Re: Forensic linguistics -

by kikoraton 01.01.12 17:06

I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

by rainbow-fairy 01.01.12 17:06

tigger wrote:Well yes, 'I don't believe you - because I can use a spoon!'

Isn't this whole thing a weird combination of slick politics by third parties and cretinous bumbling by the McCanns?
Most confusing, but I want to send anyone who abuses children and small animals (adults and big animals will have to fight back) to the 7th circle of hell.
Doing harm to living creatures who cannot defend themselves puts the aggressor outside the human race.

Agreed, tigger. But, IMO, a very special place should be reserved for those who cover up, for whatever reason, those who hurt or abuse those children. Those who perpetrate are wicked, but those who facilitate - well, I don't think there exists a word to describe them.

by **tigger** 01.01.12 17:44

kikoraton wrote:I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

Imo normally one would say ' the essential, the main thing is etc.' instead of using the 'key' in various combinations 'key bit of information' etc. They used it a lot. Dr. Roberts calls it an 'irresistible intrusion of the brain'.
As an example: I knew a colleague was to be posted to Washington, but this was still secret, he didn't know. When I spoke to him about something else entirely, he joked I was lying. 'No,' I said, I'm George Washington, always ..' Tell the truth I was going to say. I'd never even used that expression before! So it's the same principle.
If the body needed to be hidden in a freezer, in an empty apartment (the Paynes had acquaintances there and I'd would think that Gerry knew his way around too, having been to play golf in Portugal a few times (location not given but my guess would be PdL). I think the body was moved by a third party and the reason Gerry is so antsy about a key is that he hasn't been given enough information of where it is and how dangerous it might be.

by rainbow-fairy 01.01.12 17:47

kikoraton wrote:I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

kiko, I read the piece as meaning that the McCanns were referring to a key, 'metaphorically' BUT it was because a 'key' was so big in their minds, and a worry for them - not that they were actually referring to the key in order to 'draw out' the holder. If you see what I mean!

by rainbow-fairy 01.01.12 18:09

tigger wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

Imo normally one would say ' the essential, the main thing is etc.' instead of using the 'key' in various combinations 'key bit of information' etc. They used it a lot. Dr. Roberts calls it an 'irresistible intrusion of the brain'.
As an example: I knew a colleague was to be posted to Washington, but this was still secret, he didn't know. When I spoke to him about something else entirely, he joked I was lying. 'No,' I said, I'm George Washington, always ..' Tell the truth I was going to say. I'd never even used that expression before! So it's the same principle.
If the body needed to be hidden in a freezer, in an empty apartment (the Paynes had acquaintances there and I'd would think that Gerry knew his way around too, having been to play golf in Portugal a few times (location not given but my guess would be PdL). I think the body was moved by a third party and the reason Gerry is so antsy about a key is that he hasn't been given enough information of where it is and how dangerous it might be.

tigger, thanks loads!
That there is the reply I wanted to write for kiko, but couldn't articulate. Its been a long day! Wink

but yes, how you've written is exactly how I read the article. It could've been 'missing piece of the jigsaw' or any other number of phrases, yet its always 'key'. They are damned worried about that key. IMO, they are most worried that its in the PJ dossier withheld, hence why its such a worry for them...

by aiyoyo 01.01.12 20:31

tigger wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

Imo normally one would say ' the essential, the main thing is etc.' instead of using the 'key' in various combinations 'key bit of information' etc. They used it a lot. Dr. Roberts calls it an 'irresistible intrusion of the brain'.
As an example: I knew a colleague was to be posted to Washington, but this was still secret, he didn't know. When I spoke to him about something else entirely, he joked I was lying. 'No,' I said, I'm George Washington, always ..' Tell the truth I was going to say. I'd never even used that expression before! So it's the same principle.

Same principle as kate saying
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."

If the principle holds true, then kate knew Maddie was murdered.

