Re: The creche enquiry

by Guest 08.08.11 11:04

ROSA wrote:Did a child die at creche?

I doubt that very much ROSA. They would have sued the pants off MW and been screaming for the nanny to be hanged, if she did.

We should be thankful that the creche records and phone records have been released to the public, or we would be none the wiser.

by ROSA 08.08.11 11:06

Yes maddie did not go to creche

by Guest 08.08.11 11:18

Stella wrote:
ROSA wrote:Did a child die at creche?

I doubt that very much ROSA. They would have sued the pants off MW and been screaming for the nanny to be hanged, if she did.

Just as they would have been screaming for:

1. the investigation to remain open
2. the dogs findings to be investigated

....had Maddie 'disappeared' whilst being in the care of a nanny.

by ROSA 08.08.11 13:16

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

by Guest 08.08.11 13:29

Thank you ROSA. That is proof that arm bands were only added to the children's arms, AFTER the alarm was raised.

Why did the nanny lie about all the children having ones before?

by ROSA 08.08.11 13:31

yes Stella thumbsup

by ROSA 08.08.11 14:22

i hope SY can ask the nanny Stella :

by Guest 08.08.11 18:02

Stella wrote:I've just noticed something else, the Totman child was signed in at 2.15 that day. Creche starts at 2.30 and on no other day has any child been signed in that early.

I wonder what was so special about that day?

It makes you think. Every service was available for card-holders only and starfish & lobster creche wasn't free for both am & pm. If the time in - time out is not on the sheets perhaps they used a swipe card system & charged from the printout? Now, wouldn't that be interesting to see. From looking at those sheets, it seems likely that they were back-filled.

by ROSA 09.08.11 0:05

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

by ROSA 10.08.11 13:01

Mr McCann: There are two elements. Right at the very beginning, Mark Warner had a media specialist, a crisis management specialist from Bell Pottinger called Alex Wilful, who was incredibly helpful to us and, in those early days, gave us quite simple guidance which we found particularly helpful.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 10.08.11 16:41

I wonder how the Met team are getting on with all the evidence they have been given by various individuals, in relation to the creche records?

by pauline 10.08.11 16:59

has anyone who made a submission received an acknowledement from SY?

by talochette 10.08.11 17:05

I would think they're a little busy with the riots at the mo.

by Guest 10.08.11 18:28

Let's hope that the McCanns realise that there are more important things to do at the moment than to go round running after them.

by **kikoraton** 10.08.11 19:42

Alex WILFUL!!! I love it!

by Guest 16.08.11 16:29

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

It's the 29th April, the first day of creche.

One child gets signed in wrong twice on the same day, amazing.

Is it just a coincidence or is it a bad case of nerves ?

by **kikoraton** 16.08.11 21:20

I think I know what it is, Stella. We can tell from the handwriting that Gerry is signing in both Elizabeth Naylor, and "Madeleine". Gerry needs to convince us that it was actually Robert Naylor signing in his daughter Elizabeth.
By writing "Rob" and "Robert" on 29 AND 30 April, Gerry hopes to implant in the casual observer's mind the idea that Robert Naylor was present and doing the writing. He wasn't, and neither did he make even the slightest pretence at claiming he was, when I confronted him with the facts.

by Guest 17.08.11 8:50

Who do you think crossed out the Robert and wrote Elizabeth?

by **kikoraton** 17.08.11 12:31

In the morning session, a creche-worker? Big cursive "eth".
In the afternoon, I think I can just detect a gerry-style "A". Can't be sure.
The point being, that "Rob" and "Robert" stayed long enough, and still remain legible, for the impression to be given that Robert played some part in the signing-in. I don't believe he ever did.

by Miraflores 17.08.11 13:32

Who is Robert Naylor? Why should he be collaborating with Gerry McCann?

by **kikoraton** 17.08.11 14:12

He's a London, ex-Edinburgh, investment banker.
It's for the MET to investigate whether or not he has any previous or current connection with GM. Possibly a business relationship? If he has, then questions will have to be asked of both of them.

by Guest 17.08.11 14:57

The point being and it's a very important one. If the creche sheets were being fiddled as early as the 29th !! Madeleine must have died at that point, or her disappearance was being planned at that point.

The forensic analysis of the original creche sheets, is now imperative and the only way to do that, is to get the case reopened.

This has to force the reopening of the investigation, perhaps the MET can facilitate this !!

by doug 18.08.11 14:20

kikoraton wrote:He's a London, ex-Edinburgh, investment banker.
It's for the MET to investigate whether or not he has any previous or current connection with GM. Possibly a business relationship? If he has, then questions will have to be asked of both of them.

Edinburgh may prove to be an interesting place

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

by happychick 18.08.11 15:01

doug wrote:Edinburgh may prove to be an interesting place

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

Ah, there's a blast from the past! Mike always gave the impression he knew 'something' about the McCanns.
Do you know if he still blogs about them, Doug?

by **tigger** 18.08.11 15:10

happychick wrote:
doug wrote:Edinburgh may prove to be an interesting place

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

Ah, there's a blast from the past! Mike always gave the impression he knew 'something' about the McCanns.
Do you know if he still blogs about them, Doug?

