The creche enquiry

Well, imo that only argues for some hasty re-arrangement/copying of creche sheets.
I can see no reason why they should make that mistake.
The PJ will no doubt have noticed these little discrepancies.

MW had their advisor? out as early as the 4th? His first action would be to see that the records were in order I expect. I wonder at which date the creche sheets were inspected by the PJ. My guess is not that same week. They were looking for a live girl after all and at that time there appeared to be no doubt about her presence all week.

Cat Baker - not the sharpest knife in the drawer either imo - might be fairly easy to influence. Press attention, a weepy Kate and a few quick adjustments?
Don't think the creche sheets would be under lock and key.

It still looks though, that there was a sub, so far nothing else seems to work. So RN is of great interest and there appears to be no connection to the T7 and RN.

tigger wrote:Well, imo that only argues for some hasty re-arrangement/copying of creche sheets.
I can see no reason why they should make that mistake.
The PJ will no doubt have noticed these little discrepancies.

MW had their advisor? out as early as the 4th? His first action would be to see that the records were in order I expect. I wonder at which date the creche sheets were inspected by the PJ. My guess is not that same week. They were looking for a live girl after all and at that time there appeared to be no doubt about her presence all week.

Cat Baker - not the sharpest knife in the drawer either imo - might be fairly easy to influence. Press attention, a weepy Kate and a few quick adjustments?
Don't think the creche sheets would be under lock and key.

It still looks though, that there was a sub, so far nothing else seems to work. So RN is of great interest and there appears to be no connection to the T7 and RN.

Ah tigger I found a connection between RN and the T 7 previously - not sure which thread but will dig it out. Jane mentions them in her rogatory and how they knew rn and his wife from windsurfing and I found a greyscale photo on the pj files of what looks like RN and either rob or mo posing on the beach in wetsuits. Too late to find my posts on this now but will look tomorrow.

tigger wrote:Well, imo that only argues for some hasty re-arrangement/copying of creche sheets.
I can see no reason why they should make that mistake.
The PJ will no doubt have noticed these little discrepancies.

MW had their advisor? out as early as the 4th? His first action would be to see that the records were in order I expect. I wonder at which date the creche sheets were inspected by the PJ. My guess is not that same week. They were looking for a live girl after all and at that time there appeared to be no doubt about her presence all week.

Cat Baker - not the sharpest knife in the drawer either imo - might be fairly easy to influence. Press attention, a weepy Kate and a few quick adjustments?
Don't think the creche sheets would be under lock and key.

It still looks though, that there was a sub, so far nothing else seems to work. So RN is of great interest and there appears to be no connection to the T7 and RN.

Tigger, it's not only the creche records that need to be investigated. I spent hours looking at the Tapas Bar records. I posted on it in detail. Why aren't there handwriting experts crawling all over these records? If TM can bring in a bloody psychic then why not a handwriting expert? after all, it was mentioned that the Tapas Bar 'records' showed that T9 were dining out everynight and leaving the kids and were available for someone to read.

those tapas sheets look tampered with to me along with the creche sheets. I would not be surprised to discover that the tapas group was rather more extended than described, more like the tapas dozen.

how frustrating, almost finished writing a post and as my computer updated itself everything on screen vanished.
so here goes again. I apologise for ref you to mccann files but I cannot copy over the relevant creche sheets and it is impossible for me to enlarge what has kindly been posted here recently.

I am aware of the seeming fraudulent signing re McCann/ Naylor, but there is something very dodgy about the signing in /out of Ella O Brien.

April 29th looks unremarkable, signed in pm only by Jane Tanner , entered just after Maddie,apartment given as 5D.

April 30th, signed in and out am by initials RJOB....apartment entered is 5D.
p.m. [ session when Maddie in only from 3 15 - 3.30] Ella is signed in AT 4 pm as R O Brien, apartment entered is 5D and she is not signed out.

1st May a.m. Ella is signed in as Emma, scratched out and correct name in the margin. Handwriting here is different to previous entries for ROB and signature looks like an imitation. Apartment entered is 5B. Ella is not signed out.

p.m. Ella entered by Cat Nanny with apartment as 5B. Signed in 2.30, same time as Madeleine, signed out by Jane Tanner. This session Madeleine is not signed out.
.
May 2nd a.m. Ella signed in, apartment 5B has B overwritten with D. signed in and out initials RJOB.

p.m. signed in and out by what looks like initials RJOB, both sets look strange. Apartment entered is 5D with an additional piece of info scratched out.

