Re: Crèche records

by Guest 21.10.10 23:23

@ littlepixie

If I may venture that the Robert signed in on the 30 th is supposed to be Elisabeth Naylor, butthe person that took it upon himself( possibility) to sign in both elisabeth aswell as madeleine, tripped up and wrote the name of the person signing in(Robert) instead of Elisabeth Not real coolheaded, don't you think? It happens three times that week.

parapono

by littlepixie 21.10.10 23:52

Thanks Parapono certainly seems a bit strange. You make a mistake once and put your name in the wrong box, but not three times.

by kikoraton 09.12.10 22:49

That's what I used to think, too. Gerry in a nervous hurry, pretending to be RN and putting the wrong name 3 times.
But now I believe he (GM) was trying to be clever, imprinting on the mind of whoever should read those records the idea that "Rob", "and Robert" was actively involved. In fact, he wasn't, it was someone signing in his place.

by kikoraton 12.12.10 5:36

Stella noticed "It's the Lobsters one on the 3rd at 12.25 that is the strangest, with this kind of circle thing going on around it, that I have not seen in another one of her signatures"
Very observant, Stella. And it reminds me of an absurd flourish on what I had taken to be the falsified Robert Naylor signature. Now I'm wondering if somebody had gone to the trouble of circling a part of Kate's signature, and a part of Gerry's. Here they are:
first, in the same session, at 0910, on RN's or Gerry's
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

now, the circle on Kate's at 1225
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But who might have circled them, and why?

by kikoraton 12.12.10 5:43

Candyfloss: what day are you talking about here?? Or does your observation apply to all days, and to KM's siggy at the Lobsters and the Fishy group?
I've been looking at these for the past hour and yes Stella, I would have to agree the signatures do not look quite the same. Having said that people's sigs do change slightly, but it seems to me the sig is not as joined up and the "n" looks different,??

Is there anyone here who could put these side by side?

If the latter (all days/both groups) it would take me quite some time to put them all side by side, but it can be done!! If not side-by-side, then one above the other.

by Guest 12.12.10 21:08

Many, many moons ago, when I was 19, I was caught out at work one day doodling on a piece of paper. Lots of curly cirles all on a page. Someone who saw me doing this said to me something along the lines of, you should offload your worries young girl. At the time I did have a huge secret which no one else knew about and I didn't know how to handle it. Is this something that people unknowingly do when they have secrets I wonder ?

by Guest 12.12.10 21:19

Another thing I have been thinking about is the PJ. Since the discovery of the signatures on the creche sheets, I have asked myself quite a few times, do the PJ already know about this? For ages I kept thinking that they must do. After all, they already know so much more than we do. But then I thought, if this is true, why did they release those sheets for all to see, when they should have been held back as important evidence?

Something tells me that kiko's little package might be very warmly welcomed. pray

by kikoraton 08.06.11 1:12

Thanks to cherry for posting this on the first page (I'm just having a re-read):
"On Sunday 29th April 2007, the first activation of Kate McCann’s mobile was at 9.23, but again there are no Vodafone logs or time bars to provide further detail."
That sentence was from PJ Reis's blog, and although he seems to have taken another direction lately, perhaps we should acknowledge the early work that he carried out.
In the light of the theory I have developed over the last few months, I find this very interesting. By my reckoning, based on the handwriting, Gerry signed in Elizabeth Naylor at 0910 on 29 April - the first day of the creche. For once, Madeleine wasn't signed in at the same time as EN, or within 5 minutes of her. It was not until 0945 that KM signed in Maddie - or, as I believe, not Maddie McCann but the substitute girl, friend or relative of the Naylors, called (sounds like) Madeleine.
Therefore any call on KM's mobile at 0923 could well be of extreme importance. Maybe there was a hiccup. Or perhaps they later developed the signing-in procedure (GM signing in EN and "Madeleine" together) because they weren't satisfied how it had functioned on that first morning. I hope the PJ took note of the person who called or was called by KM at 0923.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.06.11 2:02

