How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

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?

Maddie McCann had to be signed in to prove she was still "about" to be signed in. The Naylor child could have been called - Maddie? E.

Time for a cool-headed, step by step approach. Are these two entries in the same handwriting?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

I would say so...especially the N and A

Actually, even the E looks similar...and the L

With both signatures posted up at that size, it is absolutely clear in my eyes, that they have both been written by the same person.

The PJ should now have enough "new" evidence to have a nice little chat [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] with Gerry.

kikoraton wrote:Time for a cool-headed, step by step approach.

What's the next step?

kikoraton wrote:Time for a cool-headed, step by step approach. Are these two entries in the same handwriting?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Looks that way to me....in particular the E, the L, the N, and the way that the writing starts out bold and definite then trails off towards the end. The angles are the same. The pressures are the same (heavier on the bottom, light at the top). The amount of space used in relation to the space available is identical. The relationship of the name to the line is identical. The space between the letters and the fact that they are not joined up is identical. The size of the I in relation to the letters surrounding it is identical.

And that's just an amateur opinion, I hasten to add. No doubt the PJ have the services of professional graphologists who can probably come up with 101 other things.

There does seem to be obvious similarities - how would one know if the PJ have also noticed this? Could this be a part of the "things that have not yet come out" (or similar wording) that Dr. Amaral was quoted as saying?

OK, you share my opinion. The writing is the same for the Naylor child as for "Madeleine." I write her name in quote marks, because I believe that Madeleine McCann had passed away, and a substitute had been found.
I'm sure it is Gerry signing in "Madeleine", and on the assumption we have made about the handwriting, it is also Gerry signing in Elizabeth Naylor.
Into the mix, we have to add the fact that GM was adding a silly signature which attempted to show that a person, not himself, was the one signing in Elizabeth. Here it is, and you'll see that it is totally inconsistent.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
All that you can safely say, is that it begins with an "R". So, it was important to GM (stupid boy, to forget that the handwriting would give him away) to pretend that it was Robert Naylor who was signing in his daughter Elizabeth. What the heck does Robert think about this? Don't worry, I have asked him, and he expressed polite interest, but he's not obliged to answer to me.

That leaves us with "Madeleine". I'll cut to the chase and tell you my opinion: she was staying incognito in G4N, booked by its owner in the name of Naylor. Her parents could be friends or family of Robert and Áinne Naylor.
None of this imputes any wrongdoing to the Naylors. They could have been duped. Time will tell. Time is running out for the McCanns, who may have to have their ghost-writer visit them at Her Majesty's pleasure.

They certainly look alike but handwriting analysis also looks for the differences as well as similarities.

Rainbow wrote:They certainly look alike but handwriting analysis also looks for the differences as well as similarities.

The spaces between the first and second names are different.

Stella wrote:OK, I have just started the ground research into the booking of the creche.

List 1, are those individuals who specified on there initial reservation that they required creche facilities.
List 2, are those individuals who had children, but did not specify in advance they would be needing creche facilites.

The names that appear in red, are those individuals who did not reserve the creche, but still managed to get booked into the Lobster group, presumably after they had arrived at the resort.


LIST 1

Berry 1 x mini ending on the 4th ?
Handy 1 x toddler 2
Heselton 1 x toddler 2
Patel 1 x mini
Totman 1 x toddler 2 plus 1 x mini
Reap 1 x mini
Taylor 1 x mini
O’Donnell 1 x mini plus 1 x baby club
Burlton 1 x toddler
Janczur 1 x toddler 2 plus 1 x baby club
Edmonds 3 x juniors
Foster 1 x mini

Hi all

New poster here, but have been around since day1 at 3 A's etc. Just realised that my brother's friend is on this list. Always knew that 'they were there' and that the single dad was 'very surprised' he was never interviewed by the police. My brother was VERY upset by my scepticism about the events, saying that his friend had witnessed the McCanns being 'traumatised' by the events of the evening. My bro maintained this was because of the 'abduction', I just felt it was coz of the enormity of the event.

Anyway, if I was to be able to contact this 'witness' (he might even come to a family xmas party), what should I tactfully ask him (so that his defences don't go up)? I think I'll ask about holiday photos (any of Maddie)...but should I tell him what I want them for? His kids are all boys, and older than the other children and I can't see their names on the creche registers.

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

I'm sure kiko will be very interested in your post.

Hello sevenoakssally, and welcome
It's possible his mind is already made up, and he won't hear of any blame attaching to the McCs. I'd ask him which apartment he was in, and if he saw either of the McCs around that area. I'm thinking of the period pre-may 3rd, I should add.

Sorry...I can't believe how rude I've been. I should have said THANK YOU to all of you. I have enormous respect for the hard work and effort everybody has put into trying to find out what happened to Madeleine. I am extremelely grateful on behalf of all parents who cherish their children [and who cannot except the pack of lies spouted by the selfish parents (and their friends)]...and by ALL truth seekers out there. Please continue your efforts..and I'll do what I can, time allowing.

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