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

by Cheshire Cat 23.10.10 15:58

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

Thank you

Thats what I was thinking. I'll let you get on with your work!

by Guest 23.10.10 16:12

No, please, all input is extremely important. If anyone else is reading this and can see a picture developing, you may hold a very important clue, that may have been overlooked. Be it something from a statement, a picture you may have seen or something said by a member of staff.

Remember the comment from GA that the McCann's were seen going into an apartment by the church and he was trying to work out which one it was? How often were they seen going there? every morning by any chance?

by littlepixie 23.10.10 16:29

Was that the pink building? I read something about that in the files the other day.

"
5. With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called “St James Portuguesa Lda, lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129."

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

by Judge Mental 23.10.10 17:48

Given that a cadaver dog scented a corpse in 5A, the hired car, and items of clothing and a cuddly toy etc., may one assume that all the refrigerators situated in this block have also been visited by cadaver dogs in order to rule out any rumours of a corpse having languished there for any length of time?

by **kikoraton** 23.10.10 18:11

According to my interpretation, the similar writing, usually on consecutive lines, and the imitative signature, indicate quite strongly that it was GM taking both children to the Lobster group. But who were they? For that, we depend on work done by others, not myself, on ancestry and family records. In order to agree with the names as entered, I think they must have been called Elizabeth and Madeline or Madeleine. The nannies would have spotted it otherwise, as they might also have spotted an incorrect headcount.
What apartment did they come from? We have a Miss E Naylor, daughter of Mr R and Mrs A Naylor, staying in BP01. We know this from the Mark Warner guest lists, which cheshirecat has kindly posted up on this forum. But that cannot be entirely conclusive, because as far as we know, a candidate family with exactly the correct names to match those appearing in the creche records has no connection with the McCanns or with Leicester. For that reason, I am not declaring game, set and match on these Naylors. That might seem perverse of me, but I just don't feel entirely comfortable jumping to conclusions, especially when we know identity-theft to be so common.
As for a "Madeleine", an anonymous poster said on a blog two years ago (without revealing any more) that there exists a Madeline(sic) Elizabeth Naylor of the correct age. My friend and I know where she lives, but we're still working on the ancestry side of it.

by Shibboleth 23.10.10 19:32

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?

Hi Kikoraton. I have been on a break for the last couple of days, so I have just seen this. Let me have a bit of time to peruse this and I will get back to you. But at first glance I would say that signature 2 is a "forgery".

by littlepixie 23.10.10 20:09

Do we know if MEN was in PDL or is that what we are trying to find out?

by **kikoraton** 23.10.10 21:24

M (spelled differently to the one we are used to) EN was mentioned out of the blue by an anonymous poster on a Portuguese blog, two years ago. It's as though someone with a bit of knowledge was trying to drop a hint. It would be remiss of us if we didn't pursue it, given the interest we have acquired independently in anyone called Naylor (as a result of the handwriting thing).
If my last post seemed rather confusing, let me just say that if GM was, as I believe, writing someone else's child (a Naylor child) into the creche, then that is of huge significance. It would show that GM and this Naylor were friends or collaborators, and that this particular Naylor had passed under the radar. Since it began on 29 April, it would also suggest that something had been planned well before the holiday, in my opinion.
Naylor is a common name. The family booked in on the MW list almost certainly came from London. There are other Robert Naylors much nearer to Rothley.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.10.10 21:52

kikoraton wrote:...I came to the conclusion that Robert Murat and his friends were coerced or persuaded by influential people in PdL to allow their mobiles and landlines to be borrowed so that the cover-up - necessary to get the Tapas suspects off scot-free - could be carried out without raising immediate suspicion. In other words, Murat and company's phone activity looked innocent, or at least it could be explained away, whilst in fact being directly related to the cover-up of Maddie's death and the concealment which took place afterwards. I concluded that suspicious phone calls were being made from as early as 2200 on first of May, and that we ought to be looking at that time or thereabouts for the first signs of Maddie's demise. Just nine hours later, KM began wiping calls from her mobile history, and GM embarked on his series of received voicemails – twelve in all – to which he made not a single reply on his own mobile. This suggests to me that he was only interested in receiving instructions or confirmation of upcoming plans. The senders of those voicemail messages have never been identified...