kikoraton wrote:Thanks to cherry for posting this on the first page (I'm just having a re-read):
"On Sunday 29th April 2007, the first activation of Kate McCann’s mobile was at 9.23, but again there are no Vodafone logs or time bars to provide further detail."
That sentence was from PJ Reis's blog, and although he seems to have taken another direction lately, perhaps we should acknowledge the early work that he carried out.
In the light of the theory I have developed over the last few months, I find this very interesting. By my reckoning, based on the handwriting, Gerry signed in Elizabeth Naylor at 0910 on 29 April - the first day of the creche. For once, Madeleine wasn't signed in at the same time as EN, or within 5 minutes of her. It was not until 0945 that KM signed in Maddie - or, as I believe, not Maddie McCann but the substitute girl, friend or relative of the Naylors, called (sounds like) Madeleine.
Therefore any call on KM's mobile at 0923 could well be of extreme importance. Maybe there was a hiccup. Or perhaps they later developed the signing-in procedure (GM signing in EN and "Madeleine" together) because they weren't satisfied how it had functioned on that first morning. I hope the PJ took note of the person who called or was called by KM at 0923.

Hallo kiko, I hope all is well.

There are obviously parts of your hypothesis that I am not familiar with, and I don't have ready access to all the telephone records that you refer to, but I think it's as well to put on record here that for your theory to stand up, all the following would need to seem to be in place - please let me know if you disagree:

1. A pre-existing plan, probably conceived months in advance by Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, to murder the 'real' Madeleine on this holiday on Saturday 28 April

2. Each member of the 'Tapas 9' group being fully aware of the plan and going along with it, knowing fine well that the Madeleine presented to the creche on the morning of Sunday 29 April was not the real Madeleine

3. Another family with a child named Madeleine (or very similar) prepared to go along with such a major fraud, using their own child as a substitute

4. All the creche workers being deliberately (and successfully) deceived by the McCanns, the entire 'Tapas' group and the 'substitute' family in mistaking the substitute Madeleine for the real Madeleine.

It is when I stop to consider these aspects that, in the absence of further information, I find your hypothesis very difficult to accept.

I just wonder if you have any alternative hypothesis that the various facts accumulated by e.g. yourself, Stella and HideHo might fit?

by kikoraton 08.06.11 3:00

Yes, that's it, Tony. Has to have been premeditated.
The creche staff would never have known the real Madeleine McCann, and would be blameless, except in the careless maintenance of records (filling in bits when the parent didn't, etc). No doubt that's why they were shipped off, to minimise gossip and speculation. But fair play to them - they would have thought "of course MM was there until 1730 on 3 May!" In fact, ever since 29 April it had been a doppelganger. No need to be identical - the photos were deliberately made to be confusing (the poster of a girl of two). And we can guess why the McCs claimed that Maddie was only 90cm tall! That's right - her substitute was tiny for her age. I've got the photo to demonstrate it. That will have to wait for the Met to see it first.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.06.11 3:21

kikoraton wrote:Yes, that's it, Tony. Has to have been premeditated.
The creche staff would never have known the real Madeleine McCann, and would be blameless, except in the careless maintenance of records (filling in bits when the parent didn't, etc). No doubt that's why they were shipped off, to minimise gossip and speculation. But fair play to them - they would have thought "of course MM was there until 1730 on 3 May!" In fact, ever since 29 April it had been a doppelganger. No need to be identical - the photos were deliberately made to be confusing (the poster of a girl of two). And we can guess why the McCs claimed that Maddie was only 90cm tall! That's right - her substitute was tiny for her age. I've got the photo to demonstrate it. That will have to wait for the Met to see it first.

Thank you for the clarity of your response.

A further question that would then arise: why would the McCanns choose to murder (I think this is also your theory) Madeleine in their very own apartment? (as per the evidence of the cadaver dogs). Why would they leave Madeleine's corpse for at least 90 minutes in one or more of the following places: the children's living room, their bedroom, the veranda, the garden - then on two of Dr Kate McCann's clothes, the child's T-shirt, and, of course, Cuddle Cat. Not a lot of this makes sense if there was a premeditated murder plan. Surely if this was premeditated they would have been ruthlessly efficient and made damn sure there was no trace of a body, blood etc. in their ownn apartment.

