How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

Hi Alison

If the "Candles" were only there until 2002, why is the electoral roll for 2006 still stating that they were?


Electoral Roll 2006
Ainne G Naylor

, , London, W4 View Address

Other occupants:

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



Is there any way of finding out if those flats are purchased or rented?

If so, if they are rented, what is the name of the landlord? Is it an organisation or a business?

Stella - this is where the Google entry is misleading. I forked out £200 odd quid yesterday to get access to 192`s archive files and it`s crystal clear that the Mccandless`s were only there in 2002 and the Naylors were only there in 2006.

I don`t think you can rely on the Google entry or the free access part of 192 to give you accurate information although it has proved helpful in the sense that Tracesmart ( which I usually rely on) did not give a 2006 London address for the Naylors.

ETA: the free access part of 192 will show you everyone listed at that address since 2002. It looks as if Allan Mccandless etc were there in 2006 because that is when the Naylors were there.

Thank you Alison. That is a lot of money to spend for anyone to find this out.

I know for a fact that big organisations sometimes buy buildings in prime locations as an investment, then allow key personnel to rent out apartments to make sure they can get to work on time. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] So even though Naylor and McCandless might not have stayed at the same address, at exactly the same time, It is possible that they could work for the same company which would still allow for their paths to cross.

......and, if I may be indiscreet, not the first time that alison has done this for us
I tried the Investment bank staff list of Matrix for the possible presence of a McCandless, but there is none:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I was constructing quite a nice little possible scenario for the Candles and the Naylors, but it seems that it hasn't stood the test of time. ,. I'd still be interested if somebody could research my jokey comment of last evening which suddenly, once darkness had fallen and the mind had become active, took wings. Might there have been a product off two Candles resulting in a Madeleine McCandless????

I have to admit, as soon as the name McCandless cropped up, Madeleine McCandless did enter my mind too. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

18/04-08/05 CCI Hurst (6) donos booking
I wonder if the Hursts in Club Cottages I might be the LeicesterForest East Hursts?

Some photos of RM's daughter, who is a year older than Madeleine and doesn't look at all like her imho:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


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

@ Daoud

Her own mother thinks she does though.

Having seen numerous pictures of Madeleine, with very few looking as though they be of the same child, one would have to say that Murat's child may have similar difficulties with being captured by camera. In this photograph she does not look at all like Madeleine, however her own mother believes she does. Who are we to argue with that?

I would love to know what this booking entailed

20/04 - 12/05 C4H ENGLAND (donos booking)


Does this mean that someone from England, someone important and perhaps well known that they could not have their own name on the lists, had arranged to stay in their OWN Club Cottage for 3 weeks? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


It's no wonder Goncalo Amaral had such a hard time finding out who was inside all of these apartments. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lots of people have the surname England, Stella. Quite a few of them in Leics!!!

Oohh, I didn't even think about a Mr England [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] are they a doctor by any chance [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@ Judge Mental
Who am I to argue with her own mother? Having said that, some of her mother's photos don't look very much like other photos of her mother - compare the one I posted with any of the others on the site referred to... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
....and the other little girl
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

with a bit of guidance from me or stella, this will help you find the apartments.

Thank you for posting the map up kiko. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


As I thought, the Club Cottages seem to have their own little set-up, where tennis courts are concerned.
(see top right, just below the areas marked 1 to 5 and to the left of 3 tennis courts)

There are two tennis courts right by the tapas area, where I assumed that all the tennis lessons had occurred, I didn't realise that there are three right smack in the middle of the Club Cottages. Which are some distance away.

Not for the hoi-polloi, eh Stella

Daoud wrote:@ Judge Mental
Who am I to argue with her own mother? Having said that, some of her mother's photos don't look very much like other photos of her mother - compare the one I posted with any of the others on the site referred to... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@ Daoud

Murat's ex-partner has stated that she thought her daughter to be similar to Madeleine. Therefore if she thinks this, one would not wish to argue against her. One's own view is that her daughter is of similar age with mousey hair and the somwhat undefined features of any child around that age, and one cannot pick out anything strikingly similar to Madeleine.

One is not terribly adept at the connotations of the smilies and is therefore unable to understand what you mean at the end of your post there. Are you saying that Murat's ex-partner looks like a different person in each photograph of her?

Sorry if this is a little off topic but what do we know of Isabel Gonzalez, the witness who claims to have seen Michaela Walczuch putting a young child into a car, 2 days after the disappearance? Did she make a statement?

Judge Mental wrote:

Daoud wrote:@ Judge Mental
Who am I to argue with her own mother? Having said that, some of her mother's photos don't look very much like other photos of her mother - compare the one I posted with any of the others on the site referred to... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@ Daoud

Murat's ex-partner has stated that she thought her daughter to be similar to Madeleine. Therefore if she thinks this, one would not wish to argue against her. One's own view is that her daughter is of similar age with mousey hair and the somwhat undefined features of any child around that age, and one cannot pick out anything strikingly similar to Madeleine.