Without commenting in detail as yet on the '29 April demise' theory, I would mention one point.

I think the sudden departure of Robert Murat early on 1st May does call for further explanation. A 'phone call a few hours earlier from I think Michaela Walczuk, a hurried internet booking of a flight around midinight IIRC, and then a 5.00am drive with his sister to Exeter Airport.

Then, as I've documented in detail within our lengthy article 'Robert Murat - from arguido to applause' article on our website [[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - visit the 'Articles' page], he gets at last 17 matters wrong about his movements on 1st to 4th May when interviewed by police on 15 May 2007. When re-interviewed on 10 and 11 July, he had to correct those 17 errors. He claimed he'd been 'tired and confused' on 15 May which is why he made so many 'mistakes'. Hmmm.

Let's leave out for the moment why the men of CEOP, Control Risks Group and MI5 profiled Murat as the likely abductor, let's leave out Jane Tanner 'adamantly' insisting that Murat was the man-carrying-child she saw on 3 May, and let's leave out what that cosy tete-a-tete between Murat and Brian Kennedy and their respective lawyers was all about on 13 November 2007. Let's also leave out how convenient it was for Murat to be on hand to translate all those early interviews.

Murat still has to account for why he dashed over to Praia da Luz on the early flight to Faro.

Had something already happened to Madeleine by the evening of Monday 30 April?

by Judge Mental 23.10.10 22:14

One would have to say yes.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.10.10 22:30

HiDeHo wrote:Hi all! Catriona's credibility, is what the case hinges on regarding the time Madeleine died...If Catriona's statement is 'proof' that Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm on Thursday then it negates all possibilities that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week. I was quite shocked and surprised to find something in the files to show that she was less than truthful. It is not an opinion...it shows in the files that her statement is not to be believed...

On 16 August 2010 I wrote a letter to Carter-Ruck, which has been published on this forum.

It included these references:

a) Dr McCann says that he and Dr Kate McCann played tennis until 3.30pm, then they played tennis until 4.30pm, but it is not clear what they both did until 5.30pm. Then, at 5.30pm, they went to the apartment, when according to your client he walked through an unlocked door but then had to go round to the front door, unlock it and let his wife and children through the locked door, a somewhat convoluted procedure on the face of it. Dr Gerald McCann says nothing about having a meal with the children at the crèche. Then they bathed the children between 5.30pm and 6.00pm, then Dr Gerald McCann went to play tennis with Dan, Julian and Curtis, then Dr McCann happened to see Dr Payne around the tennis courts, then Dr Payne returned from seeing Dr Kate McCann at around 7.00pm and said ‘Come on Gerry, let’s play tennis’, or words to that effect, at which point Dr Gerald McCann said ‘No, I’m going back to the apartment’. At about 715pm the whole family was apparently sitting on Madeleine’s bed reading stories.

b) In Dr Kate McCann’s version, it is said that she went jogging from 4.30pm to 5.30pm, a fact not mentioned by Dr Gerald McCann in either of his first two statements. She says that when she finished jogging, at around 5.20pm to 5.30pm, she went to the ‘Tapas area’, where her husband was already. According to Dr Kate McCann, Dr Gerald McCann was already there, and she says she sat down and ate with the children. Her statement says: “During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her”. Dr Kate McCann then says she carried Madeleine back to the apartment, with her husband ‘leading the twins back to the apartment’. Just as an observation en passant, with a child nearly four years old it would be usual for the father to carry the heaviest child. Dr Kate McCann adds that the couple had ‘thought of’ taking the children back to the recreation area but decided against it because the children were ‘too tired’.

