Re: The Creche Sheets

by Genbug 27.02.12 10:12

[quote="Stella"]

Sunday April 29^th

Afternoon crèche starts at 14.30.

Elizabeth arrives at 14.40, signed in by Robert Naylor.

Madeleine and Ella arrive at the same time at 14.45 by Gerry & Russell.

Gerry signs Madeleine in leaving his mobile number.

________________

Stella, it may or may not be of significance but Gerry claims not to remember if it was him that signed Madeleine in on the Sunday. The text below is an excerpt from his 10 May statement and is referring to Sunday 29 April. Strange how he remembers what time they took the children to the playground and what time they left (just five minutes in the playground) and the times for virtually everything else they did that day, but doesn't remember going with Russell to sign Madeleine in?

"They took the children to the play area next to the pool, where the playground is located, at 14H15, having stayed there until about 14H20. After that time they left the twins in the crèche at TAPAS, and either the deponent or KATE, he doesn't know who, took MADELEINE to the crèche above the main reception, following the previously described route. He clarifies that the children’s drop-off and collection times were recorded at each crèche along with the contact number and location of the respective parents."

by Guest 27.02.12 10:47

Genbug, thank you. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think that is a very important point, which needs to added to the list. Is Gerry distancing himself from being there?

I also think this list when complete, will be a very useful tool for a lot of other things.

by Guest 27.02.12 11:41

Adding to the list for the 29th, that on this day, no one dates the Lobsters creche sheet. It's the only time it happens, so needs to be recorded.

by Guest 27.02.12 12:18

Just spotted something else that could be quite important. For some reason, the twins were signed in Jellyfish all week, apart from the 30th, when they are signed in Starfish. Why did their group name change for just this day? Must check to see if they had a different nanny that day.

This is also the day when Madeleine is signed in and out, in the afternoon, after staying for just 15 minutes.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 15:17

Excellent work Stella. The concise summary in points form is very easy to follow.

Of the name "Robert Naylor" on records which had to be changed twice to "Elizabeth Naylor", my opinion is that Robert signs his own name instead of his child as men do sometimes without thinking it should have been the child's name.
Maybe it is the mentality that he's next of kin in case of emergency. Of course I could be wrong, but that is one possible explanation, FWIW.

by Guest 27.02.12 16:01

Yes aiyoyo. The bullet point listing of all the important stuff, certainly allows you to focus much better on the bigger picture. I've got nowhere today infortunately with the 30th's events. That day is a very bizzare day, as you will see when I post it up. Lots of things happened that day, that didn't happen on other days. I think it is a very important day.

As for the Naylor entries, well yes, that is certainly an important consideration. But I think you will change your mind by the time I finish this exercise. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 27.02.12 17:36

Stella wrote:Yes aiyoyo. The bullet point listing of all the important stuff, certainly allows you to focus much better on the bigger picture. I've got nowhere today infortunately with the 30th's events. That day is a very bizzare day, as you will see when I post it up. Lots of things happened that day, that didn't happen on other days. I think it is a very important day.

As for the Naylor entries, well yes, that is certainly an important consideration. But I think you will change your mind by the time I finish this exercise. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

it certainly is and is remarkable for being a day not detailed in the book, one has to wonder why. a case of a silence speaking volumes imo

by Guest 27.02.12 19:40

aiyoyo wrote:Excellent work Stella. The concise summary in points form is very easy to follow.

Of the name "Robert Naylor" on records which had to be changed twice to "Elizabeth Naylor", my opinion is that Robert signs his own name instead of his child as men do sometimes without thinking it should have been the child's name.
Maybe it is the mentality that he's next of kin in case of emergency. Of course I could be wrong, but that is one possible explanation, FWIW.

I agree someone wrote the father's name rather than the child's but a quick look at how everyone else is signing in would quickly show how it should be done.

I think it's worth noting that Russell had some trouble with his child's name also on the creche records and on the sticker book timeline where he had to cross out his daughter's name twice.
On the creche sheet for 1 May he signs his daughter in as Emma and someone - looks like the nanny's writing - crosses it out and corrects it to Ella.

Then on the sticker book timeline he wrote on the evening of 3rd , he writes:
920/5 ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5d

Next line is :
930 Rob & ~~Ella~~ Matt check on all 3

May not be important but it's worth noting for completeness.

