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

by Cheshire Cat 02.12.10 11:00

Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:
Sorry to have made you cry, Stella, but I don't quite understand why. Could you explain, please, in case there has been a misunderstanding?

The realisation that this could have been planned in the UK, made my heart sink to an all time low. It's nothing you have done kiko, don't worry [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] it's just a very harsh wake up call to the real word sadly.

Up until now I had always thought we were dealing with an accident in 5a and a cover-up. There is a very sensitive side to me where cruelty to children and animals are concerned. I have always said that if I ever won a huge amount of money one day, I would build some happy-homes for all unwanted children and animals, so that they could all live together under one roof.

So the thought of anyone planning weeks or months in advance, to end a childs life, will take a little time for me to come to terms with. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am still in the 'not planned' camp as I don't see evidence of pre-meditation or substitute Maddie. I see some fiddling going on with the creche records but I don't understand how such a complicated and detailed theory can be woven from these few strands. Which piece of the jigsaw am I missing?

by Daoud 02.12.10 11:02

Hi Soulthief and Get'em Goncalo -

Soulthief - I don't have the answers to your questions, but I imagine that arranging for an adoption that is not strictly legal is, given time, money and the right contacts quite possible - though I would have thought the internet too haphazard and risky a place to look for possible parents.

Get'em Goncalo - yes the dogs behaviour/findings do have to be explained, but I think it's possible to do so without stretching the explanation beyond the credible, others however may not be so charitable!

If I remember correctly Madeleine's 'coloboma' (neither of her parents, their professions notwithstanding, called it that) was made a big thing of at an early stage, despite the PJ warning the McCs of the risk to Madeleine herself, and became part of the LooK for Madeleine logo - this was very strange behaviour from concerned parents. More recently the 'coloboma' has been described by one of those parents as nothing more than a 'fleck' which would be practically unnoticeable.

So what was the point of the strong early emphasis on the coloboma? I think it quite possible that it was a sleight of hand or misdirection - there was no way in those early days that a little girl without a coloboma would have been identified as Madeleine Beth McCann, making life for her and her new parents much simpler.

Other things the McCs have said indicate (to me at least) that they believe her alive (and not in danger) which is again hard to square with the abducted by paedophiles scenario which they simultaneously promote; for instance early on KMcC said something about Madeleine giving whoever she was with 'her tuppence worth' - both the remark and the way in which it was said were extraordinary coming from a parent given her professed certainty about Madeleine's fate.

I'm not claiming that the above is the explanation for what happened to Madeleine, just that I think it's a plausible alternative to the 'abducted or dead' dichotomy, which seems to have attracted little attention...

by Guest 02.12.10 12:01

Tony Bennett wrote:I sent round my long summary of the Naylor thread to a few contacts.

One of the most respected on the Madeleine forums over the past few years came back with these comments (unedited):

+++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Many thanks for leting me see the Naylor Summary document.

UNQUOTE

Would I be right in thinking that this person did not physically see the enlarged creche record signatures for themselves ?

Do they offer any explanation as to why GM is singing in 2 children ?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.12.10 12:05

Stella wrote:Would I be right in thinking that this person did not physically see the enlarged creche record signatures for themselves ?

Reply: YES. I could not copy them on to my document, so had to describe trhe evidence.

Do they offer any explanation as to why GM is signing in 2 children ?

Reply: I have asked him.

by Guest 02.12.10 12:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:Would I be right in thinking that this person did not physically see the enlarged creche record signatures for themselves ?

Reply: YES. I could not copy them on to my document, so had to describe trhe evidence.

Do they offer any explanation as to why GM is signing in 2 children ?

Reply: I have asked him.

Tony, see if you can cut and paste this link and send it to them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If not just give them the address details and ask them to put it into their browser.

when inserted into this page, it looks like this one from page 38 on this thread

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

by soulthief 02.12.10 13:21

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Stella wrote:
kikoraton wrote:
Sorry to have made you cry, Stella, but I don't quite understand why. Could you explain, please, in case there has been a misunderstanding?

