Re: How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

by Guest 04.11.10 15:12

It's strange because Catriona Baker in her statement says GM picked up Madeleine the most

[quote - snipped]

I first met Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, at 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, any 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. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch and tea time to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would come to fetch Madeleine more often than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins, between 5 and 5.30 in the afternoon.

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

by Guest 04.11.10 15:14

	sun	mon	tue	wed	thur
Lobsters	29	30	1	2	3

AM in	9.45	9.30	9.30	9.20	9.10
AM out	12.15	12.10	12.20	12.30	12.25
PM in	2.45	3.15	2.30	2.45	2.50
PM out	5.30	3.30		5.30	5.30



			the tapas lists are missing from the files
			at 1.15 the cleaners' daughter see MM goingup to the Payne's apartment
			cleaner finds G&K still in their room, sometime after 10.00 am
			the cleaner also witnesses 1 cot in G&K's bedroom
			that's the morning that Cat Nanny signs MM out at 12.30
			Madeleine is not signed out

by Guest 04.11.10 15:17

candyfloss wrote:It's strange because Catriona Baker in her statement says GM picked up Madeleine the most

[quote - snipped]

I first met Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, at 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, any 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. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch and tea time to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would come to fetch Madeleine more often than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins, between 5 and 5.30 in the afternoon.

[url=http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post1452.html#p1452

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

Well done for picking up on this candyfloss. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This statement is full of holes in my opinion and makes me all the more suspicious.

by Daoud 04.11.10 16:22

candyfloss wrote:It's strange because Catriona Baker in her statement says GM picked up Madeleine the most

[quote - snipped]

I first met Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, at 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, any 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. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch and tea time to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would come to fetch Madeleine more often than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins, between 5 and 5.30 in the afternoon.

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

Candyfloss, your extract comes from CB's rogatory statement to the LP on 14 of April, 2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

but your link refers to her statement made to the PJ almost a year earlier (6 of May 2007)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In between making these two statements she'd been entertained by the Drs McCann at Rothley Mansions, and this is most obviously reflected by the way the good doctors are referred to in the two statements - to the PJ they are 'Madeleine's parents', 'her parents' or the 'McCann family' and these are the only three references to them in the statement.

A year later to the LP they're Kate and Gerry and get many more mentions - ten each to be precise.

In the early statement (which I take to be more reliable, both because it was much closer in time to the events described and because it was prior to the Rothley lollapalooza) she makes no mention of meeting Gerry more often, or of the frequency with which he picked up the kids, all she has to say is this: It was always Madeleine’s parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the “Minis”.

I don't put much store in her later memories...

by Judge Mental 04.11.10 17:51

One would not give a jot of credence to anything that this young woman has said or has yet to say.

by Cheshire Cat 04.11.10 18:35

Stella wrote:
sun mon tue wed thur
Lobsters 29 30 1 2 3
AM in 9.45 9.30 9.30 9.20 9.10
AM out 12.15 12.10 12.20 12.30 12.25
PM in 2.45 3.15 2.30 2.45 2.50
PM out 5.30 3.30 5.30 5.30
the tapas lists are missing from the files
at 1.15 the cleaners' daughter see MM goingup to the Payne's apartment
cleaner finds G&K still in their room,
sometime after 10.00 am
the cleaner also witnesses 1 cot in G&K's bedroom
that's the morning that Cat Nanny signs MM out at 12.30
Madeleine is not signed out

When the cleaners' daughter saw Madeleine going up to the Payne's appartment, was this the last recorded, truly independent, sighting of MM? (discounting Cat Nanny).

by Guest 05.11.10 8:23

I believe so Cheshire Cat.

Her identification of the child that she believes to be Madeleine, was based on seeing 3 children all wearing the same type of tennis shoe with flashing lights on the heels, leaving apartment 5a at the same time.