One is not terribly adept at the connotations of the smilies and is therefore unable to understand what you mean at the end of your post there. Are you saying that Murat's ex-partner looks like a different person in each photograph of her?

Hi Judge Mental,
What I'm saying is that photographs can be deceptive. These are all photos of the same woman, RM's wife:

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

Not that I think it's of any significance beyond the fact that photos can be deceptive...

ETA And SMurat is a year older than Madeleine McCann, regardless of how similar they might be - that's quite a big difference in ages for such young children.

There is no statement from Isabel Gonzalez in the Maddie Case Files forum docs.

After reading up on articles about this 'sighting', I don't think there is any credibility in it whatsoever. Gonzalez didn't report the incident she claims to have seen to the PJ, opting instead for Metado 3 - says it all imo, and think we can safely discount her claims.

Here's hoping Stella is feeling well. She and I are having a little rest today (well, about 700 miles apart)!
But I've been thinking about the dodgy signature and the handwriting (two girls signed in by the same person), and I'll come back with my opinion tomorrow.

Thirty-eight pages of constructive and intelligent discussion, and pending any further enlightenment (from whatever quarter), I’ll tell you my opinion.
Most of the Tapas Seven – the friends of G and K who took the brunt of the initial questioning and the Rogatory interviews a year later – were involved as a smokescreen. Of course they knew that Madeleine had disappeared from the scene as early as 29 April 2007, but they only had to play dumb and bat the soft questions back at the PJ and the Leicestershire police. I believe that one of the Tapas friends played a more important role, considering himself to be a “fixer” in the matter of covering-up Maddie’s fate. Despite having the most obnoxious insinuations made against him, he is quietly putting up with it and lying low.
The Tapas Seven got their reward in the High Court payout, which as I recall amounted to about 50000 pounds each.
So much for them. More importantly, I think there were three or four other adult participants (not including the McCanns) who have escaped all the attention which the Tapas Seven attracted. I think these were the ones who facilitated the manipulation of the Crêche Records to such an extent that the nannies genuinely believed that Madeleine McCann had attended crêche until 1730 or 1800 on 3 May. And it seems that they convinced Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ in general of the same thing.
Whilst this deception is maintained, no solution can be found, neither can Maddie enjoy the respect and peaceful rest which she is due.

How was it done? I’m convinced that the handwriting of the person signing in “Madeleine” is the same as that signing in Elizabeth Naylor. There is so much in common, but the give-away is the tick leading into the upper-case “A”.

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

We can be sure that the person signing in the girl named Madeleine was Gerry McCann. I’m certain he would wish us to believe so, and for that reason it’s not in any way controversial. His initials match the signature we see in other released documents.
I’m also sure a girl called Madeleine must have been present. Otherwise one would have to say that (a) the nanny never bothered to conduct a head-count, and (b) some three-year-old called Mavis or Georgina or any other name you care to mention, was so scheming and worldly-wise that she agreed to be called “Madeleine” by nannies and classmates in the Lobster group for five days without dropping her guard. Just to satisfy the whim of her parents and their friends. And that, I do not believe.
Did Naylor go to the same school as Gerry, where on pain of having their knuckles rapped with a ruler they were taught to incline their writing towards the right, to lead into their “A”s with a tick, and to form their “L”s, “N”s and figures 7, 8 and 9 in an identical way? No. I don’t believe they did. So, did Naylor agree to let GM sign his daughter in? What do you think?
And if I’m correct (remember that I haven’t burdened you with my findings regarding the phone messages) and Madeleine McCann wasn’t any longer with us by 29 April, where did the substitute Madeleine come from? I know of a strong candidate, and I’d put a link to it if Firefox and Chrome hadn’t suddenly been unable to find the page. You’ll find it mentioned a few pages back…….it’s on gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk, with page reference 617.

Do you get the impression that all of this was sort-of………..pre-planned? That depends if my analysis is right. Be patient, and I’ll tell you how the custodians of law and order react to it.

kikoraton wrote:
Thirty-eight pages of constructive and intelligent discussion, and pending any further enlightenment (from whatever quarter), I’ll tell you my opinion.
Most of the Tapas Seven – the friends of G and K who took the brunt of the initial questioning and the Rogatory interviews a year later – were involved as a smokescreen. Of course they knew that Madeleine had disappeared from the scene as early as 29 April 2007, but they only had to play dumb and bat the soft questions back at the PJ and the Leicestershire police. I believe that one of the Tapas friends played a more important role, considering himself to be a “fixer” in the matter of covering-up Maddie’s fate. Despite having the most obnoxious insinuations made against him, he is quietly putting up with it and lying low.
The Tapas Seven got their reward in the High Court payout, which as I recall amounted to about 50000 pounds each.
So much for them. More importantly, I think there were three or four other adult participants (not including the McCanns) who have escaped all the attention which the Tapas Seven attracted. I think these were the ones who facilitated the manipulation of the Crêche Records to such an extent that the nannies genuinely believed that Madeleine McCann had attended crêche until 1730 or 1800 on 3 May. And it seems that they convinced Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ in general of the same thing.
Whilst this deception is maintained, no solution can be found, neither can Maddie enjoy the respect and peaceful rest which she is due.

