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

by kikoraton 20.10.10 20:21

In my heavy-handed way, I have wiped the full creche-record for 2 May from my images. If anyone has a link (I'm sure Stella has) please post it!!
But I have the necessary signature from the morning session. Here it is. The little loops at top and bottom of the down-stroke, are in fact belonging to O'B's signature above, and the "C" of Gerry's, below.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Shibboleth 20.10.10 21:01

Kate's signature is particularly interesting. It is very "flowery", it belongs to an exhibitionist. It's very upright with only a slight lean to the right. This is someone who doesn't plan ahead much. They live for the here and now. But they are very concerned with appearance, they like to be looked at.

At first I thought it might match signature 2, as the angles and overall pressures are similar. But the quality of the gif makes it hard to tell for sure.

by kikoraton 21.10.10 5:30

I think that must be GM, shibboleth, because the line underneath is in the same handwriting (all agreed??), and is signed GMC. I've still got the daddy of all daft signatures to follow, and then it will be time to work out "why?"

by Guest 21.10.10 9:55

What I am going to work on next is to check everyone's statements to see who, if anyone, talks about booking into the creche. If so, when did the booking arrangements take place and by WHO ??

As highlighted above the tapas group did not book in advance, so could they have all just turned up on the day and guarantee there would be a place for everyone?, or did they make arrangements some time on the Saturday? did each family book for their own?, or did someone ?? book for everyone?

I might be gone some time laughat

by Shibboleth 21.10.10 10:31

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

Gerry's signature is very controlled. It slopes to the right. He plans ahead. Look at the capital letters compared to the small ones - they are very tall indeed. This is someone who thinks he's important, people look up to him, look at me. He is a leader and mover and shaker. The letters are all thought out and carefully formed in that signature, with even pressure throughout. The rounded forms (e, a, d) are completely closed off. That's why the printing in the creche register is so interesting. It's sloppy, it's been done in a hurry, there is less control there, less thought. He wants to "get it over with".

He also gets bored with things. He drops things to go off and start new things. We know that from the way the nn tails off at the end. He is not a completer-finisher. He misses small details, and that is his undoing. If we didn't know what the nn actally was in the context of the rest of the signature, we'd have no way of telling what that squiggle was supposed to be - it's almost nothing more than a horizontal line by the time it gets to the end, in contrast with the careful, precise forms at the beginning.

A bit like this case, actually - total control at the start, ending in flatline. It really is very interesting, whether you "believe" or not. Now I have shown you what to look out for, you should all be able to discover interesting things for yourselves too.

by Guest 21.10.10 12:34

What is very obvious when reading everyone’s statements concerning the day time crèche arrangements, is that no one mentions booking it before they left, or after they arrived. At the Rogatory interviews, no one asks them a direct question on the subject either. Tanner was the only one who was specifically asked what things she booked at the welcome meeting and still does not mention the crèche arrangements.

They were all introduced to the crèche nannies at the welcome meeting, yet no one mentions talking to them or booking any child in. All very strange indeed. thinking

by kikoraton 21.10.10 15:56

And here's the daddy of them all - the supposed R.....N signature with a nervy great flourish, on 3 May morning. You can see how it lurches right up into NB (Berry's) line above, and down thru GMC into JT's line.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now the question is, how many of these different signatures can we count (over the last three pages of this thread), all of them supposedly attributable to Robert Naylor?

by Guest 21.10.10 16:14

Is there any possibility that those creche sheets are not the originals? How soon after the alarm was raised were they siezed by the PJ? Was there enough time for someone to reproduce them excluding certain names and the new ones are the ones that were handed to the PJ?

Based on the tapas receptionist's statement, the tapas book was not given to the PJ until several days later. Could that have also been the case where the creche records are concerned?

I guess what I am trying to ask is, how do we know for sure that any of those signatures pertain to those individuals?

by Guest 21.10.10 16:35

Just when we thought we had seen every version possible Kiko, take a look at these ones. laughat

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

by Judge Mental 21.10.10 18:33

by kikoraton 21.10.10 19:03

Stella said:
"I guess what I am trying to ask is, how do we know for sure that any of those signatures pertain to those individuals?"
I think that's taking conspiracy theory a step too far, Stella!!!! One of KM's sigs could be said to be inconsistent. Apart from that, we need to concentrate on the peculiarities of the signature placed against R Naylor's name. I've seen nothing else that need concern us.

by Guest 22.10.10 8:40

Just thinking out loud there, but I know what you mean.