So he seems to have had a problem

by uppatoffee 27.02.12 19:50

Is it definitely Russell signing Ella in? I could well believe a parent would write their own name instead of their child's, but to get the wrong name completely seems unlikely. More likely that he asked someone to sign her in for him and he said Ella and they misheard him.

by Guest 27.02.12 20:29

uppatoffee wrote:Is it definitely Russell signing Ella in? I could well believe a parent would write their own name instead of their child's, but to get the wrong name completely seems unlikely. More likely that he asked someone to sign her in for him and he said Ella and they misheard him.

Yes that's possible it was someone else - there is a signature that sort of looks like his but looking at it again the surname of the child's name looks weaker than the way O'brien is usually written compared to other sessions. Also the room number given for the am creche session on 1st and am session on 30th is 5B... So not only did they get the child's name wrong but they also got the apartment number wrong - should have been 5d.

Sorry Stella for jumping ahead on the days ....

by Guest 28.02.12 9:47

Stewie wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Excellent work Stella. The concise summary in points form is very easy to follow.

Of the name "Robert Naylor" on records which had to be changed twice to "Elizabeth Naylor", my opinion is that Robert signs his own name instead of his child as men do sometimes without thinking it should have been the child's name.
Maybe it is the mentality that he's next of kin in case of emergency. Of course I could be wrong, but that is one possible explanation, FWIW.

I agree someone wrote the father's name rather than the child's but a quick look at how everyone else is signing in would quickly show how it should be done.

I think it's worth noting that Russell had some trouble with his child's name also on the creche records and on the sticker book timeline where he had to cross out his daughter's name twice.
On the creche sheet for 1 May he signs his daughter in as Emma and someone - looks like the nanny's writing - crosses it out and corrects it to Ella.

Then on the sticker book timeline he wrote on the evening of 3rd , he writes:
920/5 ~~Ella~~ Jane checked 5d

Next line is :
930 Rob & ~~Ella~~ Matt check on all 3

May not be important but it's worth noting for completeness.

So he seems to have had a problem

Stewie, don't worry about jumping ahead, it helps to remind me.

I think you have made a very significant point here.

All this time we thought it must have been the nanny who changed the creche sheet from Emma to Ella. It might still have been, but if Ella being crossed out, also made it to the sticker book, the nanny was not around when that was being written !! I know it's not the same as Emma to Ella, but it looks like someone had a mental block for some reason, with that particular child.

by Guest 28.02.12 11:24

Day three -first draft

Monday April 30^th

GM phone 07780 activity - nothing recorded.

KM phone 0790 activity - nothing recorded.

The twins transfer from Jellyfish to Starfish, for this day only with Shinead.

Gerry signs twins in at 9.20, out at 12.15, minutes elevated.

Lily is signed in immediately afterwards, but it’s written as 9.10, minutes elevated.

Madeleine is signed in at 9.30, out at 12.10 by Gerry, minutes elevated.

Ella is signed in at 9.15, out at 12.35 by Russell.

Elizabeth is signed in as Robert leaving no parental signature.

‘Robert’ as written, rises up as it finishes. - added 28/02

‘N’ in Naylor, appears to be the same style as ‘N’ in McCann. - added 28/02

Numbers ‘7 & 8’ in telephone numbers, appears to be the same style. - added 28/02

Elizabeth is signed out at 12.30 by Ainne Naylor.

In the afternoon, same page used in lobsters, no squiggle, just one blank line left.

The twins are signed in at 15.25 by Kate and out at 17.20

Kate leaves 2 phone numbers 0790310 & 0778698.

‘Sean’ as seen on the crèche sheet is part printed, part hand written. - updated 28/2 pm

Madeleine is signed in at 15.15 by Kate.

Kate leaves 1 phone number 0790310

Madeleine is signed out 15 minutes later at 15.30 by Kate, minutes elevated.

Elizabeth does not attend.

Ella is signed in at 16.00 as R O’Brien, by Russell, location at tapas.

Ella is not signed out.

William Totman at 2.35 is signed in as John and then crossed out.

Alexander Mann not signed in until 4.30.

other events that day:

Robert Murat books his flight from UK to FARO. - added 28/2

by aiyoyo 28.02.12 14:31

Stella wrote:Day three -first draft

Monday April 30^th

GM phone 07780 activity - nothing recorded.

KM phone 0790 activity - nothing recorded.

The twins transfer from Jellyfish to Starfish, for this day only with Shinead.

Gerry signs twins in at 9.20, out at 12.15, minutes elevated.

Lily is signed in immediately afterwards, but it’s written as 9.10, minutes elevated.

Madeleine is signed in at 9.30, out at 12.10 by Gerry, minutes elevated.