If the body needed to be hidden in a freezer, in an empty apartment (the Paynes had acquaintances there and I'd would think that Gerry knew his way around too, having been to play golf in Portugal a few times (location not given but my guess would be PdL). I think the body was moved by a third party and the reason Gerry is so antsy about a key is that he hasn't been given enough information of where it is and how dangerous it might be.

by kikoraton 01.01.12 20:58

You explained yourself very well, rainbow-fairy, as did tigger. Well, if the PJ do have an idea, and it's in the withheld documents, I wish they'd just get on with it!!! Wouldn't it be kind to put Gerry out of his misery?
If they'd like, they could still take up my offer, made at least two years ago, and investigate the two or three places I arrived at thru a study of the phone records of Michaela Walczuch and the fixed line at Casa Liliana.

by Smokeandmirrors 01.01.12 21:24

kikoraton wrote:You explained yourself very well, rainbow-fairy, as did tigger. Well, if the PJ do have an idea, and it's in the withheld documents, I wish they'd just get on with it!!! Wouldn't it be kind to put Gerry out of his misery?
If they'd like, they could still take up my offer, made at least two years ago, and investigate the two or three places I arrived at thru a study of the phone records of Michaela Walczuch and the fixed line at Casa Liliana.

We all know how it goes by now, anything that represents real evidence, like the dogs, gets studiously ignored whilst we are repeatedly told no-one is doing anything. But I do hope you have passed all your records to SY.

by rainbow-fairy 01.01.12 21:56

kikoraton wrote:You explained yourself very well, rainbow-fairy, as did tigger. Well, if the PJ do have an idea, and it's in the withheld documents, I wish they'd just get on with it!!! Wouldn't it be kind to put Gerry out of his misery?
If they'd like, they could still take up my offer, made at least two years ago, and investigate the two or three places I arrived at thru a study of the phone records of Michaela Walczuch and the fixed line at Casa Liliana.

Thanks for that kiko, as I said its been a long, long day!
Do you mean you made the offer to the PJ? Surely not the McCann detectives?

by kikoraton 02.01.12 14:02

Yes, I sent my workings on the phone records to the PJ. Heard nothing, of course.
Alison and I have also sent our conclusions on phone and creche records to the Met Review Team. Heard nothing, of course.

by monkey mind 02.01.12 14:49

kikoraton wrote:Yes, I sent my workings on the phone records to the PJ. Heard nothing, of course.
Alison and I have also sent our conclusions on phone and creche records to the Met Review Team. Heard nothing, of course.

When one considers that in any major investigation it goes without saying that if someone has useful information they would be spoken to as a matter of necessity. Doesn't bode well does it.

Mind you, eyebrows should have been raised when the appointed SIO was only of the rank of DCI in such a high profile investigation. (eyebrows touching hairline)

by russiandoll 02.01.12 15:24

Lets hope that the alleged full review of the case means that experienced detectives have also noted the creche sheet and phone evidence which are highly suspect and that they are being closely scrutinised.
Difficult for experienced trained investigators not to notice whats been picked up here.
Anyone taking the time to send SY material which could be helpful should receive the courtesy of even a brief pro forma acknowledgment letter.

by monkey mind 02.01.12 15:53

russiandoll wrote:Lets hope that the alleged full review of the case means that experienced detectives have also noted the creche sheet and phone evidence which are highly suspect and that they are being closely scrutinised.
Difficult for experienced trained investigators not to notice whats been picked up here.
Anyone taking the time to send SY material which could be helpful should receive the courtesy of even a brief pro forma acknowledgment letter.

Oh I have no doubt that the officers will take notice of what has been pointed out to them, difficult not to really. But will they be allowed to run with it? That’s the real question. In such a high profile case I would have expected the SIO to have been no less than a DCS. I don’t know how many years this DCI has in but I imagine he should like to look forward to at least a promotion or two. One thing is for sure, when they announce their conclusions, if not before, it will be obvious how serious an investigation this was.

by russiandoll 02.01.12 15:58

yes to all you say.
SY might need a reminder about the human rights act , article 8 and Maddies right to a family life.

by **tigger** 03.01.12 13:46

I'd been looking for this article which analyses the curious absence of Madeleine as a child on holiday - snipped it here and there.