The realisation that this could have been planned in the UK, made my heart sink to an all time low. It's nothing you have done kiko, don't worry [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] it's just a very harsh wake up call to the real word sadly.

Up until now I had always thought we were dealing with an accident in 5a and a cover-up. There is a very sensitive side to me where cruelty to children and animals are concerned. I have always said that if I ever won a huge amount of money one day, I would build some happy-homes for all unwanted children and animals, so that they could all live together under one roof.

So the thought of anyone planning weeks or months in advance, to end a childs life, will take a little time for me to come to terms with. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am still in the 'not planned' camp as I don't see evidence of pre-meditation or substitute Maddie. I see some fiddling going on with the creche records but I don't understand how such a complicated and detailed theory can be woven from these few strands. Which piece of the jigsaw am I missing?

My husband has blue eyes with a brown fleck on one of the iris, only if you look closely do you see it, but once you know its there its evident so I see the eye thing, wouldnt though the person 'adopting' her not be alarmed at this huge fuss?

by Daoud 02.12.10 13:35

If there is any truth to the scenario I posted about, then I would assume the adoptive parents would have to have been in the know; and if the world was told Madeleine had a 'coloboma' (when in fact she didn't) then that would have a protective measure - if anyone thought the adopted child looked like Madeleine, the absence of a coloboma would have conclusively discouraged any further investigation...

by coppernob 02.12.10 15:04

I always believed that Maddie woke and wandered until Eddie and Keela that is and the way the Macs reacted to the dogs findings, no way would you make excuses such as rotten meat, dirty nappies etc if you were truely not in the know what had happened to your child, you'd be camped outside the FSS, demanding that they find any DNA that could shed light on how your child had met her death and where she was at the very least or, if the timescale made you doubt this, demanding that all past residents of 5a were searched and accounted for to double check no one had previously died there. Everything they do shouts out guilty so why the hell do so called proffessionals say they are innocent?
The only other thing which I can think of which could explain their sudden happiness was if Maddie had a terminal illness or some medical condition which would gradually need more and more care, maybe the reason why there are no medical records?
I hope that the only possible peodophile link would be not because one had harmed her but because Gerry had knowledge of high profile peodophiles and he was using this knowledge to blackmail people in high places to help sabotage any investigation.
I doubt back then the Macs thought they encounter such Giants of mankind such as Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett and all the others who have stuck their heads above the parapets [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by soulthief 02.12.10 16:23

Would David Payne be one Gerry was blackmailing? Seeing as payne is accused of the filth talk over Madeleine & has never sued or addressed the issue I would say if Gerry is on the system its not for blackmail.

by littlepixie 02.12.10 17:29

Was there ever any truth in the poster who said she or a friend worked for social services and the McCanns had wanted Maddie adopted? I can't remember the actual details now, it was on 3As.

I still don't understand why she was made a ward of court, I know its been said it was to get information from LP but wasn't there a record that went back to before she went missing (or did I dream it).

by soulthief 02.12.10 18:25

littlepixie wrote:Was there ever any truth in the poster who said she or a friend worked for social services and the McCanns had wanted Maddie adopted? I can't remember the actual details now, it was on 3As.

I still don't understand why she was made a ward of court, I know its been said it was to get information from LP but wasn't there a record that went back to before she went missing (or did I dream it).

never heard that but did hear the pj asked Kate as one of the questions she would not answer if it was true she was handing custody to a relative, Kate declined to answer. the pj must have had reason to think it was the case, so who knows.

