Re: The creche enquiry

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.]

by Guest 28.08.11 13:04

So looks like Jane Tanner ( and probably the Paynes and Russell ) had met at least Rob Naylor....

Jane's statement from 10 May mentions the Naylors... She says that on 2 May at the beach she met the Paynes there and also met ROB husband of Ornya from London who was staying at the resort... Ornya is the pronunciation of the gaelic name Ainne... so this is Rob and Ainne Naylor as no other couple from london with those names are registered.

At the very least this means that they had casual aquaintance with the Naylors - which makes it weird why the PJ didn't interview the Naylors.. or maybe they did but it's not in the files.

Also as all the days get mixed up in the different statements hard to say if it was the 2 may or not...

Wednesday 2/5

9.00 Tennis lesson by tennis coach with Kate.
Kids Club (E*** & Madeleine plus 4 other children also had a tennis lesson. Responsible Cat and Georgina. Jane Tanner and Kate watched kids lesson on tennis court, but left before finish.
Jane went to beach. Met Paynes. Also met Rob (husband of Ornya) staying at resort. Rob keen surfer. Believes from London. Jane went sailing. Russel stayed in apartment as Evie was feeling sick.
After lunch, Russell took E*** to Kids Club, then went for canoeing lesson. Jane stayed in apartment with E***. Then took E*** to play area by pool.

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

by Guest 28.08.11 13:13

Stewie [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and you're on fire now. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is amazing proof, just what we have been looking for.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 28.08.11 13:49

Stewie wrote:So looks like Jane Tanner ( and probably the Paynes and Russell ) had met at least Rob Naylor....

Jane's statement from 10 May mentions the Naylors... She says that on 2 May at the beach she met the Paynes there and also met ROB husband of Ornya from London who was staying at the resort... Ornya is the pronunciation of the gaelic name Ainne... so this is Rob and Ainne Naylor as no other couple from london with those names are registered.

At the very least this means that they had casual aquaintance with the Naylors - which makes it weird why the PJ didn't interview the Naylors.. or maybe they did but it's not in the files.

Looking at that 10 May statement, I get the impression that RN and RoB had become quite close.

She went to the beach where she met DP and FP. She and other members of the group made the acquaintance of, in the course of their tennis classes, a lady called O., the deponent's husband, ROB, also knew the lady's husband named Rob from windsurf classes. The couple (Rob and O.) were also guests at the complex. That morning, after having been to her daughter's tennis class, the deponent went to the beach meeting Rob there. From what she knows, the couple Rob and O. have two children (a girl of 3 years and a younger child, not knowing if it was a boy or girl). She thinks they were Londoners. They were "normal" people.

Interesting also that ON had 2 children, a girl of 3 !!!!! and a younger child that she does not know the age of, let alone if it was a boy or a girl. That is unbelievable. How can anyone sit with a family on the beach and not know anything about their child ??

by Guest 28.08.11 13:56

They were "normal" people.

Not sure what "normal" means with this group...

This makes it more strange that the police didn't interview the Naylors .. there aren't many other holidaymakers they say they came into contact with regularly....

by Guest 28.08.11 14:04

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

by **tigger** 28.08.11 14:07

Stewie wrote:
They were "normal" people.

Not sure what "normal" means with this group...

This makes it more strange that the police didn't interview the Naylors .. there aren't many other holidaymakers they say they came into contact with regularly....

Well, perhaps to differentiate them from so many others she knew. Poor Jane, probably did just as she was asked, lied like a trooper and got no thanks in return.
Jane always seems to me as wanting to belong with the other women, who are all more attractive, slimmer and glamorous. The girl who does other people favours. Perhaps the Naylors didn't want anything from her except her company, that made them 'normal' in her mind.

by Guest 28.08.11 14:25

Two more observations.

1. Robert and Ainne Naylor did not have any return flight details on their MW booking list. Just like the McCann's and Payne's.

2. Rober Naylor cleared his OC running tab on the 4th, the day before he was due to leave. Which would suggest he was still in the resort on the 4th.

by Guest 28.08.11 14:35

Stella wrote:

She went to the beach where she met DP and FP. She and other members of the group made the acquaintance of, in the course of their tennis classes, a lady called O., the deponent's husband, ROB, also knew the lady's husband named Rob from windsurf classes. The couple (Rob and O.) were also guests at the complex. That morning, after having been to her daughter's tennis class, the deponent went to the beach meeting Rob there. From what she knows, the couple Rob and O. have two children (a girl of 3 years and a younger child, not knowing if it was a boy or girl). She thinks they were Londoners. They were "normal" people.

