Re: The creche enquiry

by Doug D 07.01.14 19:48

Tapas Bookings

There is a stream on it as follows:

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

I had a quick look but can’t see an answer there, but I may be wrong. It also talks about a Textusa thread, but I haven’t looked for that one.

My guess is its: Mann 0008 (see 1^st May) but it may be wishful thinking.
The tops & bottoms of the deleted letters seem to tie up & I think I can see a 0 with an 8 at the end. The Mann party also ate there on 3^rd.

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

1^st May sheet
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.01.14 23:42

Thanks Doug D, I will have a read of that link you provided.

by MissesWillYa 08.01.14 0:34

I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

by HelenMeg 12.01.14 22:31

sami wrote:It all falls back to how reliable the "crèche" was. It is in effect no more than a drop in centre, very transient. A child might attend one morning for their whole holiday or for the whole week. No obligation, come and go as you please.

As for the staff, so long as they give out the same number of children as they took in, they are happy, all present, not necessarily correct.

So if for example Madeleine Beth was signed in for three days, then on day four another small blond girl answering to Madeleine was signed, even if she looked different in some respects, how likely were the staff to question it ? Would they really say Mr McCann why does your child seem different today ?

How interested were they really ? Not at all the same as a well run, proper childcare facility used by working mothers at home in UK.

Just opinion of course

Hi
In my experience of such creche's, the staff are all very young, 18 - 20 ish and it would be extremely easy to sign someone in fictitiously. As you say, as long as the same number leaves as have been signed in, thats
all that matters. They tend to be lovely well-meaning staff, but at this age, they are just doing a job for a 'gap year' etc. I am certainly of the opinion that Madeleine died before the 3rd May. Gerry is not stupid, he would have taken some time to devise his plan and conceal a body. Noone was really concentrating on 'whose child is where' .. he could very easily have simulated her presence for 48 hours in order to
control the situation. Don't underestimate Gerry. I think it would have been very difficult to hide the body and come up with an 'abduction' scenario in teh same day she died. He would have needed time to absorb the shock at the situation and realise that telling the truth would send them to jail....

by **tigger** 13.01.14 7:18

MissesWillYa wrote:I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

by Guest 13.01.14 9:16

tigger wrote:

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

There is a cryptic comment on Dewi Lennard's tweets.

What's up with #McCann ? He took a 3yo stranger (ahem) 2 creche, but when she wasn't available, he stayed away & let Kate take "Maddie"! ODD

So "Maddie" was actually still around despite the sub being taken to creche? I hadn't figured on that. He could be wrong of course. Even about the whole thing, possibly.

by russiandoll 13.01.14 9:36

Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

by Guest 13.01.14 9:41

russiandoll wrote:Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

Sorry RD, I did know all that! It was just that one tweet that stood out as odd - Sub not available so Kate takes "Maddie" instead? I'm not a twitterer or would ask him to clarify.

For the record, I can't see how MBM dying earlier in the holiday fits with a sub being available unless it was premeditated murder. The one thing I never really thought it was.

by **tigger** 13.01.14 15:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Clay: Dewi believes that Maddie died early in the holiday, 28th-29th as per his theory the deception began on the Sunday. I do not think he has changed his mind re the date.

He has noted with interest that there were errors with the entries for the Naylor girl on the Sunday [ looking initially as if this girl's father has simply written his own name in the child's column, first time errors and all that....]

but has then noted the handwriting for both this girl's and Maddie's entries is strikingly similar. Also there is not one signature as if one adult is signing for 2 children, instead what appears to be a poor forgery of the Naylor father's sig.

Apart from the Sunday, I recall that every time the Naylor girl was at crèche Gerry did the sign-in for Maddie and Kate only signs for her daughter those sessions when the Naylor girl does not attend.[ will double check if my recollection is correct].

Dewi sees this as more than a coincidence and it is this info along with his phone analysis that has gone to PJ Norte and which has been acknowledged and which he reports he has discussed with a detective working out of that department.

