How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

Thanks for your kind offer, shibboleth.
I've been puzzling over the contacts made by KMcC's mobile on 29 April. There are only four altogether, and from the timing of them one suspects that three of them are associated with the taking of a child to or from the creche.
Here are the times:
0923, 1226, 1702, 1930
The contacts (I can't be sure they were calls and not texts) at 1226 and 1702 were with Gerry. "Madeleine" had been taken out by Gerry at 1215, and Kate herself was to take her out of the afternoon session at 1730. I suppose it's possible that G and K were doing their own thing in different parts of the OC, and they needed to co-ordinate the picking up of "Madeleine" and the twins. Hence the mobile contacts. The twins were picked up by Gerry at 1730 - we don't know about their group in the morning, because the record hasn't been published.
The contact at 0923 is interesting. Kate signed in "Madeleine" but not until 0945.The contact was not with Gerry, so who was it with? No records exist for that day pertaining to any others of the Tapas group. Similarly, Gerry made a contact at 1013, but again we do not know with whom he was in touch.
I'd love to know the number or numbers contacted, then alison and I could dabble around with them and try to find their owners. Their surname might even begin with N!!

Hi Everyone. I have been travelling in India so I have spent a few nights reading the 72 pages.

WOW! very impressive.

I have always been a believer in the premeditated/earlier death theory since 2007 but it was not until I read the Mobile phone thread on MCF that I moved my predictions back to the 28/29th April. I have been curious about Tanner's received call early on 29th.

However, I could never prove it. Mine was just a gut feeling. You have now solved all the earlier ojections - Mrs Fenn, nannies, Smith sighting and creche records.

Glad to meet you all again on this forum where we have freedom of speech.

It appears that kiko has a strategy in place to present it to authorities. Let's hope justice is served in 2011!

All the best for 2011

From Estelle

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Estelle
Yes, let's hope this is the year that really starts the ball rolling. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


2011 is actually a very special year.

It starts as 1\1\11
After 10 days it will be 1\1\11
After 10 months it will be 1\11\11
Then 10 days after that 11\11\11

and it will never happen again !!! So what a year to get justice for Madeleine. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Estelle

It is great to see you back posting again. You have been missed by many people

kikoraton wrote:Blimey kangdang, if that was Midas, she's certainly undergone a painful change.
Excellent ideas, shibb! We'll do a show consisting of great numbers such as those, rather than a full opera, which might be a little taxing. What might Daoud delight us with, I wonder? And Tony Bennett?
We might even introduce a pantomime element (hiss.....she's behind you!) by inviting some of more questionable loyalty, from other forums. Preciousramotswe sings........................oh, I don't know. Maybe not.

Hi Kiko,
I've not found anything terribly suitable so far, only this from Kiss Me, Kate:


Lyrics:
LOIS LANE:
Why can't you behave?
Oh, why can't you behave?After all the things you told me
And the promises that you gave,
Oh, why can't you behave?
Why can't you be good?
And do just as you should?
Won't you turn that new leaf over
So your baby can be your slave?
Oh, why can't you behave?

There's a farm I know near my old home town,
Where we two can go and try settlin' down.
There I'll care for you forever,
'Cause you're all in the world I crave.
Oh, why can't you behave?

Hi Stella and JM, Thanks for the welcome back.

Estelle welcome!
I do hope we will finally find the truth behind the lie. High time in our 'civilized part of the world'.
parapono

Hi Parapono

I was once told it might take five years so that gives us until April 2012. I am now focussing on that.

I often follow your posts.

Estelle

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Great to see you hear Estelle, have regularly followed your great posts [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi

I remain to be convinced that the Creche times have been manipulated in the way suggested i.e GM signing in RN child.

I had another look at the Creche records a few days ago and I noticed that when AN signs her child out she records the time using the 24 hour clock. When RN appears to sign the creche book he also uses the 24 hour clock. GM and KM do not use 24 hour clock. It was previously suggested that GM and RN using different formats for the time suggested a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that only one person was signing in for two children: I am not sure about this.

I have zero experience in handwritting analysis but both GM and RN have used capital letters to sign the creche records. Are these samples really suitable and individual enough for serious analysis?

As I don't buy into the idea of a substitute Madeleine I am not persuaded that there would be any need for GM to sign in another child. Although I have contributed some research to this thread and I am persuaded that MM may have met her demise earlier than 3/5/07 I am being honest when I say I am not convinced by the ideas on this thread.

That said, there may be more information that you folks have obtained that I don't know about and that I do not need to know about.

Good luck with your work!

Cheshire Cat wrote:Hi

I remain to be convinced that the Creche times have been manipulated in the way suggested i.e GM signing in RN child.