Ella is signed in at 9.15, out at 12.35 by Russell.

Elizabeth is signed in as Robert leaving no parental signature.

‘Robert’ as written, rises up as it finishes. - added 28/02

‘N’ in Naylor, appears to be the same style as ‘N’ in McCann. - added 28/02

Numbers ‘7 & 8’ in telephone numbers, appears to be the same style. - added 28/02

Elizabeth is signed out at 12.30 by Ainne Naylor.

In the afternoon, same page used in lobsters, no squiggle, just one blank line left.

The twins are signed in at 15.25 by Kate and out at 17.20

Kate leaves 2 phone numbers 0790310 & 0778698.

Madeleine is signed in at 15.15 by Kate.

Kate leaves 1 phone number 0790310

Madeleine is signed out 15 minutes later at 15.30 by Kate, minutes elevated.
Which leaves one wondering why bother!

Elizabeth does not attend.
Coincidence?
Ella is signed in at 16.00 as R O’Brien, by Russell, location at tapas.

Ella is not signed out.

William Totman at 2.35 is signed in as John and then crossed out.

Alexander Mann not signed in until 4.30.

other events that day:

Robert Murat books his flight from UK to FARO. - added 28/2

How many children were in Maddie's creche and twins' creche on this day? How many children of similar age to those of the Tapas were on holiday in the same resort? Were they all left in the creche as well?
If only about 4 or 5 attended every day in each creche then surely they cant get lost in the crowd and surely it must be easy for nanny to tally children's records. Surely it can't be that they either didn't check registration records or didnt recognise children in attendance match registration?

by Guest 28.02.12 14:41

There is supposed to be a strict number of children per adult. But it is believed that there was more than one group playing in the same area, giving the effect of a large number. But each nanny had a set amount of children to monitor.

Mini club (3-5 yrs)

Supervisor Lyndsy Johnson, then Amy Tierney

1^st group Cat Baker (MM & E**a O’Brien)

2^nd group Emma Wilding

Toddler club 1 (12m-23m)

Shinead Vine, Jacqueline Williams, Leanne Wagstaff

2 sub groups, each group having 3 children each

Toddler club 2 (24m-3 yrs)

Stacy Portz, Shinead Vine, Sarah Williamson, Susan Owen (AM & SM)

Baby club (3- 11 months)

Supervisor Lyndsay Johnson, then Amy Tierney

Charlotte Pennington, Lynne Fretter

3 sub groups, each group having 2 babies each

by Guest 28.02.12 15:34

Just spotted another really weird thing. On the 30th in the twins creche group, afternoon session, the name Sean is part printed, part hand written. All of the creche sheets I have seen, have all been hand written.

by Guest 28.02.12 17:39

Stella wrote:Just spotted another really weird thing. On the 30th in the twins creche group, afternoon session, the name Sean is part printed, part hand written. All of the creche sheets I have seen, have all been hand written.

Hi Stella,

Yes that's really weird - the S and e are printed... Also on the time in, it is 1325 but the 2 is a printed "a" - very odd.

by aiyoyo 29.02.12 5:36

Stella wrote:There is supposed to be a strict number of children per adult. But it is believed that there was more than one group playing in the same area, giving the effect of a large number. But each nanny had a set amount of children to monitor.

Mini club (3-5 yrs)

Supervisor Lyndsy Johnson, then Amy Tierney

1^st group Cat Baker (MM & E**a O’Brien)

2^nd group Emma Wilding

Toddler club 1 (12m-23m)

Shinead Vine, Jacqueline Williams, Leanne Wagstaff

2 sub groups, each group having 3 children each

Toddler club 2 (24m-3 yrs)

Stacy Portz, Shinead Vine, Sarah Williamson, Susan Owen (AM & SM)

Baby club (3- 11 months)

Supervisor Lyndsay Johnson, then Amy Tierney

Charlotte Pennington, Lynne Fretter

3 sub groups, each group having 2 babies each

In low season I would imagine not many children are in the creche. Besides even in high season there is the ratio of nanny : children issue so how can any nanny mistakes a child identity if there are only less than one handful their charge. I'm finding it hard to believe they can substitute Maddie and not be found out. Besides why would Taylor allow them to use ET as substitute?

I know we have a phone data analysis expert among us. Maybe the phone activities are just a coincidence. Certainly I think the phone activities on the 2nd and 3rd need to be examined. Otherwise, I would imagine people on holiday would cut down on calls or avoid using the phone after all they are there to relax and also there is the long-distance cost factor people who are budgeting try to avoid.