From those observations, I deduced that there were quite a few things 'not quite right' with this account of the so-called 'high tea' that the McCanns and the children were supposed to have had at the end of the creche that day. The notion that Catriona Baker may have lied about this event is therefore completely consistent with the contradictions and discrepancies I noted in the McCanns' own account of this event.

In actual fact, there were a total of eight claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine on Thursday 3 May, the claim by Dr David Payne of seeing the three angelic children all dressed in white being one of the eight. The 'last photo' being another.

IMO there are serious doubts about all eight of them.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.10.10 22:39

Autumn wrote:Didn't Jim Gamble request that holiday-makers who had stayed at MW up to a fortnight prior to the 3rd May, forward their hol snaps to him? Hmmm was he looking for someone significant who may have been identified on holiday snaps...

1. Yes Jim Gamble asked for the holiday snaps to be posted or e-mailed DIRECT TO CEOPS
2. I assume some people responded
3. I do not know if he handed over all, or indeed any, of his material to the PJ.

by Judge Mental 23.10.10 22:52

If he gave the PJ photographs at all, they would have been vetted for at least five months first. If only to trace everybody in the photographs to make sure they would not be a threat in any way.

Where's Halligen's material? tease

by **Tony Bennett** 23.10.10 22:54

I have just seen this post from 'candyfloss':

Daily Mail - 14:50 14 October 2007

The nanny: Catriona Baker poses in her Mark Warner T-shirt This is the nanny Madeleine McCann's parents believe will be a key witness in their fight to clear their names and find their daughter...

SNIPPED

Madeleine and her two-year-old twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, were placed in the resort's Kids Club, where Ms Baker worked, at around 10am while their parents took a stroll before collecting them at 12.30pm for lunch back at the apartment. In the afternoon, the McCanns played tennis while Madeleine went back to her nanny at the children's club, who gave her tea at 5.30pm. Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were picked up by their parents at 6pm.

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

Comment: Well that is interesting because it gives us yet another variation on what was happening around late afternoon that day.

A few points:

1. Dr G McCann told David James Smith of the 'Times' that his Achilles tendon injury stopped him playing tennis at 4.30pm

2. No mention in the above Mail article of Dr K McCann jogging

3. The parents 'picking up the children at 6.00pm' is NOT what they've said previously (see my post above). The story above is that around 5.20pm to 5.30pm Dr G McCann was already at the Tapas bar and that is when Dr K McCann joined them - NOT both of them arriving at 6.00pm - therefore this is another very significant discrepancy about this ALLEGED high tea together with Catriona Baker

by **Tony Bennett** 23.10.10 23:20

Signatures

My reaction to the signature discussion so far FWIW.

The claim that on most days Dr G McCann was signing in two children, Elizabeth Naylor and a child called Madeleine, is I believe persuasive.

I note that they are not always signed in at the same time, though, is there not sometimes usually a gap of 5 minutes between one signature on the next.

Also on one occasion [April 29 - please see page 3 of this thread] I think I saw the first signature (Elizabeth Naylor) as in at 2.40 and then the next one (Madeleine McCann) as 14.45 , so the second entry is using the continental 24-hour notation and a small '45' - thus 45.

Now if that is the same person who signed both children in, that is being very crafty indeed.

by Cheshire Cat 24.10.10 1:08

Tony Bennett wrote:Signatures

My reaction to the signature discussion so far FWIW.

The claim that on most days Dr G McCann was signing in two children, Elizabeth Naylor and a child called Madeleine, is I believe persuasive.

I note that they are not always signed in at the same time, though, is there not sometimes usually a gap of 5 minutes between one signature on the next.

Also on one occasion [April 29 - please see page 3 of this thread] I think I saw the first signature (Elizabeth Naylor) as in at 2.40 and then the next one (Madeleine McCann) as 14.45 , so the second entry is using the continental 24-hour notation and a small '45' - thus 45.

Now if that is the same person who signed both children in, that is being very crafty indeed.