Anybody know how I can get hold of his piece on the 'troubled health authority' mentioned in the link? Sorry, I may be a bit dim!

by Guest 25.08.11 22:51

Molly wrote:
Stella wrote:According to the M&S size guides for young girls,

90cm is 1.5-2 years of age
98cm is 2-3 years of age
104cm is 3-4 years of age

Kate usually buys bigger clothes if Sean's red t shirt is anything to go by. Or perhaps that was Madeleine's red t shirt he was seen wearing.

As you can see from the size chart above, Madeleine should have been approx 14 cm's bigger than the McCann's claim she was. 90cm is even smaller than the twins actual age.

thinking about this, Madeleine was really 4 not 3 as she was 1 week or so away from her fourth birthday when she disappeared.... So the tennis photo and the one of her at the play house on hols she looks her age and the right height for her age. If a sub was used that looked like her but the sub was nearer three than four, then the description and the photos released would need to show her nearer the sub's age....

Thinking about this , Madeleine was only 1 week or so from her fourth birthday when she disappeared I think so she wasn't really 3 she was 4.... And the pictures of her at the play house and tennis at the start of the holiday, she looks her age four and about 100cm.... However, if the OTHER Madxline was nearer to 3 than 4 then photos released and description given would have to show her younger and shorter ....

Why would they need her to be smaller than she actually was?

I am sue this has been done already but using the tennis ball dimensions, she comes to 113.9 cm's when I calculate for the tennis pic.

by Guest 25.08.11 23:10

Stewie wrote:
Molly wrote:
Stella wrote:According to the M&S size guides for young girls,

90cm is 1.5-2 years of age
98cm is 2-3 years of age
104cm is 3-4 years of age

Kate usually buys bigger clothes if Sean's red t shirt is anything to go by. Or perhaps that was Madeleine's red t shirt he was seen wearing.

As you can see from the size chart above, Madeleine should have been approx 14 cm's bigger than the McCann's claim she was. 90cm is even smaller than the twins actual age.

thinking about this, Madeleine was really 4 not 3 as she was 1 week or so away from her fourth birthday when she disappeared.... So the tennis photo and the one of her at the play house on hols she looks her age and the right height for her age. If a sub was used that looked like her but the sub was nearer three than four, then the description and the photos released would need to show her nearer the sub's age....

Thinking about this , Madeleine was only 1 week or so from her fourth birthday when she disappeared I think so she wasn't really 3 she was 4.... And the pictures of her at the play house and tennis at the start of the holiday, she looks her age four and about 100cm.... However, if the OTHER Madxline was nearer to 3 than 4 then photos released and description given would have to show her younger and shorter ....

Why would they need her to be smaller than she actually was?

I am sue this has been done already but using the tennis ball dimensions, she comes to 113.9 cm's when I calculate for the tennis pic.

sorry Stella - I stuffed this up a bit.... tried to post this but somehow ended up inserting it into the middle of your post.....

thinking about this, Madeleine was really 4 not 3 as she was 1 week or so away from her fourth birthday when she disappeared.... So the tennis photo and the one of her at the play house on hols she looks her age and the right height for her age. If a sub was used that looked like her but the sub was nearer three than four, then the description and the photos released would need to show her nearer the sub's age....

Thinking about this , Madeleine was only 1 week or so from her fourth birthday when she disappeared I think so she wasn't really 3 she was 4.... And the pictures of her at the play house and tennis at the start of the holiday, she looks her age four and about 100cm.... However, if the OTHER Madxline was nearer to 3 than 4 then photos released and description given would have to show her younger and shorter ....

by Gillyspot 26.08.11 7:08

This may have come up before but I have found on Truth for Madeleine that they think she was about 40" tall - using her photo outside the playhouse.

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

by Guest 26.08.11 8:58

Stewie wrote:

However, if the OTHER Madxline was nearer to 3 than 4 then photos released and description given would have to show her younger and shorter ....

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

by **tigger** 26.08.11 10:04

Gillyspot wrote:This may have come up before but I have found on Truth for Madeleine that they think she was about 40" tall - using her photo outside the playhouse.

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

That would make her 101 cm. tall. I'm not even sure that that little girl is Madeleine. Could be Ella, it's a bit of a stretch to the tennis ball girl who is at least 110 cm tall and is foreshortened and hunched as well so might be even taller. To me that body at least looks like a girl of about 5/6. The face is probably Maddie. Tennis ball and airport steps are two methods to approx. height. (Just a phonecall to Midlands' Airport?)
Don't forget that the playground photo is very questionable,( fat man in ballet position, distance between Gerry and M not right, etc.) I think those two are Ella, look up her photos and she was very like Madeleine but probably shorter. We're forever being treated to this 'pink' girl. Kate insists M loved pink, although she says in the book that the pink outfit at the swimming pool is apricot coloured.
Pink is a sort of leitmotiv for K. Pink blanket, pink cuddlecat (don't get me started on that!) pink clothes and with journalist, peeping into Madeleine's pink room at home. But the photographs tell a different story of red, blue, white pyjamas not pink!
Pink is immediately associated with Madeleine, that's the message. Advertisers know all about this trick.