I cant see how they can pull off the substitution "stunt" in consecutive days without anyone noticing? Besides why would they risk that since there is no point in it, as the accident no matter when it happened would still need to be reported in the way they want to report it. Planning an abduction story involving so many outsiders as potential witnesses is very risky.

Since we are in this closed section, I would like to hear the logic for people's belief that Maddie could have died much earlier.
Would this then tantamount to premeditated homicide or just premeditated cover up?

I know discussions were had about earlier than May3rd death but as early as April 30 and the rationale behind that belief is not explored as far as I know.

by Ribisl 29.02.12 6:38

Since we are in this closed section, I would like to hear the logic for people's belief that Maddie could have died much earlier.
Would this then tantamount to premeditated homicide or just premeditated cover up?

I know discussions were had about earlier than May3rd death but as early as April 30 and the rationale behind that belief is not explored as far as I know.

I agree wih aiyoyo. As I have been posting recently under another thread I fail to see any logic behind some of the assumptions made wrt both earlier death and substitution. Fern evidence suggests to me that M was alive on the night of 1st May and for once I see no reason not to believe KM's comment about M mentioning crying the following morning. As far as sub is concerned could we not have a separate thread to discuss this? I would like to read all the evidence people have gathered to base their sub theory on with an open mind.

by aiyoyo 29.02.12 6:52

I wont take Fenn's statement as set in stone.

The mccanns reference to it ...err...dont even go there, since the mccanns are notorious for saying things (lying) to suit their prupose. It suits them to let people believe Maddie was alive until 3rd May. But if the evidence supports a different date then the researchers are doing a commendable job.

by Guest 29.02.12 10:01

I know that many people are asking for explanations, but although this section is available to a small number of people to make posts in, it is still visible to the entire world to see. Including our dear friends Carter Ruck.

Not sure how this section would develop, 'Me' came up with the great idea of breaking each day down, merging creche and phone activity, adding anything very important to remember along the way. Have you ever seen how air traffic controllers used to work? With each plane on a small block in front of them, moving and shifting things around to get all the planes in the right order for landing. Well, this is a bit like that at the moment. It is working very well, but I've only got up to the 1st May, which I'm working on right now. This is the start of a busy day. A major piece has quite possibly just slotted into place, which could change some peoples perspectives of what they think they saw happen that day. But until this exercise is finished and we can see the whole week as one complete document, I think it is best to keep any explanations out of it for now. But I will give aiyoyo something to think about between now and then. When Madeleine was happily playing in the creche that week, how many people do you know of (outside the T9 group), who physically met and knew Madeleine before that week? The answer of course is zero. The T9 are like the musketeers, sticking with their all for one and one for all attitude. Do you still think that someone would of/should of, noticed a different child that week?

by Guest 29.02.12 10:09

Ribisl wrote:I agree wih aiyoyo. As I have been posting recently under another thread I fail to see any logic behind some of the assumptions made wrt both earlier death and substitution. Fern evidence suggests to me that M was alive on the night of 1st May and for once I see no reason not to believe KM's comment about M mentioning crying the following morning. As far as sub is concerned could we not have a separate thread to discuss this? I would like to read all the evidence people have gathered to base their sub theory on with an open mind.

As the creche movements along with the handwriting in the creche sheets, is what led to the "purporting of a theory" in the first place, they come as a complete package I'm afraid.

by aiyoyo 29.02.12 12:37

Stella wrote:I know that many people are asking for explanations, but although this section is available to a small number of people to make posts in, it is still visible to the entire world to see. Including our dear friends Carter Ruck.

Not sure how this section would develop, 'Me' came up with the great idea of breaking each day down, merging creche and phone activity, adding anything very important to remember along the way. Have you ever seen how air traffic controllers used to work? With each plane on a small block in front of them, moving and shifting things around to get all the planes in the right order for landing. Well, this is a bit like that at the moment. It is working very well, but I've only got up to the 1st May, which I'm working on right now. This is the start of a busy day. A major piece has quite possibly just slotted into place, which could change some peoples perspectives of what they think they saw happen that day. But until this exercise is finished and we can see the whole week as one complete document, I think it is best to keep any explanations out of it for now. But I will give aiyoyo something to think about between now and then. When Madeleine was happily playing in the creche that week, how many people do you know of (outside the T9 group), who physically met and knew Madeleine before that week? The answer of course is zero. The T9 are like the musketeers, sticking with their all for one and one for all attitude. Do you still think that someone would of/should of, noticed a different child that week?