This is interesting. Follow the link to see a very clear photograph of Theo, Elizabeth and Madelene. This newsletter is produced by the PTA of which Ainne Naylor is a member. Zoom in on Madelene - looks strangely familiar?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.10 1:16

Cheshire Cat wrote:This is interesting. Follow the link to see a very clear photograph of Theo, Elizabeth and Madelene. This newsletter is produced by the PTA of which Anne Naylor is a member. Zoom in on Madelene - looks strangely familiar?

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

That Madalene doesn't look lke Madeleine McCann.

by Cheshire Cat 24.10.10 1:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:This is interesting. Follow the link to see a very clear photograph of Theo, Elizabeth and Madelene. This newsletter is produced by the PTA of which Anne Naylor is a member. Zoom in on Madelene - looks strangely familiar?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
That Madalene doesn't look lke Madeleine McCann.

Thanks for looking.

Does she look similar enough for the purpose of having a "Madeleine" for GM to sign into the creche?
The M in the picture would have to be at least six years old in March 2010 to make it feasible. The name mentioned on this thread as possibly being the girl GM signed in is Madelene Naylor.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.10 1:34

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:This is interesting. Follow the link to see a very clear photograph of Theo, Elizabeth and Madelene. This newsletter is produced by the PTA of which Anne Naylor is a member. Zoom in on Madelene - looks strangely familiar?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
That Madalene doesn't look lke Madeleine McCann.

Thanks for looking.

Does she look similar enough for the purpose of having a 'Madeleine' for GM to sign into the creche?

I thought that is where you might be going with this.

I suppose if your working hypothesis is that this was all planned in advance, then any fair-haired 'Madeleine' of similar age would do.

I want to be frank here. If something was going to be planned in advance, surely to goodness they would not plan for a dead body to be in their own apartment? And let's also be clear, where we are going with this line of thought is...premeditated murder.

I still tend to the view that if Madeleine died in Apartment 5A, this was NOT planned, but was unexpected.

And, reviewing this thread, we still have to account for Ms Fenn hearing a child - Madeleine? - calling out 'Daddy, Daddy' for 75 minutes from 10.30pm to 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May.

by Cheshire Cat 24.10.10 2:06

Cheshire Cat wrote:This is interesting. Follow the link to see a very clear photograph of Theo, Elizabeth and Madelene. This newsletter is produced by the PTA of which Anne Naylor is a member. Zoom in on Madelene - looks strangely familiar?

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

Tony Bennett wrote:That Madalene doesn't look lke Madeleine McCann.

Cheshire Cat wrote:Thanks for looking. Does she look similar enough for the purpose of having a 'Madeleine' for GM to sign into the creche?

Tony Bennett wrote: I thought that is where you might be going with this.

I suppose if your working hypothesis is that this was all planned in advance, then any fair-haired 'Madeleine' of similar age would do.

I want to be frank here. If something was going to be planned in advance, surely to goodness they would not plan for a dead body to be in their own apartment? And let's also be clear, where we are going with this line of thought is...premeditated murder.

I still tend to the view that if Madeleine died in Apartment 5A, this was NOT planned, but was unexpected

.
I also believe it was not planned and was completely unexpected. Once Madeleine met her demise would it have been necessary for GM to sign a child into the creche as "Madeleine McCann" to prove that MM was still around until she was "snatched"?

I am aware that Stella and co are looking into the possiblity that GM was signing in two children and one of these may have been a girl called Madelene.

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.10 9:13

Cheshire Cat wrote:I also believe it was not planned and was completely unexpected.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Adam and Stephen....sorry but I must be the only one around here who doesn't think it was completely unexpected.

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.10 9:26

Tony Bennett wrote:I want to be frank here. If something was going to be planned in advance, surely to goodness they would not plan for a dead body to be in their own apartment?

Maybe they didn't count on Eddie and Keela.