by Guest 03.12.10 16:10

kikoraton wrote:
The vital piece of evidence, however, is this: RM’s mobile phone silence had begun at 1545 on 2 May, and ended at 2320 on 3 May just after KM’s shout. That’s 31h 35m of silence. Gerry had been taking numerous calls made to his voicemail box on 2 May, and effectively the last of these was at 1549. He postponed listening to this until around 2015, at which point he turned off his mobile. He took just one incoming call at 1224 on 3 May, then his mobile fell silent again until 2314. Since he didn’t make a single outgoing call during that period, and used voicemail to eliminate any possibility of identification of his callers, we can say that his period of silence (compare the figure with Murat’s) was of 31h 25m.
This is inexplicable unless you come to the conclusion that GM and RM were in cahoots, and the silence was akin to the military golden rule, of communications silence to avoid any possibility of compromise before the action kicks off.

Looking at those timings and with what happened in the Lobster creche on the morning of wednesday the 2nd May, we should also consider the following.

The cleaner knocked on the door of 5a that morning, where by she found both Kate and Gerry still inside. As the McCann's left, the cleaner then went in to do a full clean and this is when she found one of the cots inside Kate and Gerry's bedroom, which they later denied.

This is also the morning, the only morning I might add, that Madeleine was not signed out of the creche by her parents, but by Cat - nanny at 12.30.

That was a very odd morning indeed, by all accounts. winkwink

by soulthief 03.12.10 17:02

littlepixie wrote:Was there ever any truth in the poster who said she or a friend worked for social services and the McCanns had wanted Maddie adopted? I can't remember the actual details now, it was on 3As.

I still don't understand why she was made a ward of court, I know its been said it was to get information from LP but wasn't there a record that went back to before she went missing (or did I dream it).

Sorry now and again I go totally dense, whats the relevance of the cot?

by kikoraton 03.12.10 19:53

Especially on another forum, people used to tell me that I was looking for complications where none existed, that my theory involved far too much risk to the miscreants, that I should remember the law of Occam's Razor etc etc. So I'm feeling slightly vindicated by the outcome of the case reported today from Northern Ireland:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Famous dentist kills his wife and his lover's husband in two separate houses (by feeding a hosepipe into the house and passing car exhaust through it), takes the bodies in the boot of his car to a remote spot, arranges them in front and back seats, pours more exhaust fumes into it to make it look like suicide, and gets away with it (verdict: suicide, of course) for 19 years until he finally confesses.
Now tell me that we should only look for the straightforward explanation!!

by Judge Mental 03.12.10 20:06

One has to agree with you here. If there were a simple answer to this, we would not be sitting here today. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been made yet more complicated because of the numbers of people involved. There are those who would say there would be no way this many people could keep a secret. One would say to those people to look around those around the edges of the Iraq affair or the Guildford Four.

The cleaner knocked on the door of 5a that morning, where by she found both Kate and Gerry still inside. As the McCann's left, the cleaner then went in to do a full clean and this is when she found one of the cots inside Kate and Gerry's bedroom, which they later denied.
This is also the morning, the only morning I might add, that Madeleine was not signed out of the creche by her parents, but by Cat - nanny at 12.30.

This was a most important morning, Stella.

by soulthief 03.12.10 20:07

kikoraton wrote:Especially on another forum, people used to tell me that I was looking for complications where none existed, that my theory involved far too much risk to the miscreants, that I should remember the law of Occam's Razor etc etc. So I'm feeling slightly vindicated by the outcome of the case reported today from Northern Ireland:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Famous dentist kills his wife and his lover's husband in two separate houses (by feeding a hosepipe into the house and passing car exhaust through it), takes the bodies in the boot of his car to a remote spot, arranges them in front and back seats, pours more exhaust fumes into it to make it look like suicide, and gets away with it (verdict: suicide, of course) for 19 years until he finally confesses.
Now tell me that we should only look for the straightforward explanation!!