MAY 3rd a.m. Ella signed in apartment 5D, both in and out by RJOB but initials look strange as Js dont match each other.
p.m. 5D entered , signed in by what appears to be an imitation of RJB initials [ the O entered other sessions is missing] and signed out by Cat Nanny.
Not sure what is going on here, but these entries are imo clearly doctored. pun unintentional.
again I am very sorry I cannot post these sheets here, if anyone can do this,so that they can be very much magnified I would be very grateful....thanks.

02 May 2007

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

Processo Volume I, page 115

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

Processo Volume I, page 116

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	Kate and Gerry's mobile phone number	09:10	Gerry McCann	12:25	Kate McCann
PM	TENNIS Kate's mobile phone number	14:40	Kate McCann	17:20	Gerry McCann

03 May 2007

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

Processo Volume I, page 117

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	[No morning attendance sheet in the files]
PM	Kate and Gerry's mobile phone number	14:45	Kate McCann	17:25	Kate McCann

04 May 2007

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

Processo Volume I, page 118

Session	Parent's location	Time in	Signature	Time out	Signature
AM	Mobile	10:10	Dianne Webster	12:20	Fiona Payne

Candyfloss, thank you SO MUCH for posting those..............I am sure after that you don't have any time to tell me how to do it !
I will learn soon I hope as I am not going to put you to that trouble again.

russiandoll wrote: Candyfloss, thank you SO MUCH for posting those..............I am sure after that you don't have any time to tell me how to do it !
I will learn soon I hope as I am not going to put you to that trouble again.

Have sent you pm russiandoll, with instructions.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

strange that on a mysterious day, 30th April, Robert Naylor is signed in instead of his daughter a.m.
p.m. R OBrien is signed in instead of his daughter.
Same error by same person ?
Will try to post, but the signature for OBrien looks nothing like OB's signature givent o the PJ, regardless of using initials for brevity on the creche sheets.



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

tired eyes, so will post more detail later, but I am suspicious that it is the same person imitating Robert Naylor who is imitating Russell O Brien on some of these creche entries, looking closely at the handwriting.

Does anyone know (who is well informed about the creche) if there was a "sharks' club for 3-5 year olds? This would be parallel to Cat Bakers. Am wondering that if there was, who was the nanny in charge of the 'sharks' and if there are any creche sheets

Jez Wilkins says in his statement:
I was with my wife Bridgette O'DONNELL, my XXXX daughter XXXX who is three (3) and 'XXXX' my son who is eight (8) months..........After the game we walked together with a third male called Russell or Matt to pick the children up from the 'MINI CLUB'. This is a crèche provided by the holiday company.We would take them there at 9 am every day until 12:30pm. I realised that Jerry had three (3) children. A girl called MADELINE and [word missing] 2 twins who were about two years of age. MADELINE was about three (3). This club would cater for three (3) to five (5) year olds. The Club was split into two (2) groups: the 'SHARKS' and the 'LOBSTERS'. My son daughter was in the SHARKS group. I believe MADELINE was in the LOBSTERS so they didn't interact as far as I know. I don't believe that I saw the family again that day.

Bridget O'Donnell says:
We settled in over the following days. There was a warm camaraderie among the parents, a shared happy weariness and deadpan banter. Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys. The children went sailing and swimming, played tennis and learned a dance routine for the end-of-week show. Each morning, our daughter ran ahead of us to get to the kiddie club. She was having a wonderful time
...."Our children made friends in the kiddie club" - this suggests both their children went to one singular club. Am also wondering how an 8 month old child is able to 'make friends'

3-11 months (baby Club)

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

Very interesting tweets from kikoratton. Have to say I think it looks pretty spot on

19th August 2012

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
Dianne Webster used hers 2030. Sounds like they were laying the groundwork for what happened overnight. Maddie replaced in creche 29/4 by...

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
(contd)..a different girl spelling her name Madalene. @metpoliceuk should quiz #RobertNaylor who let #McCann sign in his girl and one other.

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
Chaos in the creche on 29/4. Gerry signs in Liz Naylor at 0910. KM has a call with not Gerry/not Tapas at 0923. The substitute Madalene

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
(contd)..finally turns up at 0945. But note that Cat Baker (carer) admits she didn't see Madeleine #Mccann that morning.

8th Sept 2012

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
@missypuddleduck But Madalene the sub was in place by 0945 on 29 April. Thus, the staff saw only one version.

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
Just a timely reminder, with more to follow: #McCann borrowed #RobertNaylor 's girl, to sign in two-at-a-time

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
Why would #McCann do that? Because little Liz Naylor had to be accompanied by her inseparable friend, who was Madalene. Not Madeleine McCann

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
Yup! A child called Madalene stood in for Maddie #McCann. I'm pretty sure I know her full name. Mum works at same school as #AinneNaylor.

