Re: The creche enquiry

by Baronstu 24.06.11 16:43

From my above post, the question is, Who picked THE Madeleine up on the evening of the 3rd?
Was it Kate, as the record shows? Well, she says not in her "Truthfull" Bookie.
Was it Gerald, as Kate states in her "Truthfull" Bookie?
If it was, why then is it Kates name on the sign out sheet, did the nanny sign for the parent? I mean she's no Stunner, but even I couldn't mistake her for Gerald.

by pauline 24.06.11 17:01

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:21 pm

From Kates book:

Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our
holiday group. They saw me and shouted some words of encouragement. At least, I think that’s what they were shouting! I
remember feeling fleetingly disappointed that we hadn’t known they were all heading for the beach, as it might have been
nice to have joined them, especially for the kids. I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini
Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella. I wasn’t to know at that stage that in fact they had only just arrived when I ran by.
It’s hard work being a mum sometimes, fretting about the possible effects of the smallest of incidents on your children. I’m sure
a lot of these worries are unfounded but it doesn’t stop us having them, and we’ll probably go on having them for the rest of
our lives.
I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with

Gerry.

Hilarious, she worries about little incidents upsetting her children - she didn't worry that any of them would wake up in the dark while she was wining and dining and find nobody there!

[img]/processopdf01page107-CrecheRecords3.jpg[/img]][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The link is to the McCanfiles Creche record for the 3rd May. Kate signed Madeleine out at 17:30 (allegedly).

by pauline 24.06.11 17:24

Hit send button too soon!

meant to comment on Kate's book quote about we mums worry that the smallest incidents can upset our children...she does not mention having any worries about any of her three small children waking up in the dark while she was wining and dining and wanting mummy...

by lj 24.06.11 20:04

we mums worry

Didn't happen too often to you, did it Kate??

Hilarious when Kate tries to look "maternal".

by ROSA 24.06.11 23:48

Stella wrote:In my opinion, the creche and phone activity points to something happening on the night of the 28th, or the very early hours of the 29th. Everything else that happened after that is therefore questionable.

Stella what about this
The creche records
Their statements
Kates diary
Kates book
These 4 items are all records but do they match
Kate was using her diary to record the other child as well as the T9 the times etc her diary looks like she was getting prepared by keeping records they all knew they would have to give statements to the police

by ROSA 25.06.11 3:44

to sum up : two girls with Gerry goes to the kids club. GM signs in Madeline - not Maddie # McCann. Spelled Differently. Her father Accompanied Them. Also GM signs in Elizabeth Naylor. Her father stays away. Thuso 2 men - 2 girls. Nobody suspicious. The writing leaves No Doubt.

To sum up: Gerry goes with two girls to the kids club. GM signs in a Madeline - not Maddie #McCann. Spelled differently. Her father accompanies them. GM also signs in Elizabeth Naylor. Her father stays away. Thus 2 men - 2 girls. Nobody suspicious. The writing leaves no doubt.
kikoratton
you can see how it can be done using 2 girls E Naylor and another child

by Guest 25.06.11 9:29

Baronstu wrote:From my above post, the question is, Who picked THE Madeleine up on the evening of the 3rd?
Was it Kate, as the record shows? Well, she says not in her "Truthfull" Bookie.
Was it Gerald, as Kate states in her "Truthfull" Bookie?
If it was, why then is it Kates name on the sign out sheet, did the nanny sign for the parent? I mean she's no Stunner, but even I couldn't mistake her for Gerald.

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

The nanny always signed "Cat nanny" when she signed out a child (or 'perhaps' later filled in the missing blanks??).
The nanny must have taken the creche sheets to high tea with her (creche finished 4.30-5.00).
So when would a child be signed out? At the point they left the creche room?, at the point they left high tea?, or at the point a parent arrived. None of this information is very clear, as no one mentions it in any of their statements. But that entry says KM 5.30. Gerry allegedly was already there, so he would have been asked to sign it before Kate did surely? Why 5.30? Is that the time they allegedly all left high tea?

