Red herring?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.10 20:16

This taxi-driver's account simply doesn't seem to 'fit' with any of the scenarios we are talking about.

How long was the journey? - for 3.25 euros, it can't have been far, maybe the journey was silent because the child was tired.

The Correio da Manha article, quoted, says: "A source connected with the investigation guaranteed that the facts told by António Castela were 'investigated' and the 'lead was proven false'."

Maybe the PJ checked it out and discovered the people involved were unconnected with Madeleine's disappearance.

It doesn't sound like this was a substitute Madeleine being whisked off to Faro Airport.

by **kikoraton** 26.11.10 20:21

Absolutely agree.

by YNG 26.11.10 20:33

Tony Bennett wrote:This taxi-driver's account simply doesn't seem to 'fit' with any of the scenarios we are talking about.

How long was the journey? - for 3.25 euros, it can't have been far, maybe the journey was silent because the child was tired.

The Correio da Manha article, quoted, says: "A source connected with the investigation guaranteed that the facts told by António Castela were 'investigated' and the 'lead was proven false'."

Maybe the PJ checked it out and discovered the people involved were unconnected with Madeleine's disappearance.

It doesn't sound like this was a substitute Madeleine being whisked off to Faro Airport.

You could be right Tony, we simply don't know as the statement / report does not seem to be in the files.

" While the secrecy of justice law continues to constrain any official clarification about the Madeleine Case, unofficial PJ sources were quoted by the Portuguese-language press as confirming the existence of António Cardoso’s report in the case files."

It supposedly occured at 21.10 on May 3^rd , and the security camera's were , according to reports once again not working .

by **kikoraton** 26.11.10 20:41

Thank you for a very accurate summary of my view, Tony. I would only modify it as follows:
"had a 'Madeleine substitute' already lined up. That was another blonde girl called Madeleine," Or a variant of the spelling of her name.
"forged the signature of this Robert Naylor (or possibly another Robert Naylor)" I got into an awful spot of bother on another forum for using the word "faked". After that I started using the phrase "tried to imitate".
As for "or possibly another Robert Naylor" - yes, for several weeks I did believe that. Then, one night last weekend, I woke up in a sweat after dreaming that I was playing for Girona in front of several thousand Spanish and Catalan fans (at some industrial town near Valéncia), and yet as clear as anything I could hear voices singing in English "there's only one Robert Naylor", in the way that English fans do.
That sort of changed my mind, but I should be obliged in any of our readers in the investment banking business could produce a copy of the signature of Robert Naylor, of Matrix and formerly of the Icelandic bank Landsbanki. : winkwink

by Cheshire Cat 26.11.10 21:33

kikoraton wrote:Thank you for a very accurate summary of my view, Tony. I would only modify it as follows:
"had a 'Madeleine substitute' already lined up. That was another blonde girl called Madeleine," Or a variant of the spelling of her name.
"forged the signature of this Robert Naylor (or possibly another Robert Naylor)" I got into an awful spot of bother on another forum for using the word "faked". After that I started using the phrase "tried to imitate".
As for "or possibly another Robert Naylor" - yes, for several weeks I did believe that. Then, one night last weekend, I woke up in a sweat after dreaming that I was playing for Girona in front of several thousand Spanish and Catalan fans (at some industrial town near Valéncia), and yet as clear as anything I could hear voices singing in English "there's only one Robert Naylor", in the way that English fans do.
That sort of changed my mind, but I should be obliged in any of our readers in the investment banking business could produce a copy of the signature of Robert Naylor, of Matrix and formerly of the Icelandic bank Landsbanki. : [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What about this scenario.....

Gerry McCann arrives at the Creche with only one child, Elizabeth Naylor.

This gives him access to the signing-in book where he "signs in" (in great haste) Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth Naylor (forging the signature of Robert Naylor and making it appear there is a 5 minute gap).

What he has achieved here is to get Madeleine McCann's name in the book without actually passing off another child as Madeleine. He needs another child with him to get access to the book but Madeleine never actually made it to the creche and there was no substitute.

Of course I am disregarding head-count checks here but I have seen such a club in action in another Algarve resort where the child was signed in and parents location was provided (in case they needed to be contacted) but I don't think any head-count checks were made as it was a secure creche.