From the Blacksmiths' Bureau, McCannfiles, June 2011.

The Tapas 7:
" ...... their descriptions are alive as well, full of unexpected detail, doubt, colour, disappointment, incident and emotion, giving the lie to any suggestion that there really wasn't much for Kate McCann to write about in that Praia da Luz week. Unlike her the 7 — except, of course, when they stray into certain "dangerous" areas — tell things more or less as they saw and, more important, felt them.

Can we be sure that the section has in fact been structured in the way we have described? Well, the passages of self-justification are obviously ex post facto, as they say, and therefore cannot have come from the period; nor have they in any sense sprung from the narrative of that week since they have nothing to do with communicating what happened then but are part of a quite different story, M/S McCann's continuing defence of her own reputation, the "bottom of the garden" stuff and the rest in which she first lightly condemns and then strongly acquits herself.

Then what about the Madeleine passages? Can we be fairly sure that they don't spring from the narrative either? They certainly don't seem to. Significantly our first real view of Madeleine on holiday — on the aircraft steps — is given not from direct memory but from the video made by the group. A few pages after that the bare recitation of events and lengthy descriptions of the apartment is interrupted:

"Soon after midday," she writes, "we collected the children." A highly emotional passage about the child follows — but it doesn't describe Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz but in some more complex space: "I loved going to pick up the kids when they were little," she adds, "the moment when your child spots you and rushes over to throw a pair of tiny arms around you makes your heart sing. It doesn't happen every time, of course, but I have many special memories of meeting Madeleine at nursery at home. Hurtling across the classroom and into my embrace she would shout, 'My mummy!," as if establishing ownership of me in front of the other children. What I'd give to have that back again."

The next is on page 57:

"It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals..." OK, OK — but this wasn't strictly the child in Praia da Luz either, but a photograph:

"... that I ran back to the apartment for my camera to record the occasion." The child herself is momentarily excluded as Kate McCann shifts time and space once more, "One of my photographs is known around the world now..." and in a convoluted mix of past and present, child and parent, tells us how it was that Madeleine had "done really well" to end up for the photograph with an armful of tennis balls, finishing, "Gerry loves that picture."

On page 65 she demonstrates how hard she finds it to "see" the child, providing not an image of Madeleine in action but a multi-layered section of her own troubled memory from somewhere far beyond Praia da Luz:

"Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit" — here comes mum — "I'd bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon — a small extravagance perhaps, but I'd pictured how lovely she would look in them and I'd been right." She adds, "She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro. The weather was on the cool side" — here she is again — "and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and carefree" — again — "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

Her characterization of the child throughout these interpolations is flimsy and as for the dynamics of the relationship between mother and daughter — and anyone with children of Madeleine's age knows how extensive and complex the relationship has already become — there is almost nothing.

I stress these points not at all to criticise Kate McCann as a mother but to illustrate the way in which the child does not emerge naturally from the narrative — and that is because she is not really part of it. Perhaps the closest she comes to emerging is in the descriptions of her asking her parents "why they hadn't come that night" — and that episode also, in a sense, comes from outside, due to the evidential significance it has subsequently taken on.

From these considerations it should be clear that the whole section results neither from concentrated recollection nor the intensity of her feelings about episodes of four years ago: it has been assembled into a construct, not a description and certainly not a record. Of course every piece of writing of whatever kind is a construction, a literary construction, if only by selection. But a literary construction is chosen for its suitability to express the story, whether fact or fiction, in the best or most appropriate way. This section of Kate McCann's book is something quite different: tellingly, she never "expresses herself" at all.

The only interpretations of this extraordinary section that seem to make sense are, firstly, those that are probably familiar to her criminal lawyers: that she suffered from traumatic amnesia that week as a result of losing her child or for some pre-existing reason and has had to reconstruct the period from outside sources; or that she is still incapable, despite her own assumptions, of truly confronting the events of the period.

