
Berry2.305.202.305.302.304.30
Naylor2.405.202.304.00
Mann3.005.304.30?2.505.302.455.302.305.30
Totman2.15?2.405.303.305.15
McCann2.455.303.153.302.302.455.302.505.30
O'Brien2.453.304.002.305.302.305.302.304.30
Patel2.302.305.30
did not attend that session
not signed out that session or writing to feint
girl
boy


avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 7:50

So there were only 4 Lobsters in the creche on the afternoon of 3rd May, and only 2 by the time M was checked out

Not much scope for slipping in the odd one unnoticed, or hoping that nobody would spot one of them awol. Or that one of the 2 had suddenly changed in appearance

Those of you who are familiar with the creche records will already be aware that, according this chart, M was in the creche until 5.30 on 2nd May when the playground photo is supposed to be a picture of her outside at 5pm that day

But I get something else from this chart - confirmation of the weather

On the basis that the creche is likely to be more popular when the weather's bad, the afternoons of 2nd and 3rd May appear to have been good enough to stay away, with only 4 in attendance on both days

So the backgrounds, and at least some other components, of the playground pic and last photo may well be realistic regarding the weather

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by worriedmum on 30.10.14 9:46

Atomic peanut wrote

''On the basis that the creche is likely to be more popular when the weather's bad, the afternoons of 2nd and 3rd May appear to have been good enough to stay away, with only 4 in attendance on both days''

Not necessarily.

This could also be due to other factors, like when the holiday bookings came to an end ? For example, were families able to book for 7, 10 or 14 days, so they were staggered? 

And if you had booked a holiday with adult activities such as tennis, wouldn't you play if the weather was fine and put the children in the creche?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1795
Reputation : 395
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 30.10.14 11:28

@worriedmum wrote:Atomic peanut wrote

''On the basis that the creche is likely to be more popular when the weather's bad, the afternoons of 2nd and 3rd May appear to have been good enough to stay away, with only 4 in attendance on both days''

Not necessarily.

This could also be due to other factors, like when the holiday bookings came to an end ? For example, were families able to book for 7, 10 or 14 days, so they were staggered? 

And if you had booked a holiday with adult activities such as tennis, wouldn't you play if the weather was fine and put the children in the creche?
I agree
I dont think its a good idea to assume that weather dictates creche attendance - there are so many other variables

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by juliet on 30.10.14 13:34

If there was a substitution I am certain it wasn't hit and miss but done with the connivance of others and pre-planned.
avatar
juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by j.rob on 30.10.14 17:26

Helene1 wrote:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2551-creche-sheets-and-attendance-charts

This chart gives (again) a very good overview who attended the creche an who not:

gender and attendance





  Guest on Mon May 16, 2011 3:19 pm
AM2930123
inoutinoutinoutinoutinout
Berry9.1012.009.0012.009.0012.009.3012.309.0012.15
Naylor9.1012.309.2512.309.1012.309.2012.309.10
Mann9.1512.309.3012.309.2512.209.4512.309.2512.30
Totman9.1512.309.0012.259.2012.259.4512.209.2512.20
McCann9.4512.159.3012.109.3012.209.2012.309.1012.25
O'Brien9.1512.359.009.3012.309.5012.30
Patel9.4512.30
PM2930123
inoutinoutinoutinoutinout
Berry2.305.202.305.302.304.30
Naylor2.405.202.304.00
Mann3.005.304.30?2.505.302.455.302.305.30
Totman2.15?2.405.303.305.15
McCann2.455.303.153.302.302.455.302.505.30
O'Brien2.453.304.002.305.302.305.302.304.30
Patel2.302.305.30
did not attend that session
not signed out that session or writing to feint
girl
boy



What jumps out are the afternoons of Monday 30 April and Tuesday 1st May. The routine is different and there are inconsistencies.

All the morning attendances, as outlined above, are consistent. With Madeleine (if indeed it was Madeleine McCann) arriving at the kids' club at roughly the same time each morning after breakfast and leaving at roughly the same time before lunch. 

However on Monday 30th April there is an anomaly. Madeleine is signed in much later than any other day - at 3.30pm and then is signed out again after 15 minutes, at 3.30pm.

Why? What does Kate have to say about this in her book?

Nothing, as it happens. 

She outlines a routine on Sunday and gives an account of Sunday evening and when they went to bed and then writes:

"The following days settled into a similar pattern: we'd have breakfast in the apartment, drop Madeleine, Sean and Amelie at their clubs and head to the courts, behind the Tapas bar building for our hour-long group tennis lessons (mine was at nine-fifteen, Gerry's at ten-thirty....."

She writes nothing about the children for that day. But mentions that Monday night was 'ladies night' - in terms of tennis (but does not mention whether she went or not). And she also writes that she makes her 'first foray' to Baptista supermarket with Jane on Monday evening to 'stock up on essentials' as the next day was a public holiday. She also writes: 'We all managed to make it for dinner at that Tapas restaurant that evening.'