What I am saying is that McCann handed Elizabeth over to the creche but made two entries in the book.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.10 22:09

Kikoraton wrote:...one night last weekend, I woke up in a sweat after dreaming that I was playing for Girona in front of several thousand Spanish and Catalan fans (at some industrial town near Valéncia), and yet as clear as anything I could hear voices singing in English 'there's only one Robert Naylor', in the way that English fans do.

Cheshire Cat wrote:...What about this scenario.....

Gerry McCann arrives at the Creche with only one child, Elizabeth Naylor. This gives him access to the signing-in book where he 'signs in' (in great haste) Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth Naylor (forging the signature of Robert Naylor and making it appear there is a 5 minute gap). What he has achieved here is to get Madeleine McCann's name in the book without actually passing off another child as Madeleine. He needs another child with him to get access to the book but Madeleine never actually made it to the creche and there was no substitute...What I am saying is that McCann handed Elizabeth over to the creche but made two entries in the book.

What is interesting about 'Cheshire Cat's idea is that, if he is right, that would suggest the McCanns and Naylors knew each other beforehand (The possible Mccandless connection is another Naylor link, but may be irrelevant). Would a 3-year-old girl go alone with Dr Gerald McCann if he was a complete stranger to her?

That is also the case with 'Kiko's theory. His theory also rests on the Naylors and the McCanns being familiar with each other.

Removing a 2nd Naylor family certainly makes this hypothesis more straightforward.

It occurs to me that signing in 'Madeleine' on the register - without there being a 'Madeleine' there - would surely have aroused the suspicion of the creche workers?

Is Robert Naylor tall and thin?

by Guest 26.11.10 22:26

Cheshire C - I think this would be a very plausible theory were it not for the fact that a number of the nannies stated that there was a child in the creche who answered to/introduced herself as " Maddie". ( Candyfloss kindly reminded us of these statements when I proposed that the child in question had insisted on calling herself Madeleine, hence Gerry`s insistence that " her name is Madeleine, not Maddy" was designed to explain that point).

It would also suggest that the nannies who had made these statements were - let us say - being " economical with the truth" and whilst there may be reservations about Cat Baker after her November 2007 visit to Rothley and her rogatory interview, it is harder to imagine that they were all prepared to state that a " Maddie" was there if she were not.

I believe that whoever posted anonymously on Joanna Morais`s blog- as early as November 2008 - was trying to point in a certain direction, even if the child they specifically identified ( the M.E.N referred to previously on this thread) was not the one actively involved.

ETA - I think Tony B is also making this point.

by littlepixie 26.11.10 22:31

Cheshire Cat, that is the way I am thinking also. It all depends on how slapdash the record keeping was at the creche. I am not a great believer in staff doing everything by the book. I worked for too long where the dual control system and the checksheet/list system was routinely forged by most of the staff to save time. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash required two signatures but there was more than one occassion when someone would say "initial/sign it for me". So a double check was never made.
Did the Nanny take the sheets every single morning and afternoon and double check the parents signatures to the number of children? Or were they left on a desk until the end of the day. The real Maddie may have only attended that creche for one day.
I can well believe one girl could have attended creche signed in with two different names. What other reason could there be for a fathers signature to be copied?

by littlepixie 26.11.10 22:36

I have read that a girl with the same name Maddie has been disregarded but we have someone staying in an apartment we are not sure of. Can we be sure their child was not called Maddie.
I have every confidence in Kiko and I agree that the handwriting for the signing in for Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth Naylor are written by the same hand - but why?

by Guest 26.11.10 22:50

@Little Pixie - I`ve been trying to research this with KikoR and it was he who said that M.E.N should be disregarded because we can`t find an obvious link between this family from the North of England and the London Naylors ( although we do know that another apartment was booked in the name of Naylor via the owner)

I still don`t think we can get away from the fact that there was a child in the creche who answered to the name of Maddie. And why Gerald M was in a position to sign in Elizabeth Naylor is still a mystery.