At first I thought you were over reading it and getting too deep, but that was because I didn't clearly understand what you were saying, it was complicated, but after your condensed explanation I got it and I think you are spot on. I can not find fault with your scenario and usually I always think ahh no but... yes

by soulthief 03.12.10 20:08

Judge Mental wrote:

One has to agree with you here. If there were a simple answer to this, we would not be sitting here today. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been made yet more complicated because of the numbers of people involved. There are those who would say there would be no way this many people could keep a secret. One would say to those people to look around those around the edges of the Iraq affair or the Guildford Four.

The cleaner knocked on the door of 5a that morning, where by she found both Kate and Gerry still inside. As the McCann's left, the cleaner then went in to do a full clean and this is when she found one of the cots inside Kate and Gerry's bedroom, which they later denied.
This is also the morning, the only morning I might add, that Madeleine was not signed out of the creche by her parents, but by Cat - nanny at 12.30.

This was a most important morning, Stella.

sorry but Im lost AGAIN, what is the relevance of the position of the cot?

by soulthief 03.12.10 20:16

kikoraton wrote:Especially on another forum, people used to tell me that I was looking for complications where none existed, that my theory involved far too much risk to the miscreants, that I should remember the law of Occam's Razor etc etc. So I'm feeling slightly vindicated by the outcome of the case reported today from Northern Ireland:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Famous dentist kills his wife and his lover's husband in two separate houses (by feeding a hosepipe into the house and passing car exhaust through it), takes the bodies in the boot of his car to a remote spot, arranges them in front and back seats, pours more exhaust fumes into it to make it look like suicide, and gets away with it (verdict: suicide, of course) for 19 years until he finally confesses.
Now tell me that we should only look for the straightforward explanation!!

Until your condensed explanation the other day I could not get what you were saying and I am die hard on all things Madeleine, Usually I can always think of a pit fall to someone's explanation or possible scenario but yours covers all the bases and I would be very suprised if you are not spot on. thumbsup

trouble is how to get it looked at by the authorities who can do something about it. Have you a thought on how you can do this or to whom? What about Amaral?

by kikoraton 03.12.10 21:10

To be honest, soul, I doubt whether GA has any influence whatsoever in the issues which the PJ are likely to take forward from now on. Human nature being what it is, and with many other crimes to solve, none of them involving a load of Brits who have long since left the country, I think the current PJ are getting on with their jobs and their promotions with scant regard to the brave ex-PJ Inspector. Sorry if that sounds cynical, but it's the way of the world. That's why I think the UK police are more likely to get interested.
I would take issue with the Judge (if I may) only insofar as I think that of the apparent multitude of people in-the-know, the Tapas Seven are the least we need worry about - apart from possibly DP. I've looked up "stool-pigeon" and that's not quite the word I want. Except in the sense of "decoy". There to mis-direct. I think the main players are our two "friends" and a few more Brits who until recently have flown under the radar.

by theolivebranch 03.12.10 21:26

First, my sincere thanks for allowing me to read and post on this closed thread.
At last the ability to speak openly and with little risk of being taken to the cleaners.
Re a post many pages back, sorry should have taken where and by whom. Anyway it was re RM and his mate Sergy and business ventures. I remember way way back in the mists of time being again on a closed section of a forum, no names, no pack drill, where we had discovered a site linked to RM that was selling leather coats/jackets where the description of the soft skin and the containers used to keep this softness. Also the colours of the skins were I am horrified to say were the skin colour of certain ethnic groups.
Now I certainly don't recognize any user names on here from that small group, but I was known as Barranco.
I have looked on my saved stuff and cannot find anything but it was RM and the sale of soft skins. Yuk.

by kikoraton 04.12.10 8:03

Sounds awful to me, olive. I'd rather not think about it. Now I remember your nickname!

by Guest 04.12.10 9:24

soulthief wrote:

The cleaner knocked on the door of 5a that morning, where by she found both Kate and Gerry still inside. As the McCann's left, the cleaner then went in to do a full clean and this is when she found one of the cots inside Kate and Gerry's bedroom, which they later denied.
This is also the morning, the only morning I might add, that Madeleine was not signed out of the creche by her parents, but by Cat - nanny at 12.30.

sorry but Im lost AGAIN, what is the relevance of the position of the cot?