I had another look at the Creche records a few days ago and I noticed that when AN signs her child out she records the time using the 24 hour clock. When RN appears to sign the creche book he also uses the 24 hour clock. GM and KM do not use 24 hour clock. It was previously suggested that GM and RN using different formats for the time suggested a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that only one person was signing in for two children: I am not sure about this.

I have zero experience in handwritting analysis but both GM and RN have used capital letters to sign the creche records. Are these samples really suitable and individual enough for serious analysis?

As I don't buy into the idea of a substitute Madeleine I am not persuaded that there would be any need for GM to sign in another child. Although I have contributed some research to this thread and I am persuaded that MM may have met her demise earlier than 3/5/07 I am being honest when I say I am not convinced by the ideas on this thread.

That said, there may be more information that you folks have obtained that I don't know about and that I do not need to know about.

Good luck with your work!

Thank you CC for taking us to the heart of this thread.

The analysis of the creche records has been illuminating, but as CC says, the interpretation of them is another matter.

One thing is clear, if there was a substitute Madeleine and she was already in place when Madeleine died on 28 April (as the hypothesis goes), we certainly don't know who that Madeleine is.

One of the sets of creche entries that I initially found persuasive was two entries, one above the other, clearly in the same hand I believe, but wth two different adult and child names (Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth Naylor) entered 5 minutes apart from each other, and one using the 12-hour clock and the other the 24-hour clock. I think it was on 29 April in the afternoon (not 100% sure).

That did tend to suggest that one person was signing in two children - and, on top of that, the 5-minute gap and the change from 12-hour to 24-hour day for the entry looked as if though there might be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The explanation offered by kikoraton is that by this time, Dr Gerald McCann was already signing in a substitute Madeleine.

But maybe there are other interpretations and explanations for these puzzling entries?

I'll just put on record that I share CC's doubts and, on the working assumption that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A (as the dogs' alerts suggested), I would be looking rather for clues as to her possible death earlier that week. I also tend to believe that it really was Madeleine on that holiday who is filmed on the airport 'bus and climbing the airport steps - I don't think those are images from a previous holiday as some have suggested.

The tennis balls photo is another matter, I have real doubts about how genuine that one is.

The creche records, it must be said, are still a big hurdle fpr anyone trying to suggest Madeleine died earlier than 3 May. It would appear that considerable forgery by a number of people (probably acting in concert) would have been necessary to pretend that Madeleine was attending the creche when she wasn't.

HideHo's excellent analysis casting serious doubt on most of the claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine that week is very interesting.

But we still need a wholly convincing explanation for what some believe are bogus entries for Madeleine in the creche records and I'm not sure we have yet got there.

Although there are possible indications that Madeleine may have died earlier and a possible substitute used due to discrepancies with the creche recoeds and statements, does anyone know why Amaral seems so certain that she died on the evening of the 3rd ?

YNG wrote:Although there are possible indications that Madeleine may have died earlier and a possible substitute used due to discrepancies with the creche recoeds and statements, does anyone know why Amaral seems so certain that she died on the evening of the 3rd ?

It's a good question, and I hope you get some interesting answers.

I always remember here that Amaral had less than 4 months on the investigation before he was unceremoniously booted off.

We have had nearly 4 years to study the case.

Tony Bennett wrote:

YNG wrote:Although there are possible indications that Madeleine may have died earlier and a possible substitute used due to discrepancies with the creche recoeds and statements, does anyone know why Amaral seems so certain that she died on the evening of the 3rd ?

It's a good question, and I hope you get some interesting answers.

I always remember here that Amaral had less than 4 months on the investigation before he was unceremoniously booted off.

We have had nearly 4 years to study the case.

For Maddie not to have been on holiday and another kid use to substitute her I find hard to believe.

Just going through customs alone, it's impossible. Her name will have been reflected on the passport be it independent one or attached to one of her parents.

Besides there is the headcount.

Also I cant believe creche staff cant recognise their charge.

If she hadnt been there on 3rd and staff mistaken it..maybe possible.

If she hadnt been on holiday, who did the dogs mark?

I am inclined to the May 2nd theory if anything. She died at least 20 hours earlier than reported affording the mccanns time to clean up and plan and their friend to talk over the charade.

How Amaral came to the May 3rd theory may be he's too trusting of witness statements. Notice all the witnesses statement on May3rd sighting of Maddie are full of holes. Apart from creche staff, service and other staff have no direct contact with Maddie.
The odd time glimpse of her in past days together with other children can be confused on the 3rd may.

I think the mccanns were going at Amaral because they knew Amaral theory in as far as May3rd PMI is incorrect, hence the rest of his theory cannot hold. Though Amaral is correct Maddie died in the apt, only the mccanns would know he got the date wrong. justmy opinion.

aiyoyo wrote:
I think the mccanns were going at Amaral because they knew Amaral theory in as far as May3rd PMI is incorrect, hence the rest of his theory cannot hold. Though Amaral is correct Maddie died in the apt, only the mccanns would know he got the date wrong. justmy opinion.