Sorry RD, I did know all that! It was just that one tweet that stood out as odd - Sub not available so Kate takes "Maddie" instead? I'm not a twitterer or would ask him to clarify.

For the record, I can't see how MBM dying earlier in the holiday fits with a sub being available unless it was premeditated murder. The one thing I never really thought it was.

Why did poor Cat Baker nearly have a nervous breakdown? Why her total recall a year later and totally different statement in May? Was she the nanny who said early on that she'd never noticed the coloboma ( early report never repeated ) and why did the McCanns arrange a hotel for her around the time of the Rothley meeting? With a church visit complete with Cat Baker for an organised photoopportunity and subsequent job for CB in New York?

A sub doesn't have to mean murder imo. But a part-time sub doesn't work, imo the photographic manipulation must have taken place some time before theholiday as -again imo - there was neither time or opportunity. Apart from it being unlikely that one would travel with these pictures as they were not found on the camera.
I'm pretty sure that they didn't take a laptop with them
One would expect those to be impounded by the police - eg emails to demand ransom. They did expect the mobiles to be impounded, otherwise there was no need to delete the calls.
So there was a certain amount of forensic awareness I'd say. If not foresight...

by MissesWillYa 13.01.14 20:04

tigger wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:I have a creche-related question and this seems like a good place to put it. I've looked, but haven't found anything pertaining to the creche building/classroom itself being searched when Madeleine went missing. I'm wondering if there was any evidence of her having been present there, given that she ostensibly spent many hours there each day. I know it's been said that we've never seen any artwork she made, but how about physical evidence she might have left behind in the facility - personal effects, photos taken by nannies or other parents, forensic items like hairs, etc., did anything like this ever turn up? I was just curious. Maybe it's different in a holiday resort, but I've worked in childcare and the kids were required to keep their own hairbrushes, nap mats, sunscreen spray/lotion, etc. in the classroom at all times. Items like that would be great for evidence, forensic and otherwise, and I would assume Madeleine was expected to stay in the creche on that Friday as well, so they would have still been in the room, provided they'd been there at all (and provided, of course, that the MW creche required these items for its charges).

Iirc the creche was searched on the 4th by the dogs - what would be useful to know is where the bracelet went. Did children wear them all time? She should have been wearing one in the tennis photo at least.
I don't think she was ever in the creche - another child was signed in under her name imo.

How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

Hi tigger, thanks for your reply. I did notice after posting that the creche had been searched. I must have missed it before. Unfortunately, I also lean toward M never having been in the creche at all. The sign-in sheets are just weird and as someone else mentioned, CB's emotional reaction and the subsequent pow-wow with Gerry and Kate all seem very strange in light of M's disappearance.

I agree about the sheets. I really can't see where Kate would ever have signed her own name wrong, especially after years of being known professionally under Healy; it doesn't seem plausible that she'd somehow slip and use her married name once in awhile. I actually don't know; is she legally Kate McCann at all? She made such a big deal out of discussing her name "before and after" in the book that it seems a little fishy. I can only speak for myself, but I can remember slipping and starting to write my maiden name a few times after I got married, but I always corrected myself and I don't think it happened at all after I'd been married about six months. IMO, if she was used to writing KH and didn't even go by KM, as she claims, it makes no sense to me why she'd go back and forth between the two names.

by **tigger** 13.01.14 20:10

I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

by Guest 13.01.14 20:19

tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Off Topic, but the other night I was so bored that I watched "Confessions Of A Holiday Camp" on Youtube. Now, I've long thought that Tony Blair was the worst man who ever lived, but I've decided now that his father in law runs him pretty close. What a palpably odious cretin, and so menacing in a way that I sensed wasn't just an act. And then consider what he unleashed upon the World....

What a hellish couple. Blair/Booth and McCann/Healy deserve each other's eternal company.

by **sharonl** 13.01.14 20:29

Tigger

Cat Baker is an interesting character, she is on of the four nannies that were despatched to a MW resort in Greece just after Madeleine disappeared.

