Re: Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 07.03.16 19:54

Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?

by Estelle on 07.03.16 19:59

I would love Dewi Lennard to come back here but I think he was too upset about people not believing his research that he just tweets now. I was never banned but many of my "friends" were from various forums. The tide seems to be turning now and people are more open to believing in the earlier death theory.

by Guest on 07.03.16 20:01

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?

No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 07.03.16 20:04

@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

So what's the discussion about Gerry and Naylor and the creche records signatures all about?

Still confused. big grin

by Estelle on 07.03.16 20:13

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?

Madeline Rider and Elizabeth Naylor were very close friends as their fathers were colleagues at some stage. The mothers were also close. Gerry McCann must have made a deal with them to holiday at the Ocean Club in the same week as long as he only could take the two girls to the creche. These girls were close so one may not want to go without the other. Gerry, in effect, acted as if he was this "Madeline's" father just by taking her to the creche and signing her in. The signature he forged was that of R Naylor, the father of Elizabeth Naylor. These fathers previously worked for a bank based in Iceland, Landbanksi?????(Spelling?) which failed so they may have been vulnerable to an offer from Gerry.

by Guest on 07.03.16 20:17

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.
So what's the discussion about Gerry and Naylor and the creche records signatures all about?

Still confused.

There are several threads which discuss the crèche records and the sub theory.

I think this one has drifted off topic!

by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 07.03.16 20:23

@Estelle wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
Madeline Rider and Elizabeth Naylor were very close friends as their fathers were colleagues at some stage. The mothers were also close. Gerry McCann must have made a deal with them to holiday at the Ocean Club in the same week as long as he only could take the two girls to the creche. These girls were close so one may not want to go without the other. Gerry, in effect, acted as if he was this "Madeline's" father just by taking her to the creche and signing her in. The signature he forged was that of R Naylor, the father of Elizabeth Naylor. These fathers previously worked for a bank based in Iceland, Landbanksi?????(Spelling?) which failed so they may have been vulnerable to an offer from Gerry.

But doesn't that mean that there was some kind of planning about what was to become of Madeleine prior to the holiday?

Plus the McCanns were supposedly skint prior to the holiday so I'm wondering what kind of offer Gerry could have made, if not financial.

by Estelle on 07.03.16 20:37

From Dewi Lennard:

Why would McCann do this? McCann signed EN into creche SIX times in all. He has never admitted (nor been asked, as far as I know) to a friendship with her father. And yet the identical handwriting, and the near 100% proximity, time-wise, in entering both names in the register, tells me that they had a certain "arrangement" going on between them at the Ocean Club. Here's how it would work: I don't believe that EN's father attended the act of signing-in. Gerry - and I imagine another person, in which case probably a female - drop off two girls at the attendance book. One is EN. The other is purportedly (one of Gerry's favourite words!) Madeleine McCann. I DON'T BELIEVE MADELEINE McCANN EVER ATTENDED THE CRECHE. My position is this: Maddie went missing during this period. What the heck is Gerry doing, repeatedly signing-in a second girl who wasn't one of the so-called Tapas Group and of whom we've been told nothing? Are the two events connected? You bet they are. More later!.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod09c

by Estelle on 07.03.16 20:40

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@Estelle wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
Madeline Rider and Elizabeth Naylor were very close friends as their fathers were colleagues at some stage. The mothers were also close. Gerry McCann must have made a deal with them to holiday at the Ocean Club in the same week as long as he only could take the two girls to the creche. These girls were close so one may not want to go without the other. Gerry, in effect, acted as if he was this "Madeline's" father just by taking her to the creche and signing her in. The signature he forged was that of R Naylor, the father of Elizabeth Naylor. These fathers previously worked for a bank based in Iceland, Landbanksi?????(Spelling?) which failed so they may have been vulnerable to an offer from Gerry.
But doesn't that mean that there was some kind of planning about what was to become of Madeleine prior to the holiday?

Plus the McCanns were supposedly skint prior to the holiday so I'm wondering what kind of offer Gerry could have made, if not financial.

Yes IMO it must have been premeditated.

by Estelle on 07.03.16 20:46

@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.
So what's the discussion about Gerry and Naylor and the creche records signatures all about?

Still confused.
There are several threads which discuss the crèche records and the sub theory.

I think this one has drifted off topic!