........................
Yes aiyoyo that would make perfect sense and could explain the seemingly apparent confidence in their defense

aiyoyo wrote:
For Maddie not to have been on holiday and another kid use to substitute her I find hard to believe.

I think there is some confusion here aiyoyo, as that has never been suggested by kiko.

All that we know is, sometime after Madeleine arrived in Portugal on the 28th April;

It would appear that Gerry McCann was signing in 2 childrens names on the creche sheets from the 29th April. The very similar handwriting points to this theory and expert forensic analysis is still needed for confirmation.

Gerry McCann never once mentions taking another child to the creche and signing them in.

If Gerry had taken another child to creche, why would he need to sign in someone elses name instead of his own?

If it can be proved that Gerry did indeed write both names, why do you think he needed to do this and why did he never mention it to the authorities?

aiyoyo wrote:For Maddie not to have been on holiday and another kid use to substitute her I find hard to believe. Just going through customs alone, it's impossible. Her name will have been reflected on the passport be it independent one or attached to one of her parents.

To be clear - and kikoratan can speak for himself if I have got this wrong - the suggestion he was putting forward for serious consideration is that the real Madeleine arrived at Praia da Luz but died that night (Saturday/Sunday). That in turn implied that there was another child, actually called Madeleine as well - who was on that holiday from the start - and was the child who actually went to the creche that week.

To pursue the theory, that would in turn mean that the 'substitute Madeleine' must have been taken away on the Thursday night or Friday morning and didn't show up at the creche any more. It obviously follows from all of that that the kikoratan theory suggests that this was all pre-planned.

kikoratan will correct this if I'm wrong, but I followed the thread closely and indeed summarised it all in a long document I prepared - I think it's important that we appreciate just where kikoratan was going with his hypothesis.

That is correct Tony and just to add a further point, it is believed that the other child was not listed on the MW guest lists, but was there on a private holiday arrangement of some kind.

ETA

Here is a link for aiyoyo to see: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At the top of this OC list, you will see the name Charlotte Gorrod. Charlotte and Jane Tanner knew each other and Charlotte is listed as a owner booking. This is a booking where they made the reservation directly with the owner of that apartment on a private rental basis. I am not in any way suggesting that Charlotte is in any way involved with anything, but merely pointing out that at least one member of the Tapas 9 group knew of someone else staying out there on such an arrangement.

Tony and Stella - you have summed up my views excellently, thank you! I've been away from this thread for quite a while, for various reasons. I've been working on the visual aids which support my arguments, and I've not hurried with these as (firstly) they depend on the availability of other people to professionalize them. Secondly, I shall have to persuade the police to listen to my case, and that has not yet happened. The visual aids, and the CD-R, can be ready at a week or two's notice.
The other main reason, is that like many people I have been taking an interest in the sad case of Jo Yeates, and have been moderating on that part of the forum.
Stella asks (rhetorically, for she knows the answer!) "If Gerry had taken another child to creche, why would he need to sign in someone elses name instead of his own?"
This goes to the heart of the deception that was carried out. Gerry had to sign in the false "Madeleine", that's for sure. Why did he have to sign in the Naylor child as well? And why didn't he do the obvious, and sign in the Naylor girl using his own signature, as you would if you were signing in as a favour to a friend?
I don't want to present my theory on a plate to anybody who cares to intrude on here, but I'm confident that I know the answers.

kikoraton wrote:Stella asks (rhetorically, for she knows the answer!) "If Gerry had taken another child to creche, why would he need to sign in someone elses name instead of his own?" This goes to the heart of the deception that was carried out. Gerry had to sign in the false "Madeleine", that's for sure. Why did he have to sign in the Naylor child as well? And why didn't he do the obvious, and sign in the Naylor girl using his own signature, as you would if you were signing in as a favour to a friend? I don't want to present my theory on a plate to anybody who cares to intrude on here, but I'm confident that I know the answers.

re: "I don't want to present my theory on a plate to anybody who cares to intrude on here..."

REPLY: Fully understood, and if indeed anyone thinks that they have what the Portuguese police referred to as 'new and credible evidence' e.g. that Madeleine did die in Apartment 5A and that therefore crimes may have been committed by the McCanns or by anyone else associated with them, I would advise against too much discussion of the detail,especially on a forum, though I would also recommend that that person check out their hypothesis and supporting details with at least one other person whom they could fully trust.

Given your confirmation, k, that I have summarised your hypothesis correctly (and confirmed by Stella), I think we need to examine what else follows on logically from your hypothesis, were it to be correct.