The PJ must have seen this also, but they probably put it down to them not being able to get their stories straight on THAT day.

But they needed to look back much further. Test all of the handwriting, there are numerous causes for concern on most days on those sheets. The biggest issue being that there was supposed to be a seperate sheet for PM.

by Guest 25.06.11 12:50

On the 30th April in the afternoon, 'Madeleine' was signed in and back out after only 15 minutes. 15.15 - 15.30.

On that same afternoon, the twins are signed into creche between 15.25-17.20.

It would seem that Kate first dropped 'Madeleine' off at 15.15, then drops the twins off at 15.25, then goes back to collect 'Madeleine' at 15.30.

But why? Did something happen in the Lobster creche after 'Madeleine' was signed in and Kate was asked to go back and get her?

Interestingly !!!

This is the same afternoon that a shop-keeper in Sagres claims to have seen Kate holding 'Madeleine's' hand on one side of the road, with Gerry and an empty buggy on the opposite side of the road. Which if true, is very odd indeed.

by ROSA 25.06.11 13:37

Stella wrote:On the 30th April in the afternoon, 'Madeleine' was signed in and back out after only 15 minutes. 15.15 - 15.30.

On that same afternoon, the twins are signed into creche between 15.25-17.20.

It would seem that Kate first dropped 'Madeleine' off at 15.15, then drops the twins off at 15.25, then goes back to collect 'Madeleine' at 15.30.

But why? Did something happen in the Lobster creche after 'Madeleine' was signed in and Kate was asked to go back and get her?

Interestingly !!!

This is the same afternoon that a shop-keeper in Sagres claims to have seen Kate holding 'Madeleine's' hand on one side of the road, with Gerry and an empty buggy on the opposite side of the road. Which if true, is very odd indeed.

The child seen in Sagres if true was the fake one did the mccanns make a trip there that day was the childs parents there too also the shopkeeper can only know what he sees and presume the child to be Madeleine
i think the child probaly looked alot like Madeleine thats why when the news of he disappearance was known and the photos came out it wasnt questioned meaning it was accepted by creche staff

by Guest 25.06.11 13:44

New Technique Helps Police Bust Forgers

3D Micro-Profilometry Examines Handwriting Variations

From Institute of Physics News,

Forging wills and bank check could now be near impossible thanks to a team of physicists in Rome, Italy. Writing in the latest issue of the Institute of Physics journal, Journal of Optics A, the scientists announce a new technique that can detect forged handwriting better than ever before.

Professor Giuseppe Schirripa Spagnolo, Carla Simonetti and Lorenzo Cozzella from the Universita degli Studi "Roma Tre" in Rome, Italy, have devised a forgery detection method that creates a 3D hologram of a piece of handwriting and analyses tiny variations and bumps along its path using two common scientific techniques: virtual reality and image processing.

Until now, detecting forged signatures or handwriting has generally been done by experts who analyse the sequence of individual "strokes" in a piece of handwriting using normal, 2D samples. However, a good forgery can go undetected at the 2D level because it isn't always easy to determine the exact sequence of strokes.

Schirripa Spagnolo's team create 3D holograms of the path of a piece of writing, generating an image on a computer that looks like a ditch or furrow. This makes it easy to analyse variations or "bumps" generated by the writer's pressure on the paper at cross over points, for example the mid-point of the figure eight.

Image Processing and Virtual Reality

The most common technique used by forgers is tracing, although in real life no two signatures are ever identical. A more sophisticated method is known as the "Freehand Technique" and here the forger copies the general style and characteristics of the handwriting they are trying to copy. However, in both cases it is almost impossible for the forger to reproduce the exact variation of pressure used by the original writer.