There is, of course, a third: that she sees that whole week as a potentially "dangerous area" a shark filled sea in which she must move with enormous caution,

by Guest 03.01.12 14:07

From Tiggers post above, one thing stood out to me, its this from her book:

Hurtling across the classroom and into my embrace she would shout, 'My mummy!," as if establishing ownership of me in front of the other children. What I'd give to have that back again."

Why would she say that if she hasnt done anything wrong in the first place? I feel that its something you would have said if you knew a person was dead / or if you knew you had hurt that person.. What I'd give to have that back again... If it was a real abduction story wouldn't it be more natural to say something like: I hope to get that back again one day, or something like that..

I dont know, those words just gave me a feeling of guilt.. I felt like it was something you say if you been unfaithful to your man or girl or done something wrong to a friend.. You regret it and would give the world to fix it and have it back again...
It could be ofcourse that she feels guilty of leaving her alone that night, on the other side we dont know that for sure that they where alone, and they still say it felt like dining in the garden so dont believe she feel that guilty either...

It just stood out to me..

by **tigger** 03.01.12 14:12

Well spotted Moa, I'd missed that.

by **PeterMac** 03.01.12 15:49

Also interesting is that she is still talking about the first full day at PdL. And is already using language more appropriate to some weeks after the disappearance.
In fact this is, so far as I can see, the first time that a 'novice' reader, unfamiliar with how this story is going to develop, is given an insight into what is going to happen.

by rainbow-fairy 03.01.12 17:14

Moa wrote:From Tiggers post above, one thing stood out to me, its this from her book:

Hurtling across the classroom and into my embrace she would shout, 'My mummy!," as if establishing ownership of me in front of the other children. What I'd give to have that back again."

Why would she say that if she hasnt done anything wrong in the first place? I feel that its something you would have said if you knew a person was dead / or if you knew you had hurt that person.. What I'd give to have that back again... If it was a real abduction story wouldn't it be more natural to say something like: I hope to get that back again one day, or something like that..

I dont know, those words just gave me a feeling of guilt.. I felt like it was something you say if you been unfaithful to your man or girl or done something wrong to a friend.. You regret it and would give the world to fix it and have it back again...
It could be ofcourse that she feels guilty of leaving her alone that night, on the other side we dont know that for sure that they where alone, and they still say it felt like dining in the garden so dont believe she feel that guilty either...

It just stood out to me..

Moa, I totally agree and, like tigger, I had also missed that... That is the beauty of this forum - the more eyes the better. What some of us miss, others notice. Some of us are good with statement reading, record keeping others are good at reading body language.
One of the many reasons I love being a member here!

by **tigger** 04.01.12 13:31

I've lifted and edited this from the topic 'Strange comment by GM" . I've indicated the poster by quote and unquote. It speaks for itself.

From: Strange comment by Gerry McCann

ufercoffy on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:31 pm

biker_don wrote:

P.M- How was Madeleine during these holidays?
K- She is very intelligent, very sociable and engaging. She loves to talk, she is funny, she has a lot of energy.
G- She is still very active, rest snipped.

It sounds strange that Gerry says she is still very active. Why would Madeleine, at only nearly 4 years not still be active? Was she ill?

Kate and Gerry McCann, Paris Match, September 2007

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

quote: Upsy Daisy on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:47 pm

P.M- How was Madeleine during these holidays?
K- She is very intelligent, very sociable and engaging. She loves to talk, she is funny, she has a lot of energy.

So, why did Kate answer that question in the present tense as if she had been asked 'how IS Madeleine and how IS her personality?'.... how come she changed tack???

BECAUSE...she/they are programmed only to answer a limited number of questions and not to deviate ad lib just in case a huge great big stonker comes rolling out of their mouths......... unquote

ufercoffy on Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Do you not find Gerry's comment strange that Madeleine was still active?