A slap dash approach to signing children in and a lack of headcount cannot of course be discounted but the " child who answered to the name of Maddie" is still something we have to consider.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.10 23:09

In order to fully understand this thread I made an 18-page summary of it earlier this week (too long to post here but I'll e-mail it to anyone who wants a copy - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

I sent it round to a few people who are interested in research on the case and one person has come back with this today:

QUOTE

I would make the obvious point, which is that the 'planted' Madeleine who was carefully made known to the Nannies could never have been seen by them again after May 3, nor by any of the other children at the creche, not seen at restaurants or anywhere. So was she concealed out of sight of even cleaners in the apartment B1 by the occupants, if so when did they leave and how did they do so without the planted Madeleine being recognised?

UNQUOTE

by Guest 27.11.10 8:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:For me the strongest clue yet that Madeleine had been replaced at some point, was with a comment made by the tapas receptionist.

"She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30. When questioned, she confirms that the man was not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was often seen in his company."

The girl that was used by Gerry to enter the creche, must have been the exact same child who was taken to book the tapas, which is why the receptionist said that this child was not with "the father". There has to be a very good reason why everyone lied and said Rachel made that booking. Not just to protect this man, but to protect the identity of that child.
Yes, that's right, I think Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly said she made the booking.

There has been much speculation over the identity of 'the tall, thin, male' who was not the father of the girl but 'was often often seen in his company'.

Some have said this was Dr Matthew Oldfield - certainly quite tall.
Anyone who thinks this person was Matt Oldfield is clearly ignoring all of the statements put forward by the tapas group. Everyone including Matt HIMSELF said it was Rachel. Yes they could all be lying of course, but why would an innocent action need to be covered up?

Others have suggested it was 'Tapas 10'.
I have no doubt that he was someone outside of the normal group.

So far as I am aware this is the first time it's been suggested that this was Dr Gerald McCann with a substitute Madeleine McCann.
That's not what I was suggesting at all. I was trying to state as you suggested below, that this pushy, tall, thin man was the father of the child USED by Gerry in the creche, which is why the receptionist said it was Maddie and that she was not with her father Gerry McCann.

There is yet another possibility. That the tall, thin man was the substitute Madeleine's father - pretending that he was not the father.

by **kikoraton** 27.11.10 9:12

I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

by Cheshire Cat 27.11.10 9:22

kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

Or private means of transportation by air.

Wouldn't public transport by any means by too risky - the substitute could be captured by CCTV and observed by many people at the airport!

The next day when the story was released to the media surly there would have been dozens of sightings of the substitute Maddie?

by Guest 27.11.10 9:27

Tony Bennett wrote:In order to fully understand this thread I made an 18-page summary of it earlier this week (too long to post here but I'll e-mail it to anyone who wants a copy - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

I sent it round to a few people who are interested in research on the case and one person has come back with this today:

QUOTE

I would make the obvious point, which is that the 'planted' Madeleine who was carefully made known to the Nannies could never have been seen by them again after May 3, nor by any of the other children at the creche, not seen at restaurants or anywhere. So was she concealed out of sight of even cleaners in the apartment B1 by the occupants, if so when did they leave and how did they do so without the planted Madeleine being recognised?

UNQUOTE

The creche records state that she was signed out at 5.30, the alarm was raised at 10pm. That's 4.5 hours for the child to leave by a private car, go straight to the airport and onto a flight. It was probably another 2 hours on top of that before the first pictures were released on air. If she left with her own passport to which she matched exactly, why would her journey raise any alarms bells? Why do you think that the first picture released was of a very young Madeleine ?

by Guest 27.11.10 9:39

kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

This has to be a serious consideration along with private jets.

And yachts of course out of Lagos marina, with time PERHAPS for a quick bite to eat first at somewhere discreet like the Doctors cafe. winkwink

that was very naughty of me, but it was another topic that was very quickly got shot down in flames for some reason.

by soulthief 27.11.10 10:15

Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

This has to be a serious consideration along with private jets.

And yachts of course out of Lagos marina, with time PERHAPS for a quick bite to eat first at somewhere discreet like the Doctors cafe.

that was very naughty of me, but it was another topic that was very quickly got shot down in flames for some reason.