Well soulthief, the moving of the cot is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. The McCann's denied placing one of the cot's in their bedroom, despite the cleaner having seen it there that morning. Why would they need to lie about this?

2. Why did they move only one of the cots and leave the other one still in the children's bedroom?

3. Just one day later, the McCann's have now moved the cot back into the childrens bedroom, just in time for the alarm to be raised? Why did they not want it found in their bedroom, where the cleaner had witnessed it just the day before?

by soulthief 04.12.10 9:54

Stella wrote:
soulthief wrote:

The cleaner knocked on the door of 5a that morning, where by she found both Kate and Gerry still inside. As the McCann's left, the cleaner then went in to do a full clean and this is when she found one of the cots inside Kate and Gerry's bedroom, which they later denied.
This is also the morning, the only morning I might add, that Madeleine was not signed out of the creche by her parents, but by Cat - nanny at 12.30.

sorry but Im lost AGAIN, what is the relevance of the position of the cot?

Well soulthief, the moving of the cot is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. The McCann's denied placing one of the cot's in their bedroom, despite the cleaner having seen it there that morning. Why would they need to lie about this?

2. Why did they move only one of the cots and leave the other one still in the children's bedroom?

3. Just one day later, the McCann's have now moved the cot back into the childrens bedroom, just in time for the alarm to be raised? Why did they not want it found in their bedroom, where the cleaner had witnessed it just the day before?

Thanks Stella I am back with it, so maybe the cot was in their room so the twins didn't know madeleine was gone because they thought she was in another room? Perhaps whatever happened happened in their room and they wanted the crime scene to be elsewhere, E.G in the other bedroom.

by Guest 04.12.10 10:46

soulthief wrote:
Thanks Stella I am back with it, so maybe the cot was in their room so the twins didn't know madeleine was gone because they thought she was in another room? Perhaps whatever happened happened in their room and they wanted the crime scene to be elsewhere, E.G in the other bedroom.

I don't think it was for that reason soultheif. What would the McCann's have told the twins at meal times?

I'm thinking that maybe, Kate and Gerry could not face each other by that stage, so perhaps they had made some sort of deal along the lines of, you sleep in that room with one twin, I'll sleep in the other room with the other twin. Hence why only one side of the McCann's bed looked slept in and why only one of the beds in the children's room was slept in, followed by the Kate confession that she had slept in the one under the window.

If so, this could be another tiny piece of evidence pointing to death prior to the cleaner coming in on the morning of the 2nd.

by soulthief 04.12.10 10:53

Stella wrote:
soulthief wrote:
Thanks Stella I am back with it, so maybe the cot was in their room so the twins didn't know madeleine was gone because they thought she was in another room? Perhaps whatever happened happened in their room and they wanted the crime scene to be elsewhere, E.G in the other bedroom.

I don't think it was for that reason soultheif. What would the McCann's have told the twins at meal times?

I'm thinking that maybe, Kate and Gerry could not face each other by that stage, so perhaps they had made some sort of deal along the lines of, you sleep in that room with one twin, I'll sleep in the other room with the other twin. Hence why only one side of the McCann's bed looked slept in and why only one of the beds in the children's room was slept in, followed by the Kate confession that she had slept in the one under the window.

If so, this could be another tiny piece of evidence pointing to death before the morning of the 2nd.

Thanks I definitely do get it...this time! Which brings me on to something I have often wondered, presuming Madeleine met a fatal accident when they were out boozing it up with their mates, what I don't get is this. Say my husband and I decided to leave the kids unattended, and on our return one of them was injured or dead, if it had been my husband idea to leave them alone I would be cursing him up in arms and he would be the same if it was my suggestion, how are they not at each other's throats over this?

Log in for more topics