Why shouldn't she still be active? He was talking about a 3 year old not a 93 year old. unquote

LittleMissMolly on Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:36 am

That is a really odd thing to say about an almost 4 year old - or any young child for that matter. That 'still' implies some reason why she might not have been active ... illness? Congenital/Progressive disease? Ritalin or similar? unquote

ufercoffy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:01 am

That's what I thought littlemissmolly, that Gerry may have been referring to a progressive disease. Madeleine was seen stumbling up the steps to the plane and clearly had some kind of fall in the apartment if the blood up the wall is anything to go by. Plus they didn't allow Madeleine's medical records to be released. Maybe Madeleine was seriously ill with a condition that was going to restrict her activity, and this was her last holiday. Kate was sure to tell us Madeleine had her best day ever and Gerry wasn't there to enjoy himself.

This may explain why the McCanns were able to 'get over' the tragedy so quickly (by that I mean all the bizarre photos of them laughing/jogging etc) if they knew her death was coming, albeit it accidentally behind the sofa. Maybe they were relieved she was now at peace?

Didn't David Payne say "We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this..."

If so, how does this explain the Fund.

unquote

_______________________________________________

HotlipsHealy on Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:29 am

More to the point, fund aside, why the need to conceal her body if she was genuinely ill and had had an accident?

Maybe they went to Portugal for her last holiday and had intended to 'put her out of her misery' with drugs ("We were waiting for something to happen") but the drugs caused her to fall and kill herself ("but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this.") Maybe they needed to hide her body so the drugs wouldn't be found in her.

Of course, it would also mean that they would have to hide her body regardless because of not wanting the drugs to be found even if they 'put her to sleep'. Maybe Maddie's death/abduction scenario was planned ("I'm not here to enjoy myself") but it went wrong when she fell behind the sofa.

Maybe 'putting her to sleep' and the fake abduction, and the Fund, was planned. Maybe they knew the only way to put Maddie out of her misery 'legally' was to make it look like an abduction, which is why everything (Fund/website etc) kicked off so early and professionally and Gerry's brother gave up his job so early on.
unquote
HotlipsHealy

LittleMissMolly on Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:12 am

A progressive, congenital illness is quite within the bounds of possibility ....and without Madeleine's medical records being made available there is endless scope for speculation along those lines.

IVF children do have a much higher rate of congenital defects than those who are conceived naturally.

Personally I'm more inclined towards Ritalin or similar ... there are endless anecdotal comments which lead one to suspect that Madeleine wasn't the easiest child in the world and in my experience Medical Professionals are far more likely to medicate their children than Joe Public..... Medically trained parents are also far more likely to receive the treatment they desire from their GPs as well, so I can't see a prescription for Ritalin (to control hyperactivity) being all that hard to get.

A Ritalin overdose also has the potential to be rapidly fatal :
"An overdose of Ritalin can be fatal.
Overdose can cause vomiting, agitation, tremors, muscle twitching, seizure (convulsions), confusion, hallucinations, sweating, fast or pounding heartbeat, blurred vision, dry mouth and nose, and fainting."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Unlike Calpol - an overdose of which (it being paracetamol based) causes liver failure which is a long death drawn out over a significant period of time. unquote.

[b]

by Guest 04.01.12 14:10

Good post Tigger,

One line stood out to me : G- She is still very active, rest snipped. - My first tought was if she is abducted how does he now she IS still very active? Shouldn't he say WAS or WHERE very active ?

English is my second language so I might be wrong, but isn't IS used for present time,for what happens right now/ how someone is right now?

EDIT_: And yes I did write this post right after reading that quote from Gerry, and didnt read the rest of the post until after lol, so I guess IS is for present time then as I tought/thought it was.

by **tigger** 04.01.12 14:35

Another post robbed: I'm just trying to get a lot of 'interesting' comments in one place.