No particular reason for asking you Stella this is for anyone, so if a child pretended to be Madeleine was at the creche and then spirited away where was the real Madeleine and where is she now?Alive somewhere adopetd or something...nice thought, Im not getting this thread at all./

by ufercoffy 27.11.10 10:32

soulthief wrote:
Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

This has to be a serious consideration along with private jets.

And yachts of course out of Lagos marina, with time PERHAPS for a quick bite to eat first at somewhere discreet like the Doctors cafe.

that was very naughty of me, but it was another topic that was very quickly got shot down in flames for some reason.
No particular reason for asking you Stella this is for anyone, so if a child pretended to be Madeleine was at the creche and then spirited away where was the real Madeleine and where is she now?Alive somewhere adopetd or something...nice thought, Im not getting this thread at all./

I think they're trying to say that Maddie died early on that week but a substitute child was used to pretend Maddie was still alive until they could work out how to deal with her disappearance - i.e the faked abduction.

by Rainbow 27.11.10 10:38

soulthief wrote:
Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

This has to be a serious consideration along with private jets.

And yachts of course out of Lagos marina, with time PERHAPS for a quick bite to eat first at somewhere discreet like the Doctors cafe. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] that was very naughty of me, but it was another topic that was very quickly got shot down in flames for some reason.
No particular reason for asking you Stella this is for anyone, so if a child pretended to be Madeleine was at the creche and then spirited away where was the real Madeleine and where is she now?Alive somewhere adopetd or something...nice thought, Im not getting this thread at all./

Me neither.So was the pretend Maddie already there on hols or did they ring for her to be brought over at a later date?

by Judge Mental 27.11.10 11:12

Rainbow wrote:
soulthief wrote:
Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I'd love to see the passenger lists for flights out of Faro for the evening of 3 May. I suspect the substitute Maddie and her parents were on such a flight, altho' travel by car or boat cannot be ruled out. As I've said "owner bookings" contain no details of means of travel. And very strangely, the Naylors entry says "no flights or transfers required". Put the two together, and you have the recipe for an undetected departure.

This has to be a serious consideration along with private jets.

And yachts of course out of Lagos marina, with time PERHAPS for a quick bite to eat first at somewhere discreet like the Doctors cafe. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] that was very naughty of me, but it was another topic that was very quickly got shot down in flames for some reason.
No particular reason for asking you Stella this is for anyone, so if a child pretended to be Madeleine was at the creche and then spirited away where was the real Madeleine and where is she now?Alive somewhere adopetd or something...nice thought, Im not getting this thread at all./

Me neither.So was the pretend Maddie already there on hols or did they ring for her to be brought over at a later date?

Good old Rainbow.

It may be that the child was not pretending to be anybody else at all, and that she was just being herself. After all, the child has the same name as the child we are still trying to find.

by **kikoraton** 27.11.10 11:18

With pre-planning, it's only too easy to arrange for the substitute to be available.
This thread is actually very simple: it proposes a theory as to how we can explain the nanny's honest conviction that Madeleine was in the creche until 5.30 on 3 May. A Madeleine was, but it was not Madeleine McCann. It was a substitute MM. All pre-planned. As Stella has pointed out so succinctly, there were 4.5 hours for the substitute with her parents to get the heck out of PdL.
I do not have any idea how MM died, tho' I presume she did, from the evidence of the cadaver dogs. I think she must have died 28/29 April and never appeared at the creche.

I note how, on another forum, a poster who was aggressively stalking me, insisting that Madeleine died by an unfortunate accident after 5.30 on 3 May and the unhinged parent took her body past a group of tourists (Smith) at 9.30 that night, now admits that I have finally "stumbled upon" the solution, but castigates me for getting there via the "wrong" route!!

by Guest 27.11.10 11:19

Well soultheif, someone died in apartment 5a and the only person missing is Madeleine.

I'm not in the camp though that this was a planned event long before they went on holiday. Could anyone be that evil? If that had been the case, there would be no scent of cadaver found in 5a, or forensics in the car. Common sense and logic tells me that would have all been taken care of much better.

It's just a guess, but with the creche sheet missing for the twins on the 29th and on that same day a Maddie was signed into creche much later that day at 9.45 compared to all the other days, I feel that a terrible accident happend either on the day they arrived, the 28th, or sometime before breakfast on the 29th.

by ufercoffy 27.11.10 11:31

Stella wrote:I'm not in the camp though that this was a planned event long before they went on holiday. Could anyone be that evil?