IMO the phone records and the fact that the creche records were forged for Elizabeth Naylor and the same handwriting signed in the substitute Madeline which is Gerry's (and this has been proven) is the most credible evidence that has been presented so far. HiDeHo's and Richard Hall's evidence just adds to this and Pat Brown's comments IMO should be ignored.

by **Jill Havern** on 07.03.16 20:57

@Estelle wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
@Estelle wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
Madeline Rider and Elizabeth Naylor were very close friends as their fathers were colleagues at some stage. The mothers were also close. Gerry McCann must have made a deal with them to holiday at the Ocean Club in the same week as long as he only could take the two girls to the creche. These girls were close so one may not want to go without the other. Gerry, in effect, acted as if he was this "Madeline's" father just by taking her to the creche and signing her in. The signature he forged was that of R Naylor, the father of Elizabeth Naylor. These fathers previously worked for a bank based in Iceland, Landbanksi?????(Spelling?) which failed so they may have been vulnerable to an offer from Gerry.
But doesn't that mean that there was some kind of planning about what was to become of Madeleine prior to the holiday?

Plus the McCanns were supposedly skint prior to the holiday so I'm wondering what kind of offer Gerry could have made, if not financial.
Yes IMO it must have been premeditated.

I've always thought that, too.

I've never been able to get past the fact that they could look like this having just lost a child to an 'accidental' death. Nah nah

Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence? - Page 2 Kate+and+gerry+show

Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence? - Page 2 Do+de+do+de+do

by whatsupdoc on 07.03.16 21:07

Quote: The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

Which leads back to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction.
End of quote.

I believe the dogs but how Madeleine died is another matter. She may have fallen over the back of the couch or been hit by someone . She may have been placed behind the couch for some time by anyone while the McCanns worked out what to do with her. Just because the dogs responded doesn't mean we have to accept other pieces of the jigsaw.

So quoting on Pat's "team of experts rushing into town", OK so you know about the US clean-up squads, too, make it sound like a comedy film. I don't laugh at things that might even be true. An Ambassador did roll into town so a "missing child" did invoke the highest level of intervention.

Overall I don't agree with Pat's logic....and if she deals in evidence only, then we don't need the "I guess" thank you very much.

by **Jill Havern** on 07.03.16 21:18

I know people say that because they're doctors they would be somewhat hardened to death, but I don't buy it. My daughter is a senior police officer/child protection so she sees some appalling things and I know for a fact that if she lost one of her children to an accidental death or an abduction she would not be parading around smiling and smirking and jogging. There's just no way. I saw what she was like when her cat died.

And you can't even say the McCann's had to put on a front for the twins sake because they're not even in the second photo, or a lot of others.

by whatsupdoc on 07.03.16 21:24

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I know people say that because they're doctors they would be somewhat hardened to death, but I don't buy it. My daughter is a senior police officer/child protection so she sees some appalling things and I know for a fact that if she lost one of her children to an accidental death or an abduction she would not be parading around smiling and smirking and jogging. There's just no way. I saw what she was like when her cat died.

I remember your saying that quite some time ago, Jill.

Without going too deep , there are people who don't have empathy which could have a lot to do with the whole business.

by Estelle on 07.03.16 21:35

I just found this: A little more insight from Dewi Lennard on 6th March, 2016:

"Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needed to start his sequence of signing-in on that day, because he had to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that one of the two children who accompanied him, and whose name he entered as "Madeleine McCann", was really and truly his daughter. The carers will always swear this is so, because that is what was drummed into them on the first day, and they will never know any difference. But why should Gerry McCann have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? The conclusion I have reached - and don't forget that Gerry has said he has no problem with people "purporting theories" - is that the child whom Gerry presented as "Madeleine" was and is the very close friend and probably cousin of the other poor child who was dragged into this sordid deception by McCann. Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as Gerry's face is shortly to become famous all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been the mother of the girl whom the creche carers honestly believed was Madeleine McCann."

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sodic8

This mother is also blonde and could have easily been mistaken for Kate McCann. (I saw her photo once) Remember the taxi driver? The people he saw could have been that family with others leaving PDL to go to their car then back to the UK.

In case you ask me, I did not save these photos as Dewi posted them on a forum years ago so I cannot post them here.

by Estelle on 07.03.16 21:43

"She may have been placed behind the couch for some time by anyone while the McCanns worked out what to do with her."