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

There seems to be 2 Naylors booked in...one on the 26th April, the other on the 28th April. The one in apartment BP01 is the Robert Naylor I think as this is what is on the creche sheets and Tapas bar

What seems interesting is that on the booking sheets the apartment is for (Ad) 3 people which judging by all the others guests includes the children of all ages. Far as I understand the Naylors had one 3 year old daughter. What does the (Cr) 1 mean? Seems to indicate an extra person?

And no statements in the PJ files

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

G4 Apartments....Interesting floor
G4B Beverley Ann Carruthers
G4J Jayne Marie Jensen * booking changed to Jensen/Wiltshire on 7/5/07
G4L Jeni Weinburger
G4M Julian Totman
G4N Naylor (owner booking)
G4O Bridget O’Donnell

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

Seems the Naylors had a 11 month old son. Though why it shows as an extra on the reservation forms for them only and not anybody else is a mystery. Looking through the reservations sheets many have 8 month, 7 month kids but none of their bookings show as a 1 like the Naylors
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Folio column seems to be some kind of booking reference number when a client makes a booking at OC/MW, which logically goes up a number for the next booking they receive, whether by internet, travel agent etc. On this basis, its interesting to see when certain people booked. MO and ROB before payne and the mccanns though at the same time or day it looks. (I thought payne had booked first?) Totman, Wilkins and Irwins not long after. The most interesting are the group of big money hitters: Edmonds, Naylor and Weinburger, looks like they all booked at the very same time....another coincidence?

31425 Naylor

31945 Berry

31948 Oldfield
31949 ROB jane tanner
31950 Paynes
31951 Mccanns

31956 Totman
31958 Irwins

31961 Wilkins


33642 Edmonds
33643 Naylor
33644 Weinburger
33645 Sperrey
33649 Carpenter (Carolyn)

33707 Gorrods

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

Is the handwriting of 'Ella' (next to the crossed out Emma) the same as Dianne Websters on the Jellyfish creche sheet?

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

I can't see it very well, but the '5' is definitely identical. The rest looks pretty much the same to.
So she is signing in Emma/Ella on the 1st , 5B but no signature.

On the 4th she signs in three toddlers, that surely must have been difficult to get them there. Three times signature which is very distinctive and confident imo.

The apartment number given is 5H, which isn't the one the McCanns were allocated.

I think it could well be DW. On the 1st she was signing in Ella. Why? had something happened on the 30th.....?

On the 4th there was a Jellyfish creche but not a Lobster?
Thank goodness that the McCanns didn't have to worry about the twins as from 10.10 on the 4th. Although there is an entry in the diary of June that they had to go and collect the twins themselves from the creche.

On the 1st she was signing in Ella. Why? had something happened on the 30th.....?

mmmmm...It follows the same pattern as on the 4th. They got DW to take the kids to creche and out of the way. The "Elizabeth Naylor" sign in on the same day on May 1st could also be the same writing?

Also, jane tanner on the very 1st full day of their holiday (29th April) signs in and out Ella. Looks perfectly normal. However, since this day jane tanner NEVER takes Ella to creche for the whole holiday and for the rest of the holiday only is there to sign her out just the once (May 1st afternoon at 5.30pm). All mornings and afternoons there is a combination of ROB, DW (?) or cat nanny or not even any signings, never jane tanner...is this normal? Where was jane tanner between 30th April and May 4th that she never ever took her daughter once to creche?

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

Jane Tanner phone 0780 8584

29/4/07 at 04.12

30/4/07 at 18.31 & 20.41

01/5/07 complete silence

02/5/07 8.21, 10.05, 13.59, 14.33, 19.22, 19.27

03/5/07 she sent a text at 20.30 to 0794973

04/5/07 she sent another text at 9.04 to 0794973

Russell O’Brien 0771 3258

28/4/07 at 11.27 his first activation

29/4/07 complete silence

3/5/07 at 10.52

4/5/07 at 8.13

Bump....This is a very important topic to anyone who wants to seek the truth of Maddie and spends the time to analyse them in detail

I have greatly magnified the creche sheets and have been studying them for a couple of weeks. What I wish to point out needs a big zoom in, although it means a lot of annoying scrolling up and down, it is worth it imo.



30th April MORNING, name Robert is written instead of Elizabeth Naylor. This is the same hand that signed in Madeleine, see the L, E and A in particular.