I guess an evil person might think about getting rid of a very difficult child if there was something to be gained, like an online shop selling good quality wristbands and tshirts.... then a book deal and maybe a movie. Such a thing would be a very good marketing ploy, especially when the website for the online shop has the date 2006 when the child went missing in 2007. Forward planning and all that.

nah

nobody could be that evil, especially doctors.

Doctors aren't capable of that kind of thing.

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

by Guest 27.11.10 11:36

kikoraton wrote:

I note how, on another forum, a poster who was aggressively stalking me, insisting that Madeleine died by an unfortunate accident after 5.30 on 3 May and the unhinged parent took her body past a group of tourists (Smith) at 9.30 that night, now admits that I have finally "stumbled upon" the solution, but castigates me for getting there via the "wrong" route!!

via the "wrong" route ?? laugh

That's hillarious, I'm so pleased I'm out of there.

by ufercoffy 27.11.10 11:38

kikoraton wrote:I do not have any idea how MM died, tho' I presume she did, from the evidence of the cadaver dogs. I think she must have died 28/29 April and never appeared at the creche.

According to Philomena McCann:

The book will be published on April 28, 2011 – to coincide with the fourth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance from the Praia da Luz resort.

thinking

by theolivebranch 27.11.10 11:47

I discovered this amazing thread only last night after an email from Tony Bennett. I am not computer savy at all hence my problem moving around the forum, a bit like an old dear with a zimmer frame in a room full of furniture [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . I am onto page 25 so will you please go steady, hubby wants to eat today [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Anyway great stuff I am reading and it is really making me think outside of the box. Thankyou [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] for all the sleuthing.

by Guest 27.11.10 11:48

ufercoffy wrote:
Stella wrote:I'm not in the camp though that this was a planned event long before they went on holiday. Could anyone be that evil?

I guess an evil person might think about getting rid of a very difficult child if there was something to be gained, like an online shop selling good quality wristbands and tshirts.... then a book deal and maybe a movie. Such a thing would be a very good marketing ploy, especially when the website for the online shop has the date 2006 when the child went missing in 2007. Forward planning and all that.

nobody could be that evil, especially doctors.

Doctors aren't capable of that kind of thing.

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

I'm not saying that Doctor's are incapable of that sort of thing. Only that there were other alternatives to getting rid of a difficult child and if the motive was all about money, they would not have found blood in the apartment or car or have to make all those early calls. That's all.

by Cheshire Cat 27.11.10 12:53

Stella wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
Stella wrote:I'm not in the camp though that this was a planned event long before they went on holiday. Could anyone be that evil?

I guess an evil person might think about getting rid of a very difficult child if there was something to be gained, like an online shop selling good quality wristbands and tshirts.... then a book deal and maybe a movie. Such a thing would be a very good marketing ploy, especially when the website for the online shop has the date 2006 when the child went missing in 2007. Forward planning and all that.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] nobody could be that evil, especially doctors.

Doctors aren't capable of that kind of thing.

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

I'm not saying that Doctor's are incapable of that sort of thing. Only that there were other alternatives to getting rid of a difficult child and if the motive was all about money, they would not have found blood in the apartment or car or have to make all those early calls. That's all.

I agree with Stella. I also believe that this was a business meeting rather than a holiday whereas if you were pre-planning a murder you would probably avoid a resort full of friends and colleagues and opt for somewhere a bit quieter and remote.

I do not think it was an 'accident' by the way.

The website may have been up and running because the Macraes have been into mail order marketing for quite a while as well as law and order in Ullapool.

by Rainbow 27.11.10 14:08

Why would the parents of the substitute even go along with such a hair-brained scheme,the propensity for things to go wrong is immense and they too would be in the mire.

by Cheshire Cat 27.11.10 14:29

Rainbow wrote:Why would the parents of the substitute even go along with such a hair-brained scheme,the propensity for things to go wrong is immense and they too would be in the mire.

I have been thinking this as well. But I do believe there is something fishy about the creche records as shown by the detailed analysis of the signatures.