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

by Guest 14.11.10 10:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
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
Ainne G Naylor

, , London, W4 View Address

Other occupants:

Allan Mccandless ,
Allan Leishman ,
Robert G Naylor ,
Melissa S Morgan

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

Take a look at the name in red above, then on this list.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is it just another one of those coincidences?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.10 10:20

Stella wrote: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?

Thank you, and I have now read this - part snipped - which I have brought over from elsewhere:

Stella: "I collated the apartment information and this is when I noticed that there were 2 rooms in the name of Naylor and that a Naylor child was being signed in and out very often, at exactly the same time as MM. I'm not saying that Robert Naylor is in on anything and we still do not know who was living in the Naylor privately owned apartment".

So am I right in thinking that although an unspecified Mr Naylor owned/owns G4N, there is no knowledge of who occupied G4N and therefore there is nothing so far to suggest there were any other Naylors present in Praia da Luz that week?

Also, Stella/Alison, do you have the original source document for the information that there was a booking for someone from Thursday 26 April to Saturday 5 May for GN4 please? - thanks.

by Guest 14.11.10 10:24

C3F is ANOTHER privately owned apartment. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is located in the Club Cottages block and was booked between the 19/4 - 10/5

A donos booking, if I can remember correctly is something to do with a booking made directly through the management of OC. Kiko, do you remember the exact explanation of this?

Was Naylor and McCandless out there at the same time? OMG, did they live together in the same apartment block in the UK? Did McCandless also have children?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.10 10:25

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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.
...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
Ainne G Naylor

, , London, W4 View Address

Other occupants:

Allan Mccandless ,
Allan Leishman ,
Robert G Naylor ,
Melissa S Morgan
WHAT???

Take a look at the name in red above, then on this list.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is it just another one of those coincidences?

So a Mr/Ms/Mr & Ms Mccandless made a booking at an Ocean Club apartment from Thursday 19 April to Thursday 10 May (3 weeks)?

Mccandless is a very uncommon name.

Was this Allan and Dionne Mccandless?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.10 10:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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.
...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
Ainne G Naylor

, , London, W4 View Address

Other occupants:

Allan Mccandless ,
Allan Leishman ,
Robert G Naylor ,
Melissa S Morgan
WHAT???

Take a look at the name in red above, then on this list.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is it just another one of those coincidences?
So a Mr/Ms/Mr & Ms Mccandless made a booking at an Ocean Club apartment from Thursday 19 April to Thursday 10 May (3 weeks)?

Mccandless is a very uncommon name.

Was this Allan and Dionne Mccandless?

Allan Mccandless is down as living at the Naylors' London W4 address in 2006, according to 192.com.

Dionne Mccandless is down as living at the Naylors' London W4 address in 2003/4, according to 192.com

Possible lines of enquiry might be...

* how long the Naylors had owned GN4
* how often it was rented out and to whom
* who owned the apartment that Mccandless occupied 19 April to 10 May 2007
* had Mccandless been there before
* how often did Naylors and Mccandless visit Praia da Luz
* the connection between Naylor and Mccandless
* who were those sultans and Arabs living at the same London W4 address?

by Guest 14.11.10 10:31

Tony, this is the beauty of sharing info and being able to discuss it without any interuptions. You may have very well have just opened up Pandora's box. This cannot be a coincidence, I'm sorry.

I spent days and days ploughing through all the bookings and putting them in apartment order, so when I saw the name McCandless, it rang some very large bells.

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

by Guest 14.11.10 10:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
So am I right in thinking that although an unspecified Mr Naylor owned/owns G4N, there is no knowledge of who occupied G4N and therefore there is nothing so far to suggest there were any other Naylors present in Praia da Luz that week?

Correct

Also, Stella/Alison, do you have the original source document for the information that there was a booking for someone from Thursday 26 April to Saturday 5 May for GN4 please? - thanks.

All room bookings can be found on the OC lists used by the tapas staff in the thread called OC & MW lists.

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

by soulthief 14.11.10 10:52

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
So am I right in thinking that although an unspecified Mr Naylor owned/owns G4N, there is no knowledge of who occupied G4N and therefore there is nothing so far to suggest there were any other Naylors present in Praia da Luz that week?

Correct

Also, Stella/Alison, do you have the original source document for the information that there was a booking for someone from Thursday 26 April to Saturday 5 May for GN4 please? - thanks.

All room bookings can be found on the OC lists used by the tapas staff in the thread called OC & MW lists.

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

Hi stella, Im lost, who are the McCanndles suspicious sounding name!! And who are the naylors ? where is all this leading?And what is the relevance? Im sorry Im slow off today

by Guest 14.11.10 11:37

Allan Mccandless married Dionne Irvine and they have four children - the youngest was born in 2001, a boy.

@Stella - You have clarified something very important. I had been working on the assumption that the " other Naylor booking" was made by an anonymous owner for occupiers called Naylor. I think that you are actually saying that the owner of the apartment was Naylor and the occupiers could have been anyone!