You wrote: "Gerry had to sign in the false 'Madeleine', that's for sure".

If your hypothesis is correct, and on the assumption that Madeleine indeed travelled out on that holiday, as per the airport bus and 'climbing-up-the-airport-steps' video, THEN...

1) There must have been another child of similar age called Madeleine in Praia da Luz and attending that creche all week (until Thursday)

2) The parent(s) of that child (probably not the Naylors from what you say) must have been in on the plan and must have had a very good reason for going along with such a dangerous plot

3) The McCanns and the parent of the substitute Madeleine must have been in on the plan for at least weeks, more like months, ahead

4) Since I think all the 'Tapas 9' knew what the real Madeleine looked like, it follows that each one of them, presumably including Dianne Webster, must have been in on this audacious plan - and consented to it

5) It is possible that the Naylors may have been in on the plan as well

6) Madeleine must have died on the Saturday night and presumably therefore the result of deliberate action, and not an accident, and

7) The McCanns must have had an overwhelming need to get rid of Madeleine.

If the hypothesis is correct, it lends weight to the concern some have had that this has all along been, in part, an exercise in determining just how far the media can go in persuading a gullible public to believe what the media tells them about any issue.

I don't know the detail you are withholding, k, no doubt for very goood reasons, but it can be seen from the above points that yours is a theory with very far-reaching implications indeed.

And it still leaves many problems unanswered, such as, for example, who was crying 'Daddy, Daddy' on the night of Tuesday 1 May for 75 minutes, and how and when Madeleine's body was disposed of.

At the moment I'm still not convinced - but of course you may have more evidence up your sleeve.

I have not been on this thread for a few days it seems and from the last reading of the last couple of pages am I getting this correct that K you are saying that it was planned? Her death? And that the substutute Madeleine was there in the wings as it were waiting to be the sub?
I am now going around in a quandry?spl?Why was it planned, and is she dead then? Why would Madeleine have to die if it was just to see how the media and joe public would deal with it.
HELP!!

I can only think of two reasons why the death of a child could be pre-meditated.
One is sinister medical reasons and they feel totally justified in what they did. The other is that there is some sort of evil practice within that group.

How else could a parent laugh, joke around and look relieved days after the event.

The fact that there are possibly other people involved makes me believe there is a very dark secret regarding this child or her parents.

littlepixie wrote:I can only think of two reasons why the death of a child could be pre-meditated.
One is sinister medical reasons and they feel totally justified in what they did. The other is that there is some sort of evil practice within that group.

How else could a parent laugh, joke around and look relieved days after the event.

The fact that there are possibly other people involved makes me believe there is a very dark secret regarding this child or her parents.

Littlepixie thankyou for your post and like you I think that if all this was premeditated then it is something so way out of my comprehension. I am now all in circles. To be honest I thought that she was abused and died as a result of abuse, either actual or as a result of. But this theory of premeditation, I just cannot even think of it because I cannot think why .

Abuse is the evil practice I meant. It could have been the reason they went away in the first place. I hate to think that mothers and fathers would do this sort of thing to little children, but they do. Look at the Colin Blanchard case.

I cant think of any other reason for premeditation apart from organized abuse or a medical problem that had to be hidden and got rid of.

littlepixie wrote:I can't think of any other reason for premeditation apart from organized abuse or a medical problem that had to be hidden and got rid of.

Money, fame and 'the wider agenda'?

I cannot think of any medical problem that they would have to kill her for unless it was euthanasia for unbearable suffering. And no one has ever hinted as far as I am aware that she had suffering.
Yes there are children who eventually go into care homes to be cared for 24/7 but again they are severe reasons for this type of care.
I have thought that she was abused and had started to speak of it maybe not directly but that they thought that once at school full time then there was a risk of something being said and it being uncovered. But if they had been so scared of that she could have been educated at home and not mix with professionals.
I am so confused now. Not that Madeleine is dead, because I still think this but the preplanned is just not making sense for me.

I have never thought of money or fame being a motive for premeditation for killing a child. I can't get my head around that one.

I was thinking more along the lines of why other people may be involved or prepared to lie.
Could anyone really discard a child for the sake of money and fame?

Tony Bennett wrote:

littlepixie wrote:I can't think of any other reason for premeditation apart from organized abuse or a medical problem that had to be hidden and got rid of.

Money, fame and 'the wider agenda'?

Good evening Tony. Yes indeed they have had the money though that is far less now. Will the new best seller be just that or one of those books that you eventually see in the cheapo book stores?
Yes they certainly have fame, they have some friends in high places if you think the likes of Branson and JKRowling are from high places.
The wider agenda, I would love to know what the agenda is let alone the wider one. What do you think that it is Tony?