Does this actually guarantee that child was indeed Madeleine McCann? I don't know.

by Guest 05.11.10 9:21

The following chart identifies when Madeleine and EN was signed in/out.
What is quite interesting about this one is that after the first day, EN did not attend in the afternoons, EXCEPT for the one day that both children are signed in together, Madeleine is not signed out and EN happens to leave early at 4pm.

	sun	mon	tue	wed	thur
Lobsters	29	30	1	2	3

AM in	9.45	9.30	9.30	9.20	9.10
AM out	12.15	12.10	12.20	12.30	12.25
PM in	2.45	3.15	2.30	2.45	2.50
PM out	5.30	3.30		5.30	5.30


		both children signed in/out within 10 minutes
		both children signed in/out within 5 minutes
		both children signed in/out at the same time
		Madeleine is not signed out
		EN not signed in
		EN is not signed out

by Guest 06.11.10 12:21

the credibility of the sighting by the cleaners daughter re it being madeleine kind of cracks. If the video of bus and climbing up the stairs is depicting Maddie, then to believe the Sunday sighting theymust have taken two pairs of sneakers one flashing the other pair conventional non flash. And if you would believe the two pairs of sneakers concept, it becomes real hard to believe that the tennis pic is the same madeleine having two pairs of sneakers in the appartment and still doing her tennis spell wearing sandels.
parapono

by Guest 06.11.10 14:05

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

Another child could have been given Madeleine's flashing tennis shoes to wear?

Another child may have already owned a pair?

If the cleaners' daughter was distracted by the flashing shoes, could she have got a real good look at the childrens faces ??

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, that children would walk with bread in their hands, one of them carrying a plate??, all heading up a flight of stairs. No way. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] If my children were eating, I would allow them to finish it first before going anywhere.

That little display could have been done for a reason. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Shibboleth 06.11.10 18:07

These flashing trainers were very fashionable around 4 years ago. All of my children had a pair each. I wouldn't rely on any "sightings" based solely (sorry!) on a pair of shoes.

by Guest 07.11.10 10:16

boom, boom [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] nice one Shibb [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I fully agree. On the airport foot-age [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] , Madeleine is not seen wearing flashing shoes !!!

by Cheshire Cat 07.11.10 16:42

Interesting comment on the Daily Mail 'Comments Section':

I live locally to these people and have friends who know them - they had a nanny who they didn't take with them apparently too cheap. Why don't they sell or remortgage their house. Sorry but you don't leave your children on holiday. God bless Maddie - I just hope whoever has her is giving her a better life - although I doubt it. They were lucky they didn't take twins too.

- doreen morton, nuneaton, 7/11/2010 15:27

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

by Shibboleth 07.11.10 17:16

If there were any irregularities in the nannies signing the register to "save the parents from doing it", then that's not the sort of corner cutting that Mark Warner's would want made public. It does, however, explain why both nannies were whooshed off to other jobs outside Portugal, and kept very much protected from the press.

by Guest 07.11.10 17:55

shibboleth thats perhaps part of the reason to get the nannies out of the line of fire. My take on that has been the nannies had to leave because the danger present of them commenting on the pics that followed the initial Maddie pic, which was of a madeleine at least a year younger than the missing one.
One of the bigger risks imo they ran with this whole charade.
imo of course.
parapono

by **kikoraton** 11.11.10 20:50

I'm back again, folks, but reading myself in very carefully after five days in hospital with pneumonia. Stella and Co have done some terrific work on the creche records and all their different facets. If anyone with more stamina than I can summon at present (I'm thinking particularly of HiDeHo) can take it all to pieces and reassemble it, we shall all be indebted to them. My own focus remains on the London Naylors - used and deceived? - the other Naylors whom I call the Leicestershire Naylors, and two girls, one called Elizabeth and the other called Madeleine,or a variant thereof.

by Guest 11.11.10 20:55

kikoraton wrote:I'm back again, folks, but reading myself in very carefully after five days in hospital with pneumonia. Stella and Co have done some terrific work on the creche records and all their different facets. If anyone with more stamina than I can summon at present (I'm thinking particularly of HiDeHo) can take it all to pieces and reassemble it, we shall all be indebted to them. My own focus remains on the London Naylors - used and deceived? - the other Naylors whom I call the Leicestershire Naylors, and two girls, one called Elizabeth and the other called Madeleine,or a variant thereof.