I have often thought that IMO Maddie was either strangled or suffocated (because of the spray) and then put behind the couch for more than, say, two hours.

by Guest on 07.03.16 22:21

@Estelle wrote:I just found this: A little more insight from Dewi Lennard on 6th March, 2016:

"Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needed to start his sequence of signing-in on that day, because he had to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that one of the two children who accompanied him, and whose name he entered as "Madeleine McCann", was really and truly his daughter. The carers will always swear this is so, because that is what was drummed into them on the first day, and they will never know any difference. But why should Gerry McCann have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? The conclusion I have reached - and don't forget that Gerry has said he has no problem with people "purporting theories" - is that the child whom Gerry presented as "Madeleine" was and is the very close friend and probably cousin of the other poor child who was dragged into this sordid deception by McCann. Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as Gerry's face is shortly to become famous all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been the mother of the girl whom the creche carers honestly believed was Madeleine McCann."

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sodic8

This mother is also blonde and could have easily been mistaken for Kate McCann. (I saw her photo once) Remember the taxi driver? The people he saw could have been that family with others leaving PDL to go to their car then back to the UK.

In case you ask me, I did not save these photos as Dewi posted them on a forum years ago so I cannot post them here.

There is one photo posted on the forum. It's on p.3 of the 'creche signatures revisited' thread.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10343-naylor-rder-mccann-creche-signatures-revisited

by Estelle on 07.03.16 22:38

@Ladyinred wrote:
@Estelle wrote:I just found this: A little more insight from Dewi Lennard on 6th March, 2016:

"Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needed to start his sequence of signing-in on that day, because he had to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that one of the two children who accompanied him, and whose name he entered as "Madeleine McCann", was really and truly his daughter. The carers will always swear this is so, because that is what was drummed into them on the first day, and they will never know any difference. But why should Gerry McCann have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? The conclusion I have reached - and don't forget that Gerry has said he has no problem with people "purporting theories" - is that the child whom Gerry presented as "Madeleine" was and is the very close friend and probably cousin of the other poor child who was dragged into this sordid deception by McCann. Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as Gerry's face is shortly to become famous all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been the mother of the girl whom the creche carers honestly believed was Madeleine McCann."

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sodic8

This mother is also blonde and could have easily been mistaken for Kate McCann. (I saw her photo once) Remember the taxi driver? The people he saw could have been that family with others leaving PDL to go to their car then back to the UK.

In case you ask me, I did not save these photos as Dewi posted them on a forum years ago so I cannot post them here.
There is one photo posted on the forum.

The photo of Madeline Rider? Are you going to post it on this thread?

As for the mother, maybe I only saw a link to a photo of her online. I have a vision in my head of her and I know she was blonde with longish hair.

You must realise that more than three years ago, I would not have felt it appropriate to post the things I am doing today or say the things i am saying. They would have been deleted and I would have been banned. But now there is renewed interest with Richard Hall's videos.

I have rarely posted because once I thought the case was solved three years ago (so to speak), there was no point in posting as what I knew others did not want to hear as they were stuck on the May 3 theory.

So please delete any of my posts if you find them libellous as I do not want to attract any problems. They will not come after me as I am in Australia and usually travelling the world. However, for the first time for many years, I felt free to write about my speculations.

Link to photo added by Admin: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10343p20-naylor-rder-mccann-creche-signatures-revisited

by whodunit on 08.03.16 0:53

@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

Which might explain the Maddie/not Maddie controversy.

by Guest on 08.03.16 7:34

@Estelle wrote:
@Ladyinred wrote:
@Estelle wrote:I just found this: A little more insight from Dewi Lennard on 6th March, 2016:

"Given that it has never been acknowledged that the #McCanns knew the Naylors, here is the only logical explanation I can offer for Gerry signing the Naylor child into creche: it started on the first morning, 29 April, so they must have had a prior arrangement. Gerry needed to start his sequence of signing-in on that day, because he had to impose on the staff the unshakeable belief that one of the two children who accompanied him, and whose name he entered as "Madeleine McCann", was really and truly his daughter. The carers will always swear this is so, because that is what was drummed into them on the first day, and they will never know any difference. But why should Gerry McCann have to go to the length of signing-in, with her, a child from London whose connection with the McCanns is still kept secret? The conclusion I have reached - and don't forget that Gerry has said he has no problem with people "purporting theories" - is that the child whom Gerry presented as "Madeleine" was and is the very close friend and probably cousin of the other poor child who was dragged into this sordid deception by McCann. Logic tells me that Gerry would not have risked being known as the man who alone took two girls to creche, particularly as Gerry's face is shortly to become famous all over the world. For this reason I believe Gerry had female company in the attendance-book process. And logic goes on to say, that this female would probably have been the mother of the girl whom the creche carers honestly believed was Madeleine McCann."