Now we know why McCann and Naylor was often signed in together, or there abouts. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I can retire for the day now on a high !!

by Daisy 28.08.11 16:15

Stewie wrote:They were "normal" people.

Not sure what "normal" means with this group...

This makes it more strange that the police didn't interview the Naylors .. there aren't many other holidaymakers they say they came into contact with regularly....

Perhaps, and I emphasise the word perhaps because this is pure speculation. 'Rob Naylor' could be a VERY important person, someone VERY high up in the NHS and didn't want his career sullied by being involved in the investigation.

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

by Guest 29.08.11 9:11

Daisy wrote:
Perhaps, and I emphasise the word perhaps because this is pure speculation. 'Rob Naylor' could be a VERY important person, someone VERY high up in the NHS

He does not work for the NHS Daisy.

by Guest 29.08.11 9:55

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

From Jane Tanner's 10th May statement, talking about being on the beach with Rob (Robert) and Ornya (Ainne) Naylor.

Why didn't any of them talk about this couple they were on the beach with and played tennis with, in their rogatory interviews?

A big [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] for Stewie for finding this.

by Guest 29.08.11 12:11

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

This is the creche sheet for the 1st May.

Stephen Carpenter in his statement claimed his daughter was not in Madeleine's group.

Yet, what we can see is that his daughter did get signed in once and was crossed out. She is signed in at 2.40.

The next child signed in is recorded as 2.30, an earlier time than they entry before it !!

This is a very unusual day indeed.

A child not in that group, is signed in and out of it.

The O'Brien child is signed in with the wrong room number.

Madeleine does not get signed out.

by Bebootje 29.08.11 12:35

In addition to possible falsification of registration of Madeleine by the McCanns may - All in all - with certainty be concluded that the records were a mess, and therefore totally unreliable.
In itself this could be is a reason for Baker's loyalty to the McCanns.
Looks like she was totally unfit for her job.

by Daisy 29.08.11 13:00

Stella wrote:

He does not work for the NHS Daisy.[/quote]

Thanks Stella. I'll not waste time on that now. Just trying to make sure 'no stone is left unturned' [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Could you please delete the two links I put up.

by Guest 29.08.11 14:18

Bebootje wrote:In addition to possible falsification of registration of Madeleine by the McCanns may - All in all - with certainty be concluded that the records were a mess, and therefore totally unreliable.
I disagree. If a handwriting expert looks at the originals and concludes that one person was indeed signing in two children, this person should be interviewed again and asked why.

by Bebootje 29.08.11 15:31

Stella wrote:
Bebootje wrote:In addition to possible falsification of registration of Madeleine by the McCanns may - All in all - with certainty be concluded that the records were a mess, and therefore totally unreliable.
I disagree. If a handwriting expert looks at the originals and concludes that one person was indeed signing in two children, this person should be interviewed again and asked why.

Off course, but looking at those records we can conclude that the records weren't properly supervised by the nannies. That they were a mess really. Somethimes children are not signed in or forgotten to sign out. That in fact Catriona Baker did a very sloppy job.
The records are in fact totally unreliable to prove Madeleine was present at May 3.

by Guest 29.08.11 15:39

Maybe she was never really there all week ?

by Guest 29.08.11 15:41

Bebootje wrote:

looking at those records we can conclude that the records weren't properly supervised by the nannies.

That would be arguable. There are many entries where the nanny has inserted her own name, so she must have been observing them at some point in time, yes?

by Guest 30.08.11 8:56

Stewie wrote:
Jane's statement from 10 May mentions the Naylors... She says that on 2 May at the beach she met the Paynes there and also met ROB husband of Ornya from London who was staying at the resort

Interestingly the 2nd May is the only day the Naylor's name is listed on the tapas lists for 7 pm. Followed by O'Donnell at 7.30 pm and the tapas group at 8.30 pm.

There is also one other thing that only occurred on the 2nd on the tapas list. Someone's name was removed by covering it up at 7pm and I have often wondered why that was. If someone cancelled, why not just cross through the name? Why go to all the effort of removing every last stroke, hiding what was there?

by Guest 30.08.11 16:11

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

Why would they be "aware no baby club", when there was one?

Baby Club (3-11 months)

There are 3 sub groups, each group having only 2 babies each.

Charlotte Pennington and Lynne Fretter looked after these groups.