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

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.

by **kikoraton** 22.10.10 23:07

Yes, jkh, it's working for me, but you can find it on the previous page.

by Guest 23.10.10 9:14

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

Morning of the 3rd and have adjusted the contrast and brightness to see if it stands out better !!

this is my maiden voyage with inserting images here, so it may all go pear-shaped. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 23.10.10 9:19

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

This is for the 29th, with the image adjusted again to see which format works best

by Guest 23.10.10 9:37

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

this the 3rd, brightness and contrast adjusted

by **kikoraton** 23.10.10 9:43

You've got it, Stella. We learn as we go along! More images from me later.

by Guest 23.10.10 9:55

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

my last try to get it bigger, then I'm giving up [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It didn't work, time for a [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Jill Havern** 23.10.10 10:46

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

by Guest 23.10.10 10:49

Thank you very much jkh [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 23.10.10 10:55

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

this the 3rd, brightness and contrast adjusted

sorry for bumping this, but I would like to compare this with the enlarged one.

They are very different signatures.

by **Jill Havern** 23.10.10 10:58

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

by Guest 23.10.10 12:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] brilliant one jkh [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] thank you once again.

That first downward stroke of the R, surely cannot go from being a one stroke event, to a two stroke event, done by the same person? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **kikoraton** 23.10.10 13:06

Yes, I think it can, Stella. Heavy downstroke followed by light upstroke. Though whether it is a faithful imitation of Mr Naylor's own signature, who knows??? winkwink

Just for a change, here are four items from the PJ copy of the creche files - Ainne Naylor, this time.

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

Shibboleth - any interpretation, please?

by Cheshire Cat 23.10.10 14:39

I am finding this a very interesting thread to observe - I am trying to understand who GM was actually signing into the Creche - two children belonging to whom?

by Guest 23.10.10 15:47

That's a good question Cheshire Cat, but neither belonging to him I suspect.

by Guest 23.10.10 15:55

kikoraton wrote:Yes, I think it can, Stella. Heavy downstroke followed by light upstroke. Though whether it is a faithful imitation of Mr Naylor's own signature, who knows??? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Just for a change, here are four items from the PJ copy of the creche files - Ainne Naylor, this time.

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

Shibboleth - any interpretation, please?

Well on the last entry, she forgot to put an R at the end of her surname [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To me it also looks a bit chlid like and the 3rd one down, the N looks a bit GM'ish [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Latest topics