The only other thing she mentions about the Monday is that the apartment was cleaned on Monday and Wednesday by 'a middle-aged Portuguese lady.'

So Monday afternoon on 30th April is a 'hot potato'. Perhaps of note is that there were press reports relatively early on that the McCann family went to Sagres on Monday 30th April. And there was the report of the suspicious-looking couple taking photos of a child who looked like Madeleine. 

But this is not in Kate's book. Nor in their diaries it would seem. So what the heck is going on here? Why did the press report that they went to Sagres?  And if they did go, why have they lied about this?

The other anomaly in the creche sheet is the afternoon of Tuesday 1st May. Madeleine is signed in as per normal at 2.30pm. But not signed out. It is the only time she is not signed out so it stands out. In her book Kate describes how they all went to the beach after lunch, despite the fact that it was raining. So how could Madeleine have been signed in to the kids' club at 2.30pm? According to Kate that is when they visited the beach and on that day the children were at their clubs for the last hour and a half. So that would be from approx 3.30pm until 5pm.

So Tuesday afternoon on 1st May is another 'hot potato', imo. And, given that this is the day that the dodgy tennis ball photo of Madeleine is alleged to have been taken, I would put my money on something having happened before Monday afternoon. Maybe even as early as Saturday evening/night or Sunday.

Certainly by Monday I think that all hell was breaking loose.

The media reports of the McCann visit to Sagres may hold at least some of the key to what happened that week. All I can think is that either they were supposed to go, but didn't go for some reason (Madeleine had already met some fate?) Or they did go, but wished to conceal it.

The media reports were as early as 12th May, Madeleine's fourth birthday. Were the media following a pre-arranged 'script'?  Why else would they have claimed the McCann's were in Sagres on Monday 30th, when they weren't?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1581-the-mccanns-family-trip-to-sagres-30th-april

(I wonder how independent the eye-witness who reported the 'suspicious couple' on the beach is? How reliable is his testimony I wonder? His name is Nuno Lourenco de Jesus.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 17:32

@worriedmum wrote:Atomic peanut wrote
''On the basis that the creche is likely to be more popular when the weather's bad, the afternoons of 2nd and 3rd May appear to have been good enough to stay away, with only 4 in attendance on both days''
Not necessarily.
I was using the creche records to back up what we already know through weather history records
There is a general acceptance on the forum that 2nd and 3rd May were cool and cloudy
In fact, the afternoon of 2nd May and the whole of 3rd May weren't bad - quite a bit of sunshine and pleasant out of the wind (18-21C)
My suggestion that the creche is more popular when the weather's poor is backed up by the attendance on 1st May and the morning on 2nd May, when the weather definitely wasn't great

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by j.rob on 30.10.14 17:47

Are Sagres eye-witness Nuno Lourence de Jesus and Sky TV translator Gaynor de Jesus who reported on this case as well as acting as a translator related? Gaynor de Jesus knew Murat. Did Nuno too?

Nuno's sighting lead police to an apartment in Burgau. 

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2793p290-what-was-so-special-about-burgau?highlight=Burgau

More on Sagres. And Kate's visit to Lagos to photograph a yacht: 

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10199-fishing-with-a-yacht?highlight=fishing+with+a+yacht

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 232
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by palm tree on 30.10.14 18:03

@Atomic Peanut wrote:
@worriedmum wrote:Atomic peanut wrote
''On the basis that the creche is likely to be more popular when the weather's bad, the afternoons of 2nd and 3rd May appear to have been good enough to stay away, with only 4 in attendance on both days''
Not necessarily.
I was using the creche records to back up what we already know through weather history records
There is a general acceptance on the forum that 2nd and 3rd May were cool and cloudy
In fact, the afternoon of 2nd May and the whole of 3rd May weren't bad - quite a bit of sunshine and pleasant out of the wind (18-21C)
My suggestion that the creche is more popular when the weather's poor is backed up by the attendance on 1st May and the morning on 2nd May, when the weather definitely wasn't great
Does this mean the last pic at the pool could've been taken on the 3rd then?  eh

____________________
Fight for Madeleine
avatar
palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

Back to top Go down

Burgau mystery

Post by juliet on 30.10.14 19:30

jrob - one of the oddest things was the discovery of - I think - the dna which seemed to be of Murat and Tanner in the Burgau apartment. That was never explained.
avatar
juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 20:13

@palm tree wrote:Does this mean the last pic at the pool could've been taken on the 3rd then?  eh
Well I believe it's possible if the pool area is sheltered but that doesn't mean it was taken then!
Also, re the endless discussions about shadows etc, it amazes me that nobody has tried to recreate the last photo scene on any one of the 3rd Mays in the last 7 years just to say "yes the shadows are ok" or "no they aren't"