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sodic8

This mother is also blonde and could have easily been mistaken for Kate McCann. (I saw her photo once) Remember the taxi driver? The people he saw could have been that family with others leaving PDL to go to their car then back to the UK.

In case you ask me, I did not save these photos as Dewi posted them on a forum years ago so I cannot post them here.
There is one photo posted on the forum.
The photo of Madeline Rider? Are you going to post it on this thread?

As for the mother, maybe I only saw a link to a photo of her online. I have a vision in my head of her and I know she was blonde with longish hair.

You must realise that more than three years ago, I would not have felt it appropriate to post the things I am doing today or say the things i am saying. They would have been deleted and I would have been banned. But now there is renewed interest with Richard Hall's videos.

I have rarely posted because once I thought the case was solved three years ago (so to speak), there was no point in posting as what I knew others did not want to hear as they were stuck on the May 3 theory.

So please delete any of my posts if you find them libellous as I do not want to attract any problems. They will not come after me as I am in Australia and usually travelling the world. However, for the first time for many years, I felt free to write about my speculations.

Link to photo added by Admin: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10343p20-naylor-rder-mccann-creche-signatures-revisited

HiDeHo has also believed for several years that something happened earlier in the week, and has put in a considerable amount of work to back-up this theory which has been posted here.

by Rogue-a-Tory on 08.03.16 9:39

@whodunit wrote:
@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

Which might explain the Maddie/not Maddie controversy.

That and to clarify the Mrs Fenn evidence - anyone that might challenge whether what was heard was 'Where's daddy' or 'Where's Maddie'

by **Verdi** on 08.03.16 12:00

@roy rovers wrote:I think Pat Brown should read more and write less about this case.

Agreed but preferably without the profiler hat - she's not assigned to the case as a criminal profiler is she. She's entitled to an opinion the same as the rest of us but not in a hands-on professional capacity.

by **Verdi** on 08.03.16 12:08

@Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
@whodunit wrote:
@Ladyinred wrote:
@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

Which might explain the Maddie/not Maddie controversy.
That and to clarify the Mrs Fenn evidence - anyone that might challenge whether what was heard was 'Where's daddy' or 'Where's Maddie'

Or if indeed Mrs Fenn heard anything at all - there isn't any evidence to back-up to her story is there? *

So, if Madeline was used as a substitute Madeleine for the purposes of creche appearances, what then of Madeline - who was her substitute? Do we have a long line of Maddies to fill the account for one missing child?

Really, this substitute child theory is utter nonsense - it just doesn't make any sense no matter how you (not you personally) try to create a something from a nothing. This is how urban myths kick-off.

ETA: * There are certainly very conflicting stories about precisely when a child was heard crying and what child was heard crying. I hope the police no more about this than us but I seriously doubt it.

by Estelle on 08.03.16 12:39

Can anyone explain to me why Gerry McCann would try to forge the signature of another girl (Elizabeth Naylor) into the creche six times that week when it is the parent's responsibility to do so?

What would Gerry's motivation be to do that? I have seen the father's signature and it is nothing like what Gerry signed and it alters each day.

What would be the motivation of the girl's parents be to allow him to do so?

Would you allow another parent to sign your child into a creche six times? I know I would not allow it.

by whatsupdoc on 08.03.16 13:58

Roy Rovers... Agreed, I think Pat is no where near up to speed with the McCann case.

Verdi.... If this case was straight forward, chances are it would have been wrapped up in days. It would appear there is a lot below the surface that needed to be covered up for good.

Maybe it was a chipping exercise that went drastically wrong when Madeleine died. Gerry wasn't there to enjoy himself. Why was Phillip Edmunds and an exec from a New Zealand plant there?
We don't know much , mainly because the McCanns and the tapas group have a pact of silence. They do, however, manage to tell lies and give muddled interviews and also do checks on the children without actually looking at them.
I think Dewi Lennard has done some good work re the phones and creche register and I think there is every chance that Madelene was used as a stand-in for Madeleine from the Sunday.
If Madelene was used as a stand-in for Madeleine, it just shows that all the witnesses couldn't tell the difference between one 3 y o blond girl and another which isn't surprising seeing which picture of Madeleine was released. They wouldn't have seen the real Madeleine.

Log in for more topics