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

by Judge Mental 24.10.10 9:52

by **kikoraton** 24.10.10 10:21

Fascinating contributions above!!
Tony - yes, I think GM was crafty in little adjustments, like switching between 24 hour clock and normal, but not clever enough by a long way.
cheshirecat: I'm very glad you found that photo of AN. It always helps to build the complete picture - literally!! Now we just need to find an example of her true signature. I didn't want to say too much about a 3yo, now a seven-year-old, but perhaps I should have said that the Madeline we found lived in the NW of England. So an Elizabeth at that London school might well be EN, but we're not looking for a MEN there. Same surname, though.
Once i had found the handwriting and false signature in the creche records, it came as a shock to realise the implications for possible pre-planning.

by littlepixie 24.10.10 10:21

The Naylor child is Madeline with an I.

(sorry I'm behind on the thread)

by Guest 24.10.10 10:33

Tony Bennett wrote:

I still tend to the view that if Madeleine died in Apartment 5A, this was NOT planned, but was unexpected.

And, reviewing this thread, we still have to account for Ms Fenn hearing a child - Madeleine? - calling out 'Daddy, Daddy' for 75 minutes from 10.30pm to 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May.

Absolutely, but from what is starting to unravel here is, it would appear that the planned abduction and clean-up occurred over a space of about 4 days.

As for what Mrs Fenn heard, I would like to offer one possible explanation. If as I suspect, all the children were being kept safely in 5H every night, under one adult supervision. At some point all the respective children had to be returned to their own apartments and presumably by their Fathers. Perhaps on the night Mrs Fenn heard "Daddy, Daddy", maybe Daddy had only managed to return just one of his children. What if someone suddenly turned up and could easily have spotted a child being moved between apartments? Perhaps Daddy with second child in his arms was about to be seen, maybe this person was having a cigarette outside his own apartment, so Daddy was forced to return the second child back to 5H and waited a while for them to go. But when he realised that they were not going to move on as quick as he thought, he had to work out some kind of plan B. He then went back to his own apartment alone, UNLOCKED the rear patio doors sliding it open by 1 inch, returned once again to 5H, took the second child out through the far end exit of that building and back along the rear very dark alleyway. Once he got to the lit main street, it was a case of in through the garden gate and sliding open the patio door. What we may of heard is one child left alone for quite some time on their own, waiting for "Daddy" to come back with the second one. This might also explain why a child was crying for such a long lenght of time, what with Daddy coming back and then disappearing once again?

We know that people were hanging around smoking in that area. We also know that the crying stopped after a patio door was heard. We have also heard that it was all the Fathers leaving the table every night, except for Kate on the last night.

I think it's a possibility....

by Guest 24.10.10 10:46

If you scroll down all the Lobster entries every day, McCann and Naylor are the only ones whose writing leans to the right. Funny that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Everyone else is either straight on the page or leaning to the left. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Cheshire Cat 24.10.10 11:34

The photograph in the newsletter that I linked to earlier looks like it might include EN. The child (middle) in the picture is called 'Elizabeth class 1B'. There is an EN in class 1B. Click the link and scroll to 'Merits' section.

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

So for GM to be signing in this child the Naylors must be good friends of the McCanns. Were the Naylors interviewd by the PJ?

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.10 11:45

Cheshire Cat wrote:So for GM to be signing in this child the Naylors must be good friends of the McCanns. Were the Naylors interviewd by the PJ?

There is a Naylor at Leicester Royal Infirmary. Is this the same Naylor as you're referring to? If so, it's quite possible they're good friends.

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

by Cheshire Cat 24.10.10 11:50

Cheshire Cat wrote:The photograph in the newsletter that I linked to earlier looks like it might include EN. The child (middle) in the picture is called 'Elizabeth class 1B'. There is an EN in class 1B. Click the link and scroll to 'Merits' section.

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

So for GM to be signing in this child the Naylors must be good friends of the McCanns. Were the Naylors interviewd by the PJ?

Another photograph of Ainne Naylor:

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