So sorry to hear you have been so poorly kiko. Hope you are now on the road to recovery. Don't overdo things and take it easy for a while. roses

by Judge Mental 12.11.10 1:39

Welcome back to kikoraton, and enjoy some recovery time before ploughing straight back in.

There has been some fun over the past few days, where one has personally not quite understood this will for power over Amaral that the McCanns seem to be ruthlessly pursuing.

The book will be printed whether they like it or not, and one would hope that revisions are made to the text which will enlighten us further as to why they have had such a fervent need to have it destroyed.

by Autumn 12.11.10 3:10

Kirkoraton, very sorry to hear you have been ill and hope that you are feeling much better roses

Take things easy and give yourself plenty of time out to regain your strength spit coffee

From what I have read on this thread so far, there is much to strongly suggest that Naylor was involved in some way and am glad to hear that you intend to stay focused on him thumbsup

Much has been happening over the last few days so put your feet up and read all about it - interesting times ahead methinks thinking

by Daoud 12.11.10 8:42

Sorry to hear you've been unwell Kikoraton, but good to know you're back and well again (hopefully!) - take it easy for a while, but do let us know about these Leicestershire Naylors!

by Guest 12.11.10 8:46

It's so good to have you back kiko [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Little fleur will help you recover [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Judge Mental 12.11.10 14:11

Daoud wrote:Sorry to hear you've been unwell Kikoraton, but good to know you're back and well again (hopefully!) - take it easy for a while, but do let us know about these Leicestershire Naylors!

One would be most interested to learn anything about the Naylors from the Cheshire area if anybody has any information on these.

by **kikoraton** 12.11.10 15:58

Thank you all for your good wishes. I had my first glass of good Spanish red for several days, for lunch, so I must be on the road to recovery! Has the appeal decision been made? Can the book finally reappear?
London Naylors: I just do not believe that an apparently decent couple, she contributing to the everyday life of a London Primary School, could be involved in knowing deception. You know what I think about the handwriting. So does Mr Naylor. Let's leave it at that for the time being.
Cheshire Naylors: Do you mean Wigan, Gtr Manchester? Still at the back of my mind. Is there a record of baptisms available to the public, does anyone know?
Leicestershire Naylors: very elusive. Very much in the forefront.
Onwards and upwards!

by Guest 13.11.10 9:36

The following chart covers every child who attended the same group as Madeleine.

AM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Berry	9.10	12.00	9.00	12.00	9.00	12.00	9.30	12.30	9.00	12.15
Naylor	9.10	12.30	9.25	12.30	9.10	12.30	9.20	12.30	9.10
Mann	9.15	12.30	9.30	12.30	9.25	12.20	9.45	12.30	9.25	12.30
Totman	9.15	12.30	9.00	12.25	9.20	12.25	9.45	12.20	9.25	12.20
McCann	9.45	12.15	9.30	12.10	9.30	12.20	9.20	12.30	9.10	12.25
O'Brien			9.15	12.35	9.00		9.30	12.30	9.50	12.30
Patel							9.45	12.30

PM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Berry	2.30	5.20			2.30	5.30	2.30	4.30
Naylor	2.40	5.20			2.30	4.00
Mann	3.00	5.30	4.30	?	2.50	5.30	2.45	5.30	2.30	5.30
Totman			2.15	?	2.40	5.30			3.30	5.15
McCann	2.45	5.30	3.15	3.30	2.30		2.45	5.30	2.50	5.30
O'Brien	2.45	3.30	4.00		2.30	5.30	2.30	5.30	2.30	4.30
Patel			2.30		2.30	5.30

		did not attend that session
		not signed out that session or writing feint

Why is the signing out times missing/feint on the afternoon of the 30th ?
What happened am on the 2nd, the only time that all of the children managed to attend creche?
On the same day Madeleine did not get signed out in the afternoon, O'Brien's daughter did not get signed out in the morning?