Two of these nannies started work at the OC the week that McCanns were there, they were on the same transport bus as Jane Tanner.

Cat was born in 1987 and went to Nottingham University, in 2007 she told the PJ that she had years of experience (work that one out)

According to one news article (shall have to find it) the four nannies were known to members of the Tapas 7

Cat claimed that she first met Kate when Madeleine was enrolled at the crèche on the morning of April 29th

Kate claimed that she warmed to Cat immediately when she was introduced to her, as Madeleines nanny, on April 28th, a day before Madeleine was enrolled.

Cat was responsible for the Lobster group.

Creche records seem to be specific to each group, notice the wording "Lobster" at the top of the register that Madeleine was on

by MissesWillYa 13.01.14 20:35

tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Now, there's a thought. They do seem to aspire to the glamorous life and they both seem very self-important, IMO. The feeling I get from both is that they see themselves as the classic bootstrap-puller-uppers, but in a way maybe she's even more emphatic about it because she's a woman. Her own mother was young when she had Kate and didn't have a career, as far as I know. It seems like she wants to distance herself. I wonder how her mother feels about the very public way she has done that. As for the names, I personally don't care what name a woman chooses to use - her maiden name should be hers to keep if she prefers to do so - but it felt a little like she was hitting the reader over the head about it with the "before and after" claims. Protesting too much, IMO.

by Guest 13.01.14 21:22

MissesWillYa wrote:
tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Now, there's a thought. They do seem to aspire to the glamorous life and they both seem very self-important, IMO. The feeling I get from both is that they see themselves as the classic bootstrap-puller-uppers, but in a way maybe she's even more emphatic about it because she's a woman. Her own mother was young when she had Kate and didn't have a career, as far as I know. It seems like she wants to distance herself. I wonder how her mother feels about the very public way she has done that. As for the names, I personally don't care what name a woman chooses to use - her maiden name should be hers to keep if she prefers to do so - but it felt a little like she was hitting the reader over the head about it with the "before and after" claims. Protesting too much, IMO.

This is spot on. I mentioned in post a couple of months ago that the McCanns are a lower-middle-class couple striving to become middle-middle. The typical aspiring middle classes. As these sort of people try to (as they see it in their own minds) 'better themselves' they ape the behaviours of those they perceive to be their social superiors and inevitably become embarassed by their roots. This means distancing themselves from their perceived lower-class families. In reality, such people are undermined by their own social gaffs and vulgarities.

One of the reasons we all find the McCanns so distasteful is because their upwardly-mobile desires are worn on their sleeves. And they're simply not very good at it. Honesty and truth to yourself is always the best policy, imo. The McCanns, perhaps, have a few issues here...

Then again, Gerry's got a big job on distancing himself from Phil...

by HelenMeg 13.01.14 22:09

Agree with these posts, however, what sometimes surprises me a little is that Kate has chosen not to modify her fairly strong Liverpudlian accent. Its interesting to imagine
how she would be without the influence of Gerry. As an individual, I can imagine she would have been quite an empathetic and effective GP. She is naturally an attractive looking female albeit
her looks have diminished over recent years probably through stress. This whole process since the faked abduction has given them a warped sense of status, bringing them into frequent contact with
popes, politicians, TV presenters. The fund has given them access to luxurious hotels and 5 * treatment. For anyone, it is not easy to give all of that up and become non-entities once again.
They have been given public stage at many high profile events which they appear to enjoy. How can they settle back into a hum drum existence and become 'just parents'.
I find Gerry vile and sense that he has risen above his background never to return. As with the Blairs, this couple need 'to be loved and admired' - need constant positive reinforcement, and surround themselves by those that provide it, paid for by the fund. They are a phenomenon of our times. We loathe them yet their extraordinary behaviours compel us to observe them. I just wish we couold observe them behind bars.