The playground pic is different because the shadows are impossible, which is why I can't believe it was an officially released photo. Who made it?
Weather-wise, the background could well depict late afternoon (5pm) on May 2nd, as we have been told, then again it could be earlier in the afternoon after the light rain had cleared through
But what about the people?
The shadows of the people could be 5pm shadows from the angle and length but someone forgot that playhouses also have shadows, and that the tree shadow on the right is an early to mid afternoon shadow

And, to return to the creche records, M wasn't in the playground at 5pm on 2nd May - according to that chart above, she was still in the creche

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 20:34

I have a question about the alleged N-R-McC triangle and the founder of this theory: the tweeter kikoratton, who years ago used to post on forums under a slightly different spelling

It's clear that EN was signed in by the same person, along with MMcC, on most days. But that isn't suspicious

It's the alleged link with MR that I don't understand

If, as Kiko claims, EN and MR are best friends and that MR was substituted for MMcC, how would he/she know this was a feasible scenario?

Where were the Rs all week?

You'd have to be pretty close to the action to be able to suggest that the Rs were even in the vicinity, wouldn't you?

So who is the mysterious kikoratton and how does he/she fit into this?

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Hicks on 30.10.14 20:49

@Atomic Peanut wrote:I have a question about the alleged N-R-McC triangle and the founder of this theory: the tweeter kikoratton, who years ago used to post on forums under a slightly different spelling

It's clear that EN was signed in by the same person, along with MMcC, on most days. But that isn't suspicious

It's the alleged link with MR that I don't understand

If, as Kiko claims, EN and MR are best friends and that MR was substituted for MMcC, how would he/she know this was a feasible scenario?

Where were the Rs all week?

You'd have to be pretty close to the action to be able to suggest that the Rs were even in the vicinity, wouldn't you?

So who is the mysterious kikoratton and how does he/she fit into this?
 That's something I would like to know as well.

Here is a link to start with....


https://twitter.com/kikoratton.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.
avatar
Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 59

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 21:03

IIRC, Kiko has been tweeting this theory since July 2011, that's a long time
Shouldn't the Ns and Rs have asked Twitter to remove the posts?
They would appear to implicate both families in a serious matter of public deception
They would be aware of them if, as Kiko claims in tweets, that he/she has spoken to RN

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Guest on 30.10.14 21:05

Why should the Ns and Rs ask twitter to remove Kiko's posts?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 21:09

If Kiko had tweeted the same about me, I would... wouldn't you?

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Guest on 30.10.14 21:12

@Atomic Peanut wrote:If Kiko had tweeted the same about me, I would... wouldn't you?

You haven't answered my question.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 21:47

OK, Kiko has never gone this far, but is anyone on here prepared to suggest that the girl whom the Boyd family met by the pool on 2nd or 3rd May (it isn't clear from the article which day it is as there are contradictions in the text) was not MMcC, but MR?
That's the only way this would work
Yet they saw the posters of MMcC on 4th May according to the article, and recognised her

It's here: Article

Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 30.10.14 21:54

@Atomic Peanut wrote:I have a question about the alleged N-R-McC triangle and the founder of this theory: the tweeter kikoratton, who years ago used to post on forums under a slightly different spelling

It's clear that EN was signed in by the same person, along with MMcC, on most days. But that isn't suspicious

It's the alleged link with MR that I don't understand

If, as Kiko claims, EN and MR are best friends and that MR was substituted for MMcC, how would he/she know this was a feasible scenario?

Where were the Rs all week?

You'd have to be pretty close to the action to be able to suggest that the Rs were even in the vicinity, wouldn't you?

So who is the mysterious kikoratton and how does he/she fit into this?
Kikoratton has posted here before - specifically on the car hire thread.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by juliet on 30.10.14 21:58

That first poster wasn't very like the Madeleine the Mccanns and cronies like Jill Renwick were keen to project - using the word "beautiful" every minute and in Renwick's case "she had white blonde hair". The poster Maddie was barely three imo. How interesting if that picture was more similar than most to the suggested substitute.
avatar
juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Atomic Peanut on 30.10.14 22:03

This one?


Atomic Peanut

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by juliet on 30.10.14 22:24

Yes thanks AP.The poster the PJ thought the McCanns brought ready prepared in ttheir holiday luggage.
avatar
juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Crèche signatures revisited

Post by Gaggzy on 31.10.14 11:19

@juliet wrote:jrob - one of the oddest things was the discovery of - I think - the dna which seemed to be of Murat and Tanner in the Burgau apartment. That was never explained.


Two unrelated adults - both their DNA discovered on a settee in an apartment - could suggest a sexual liaison.

I just thought I'd swing that one in.
avatar
Gaggzy

Posts : 488
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2014-06-08
Location : North West.

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum