Re: The creche enquiry

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.

by Gillyspot 26.08.11 10:50

There are British Building Guidelines as to the height of the riser on staircases. They do vary as to whether it is a private stair (i.e. a home) or institutional stair.

From what I can see the rise must be between 135mm to 180mm

I hope that this helps. Not sure if it does.

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

by Guest 26.08.11 12:01

Stella, do you think there is any possibility that the records for the creche were written up afterwards and exchanged for the originals?

by Guest 26.08.11 15:08

Molly wrote:Stella, do you think there is any possibility that the records for the creche were written up afterwards and exchanged for the originals?

Well it's definitely Gerry's handwriting we can see on the creche sheets and if Madeleine really vanished on the night of the 3rd, why would they need to be replaced ?

by Guest 26.08.11 16:38

Stella wrote:Well it's definitely Gerry's handwriting we can see on the creche sheets and if Madeleine really vanished on the night of the 3rd, why would they need to be replaced ?

I am just thinking out loud, Stella, and am probably way off the mark. You have done a lot of work on the sheets and so will have better understanding and knowledge and I value your opinion. As it stands it looks pretty certain that Madeleine never attended creche and therefore would have vanished on 28th. It's the witnesses (tapas & tennis) stating that everyone was in good form and holiday mode, I find it hard to believe that they all could be if there was a fatality. I feel that if something happened to Madeleine on the night of 28th it would have given them very little time to organize fake Maddy for creche, come up with the plan and be all set to go by breakfast on Sunday. I am still working through a timeline from T9 perspective but looking at the great work Kiko & you have done on the phone records, Gerry gets a lot of instructions on 2nd and Kate's phone springs into activity on 1st (PM). In her book Kate says nothing about Wednesday apart from going to the supermarket. If they re-create the creche records they can fix Madeleine's attendance and perhaps cover any routine anomalies. It might also explain why there are so many issues with the handwriting and perhaps why there were no separate am/pm sheets.

by Guest 28.08.11 0:23

Just been looking around to try and find samples of GM's handwriting to compare to the writing on the creche records.

There is the stickerbook which contains a lot of writing done on 3rd May/4 May and handed to the PJ.

The writing is supposedly Russell's and in the main it does look similar to the writing on the creche sheets for his child in Lobsters. The 3rd May is odd because in the morning, on line 3, underneath the sign in for Madeleine, it looks like Ella is written then crossed out, and Elizabeth Naylor written in instead. It seems that he has a problem with his child's name as it is also written as Emma elsewhere on the creche sheets then crossed out and it's corrected to Ella. Even on the sticker book, there are 2 occasions where Ella is written and crossed out...

On the second page of the sticker book , the name "Gerald" looks like it matches the "Gerald" on the signature on GM's PJ statements so for some reason the second sticker book page is "signed" by GM - some kind of authorisation..

It's a shame there is no police interview with Naylor - then we would be able to see his signature against the creche records...

Anyone know of instances of GM's handwriting?

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

by Guest 28.08.11 8:57

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

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

These were the movements for all of the adults, so why would a childs name enter into it? Especially when they were all tucked up in their beds allegedly. Not unless they had her on their minds at the time they was writing it, but why?

It is also around the time that a child allegedly was removed from an apartment. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 28.08.11 9:05

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

This is one that has been discussed before, but we could never make out what it really said, whether it was Emma or Ella?

But either way, it should not have been attached to the name Elizabeth Naylor.

by Guest 28.08.11 9:15

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

Are these two written by the same hand ?

by Guest 28.08.11 9:16

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

by Guest 28.08.11 9:21

This is Gerry 'mark', in the top right hand corner of this page, to show that he has witnessed it.

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

This is Gerry's signature at the bottom of that same document.

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