by Halfwit 14.01.14 0:07

HelenMeg wrote:Agree with these posts, however, what sometimes surprises me a little is that Kate has chosen not to modify her fairly strong Liverpudlian accent. Its interesting to imagine
how she would be without the influence of Gerry. As an individual, I can imagine she would have been quite an empathetic and effective GP. She is naturally an attractive looking female albeit
her looks have diminished over recent years probably through stress. This whole process since the faked abduction has given them a warped sense of status, bringing them into frequent contact with
popes, politicians, TV presenters. The fund has given them access to luxurious hotels and 5 * treatment. For anyone, it is not easy to give all of that up and become non-entities once again.
They have been given public stage at many high profile events which they appear to enjoy. How can they settle back into a hum drum existence and become 'just parents'.
I find Gerry vile and sense that he has risen above his background never to return. As with the Blairs, this couple need 'to be loved and admired' - need constant positive reinforcement, and surround themselves by those that provide it, paid for by the fund. They are a phenomenon of our times. We loathe them yet their extraordinary behaviours compel us to observe them. I just wish we couold observe them behind bars.

I agree with so much of what you say.

I've often wondered how different Kate would have been if Gerry hadn't entered her life. She was ''Hotlips Healy'', a nickname that's always suggested to me that she was fun - enjoyed her life and partied. Good for her.

Then along came that controller and sucked the fun out of her.

I'm not sure I agree with you about the 5* lifestyle taking over. I've enjoyed it in my career but I always knew it was a perk. I knew it would end.

I don't get the impression that Kate is finding pleasure in life at all - except - except...

the football pics.

If I knew nothing about them I would comment that they were lovely pics of a happy couple utterly and totally in love and in the moment.

Confused.com.

by HelenMeg 06.03.14 22:56

Robert Naylor
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Phone: [url=http://www.zoominfo.com/business/ce-download?utm_source=zoominfo.com&utm_medium=button&utm_content= maskedcontactlink&utm_campaign=ce-download]+44 ***********[/url]
Email: [url=http://www.zoominfo.com/business/ce-download?utm_source=zoominfo.com&utm_medium=button&utm_content= maskedcontactlink&utm_campaign=ce-download]r***@***.uk[/url]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
One Jermyn Street
London SW1Y 4UH
United Kingdom
Company Description: Matrix Group is a financial services business delivering a broad range of innovative investment products and services. Founded in 1987, the Group now consists of... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 12:45

tigger wrote:
How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

It's not the only solution.

The facts are that Kate always signed under her married name except for one occasion, 17:30 on May 2nd. She signed her married name in the morning, and her maiden name in the afternoon.

I don't believe that she did it by accident, as this was the one and only time she signed her maiden name. She didn't 'flip back and forth', she did it once.

It speaks volumes to me. It says to me that at that point in time, late afternoon on the 2nd, Kate thought of herself as 'Healy', not 'McCann', and that usually happens when married couples fall out. I've been there :) Aditionally, I believe that she opens her book with that statement that she was Healy before the 4th, to make that signature look less suspicious. To stop us from wondering if Kate and Gerry had fallen out on the afternoon of the 2nd.

The solution that the McCanns had fallen out that afternoon is a far simpler solution than that of somebody else forging Kate's signature, which I do not believe to be forged, having compared it with other sources.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 07.03.14 12:52

The Naylor substitute thing .. really?

I've scrutinised the creche records, and there is very little connection between the Naylor signings and the McCann signings that I can see. Naylor's handwriting is very similar to Gerry's, but there are differences, and Gerry uses less weight on the pen than Naylor does. Naylor regularly filled in his name by mistake in the 'Child Name' column. Gerry didn't make this mistake. Both Naylor's and Gerry's handwriting are incredibly similar to mine - if I had signed those creche sheets, people would probably be pointing the finger at me.