@soulthief - Kiko R has done a lot of work on this thread looking at creche record signatures and in particular those of Ainne and Robert Naylor- although my understanding now is that thinks that the creche record signature of Robert Naylor may belong to another Naylor. It looks as if Ainne and Robert Naylor may have lived in the same house/flat as Alan and Dionne Mccandless - and there were people of that name ( i.e Mcandless - we cannot be sure that they are exactly the same people) in the Ocean Club at the same. As you know, the working hypothesis of this thread is that something happened to Madeleine Mccann before 3rd May 2007, which meant that her attendance at creche had to be manipulated/forged.

by Guest 14.11.10 12:03

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

by Guest 14.11.10 12:25

alison wrote:Allan Mccandless married Dionne Irvine and they have four children - the youngest was born in 2001, a boy.

Alison, is there any possibility that Dionne Irvine could be Irwin ? As there were 2 Irwin women in the tapas restaurant the same night the alarm was raised and they only ever booked in for that night. More significantly, there names appeared on the reservation list before the tapas clan, who we know booked in for the whole week on the 30th.

by Guest 14.11.10 12:32

alison wrote:

@soulthief - Kiko R has done a lot of work on this thread looking at creche record signatures and in particular those of Ainne and Robert Naylor- although my understanding now is that thinks that the creche record signature of Robert Naylor may belong to another Naylor.

No Alison, what Kiko is saying is that he has seen a copy of Robert Naylor's signature and it is different to the one seen on the creche sheets. Certain aspects of Gerry's writing style, can be seen replicated in the Robert Naylor signature on those creche sheets. Which leads us to believe, Gerry was signing in two entries.

by Guest 14.11.10 12:49

Stella - it`s definitely Irvine, I`m afraid.

My understanding is that KikoR has located a signature from a Robert Naylor which matches the creche entries but which he thinks comes from a different Robert Naylor. Hence his references earlier on in the thread to " Leicestershire Naylors" rather than " London Naylors". This does not rule out the theory that Gerry M might have been forging a signature but is suggesting that the London Naylors themselves may be unwitting participants. I`m sure KikoR will clarify if I`ve got the wrong end of the stick.

So going back to the other Naylor apartment. We know the owner is a Naylor but it`s not impossible that the occupants were Naylors? We just don`t know one way or the other......

Edited to add a quote from Kiko`s earlier post

And about the signature which I replicated and posted some pages back, I will simply say that I have never believed it to be a copy of R Naylor's of London. I believe it to be a simulation of another Robert Naylor, of Leicestershire. And therein lies a great mystery.

by soulthief 14.11.10 13:30

Thanks Stella, Im back on the plot, I always thought there was a likelihood Madeleine was long gone before the 3rd, because time wise it gave them a lot to cover in very little time, like the theory that Madeleine fell behind the sofa whilst trying to look out at her father whilst he spoke to Wilkins..not enough time to have hid her all the places cadaver odour was found, I read a paulo reiss article where he states that Kate was alone with Madeleine having left the Tapas in a sulk, Madeleine was said to have stopped crying abruptly and then there was a flurry of calls and texts the following day which was the 3rd.

by **Jill Havern** 14.11.10 13:43

soulthief wrote:Thanks Stella, Im back on the plot, I always thought there was a likelihood Madeleine was long gone before the 3rd, because time wise it gave them a lot to cover in very little time, like the theory that Madeleine fell behind the sofa whilst trying to look out at her father whilst he spoke to Wilkins..not enough time to have hid her all the places cadaver odour was found, I read a paulo reiss article where he states that Kate was alone with Madeleine having left the Tapas in a sulk, Madeleine was said to have stopped crying abruptly and then there was a flurry of calls and texts the following day which was the 3rd.

And here's the article from Paulo

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

by Guest 14.11.10 13:56

alison wrote:
Stella - it`s definitely Irvine, I`m afraid.
Thanks for that Alison.

My understanding is that KikoR has located a signature from a Robert Naylor which matches the creche entries but which he thinks comes from a different Robert Naylor.

No. Let me try to explain this a little better, just in case Kiko is still resting.
Robert Naylor's signature on the creche sheets is not his own.
Kiko has seen an official version of it and can confirm this to be the case.
The one we can all see on the creche sheet was NOT written by another Naylor.
The writing style however is consistent with that of Gerry McCann.

by soulthief 14.11.10 14:00

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
soulthief wrote:Thanks Stella, Im back on the plot, I always thought there was a likelihood Madeleine was long gone before the 3rd, because time wise it gave them a lot to cover in very little time, like the theory that Madeleine fell behind the sofa whilst trying to look out at her father whilst he spoke to Wilkins..not enough time to have hid her all the places cadaver odour was found, I read a paulo reiss article where he states that Kate was alone with Madeleine having left the Tapas in a sulk, Madeleine was said to have stopped crying abruptly and then there was a flurry of calls and texts the following day which was the 3rd.

