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

by littlepixie 22.11.10 0:27

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.

by kikoraton 22.11.10 8:27

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.]

by ufercoffy 22.11.10 8:46

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

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

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

by Guest 22.11.10 10:20

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.

by ufercoffy 22.11.10 10:43

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

What's the next step?

by Shibboleth 22.11.10 12:59

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.

by listener 22.11.10 13:25

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?

by kikoraton 22.11.10 13:45

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. clapping

by Rainbow 22.11.10 19:27

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

by Shibboleth 22.11.10 19:43

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.

by Guest 22.11.10 20:03

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.

by **Jill Havern** 22.11.10 20:57

[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.

by kikoraton 22.11.10 21:36

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.

by Guest 22.11.10 22:01

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.

by Guest 22.11.10 22:17

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

by Judge Mental 22.11.10 23:40

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

''His kids are all boys, and older than the other children and I can't see their names on the creche registers.''

Perhaps you could PM any names and ages to a trusted member, if you think they may be helpful.

by Autumn 23.11.10 12:03

SevenoaksSally welcome aboard

His mind is most likely made up re the McCanns but some gentle probing may reveal some useful info. Perhaps you could ask if he saw Gerry and Kate with Madeleine prior to May 3rd?

by Guest 23.11.10 12:59

SevenoaksSally wrote:
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.

Hi Sevenoaks Sally

As soon as you described your brothers friend, instantly one name came to mind. If I am correct, in my eyes he should have been a person of interest for various reasons. If he has still not been spoken to, I can only think he is on the bigger picture protection list and I would think he will not divulge anything to you. But perhaps try to catch him off guard and say something like, 'did you have to cut short your holiday and leave any earlier'? and see what he says !!! If it's him and he says no, he is lying. If he says yes, I would very interested in his reasons as to why. thinking

Your brothers friend could not have witnessed the McCann's being traumatised, if it's the person I think it is, as he left before the alarm was raised. I will send you a PM now with his surname.

by kikoraton 23.11.10 14:14

Blimey, Stella, you've been thinking hard while you were laid low for a few days!!! I've no idea who you mean!!
By the way, on another forum I tried to persuade a third person (in Portugal) to facilitate a meeting with the PJ with the sole intention of finding out who owns G4N, and who were the occupants in April/May 2007. But I was told there was no way they (the PJ) would assist. They would claim it was under judicial secrecy. I'd fly to Portimao or Lisbon tomorrow, but I'm not convinced I'd get past the person on the door.

by Guest 23.11.10 14:28

Your only chance of speaking with someone, is to make direct contact with Goncalo. Perhaps Tony could help you with that?

by Guest 23.11.10 15:46

Stella wrote:
SevenoaksSally wrote:
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.

Hi Sevenoaks Sally

As soon as you described your brothers friend, instantly one name came to mind. If I am correct, in my eyes he should have been a person of interest for various reasons. If he has still not been spoken to, I can only think he is on the bigger picture protection list and I would think he will not divulge anything to you. But perhaps try to catch him off guard and say something like, 'did you have to cut short your holiday and leave any earlier'? and see what he says !!! If it's him and he says no, he is lying. If he says yes, I would very interested in his reasons as to why.

Your brothers friend could not have witnessed the McCann's being traumatised, if it's the person I think it is, as he left before the alarm was raised. I will send you a PM now with his surname.

I would like to correct my last comment. It's been a long time since I read that particular statement.

He did not leave before the alarm was raised, but it looks like he made arrangements to leave 1 day early, before the alarm was raised. thinking

by soulthief 23.11.10 16:17

I know i am sounding dumb but not long being accepted as a poster here I am lost, what's the relevence here?

by kikoraton 23.11.10 16:57

My admiration for Stella knows no bounds, but I am one who prefers to keep the net as small as possible. I'm looking no further than apartments BP01 and G4N. That is to say, in the search for people involved. I'll grant that some others might have something interesting to say about the behaviour of the Tapas Group, if their memories were jogged.
What we need - and the McCanns were only too aware of it, hence their call for holiday photos to be sent to their mate Gamble - are photos of the girl whom Gerry signed into the creche using his own initials. He, of course, was claiming it was his daughter Madeleine. I think it was a substitute Madeleine, or Madalene. (Of whom, by the way, we have already seen a photo on this thread, but I am not going to reproduce it here because it would be unethical and unfair to the innocent kids who appeared in the photo. Suffice to say, that the newsletter with the photo in it has now been whizzed from the internet, but at least one of our dedicated friends had saved it before it went).

by kikoraton 24.11.10 8:23

"Why would Naylors child have to be signed in as well as substitute Maddie?"
That situation would arise if the substitute were a friend of EN. Imagine the two families had arranged to be at the OC at the same time. It's quite possible that one of the girls might be more timid than the other. They weren't always signed in at the same time, but more often than not, they were.
The question is: why didn't RN sign his own child in? There's no indication he went anywhere near the kids' club. The signing in of EN was done in some cases by GM and in others (fewer) by Áinne Naylor. The signing out was done by the latter. Or by nobody.
I think the answer must lie in the fact that RN refused to go and be seen near the creche. Why? Because he was involved in something he was ashamed of, or deeply worried about? Or because the substitute's father accompanied her to the creche? He couldn't sign her in - that had to be done in Gerry's writing, But two dads for two girls is enough. If RN had been hanging around as well, the maths wouldn't have stacked up.

by Guest 24.11.10 9:35

kikoraton wrote:
The question is: why didn't RN sign his own child in?

What springs to mind is:
1. He knew exactly what was going on and didn't want anything to do with it.
2. Perhaps he never intended for his daugter to attend creche at all that week and may know nothing about it.

If that is the case then how did Gerry get a copy of his signature in the first place? How did Gerry know that he would not change his mind and book EN in? To me the answer is obvious. winkwink

Log in for more topics