Professor Schirripa Spagnolo said: "Using image processing and virtual reality makes it easy to detect the presence of bumps at cross-over points. Finding these bumps allows experts to easily determine the sequence of strokes in a piece of handwriting and the tell tale signs of a forgery or original. Another benefit of this technique is that it doesn't damage the sample."

The Rome team used their technique, known as "3D Micro-profilometry" to analyse hundreds of different handwriting samples made using a variety of different paper types and pens. They have also applied their technique to wills and cheques and successfully detected forgeries in both.

Professor Schirripa Spagnolo said: "We believe this type of 3D micro-profilometry is one of the most promising ways of detecting forged handwriting, and it will be a powerful tool for forensic experts around the world."

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

How can we get them to test the creche sheets ??

by ROSA 25.06.11 13:50

How Stella?

by Guest 25.06.11 14:02

Perhaps the PJ could ask this place in Rome to examine the creche sheets and if they detect that there is loads of those "bumps" or dots as I understand them to look when enlarged which suggests copying, maybe they could reopen the investigation to find out who the authors of these signatures really were.

by ROSA 25.06.11 14:26

i hope so
When a new investigation happens and they review the original case files would they consult with the former PA ?

by Guest 25.06.11 15:44

Kate's book does not contain one single photo of Madeleine in Portugal.

No pictures = No Proof of Life.

Not even the creche sheets proves she was there.

by ROSA 25.06.11 15:54

Can you alert anyone Stella to this fact something has to be done about this

by Guest 25.06.11 15:59

It's doing the rounds on Twitter as we speak ROSA. Apart from that all we can do at the moment is keep digging and keep logging everything we find.

by Estelle 25.06.11 21:21

Stella wrote:It's doing the rounds on Twitter as we speak ROSA. Apart from that all we can do at the moment is keep digging and keep logging everything we find.

This is brilliant work, Stella. I often thought that the reason why this case was not solved was because Maddie died earlier. I have been re-tweeting kikoratton's tweets. What is the Patel girl's name?

I found it. Tia.

by ROSA 26.06.11 2:37

Samples from the crèche records

Reports

The workings of the Ocean Club crèche was explained to the British police by Catriona herself: “Mark Warner has the usual procedure of signing a form whenever the parents leave the child in the club’s care, which they sign again with the name and the time at which the child was collected. There is a separate sheet for the morning shift and another for the afternoon shift. The sheet contains space for the child’s name, the time and the parent’s signature. Only parents are allowed to take the children, except when an agreement is made in another sense, in due time.”

In Portugal, the experts that can evaluate calligraphy are from the PJ. It was explained to Tvmais that the crèche’s reports reveal inconsistencies in the writing. One of the doubts that the analysts raise concerns the identity of the authors of the form filling and their signatures in the form. The nanny’s signature and her handwriting appear on the sheet where only the parents were supposed to sign. Did anyone notice?

Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The creche records, Kate has also explained in her book that she did not become Kate McCann until May 4th. Everything she explains was in her maiden name therefore she would sign Healy , however the creche records are signed Healy for the date May 2nd and Kate McCann for the other days??? The 2nd of May seems to be of great importance, it was the day the cleaner saw cots in seperate rooms, the evening before Mrs.Fenn heard a childs screams. I do not believe Kate McCann, she wrote Healy May 2nd in error, or someone signed on her behalf.

The McCanns are now in the process of suing Hernàni Carvalho. In the book great detail is made of Madeleines toothbrush, so if you wish to read it before the McCanns have it banned buy it soon.

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

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

by Guest 26.06.11 10:14

ROSA wrote:

In Portugal, the experts that can evaluate calligraphy are from the PJ. It was explained to Tvmais that the crèche’s reports reveal inconsistencies in the writing. One of the doubts that the analysts raise concerns the identity of the authors of the form filling and their signatures in the form. The nanny’s signature and her handwriting appear on the sheet where only the parents were supposed to sign. Did anyone notice?