How was it done? I’m convinced that the handwriting of the person signing in “Madeleine” is the same as that signing in Elizabeth Naylor. There is so much in common, but the give-away is the tick leading into the upper-case “A”.

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

We can be sure that the person signing in the girl named Madeleine was Gerry McCann. I’m certain he would wish us to believe so, and for that reason it’s not in any way controversial. His initials match the signature we see in other released documents.
I’m also sure a girl called Madeleine must have been present. Otherwise one would have to say that (a) the nanny never bothered to conduct a head-count, and (b) some three-year-old called Mavis or Georgina or any other name you care to mention, was so scheming and worldly-wise that she agreed to be called “Madeleine” by nannies and classmates in the Lobster group for five days without dropping her guard. Just to satisfy the whim of her parents and their friends. And that, I do not believe.
Did Naylor go to the same school as Gerry, where on pain of having their knuckles rapped with a ruler they were taught to incline their writing towards the right, to lead into their “A”s with a tick, and to form their “L”s, “N”s and figures 7, 8 and 9 in an identical way? No. I don’t believe they did. So, did Naylor agree to let GM sign his daughter in? What do you think?
And if I’m correct (remember that I haven’t burdened you with my findings regarding the phone messages) and Madeleine McCann wasn’t any longer with us by 29 April, where did the substitute Madeleine come from? I know of a strong candidate, and I’d put a link to it if Firefox and Chrome hadn’t suddenly been unable to find the page. You’ll find it mentioned a few pages back…….it’s on gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk, with page reference 617.

Do you get the impression that all of this was sort-of………..pre-planned? That depends if my analysis is right. Be patient, and I’ll tell you how the custodians of law and order react to it.

I think I follow what you are saying, if Madeleine was gone by the 29th April that would certainly give them time to dispose of the body, but it would ridicule the Smith testimony.

kikoraton wrote:
Thirty-eight pages of constructive and intelligent discussion, and pending any further enlightenment (from whatever quarter), I’ll tell you my opinion.
Most of the Tapas Seven – the friends of G and K who took the brunt of the initial questioning and the Rogatory interviews a year later – were involved as a smokescreen. Of course they knew that Madeleine had disappeared from the scene as early as 29 April 2007, but they only had to play dumb and bat the soft questions back at the PJ and the Leicestershire police. I believe that one of the Tapas friends played a more important role, considering himself to be a “fixer” in the matter of covering-up Maddie’s fate. Despite having the most obnoxious insinuations made against him, he is quietly putting up with it and lying low.
The Tapas Seven got their reward in the High Court payout, which as I recall amounted to about 50000 pounds each.
So much for them. More importantly, I think there were three or four other adult participants (not including the McCanns) who have escaped all the attention which the Tapas Seven attracted. I think these were the ones who facilitated the manipulation of the Crêche Records to such an extent that the nannies genuinely believed that Madeleine McCann had attended crêche until 1730 or 1800 on 3 May. And it seems that they convinced Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ in general of the same thing.
Whilst this deception is maintained, no solution can be found, neither can Maddie enjoy the respect and peaceful rest which she is due.

How was it done? I’m convinced that the handwriting of the person signing in “Madeleine” is the same as that signing in Elizabeth Naylor. There is so much in common, but the give-away is the tick leading into the upper-case “A”.

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

We can be sure that the person signing in the girl named Madeleine was Gerry McCann. I’m certain he would wish us to believe so, and for that reason it’s not in any way controversial. His initials match the signature we see in other released documents.
I’m also sure a girl called Madeleine must have been present. Otherwise one would have to say that (a) the nanny never bothered to conduct a head-count, and (b) some three-year-old called Mavis or Georgina or any other name you care to mention, was so scheming and worldly-wise that she agreed to be called “Madeleine” by nannies and classmates in the Lobster group for five days without dropping her guard. Just to satisfy the whim of her parents and their friends. And that, I do not believe.
Did Naylor go to the same school as Gerry, where on pain of having their knuckles rapped with a ruler they were taught to incline their writing towards the right, to lead into their “A”s with a tick, and to form their “L”s, “N”s and figures 7, 8 and 9 in an identical way? No. I don’t believe they did. So, did Naylor agree to let GM sign his daughter in? What do you think?
And if I’m correct (remember that I haven’t burdened you with my findings regarding the phone messages) and Madeleine McCann wasn’t any longer with us by 29 April, where did the substitute Madeleine come from? I know of a strong candidate, and I’d put a link to it if Firefox and Chrome hadn’t suddenly been unable to find the page. You’ll find it mentioned a few pages back…….it’s on gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk, with page reference 617.

Do you get the impression that all of this was sort-of………..pre-planned? That depends if my analysis is right. Be patient, and I’ll tell you how the custodians of law and order react to it.

Why would Naylors child have to be signed in as well as substitute Maddie? To give substitute Maddie a buddy to chat to and distract her from asking for her own Daddy?