Are we working on the premise that everyone of the RN signatures have not been done by RN ?

by kikoraton 22.10.10 9:01

A signature is a unique and unchanging "mark" which indicates agreement, or that an act has been carried out. The whole point of it is that it doesn't alter, and if it's a matter of initialising a document - whether that might be a creche record or the margin of 20 pages of a mortgage agreement - there's nothing easier than replicating one's "mark" as many times as necessary.
The mark placed against the Naylor child's name when purportedly made by her father, takes five different forms. (Or four if one is generous and makes allowance for a rather prominent downstroke which doesn't appear in the other). The combination of "father's" name against the child occurred only five times. The fact that the person purporting to be her father had a 100% failure rate at reproducing a simple signature (or 80% if you apply the allowance above) shows that the mark was made by a person imitating another person's signature..

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

by Guest 22.10.10 9:08

What we also know is that Naylor did not book childcare in advance and if he booked it after he arrived, it did NOT get charged to his room.

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

by littlepixie 22.10.10 9:10

I am trying to get my head around this. So do we think someone (GM) was taking one child to the creche every day (EN) but signing in two children MM & EN or am I on the complete wrong track.

by Guest 22.10.10 9:25

This is what we are trying to work out littlepixie, why someone would need to enter two children's names. thinking

by Daoud 22.10.10 9:37

kikoraton wrote:A signature is a unique and unchanging "mark" which indicates agreement, or that an act has been carried out. The whole point of it is that it doesn't alter, and if it's a matter of initialising a document - whether that might be a creche record or the margin of 20 pages of a mortgage agreement - there's nothing easier than replicating one's "mark" as many times as necessary.
The mark placed against the Naylor child's name when purportedly made by her father, takes five different forms. (Or four if one is generous and makes allowance for a rather prominent downstroke which doesn't appear in the other). The combination of "father's" name against the child occurred only five times. The fact that the person purporting to be her father had a 100% failure rate at reproducing a simple signature (or 80% if you apply the allowance above) shows that the mark was made by a person imitating another person's signature..

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

Hi Kikoraton,
Good to see you here! I've never been able to follow your 'signatures argument' until I saw this post - how much easier it is to see the differences when presented like this.

by kikoraton 22.10.10 9:40

I tried to edit, but was just too late. On previous pages, we have seen copies of the signatures which I have downloaded onto my computer, and then uploaded via photobucket on to the forum. Of course, we never saw the original creche records, so on this and other forums we have been working from copies.
But what I have done on the full-page of dates and signatures just above, is to make a freehand drawing of the five "RN" signatures as accurately as I can, for illustrative purposes. They should be compared with the copies on previous pages of this thread. I do not claim total accuracy, but the purpose is to represent the way in which the signatures were performed and appear in the creche records, brought together in one place. In other words, it's an illustrative representation.

by Guest 22.10.10 9:59

I did one of my infamous tests last week with my own signature. laughat

On day one I signed the top of a blank piece of paper, then folded just that top bit over, so that it could no longer be seen. Then the next day, I signed it once again, this time using a different pen and folded it over once more. I repeated this exercise for 5 consecutive days, using a different type of pen each time. At the end of 5 days, I opened up the piece of paper to reveal for the first time all 5 of my signatures and even though a different pen was used each time, they were all identical. Amazing sarcastic

by kikoraton 22.10.10 13:58

That's good, Stella. And I bet they didn't look even one-hundredth as varied as that collection above! I think our suspect found it very difficult imitating this particular person's signature. But why did he even try? If, say for example's sake, Gerry signed in his own daughter as "Madeleine McCann", and had also been tasked with taking another child to creche, he would surely have signed both kids in with his own initials. Wouldn't he? That would give a true representation of the person responsible for delivering the child to the care of the creche.
But he didn't. And that's what will bring the whole lot of them to justice.
Hi Daoud. You've been doing some good stuff!

by Guest 22.10.10 14:15

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

One word D E C E P T I O N

by kikoraton 22.10.10 14:15

"I am trying to get my head around this. So do we think someone (GM) was taking one child to the creche every day (EN) but signing in two children MM & EN or am I on the complete wrong track."
Hi littlepixie. It's his signature against "Madeleine McCann". Somebody, normally signing Elizabeth Naylor in at exactly the same time or within 5 minutes, i.e.often on an adjacent line, was imitating the signature of a certain Robert Naylor.
Now we have to work out what might have been going on. Personally, I think there were two girls being signed in. Headcount. Names. That sort of thing.

by Guest 22.10.10 14:18

I agree, 2 girls.

One on the MW guest list, one not.

by kikoraton 22.10.10 18:56

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The flourishes at the end of two of the signatures (29th p.m. and 3rd a.m) are just ridiculous. Maybe the result of an unwanted interruption - a sort of nervous reaction.
For me, the key elements are the shape of the "R", and the "b", and the strange "bridge" crossed by a near-vertical line at the end of three of them.

by **Jill Havern** 22.10.10 19:19

Can you check the link kiko cos it doesn't seem to work for me.

Latest topics