30th April AFTERNOON note the curved horizontal on the T and the T of Tapas, where R O'Brien is stating his location. This is the same person who in the morning mistakenly signed Robert Naylor. The T of ROBERT shows the same distinct curved horizontal.
So for 30th April, one person is signing O Brien and Naylor, that is Gerry McCann. [ his handwriting can be seen on the wider agenda flipchart]

May 1st. morning, the sign in for Naylor and McCann is the same person. The flick at the start of the A is the giveaway, and the L is identical.

Madeleine appears to have been signed out for the am session and in for pm at the same time.
Where the apartment numbers are noted, the B for the O' Brien and Naylor apartments are the same. The O Brien 5B is an error, should be 5D, O Brien himself would not make such an error.


May 2nd It is my considered opinion that Gerry McCann signed in Ella O Brien and Elizabeth Naylor.

There are 3 letters which lead me to this conclusion, the B, L and N.
If you look at the sign in for Madeleine McCann, there is a very clear softened rather than hard angled horizontal on the L. This can also be seen on the signings for Ella.
If you look at the B in Elizabeth Naylor and the B in O Brien, the curve of the B does not meet the vertical, it is open.
If you look at the N of the sign in for Madeleine and the N of O Brien, they both have the same distinct final upsweep which is curved, softened not angular.
This is all Gerry's hand imo, because I have seen his writing on his flipchart THE WIDER AGENDA.



May 3rd morning. N in NAYLOR and McCANN identical.
L in " MADELEINE identical.
A not as clear as previous sheets, but it is the same hand imo.

then the biggie.....imo

May 3rd afternoon.

please see the sign in for Ella O Brien......

Look at the N in O'BRIEN and compare to the N in MADELEINE. Identical to the N when Maddie signed in that morning and written using the same pen.

If as this strongly suggests is Gerry McCann signing in Ella O Brien at 2.30, how could he have been at the pool for the last photo at 2.29?

Would be glad of others' opinions, but I am convinced this is Gerry McCann and that the messing with creche records was not after the event, but done at the time. So it was 2.30 and Gerry was not at the pool.
Proves for me absolutely that the pool photo is a fake.

Hi Russiandoll,

My first and only thoughts about the creche records is that they exist and the originals could be requested by SY for analysis as we are led to believe they are working closely with the Portuguese police. Even if SY's remit (which is not clear even now imo) is just a review surely it would cover the importance of the creche records as this is a place where children could be targetted by a potential abductor or some other sinister scenario. The creche records are a vital picture of the time Madeleine was in PDL imo. SY has access to handwriting experts. Who knows if SY or PJ have explored this? One would expect they have. The McCanns also have an enormous amount of money in a fund which could easily afford handwriting experts. Have they explored this? who knows?

The UK media also have the financial capacity to purchase the services of the best handwriting experts in the world. I wish someone from the media, a serious investigative journalist would take a good look at the creche records. Once again who knows? an investigative journalist may already have that information in store. Maybe it's not the right time to publish and be damned.

It is clear from the considerable work done by yourself and other lay people (no offence RD) that these records are definitely in need of investigation as are the Tapas Bar records to my mind both independently and in conjunction. It is only people like yourself and others on this forum who keep picking at the available information and placing it in the public domain to show that more can and has to be done to find justice for Madeleine.

Good work RD.

yes aquila, tapas sheets are interesting, I never understood all the you had to queue to book, seems it was not full a lot of the time looking at all the tables and chairs in photos and the booking records.

re creche........all they prove is that there are signatures for a girl Madeleine McCann, not proof a little girl of that id was ever there.

I dont think Madeleine ever went to creche. I certainly do not believe that a girl and her father paddling at 2.29 3rd May could have been at creche 1 minute later.
The whole thing with Ella at creche that afternoon is interesting. She could have gone to beach with other families early afternoon, but was placed in creche and picked up later and taken to beach...very strange.

Was it the creche sheet of the 29th or 30th which was held back by the PJ and not published in the released files?

I see what you're getting at now, the sheets weren't changed post 3/5, of course that would have been very difficult, getting all sorts of people to sign in again. But surely a signature could have been squeezed in here and there at a later date? It could explain the close proximity of some of the signatures. But not all the discrepancies, such as ROB's sudden memory loss re the name of his daughter.

So the discrepancies are:
writing the wrong apartment number ROB
wrong name for daughter ROB
signatures v. close together and at exactly the same time
Healy filled in as Healy except twice when noted as McCann (contrary to KM's own testimony)
Maddie signed in and out within 15 minutes.
Maddie present at the creche as well as other events at the same time.
Did all other parents give contact numbers?

Compare to the other children's clubs where the sheets were neat and had no obvious discrepancies. (is the walk to the beach/icecream represented in the twins' entries?).