Source: TvMais, paper edition only 18.11.2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you ROSA. This is the first time I have ever seen anyone comment on those sheets. It might explain why certain ones in the twins group was witheld, but why release the rest?

Even we can see that somethings not right with the handwriting. But I bet because they were still working on the theory of death on the 3rd, they didn't see the earlier handwriting as suspicious.

by **Jill Havern** 26.06.11 10:19

lj wrote:we mums worry

Didn't happen too often to you, did it Kate??

Hilarious when Kate tries to look "maternal".

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

This is Kate trying to look maternal about Maddie waking up and crying.

by Dr_Evil 26.06.11 12:09

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
lj wrote:we mums worry

Didn't happen too often to you, did it Kate??

Hilarious when Kate tries to look "maternal".

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

This is Kate trying to look maternal about Maddie waking up and crying.

Is it really, or is it your caption under a photograph still from somewhere else?

by **Jill Havern** 26.06.11 12:34

Dr_Evil wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
lj wrote:we mums worry

Didn't happen too often to you, did it Kate??

Hilarious when Kate tries to look "maternal".

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

This is Kate trying to look maternal about Maddie waking up and crying.

Is it really, or is it your caption under a photograph still from somewhere else?

No, it's not my caption. This gurn of Kate's came during an interview with Dermot Murnaghan - if you read her answer the gurn came during the bit in bold "that means that, you know, she must have fallen back asleep very quickly, errm... and then she moved on… you know, she moved on.

Dermot Murnaghan: "Was Madeleine upset the night before, about being left alone. Had she… had she had a moment and got out of bed and started crying and started looking for you?"

Kate McCann: I mean, I don't want to dwell on it too much, I mean, I don't know if you saw the documentary last night, so, I mean, I have talked about it, errm... Madeleine made a comment, errm… in passing, that, errm… 'Where were you when I cried?' Not just to mummy, by the way, just generally, errm… and it just seemed a bit odd. I mean, it was a very, kind of, passing remark and we just thought, 'Oh, she doesn't usually wake up' and, she woke up; that means that, you know, she must have fallen back asleep very quickly, errm... and then she moved on… you know, she moved on.

See Kate's gurn for yourself in this video at 1 min 17.

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

This is another of Kate's gurns when talking about her lost daughter.

by ufercoffy 26.06.11 13:42

Stella wrote:It's doing the rounds on Twitter as we speak ROSA. Apart from that all we can do at the moment is keep digging and keep logging everything we find.

You know Kiko is upsetting people with his research when Muratfan feels the need to trash him on his blog yes

by Guest 26.06.11 14:04

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

puzzled wrote:
What's being hinted at here? Are you saying that one of the tapas 9 was this Naylor person? Is there no independent proof that such a person existed? This matter seems to get more and more bizarre by the minute!

Sorry Puzzled, I meant to come back to you the other day, but forgot. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Above is the entry on the OC daily lists. As you can see, there were two Naylor bookings. The ones in BP01 were allegedly using the creche. The ones in G4N may have also had children, but we just don't know. Were these two families related? Did the ones in G4N also have a little girl around the age of 3? If so, what was her name?

One thing we need to consider is that just becasue there was an entry on the creche sheets in the name of Naylor. It does not mean that the child taken to creche was a Naylor. The Naylor's in BP01 may not know anything about it. By all accounts, it looks like anyone could pitch up with a child, put any persons name they like on the lists and that was that.

Note :flower:
Billing for the use of the creche by BP01, was not added to their account. So did this person pay cash?

by pauline 26.06.11 14:11

[quote="Stella"][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

puzzled wrote:

Note :flower:
Billing for the use of the creche by BP01, was not added to their account. So did this person pay cash?

Maybe I have this wrong, but I thought that Mark Warner holidays here included the use of the creche. Somewhere in the book Kate says she was initially unenthusiastic about the holiday when her friends suggested it as it was expensive. I understood it was expensive because it included meals and the facilities such as the creche.

Log in for more topics