I see absolutely nothing there to indicate that there is anything strange about the Naylor entries in the creche records.

by Hicks 07.03.14 14:30

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
tigger wrote:
How come Kate signed sometimes as Healy and other times as McCann? In view of her statement in the book that she was Healy before the 4th May and McCann thereafter. Seems to be important to her so she would not have made the mistake of signing McCann before that date - only solution is that someone else signed for her.

It's not the only solution.

The facts are that Kate always signed under her married name except for one occasion, 17:30 on May 2nd. She signed her married name in the morning, and her maiden name in the afternoon.

I don't believe that she did it by accident, as this was the one and only time she signed her maiden name. She didn't 'flip back and forth', she did it once.

It speaks volumes to me. It says to me that at that point in time, late afternoon on the 2nd, Kate thought of herself as 'Healy', not 'McCann', and that usually happens when married couples fall out. I've been there :) Aditionally, I believe that she opens her book with that statement that she was Healy before the 4th, to make that signature look less suspicious. To stop us from wondering if Kate and Gerry had fallen out on the afternoon of the 2nd.

The solution that the McCanns had fallen out that afternoon is a far simpler solution than that of somebody else forging Kate's signature, which I do not believe to be forged, having compared it with other sources.

Yes, that would explain why-if true- Kate slept in the children's room that night.

Another lie ...Kate slept in the children's room that night because Gerry suddenly said, 'I'm off' when they were with the others at Tapas bar in the OC. There is a vid where Kate talks about this. I'll try and find it.
They had then fallen out sometime during the day perhaps. Interesting to build in this maybe?

by Briohazard 13.03.14 6:35

I was just going through the crèche sheets and noticed once she signed her name as K M McCann

Rachael signed her rogatory (?) statement as R M Mampilly.....

by j.rob 13.08.14 19:49

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
tigger wrote:I think the name issue is all about status. Their idols would be Blair and Booth. Very much the way they wanted to go imo.
However catholic Mrs.Blair was, she did as she liked, just like Kate.
Yes, I think the Blairs would have been the ones they wanted to emulate at the time.

Off Topic, but the other night I was so bored that I watched "Confessions Of A Holiday Camp" on Youtube. Now, I've long thought that Tony Blair was the worst man who ever lived, but I've decided now that his father in law runs him pretty close. What a palpably odious cretin, and so menacing in a way that I sensed wasn't just an act. And then consider what he unleashed upon the World....

What a hellish couple. Blair/Booth and McCann/Healy deserve each other's eternal company.

Ha! Yes. All the phony religious stuff. Tony and Cheri were probably the Mcs idols - rather like Ken and Barbie. A sort of 'cut and paste' ghastly couple.

B -liar these days looks positively insane, imo.

by j.rob 27.08.14 15:48

ROSA wrote:T7 and Naylor put there necks on the line for K&G help cover the truth but why do a group of adults do this there must be a common factor what did they do to Madeleine was she abused by all these people was she there toy to play with did they do tghings to there toy for pleasure but go to far then have to kill her p129?

Unfortunately I have been thinking along these kind of lines for some time.

Some people are just evil.

by j.rob 27.08.14 16:09

ROSA wrote:They lied when saying they went to the Millenium the first night because the' Tapas' was closed ( Millenium was part of their 'half board' package deal)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So desperately sad looking at those children's faces. One with obvious bruises on her face - that must have been so painful. Another looking soooooo sad. So trapped.

Awful.

by j.rob 27.08.14 16:53

Willo wrote:Yes Pauline if the whole thing was premeditated a fluffed line early on could have thrown everything that was meant to follow askew.
The damaged window senario could have been just that, the fact it was still intact might have blown their story. Some, not realising it carried on telling the world that the forced shutters were the escape/entry route before they could be reined in.
Kate could have later, in vain, pushed the window open to support the story.
Did Jez chatting to Gerry stop the shutter being dealt to?
Did a clean up team not arrive forcing Gerry to pass the Smiths carrying his daughter to a place unknown?

No doubt many more reasons could be manufactured to throw a premeditated plan off target.