by Guest 13.11.10 12:33

Stella, thinking about the rogatory statements of Cat Nanny i was wandering about gender.
which ones are boys? parapono

by Guest 13.11.10 14:04

This chart shows their gender

AM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Berry	9.10	12.00	9.00	12.00	9.00	12.00	9.30	12.30	9.00	12.15
Naylor	9.10	12.30	9.25	12.30	9.10	12.30	9.20	12.30	9.10
Mann	9.15	12.30	9.30	12.30	9.25	12.20	9.45	12.30	9.25	12.30
Totman	9.15	12.30	9.00	12.25	9.20	12.25	9.45	12.20	9.25	12.20
McCann	9.45	12.15	9.30	12.10	9.30	12.20	9.20	12.30	9.10	12.25
O'Brien			9.15	12.35	9.00		9.30	12.30	9.50	12.30
Patel							9.45	12.30

PM	29		30		1		2		3
	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out	in	out
Berry	2.30	5.20			2.30	5.30	2.30	4.30
Naylor	2.40	5.20			2.30	4.00
Mann	3.00	5.30	4.30	?	2.50	5.30	2.45	5.30	2.30	5.30
Totman			2.15	?	2.40	5.30			3.30	5.15
McCann	2.45	5.30	3.15	3.30	2.30		2.45	5.30	2.50	5.30
O'Brien	2.45	3.30	4.00		2.30	5.30	2.30	5.30	2.30	4.30
Patel			2.30		2.30	5.30

		did not attend that session
		not signed out that session or writing feint

		girl
		boy

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.10 0:23

kikoraton wrote:London Naylors: I just do not believe that an apparently decent couple, she contributing to the everyday life of a London Primary School, could be involved in knowing deception. You know what I think about the handwriting. So does Mr Naylor. Let's leave it at that for the time being.

First of all, welcome back kikoraton.

I may be a bit slow in following this thread, so bear with me.

It is most certainly Robert Graham Naylor and his wife Ainne who were at Praia da Luz that week, all choosing the rough Portuguese equivalent of Pontins for their holidays, so it seems.

So who are all these other Naylors? Were any other Naylors in Praia da Luz that week?

By the way, are you all aware that 192.com's records for 2006 reveal the following residents all living at the same address in London W4:

Electoral Roll 2006
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Other occupants:

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

by Autumn 14.11.10 2:38

Also listed at the same address on the electoral roll 2003-04 are Dionne Mccandless, Sultan Naheed and Zahman Badh-Uz

Apart from the London Naylors, were any of the other residents listed at the address present in PDL that week?

by Guest 14.11.10 9:27

The OC records show that there were other Naylors present that week. Stella`s thread which gives the Mark Warner and Ocean Club guests for that period is very helpful. Kiko R pointed out earlier on this thread that the " other Naylors" were in an apartment booked by the owner. They were not with MW and - frustratingly - we have no other details for them. Kiko R or Stella will hopefully comment if I have got this wrong in any way!

I don`t think we can necessarily assume that just because 192 shows a number of occupants listed at the same address that they were all there at the same time. The property may have changed hands during the course of the year which would result in a number of people being on the electoral roll for that year; and in the case of flats ( rather than houses) which have only one postal address, you can sometimes find all the occupants listed at that address.

by Guest 14.11.10 10:06

That's absolutely right Alison.

For other people's benefit, it is this booking: 26/4 - 5/5 room G4N NAYLOR (owner booking)

Someone by the name of Naylor OWNED that apartment and rented it out on a private basis, which is why we see the reference (owner booking).

The occupiers of the room between the 26/4 and 5/5 were NOT on any MW or OC list.

We have no way of knowing who was in that room and if they had any children.

Were the Naylors who booked through MW in BP01 related to, or friends of, the people staying in G4N that week?