And here's the article from Paulo

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

If paulo reiss has this right, I would lay money on Madeleine being dead on the 2nd, at kate's hands, giving them the day to plan and get rid of the body.

by soulthief 14.11.10 14:01

Stella wrote:
alison wrote:
Stella - it`s definitely Irvine, I`m afraid.
Thanks for that Alison.

My understanding is that KikoR has located a signature from a Robert Naylor which matches the creche entries but which he thinks comes from a different Robert Naylor.

No. Let me try to explain this a little better, just in case Kiko is still resting.
Robert Naylor's signature on the creche sheets is not his own.
Kiko has seen an official version of it and can confirm this to be the case.
The one we can all see on the creche sheet was NOT written by another Naylor.
The writing style however is consistent with that of Gerry McCann.

What purpose would be served by Gerry signing it as naylor? what is the potential scenario?

by Guest 14.11.10 14:08

Stella - we are saying the same thing ( I think!). The hypothesis is that GMc not only signed in one child but in addition forged the entry for the Naylor child. Kiko R has discovered that the signature used by GMc is not Robert Naylor`s signature but resembles a signature from another Robert Naylor. Hence Kiko`s comment:

And about the signature which I replicated and posted some pages back, I will simply say that I have never believed it to be a copy of R Naylor's of London. I believe it to be a simulation of another Robert Naylor, of Leicestershire. And therein lies a great mystery.

by **Jill Havern** 14.11.10 14:17

soulthief wrote:If paulo reiss has this right, I would lay money on Madeleine being dead on the 2nd, at kate's hands, giving them the day to plan and get rid of the body.

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

What, like this you mean? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The first picture is where KMc is telling Oprah that she thought Maddie might be cowering in the wardrobe.

Why would Maddie need to cower in the wardrobe and if she did why would KMc feel the need to shake her?

The second picture is KMc demonstrating how she wanted to hold Maddie when she asked her mum why she didn't come when she was crying.

Shocked

by Judge Mental 14.11.10 14:25

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

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.10 14:37

soulthief wrote:...I read a Paulo Reis article where he states that Kate was alone with Madeleine, having left the Tapas in a sulk, Madeleine was said to have stopped crying abruptly and then there was a flurry of calls and texts the following day which was the 3rd

I think a considerable degree of caution is necessary here.

Mrs Pamela Fenn is certain that she heard Madeleine crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on the evening of Tuesday 1 May. She claims that she heard Madeleine crying 'Daddy, Daddy' for 75 minutes.

Paulo Reis IIRC claimed to have proof from mobile 'phone 'pings' that Dr Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A during this period. That is a claim which is very interesting, but I do not regard as proven beyond doubt.

Into the 'pot' here is the McCanns' insistence that Madeleine was never called 'Maddie', a claim which mccannfiles has shown in an excellent article to be wholly false. One has to ask for what reason they made such an obviously false claim.

These are some of the possibilities that arise from the above facts:

1. Mrs Fenn was right. Madeleine stopped crying on the night of 1 May when the McCanns returned at 11.45pm from wherever they were that evening

2. Mrs Fenn was right, but Dr Kate McCann was there whilst Madeleine was sobbing for her Daddy. The crying stopped when Daddy returned at 11.45pm

3. Mrs Fenn was nearly right, but someone was crying 'Maddie, Maddie' and not 'Daddy, Daddy'. That could have been Dr Kate McCann sobbing because something had happened to Madeleine, or one of the twins.

4. Mrs Fenn was mistaken about the date, she heard the crying Wednesday 2nd, not Tuesday 1st

5. Mrs Fenn heard someone else crying 'Daddy, Daddy', maybe from another flat.

These are among the main possibilities, there are others, but the above 5 seem the most likely explanations IMO.

by **Jill Havern** 14.11.10 14:48

Tony Bennett wrote:Into the 'pot' here is the McCanns' insistence that Madeleine was never called 'Maddie', a claim which mccannfiles has shown in an excellent article to be wholly false. One has to ask for what reason they made such an obviously false claim.

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

by kikoraton 14.11.10 18:07

"Were the Naylors who booked through MW in BP01 related to, or friends of, the people staying in G4N that week?"
Good question, and one to which I would love to know the answer. I'm sticking with my absolute conviction that a girl called Elizabeth Naylor was being signed in by somebody with the same handwriting who was signing in "Madeleine McCann (sic)", and that the person doing that was not signing EN with his own initials nor his normal signature. I think you may guess who I have in mind. That seems to me to leave little room for even more shenanigans involving BP01 and G4N.
BTW, Stella, as I understand it, if a Naylor had informed MW or the OC of his intention to occupy his own apartment (G4N) for those days, I think he would have been listed as "Donos" which means "owner".
As it stands, the letting is listed as "Naylor - 2 persons - Owner Booking". To my mind, that ought to indicate that an unnamed owner of G4N has booked his/her apartment out to a couple called Naylor. (I amuse myself by calling this couple the "Leicestershire Naylors", and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they had one or two undeclared children staying with them).
I'm a lazy old sod, Stella, so could you give us a link to the page with "Naylor Owner Booking" on it, please? You're a gem.