I think that to give the Tapa's some credit surely they wouldn't keep compounding their mistakes right up to this very day.
I imagine Doctors to be on the whole ordered in their lives and as such would have hatched a far better plan than they did and be more adept in rescuing any fluffed lines than they seem to have been.

So I still go on the unexpected but need to cover up death story. To have such a crap plan it can only been created in a very short space of time and in a hurry. Time delays for notifying police, scrawled timelines, Gerry & Kate with distracting wailing, the trashing of the apartment and of course the blood spots all seems to fit this.

Why would a premeditated act involve the need to leave blood on the wall, floor etc?

Place your bets.

I'm glad I have found this thread! It is a fount of information.

"Did Jez chatting to Gerry stop the shutter being dealt to?"

I doubt very much that Jez and Gerry were having a friendly little chat. I would imagine it was a very animated conversation.

As I have written elsewhere, I believe that herein lies at least some of the answers.

IMO.

by j.rob 27.08.14 17:58

Stewie wrote:
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.]

Why would Russell and Gerry do these time-lines knowing they are going to be handed to police? They don't even match in all respects - eg: the 9.30pm Matt check?

Surely these are done to pass messages on to someone?

Murat?

by j.rob 27.08.14 21:46

Guest wrote:[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.]

Fascinating stuff. I think this time-line is supposed to have been written by Russell?

The first line:

Matt returns 9.00 - 9.05 - listened at all 3.
- all shutters down.

Matt returns - from doing what?? Why not write the time, and then 'Matt check' as is written in most of the other 'checkings'? Cross-referencing with Gerry's time-line, I see that Gerry writes that at this time Matt checked on apartments 5A, 5B and 5D. So, presumably, that is what 'all 3' is supposed to mean in Russell's timeline? Interesting emphasis - particularly in Gerry's timeline - of 'all shutters' down. Surely the relevant shutters are the shutters in the McCann apartment?

Or, perhaps not? Perhaps shutters in apartments 5B (Oldfield's) and 5D (O'Brien and Tanner) are also relevant?

The entry for 9.10pm - 9.15pm is also of interest.

Jerry 9.10 - 9.15 in tv room + all well
? Did he check

Again, as with the first 'check' time, of note is that Jerry is written before the time, unlike the latter entries, where the time is written first (as has been done with all of Gerry's entries on his time-line) . Also of note the name Jerry, rather than Gerry. In Gerry's timeline - (which has the name - GERALD - at the bottom, although, the L is not clearly written, certainly not like the upper case L in the word ALL).

Also somewhat odd, to me, is that Jerry is in the 'tv' room. Although the typewritten entries in the PJ files record the word as 'the' room, it doesn't look like 'the' to me. And, in any case, given that this is a listing with only essential key words included, why would 'the' be included? Why write 'the' room, without defining which room? The bedroom? No, just 'the' room. There are no other 'the' or 'a' words - just the bare essentials. So why 'tv'?

Plus, why, would Russell have written, for the 9.10 - 9.15pm timeline relating to Jerry (supposedly Gerry McCann remember) : 'did HE check'? Gosh, Russell - did it not occur to you to ask Gerry before you helpfully wrote out timelines for police? You know, a really difficult question like: 'Gerry, when you went into your apartment for the 9.10pm, did you actually look into the children's bedroom and see Madeleine?'

Gee - I guess not.

Or perhaps Russell is not asking this question of Gerry but of someone else?!

Thank God he's not my doctor, or any of them for that matter.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

by palm tree 27.08.14 22:17

Also to remember, RO stated that the mcs didn't arrive until 9pm, which is strange IMO

by nglfi 28.08.14 7:29

Could the misspelling of Gerry for Jerry indicate the person who wrote this didn't know Gerry quite as well as they are all making out? As in they didn't realise Gerry was short for Gerald and assumed it was Jerry as in Tom and Jerry. I like to think I know how to spell all of my friends names correctly, particularly seeing as these people are supposedly doctors you would expect a certain level of literacy.

Latest topics