Thanks Stella.

by Guest 29.02.12 12:48

This is the first draft of May 1st. It is far from complete, as I have not included the twins movements yet, but here it is so far..

Tuesday May 1^st

GM phone 07780 - is silent all day.

Ella is signed in as Emma by Russell at 9.00.

Ella’s entry also states they were staying in 5B, which is incorrect.

Elizabeth is signed in at 9.10 by Robert.

Madeleine is the last child to be signed in at 9.30 by Gerry.

Gerry does not leave a telephone number, only ‘tennis’.

At 10.16 Kate’s phone is used (see A below) – gets deleted.

Kate’s phone is also used at 11.56 and 12.17 – gets deleted.

Madeleine is signed out at 12.20 by Gerry, minutes elevated.

William Totman is signed out a 12.25, minutes elevated.

Elizabeth is signed out at 12.30 by Ainne. ‘Naylor’ rises up as it ends.

Ella is not signed out and someone changes Emma to Ella.

AM and PM roll into one, someone inserts a dark line to separate the sessions.

Madeleine signed in at 14.30 by Gerry.

Gerry writes Kate’s mobile number in the contact section. (see A above)

Elizabeth is signed in at 2.30 by Ainne.

This is Elizabeth’s last afternoon visit & she leaves very early that day.

Ella is signed in by ‘Cat nanny’ at 2.30 and rises up as it finishes.

Ella’s entry once again states 5B, instead of 5D.

Tia Patel is signed in at 14.30, Patel rises up as it finishes.

Izzy Carpenter is signed in the wrong crèche group at 2.40 & gets crossed out.

Alexander signed in as Richard Mann at 2.50.

Elizabeth leaves very early and is signed out at 4.00 by Ainne.

Madeleine is not signed out.

Alexander is not signed out, but time says 5.30.

William Totman is not signed out, but time says 17.30.

There is a strange symbol beside the name William. (V in box)

Kate’s phone is used again at;

19.45, 20.31, 20,33, 20.37, then at 22.16, twice at 22.23, then 22.24, 22.25, 22.27

All of these get deleted from Kate’s phone.

At 22.30, Mrs Fenn in G5G, claims to hear a child crying below in G5A. - added 29/2 pm

by russiandoll 29.02.12 13:45

considering they were on holiday to relax they sure used their phones an awful lot. they did not seem to stray very far or be apart very much, what could not wait until they were physically together?
about an earlier demise......could a scenario be that Maddie was very seriously hurt earlier that week with the potential for a fatality that went unnoticed? Given the hard floor surfaces, a serious head injury is not outside the bounds of possibility; unless an injury had been witnessed by someone with medical knowledge [ no major visible injuries but keep an eye out for drowsiness[ which Kate made much of about 3rd in her book] and bleeding from ears, nose [ maybe an internal bleed].... might Maddie have suffered a catastrophic head injury, taken a turn for the worse within 24 hours and once realised by the doctors in the grouip, did they then think through the likely consequences for a group of medics who had not been alert to her symptoms and sought a cause for them by taking her to a hospital? They could quite possibly in those circumstances have feared the implications for them and planned a cover up. Not suggesting this happened, just a scenario for a possible accidental injury soon after arriving,followed by her demise.
I guess the creche kept an accident book. Was this ever produced?

by aiyoyo 29.02.12 14:10

As of now I still cant see a death as early as start of the holiday. Earlier than May3rd probably - earliest May 2nd past midnight.
My guess is she suffered a medical condition perhaps something such as autism or asperges syndrome.
A condition that causes her to have fixed habits and to perform fixed actions until she's satisfied. And if anyone should try to stop her she will thrown a tantrum or scream the place down, all that disturbing behaviors are part and parcel of the medical condition.
I suspect it is during one of her routine habits roundabout from one end to the other that she fell while unsupervised.
Or, she was supervised but her involuntary and uncontrollable routine fixated habits drove Kate crazy and she used physical force to restrain her causing her to pull away and the impact of it caused her to fell and bumped her head with fatal consequence.

I suspect she was serially controlled and restrained by use of physical force that left marks throughout her arms or elsewhere that she has to be hidden away from autopsy. That would also explain why the mccanns appear elated despite her disappearance. Only when they know she is not in harm ways of stranger and they no longer are saddled with a less than perfect child that they have reason to be happy without Madeleine. Of course this is my own opinion, nothing to do with this forum, incase mccanns mad dogs are loitering here puffing and salivating.

Log in for more topics