Daughter may have been raped, murdered and thrown into the Arade Dam - 'That's fantastic news', says Dr Gerald McCann
Tony Bennett on Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:33 am

Additional note re Dr Gerald McCann's 'fantastic news' comment. It is correct to say that the 'fantastic news' that he was referring to was the news that Alipio Ribeiro had criticised Goncalo Amaral and his men for acting 'too hastily' in making the McCanns arguidos.

The Press Association article which reported the dam searches also included the following references:

The context is this. The Daily Mail was reporting the possibility of Madeleine's body being at the bottom of the dam AND the comments of Mr Rebeiro. One would think that the primary quote from parents being asked to comment would be: "It's the news we have been dreading. Poor Madeleine. We feel terrible about winings and dining whilst she may have been adbucted by a murderer". But no, you see, it's all about saving their skin, not about Madeleine. Hence the article says nothing about what their feelings may have been about Madeleine having been raped and killed. Just their 'fantastic news' commment at the knowledge that they now have a police chief on their side.

by kikoraton 04.01.12 15:45

Maybe 'putting her to sleep' and the fake abduction, and the Fund, was planned. Maybe they knew the only way to put Maddie out of her misery 'legally' was to make it look like an abduction, which is why everything (Fund/website etc) kicked off so early and professionally and Gerry's brother gave up his job so early on.
unquote
I agree. If I'm correct (and I'm 99% sure), it was Gerry who signed Elizabeth Naylor into creche from Sunday 29 April. That implies pre-meditation. And ready collaborators. I still need to know, where's the link between the Mccanns and the Naylors? The history of the latter is 2000-2008 Edinburgh, with less-than-transparent stockbrokers Teather and Greenwood, then the Icelandic bank Landsbanki which went down leaving thousands of small savers with nothing. Not a good CV, unless you're an investment banker. Then Naylor and all his colleagues surfaced again in London, with Matrix Group.
I think that the substitute for Maddie, in the creche, was called Mad'lene and came from the same circle of friends as the Naylors.
On twitter, I've laid down a challenge: since on 6 occasions out of 7, Elizabeth Naylor was signed-in under Gerry's handwriting (99% sure) and on only one occasion under her mother's, when "Madeleine McCann" didn't turn up to creche anyway, WHOSE HANDWRITING IS EN'S ATTENDANCE IN, ASSUMING SHE ATTENDED, ON 4 MAY?
Little things like this could blast the case right open, if only some police force took the trouble to investigate them.

by Liz Eagles 04.01.12 16:13

kikoraton wrote:Maybe 'putting her to sleep' and the fake abduction, and the Fund, was planned. Maybe they knew the only way to put Maddie out of her misery 'legally' was to make it look like an abduction, which is why everything (Fund/website etc) kicked off so early and professionally and Gerry's brother gave up his job so early on.
unquote
I agree. If I'm correct (and I'm 99% sure), it was Gerry who signed Elizabeth Naylor into creche from Sunday 29 April. That implies pre-meditation. And ready collaborators. I still need to know, where's the link between the Mccanns and the Naylors? The history of the latter is 2000-2008 Edinburgh, with less-than-transparent stockbrokers Teather and Greenwood, then the Icelandic bank Landsbanki which went down leaving thousands of small savers with nothing. Not a good CV, unless you're an investment banker. Then Naylor and all his colleagues surfaced again in London, with Matrix Group.
I think that the substitute for Maddie, in the creche, was called Mad'lene and came from the same circle of friends as the Naylors.
On twitter, I've laid down a challenge: since on 6 occasions out of 7, Elizabeth Naylor was signed-in under Gerry's handwriting (99% sure) and on only one occasion under her mother's, when "Madeleine McCann" didn't turn up to creche anyway, WHOSE HANDWRITING IS EN'S ATTENDANCE IN, ASSUMING SHE ATTENDED, ON 4 MAY?
Little things like this could blast the case right open, if only some police force took the trouble to investigate them.

Could anyone please point me in the right direction to find out about the Naylor's and the creche records relating to kikoraton's post. Thanks.