Then there is the question of motive.

What would be the McCanns' motive for a deliberate killing of Madeleine? Not just money, surely?

And finally, the Tapas group. Why would every single one of them go along with a preconceived plan to murder Madeleine, and with a preconceived plan to pretend that a substitute Madeleine was the real Madeleine. What could possibly be in it for them?

These are among the reasons why I ask you if there is an alternative hypothesis that fits the facts.

Another reason I would respectfully advance is the simply chaotic nature of the attempts of the McCanns and their Tapas friends to come up with an accurate and beleivable story of the events of 3 May, especially of that evening. Surely if this was all entirely premeditated, the whole group could have planned Madeleine's murder much better than that?

The statements made by the McCanns and their friends seem to me to speak more of a frantic cover-up after an unplanned death - maybe an accident, as Amaral suggests, or maybe an accidental overdose which killed her.

I would like the Met to be given good quality facts and a believeable scenario for what happened to Madeleine McCann, so they can pursue new lines of enquiry, but at present, unless there are a good many persuasive things that you have up your sleeve, so to speak, the pre-planned murder of Madeleine does not yet convince me as working hypothesis.

by kikoraton 08.06.11 4:36

I must make it clear that I have never suggested that the McCanns or any other named person were responsible for murdering Madeleine. The word "murder" has never appeared in my posts. I don't know how she died.
I have been addressing the matter of when she died. The attempted cover-up, by manipulating the creche records, must have been pre-meditated. The creche records, the handwriting, the initials in the "parent's signature" column, and the relationships with one and probably two families implied by those matters, should be investigated as an important part of the review which was ordered by the Prime Minister at the instigation of Kate McCann.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.06.11 5:42

kikoraton wrote:I must make it clear that I have never suggested that the McCanns or any other named person were responsible for murdering Madeleine. The word "murder" has never appeared in my posts. I don't know how she died...[SNIPPED]

I am finding this difficult to follow, and trying to use simple logic.

Your hypothesis is, from what you say, that the McCanns planned for Madeleine to die in Praia da Luz.

You admit she died. She either died as the result of a deliberate act, or she died 'by accident', to put the two main alternatives.

To achieve Madeleine's death and cover it up with a faked abduction, you say - or at least infer - that they must have taken all the 'Tapas 9' into their confidence and obtained their prior agreement to go along with (a) a deliberate faked abduction and (b) a 'substitute' Madeleine whom they knew not to be the true Madeleine.

In addition, you have agreed that there must have been another family on that trip who were ready and prepared in every way, from Day One (or Two) for their daughter, named Madeleine or very very similar, to be paraded as a substitute, so that other families at the Ocean Club and all the other staff truly believed this girl to be the McCanns' real daughter, Madeleine beth McCann.

That all points to a premeditated act of killing Madeleine, in other words, premeditated murder.

I honestly cannot see why you avoid the word 'murder' because that is surely precisely your hypothesis.

by kikoraton 08.06.11 6:12

Tony, may I be absolutely clear?
My expertise is in Communications Intelligence, and I have studied in great detail the phone records released by the Public Ministry, and also the creche records.
I have said when I believe Madeleine died.
I have not said how, nor am I interested. I hope that the Met review will find that out.
As a lawyer, you will know not to put words into the mouths of others.
Please leave it at that.

by Guest 08.06.11 18:32

Francisco Moita Flores said "the mystery lies with one or two, of the ten or twelve people who used to enter that apartment". Enter that apartment for what exactly? According to the McCann's, no one ever visited them.

We know the group had 9 adults, there is at least 3 more then, that we do not yet know about. But Moita Flores must do, to have mentioned this. The Amaral's have said that they had a paedophile in the group. We must not forget the Gasper statement. Nor should we forget about the Social Worker who identified David Payne.

For me, the sticking matter is the substitute girl. She must have already been out there, to fill the shoes so quickly. But was she taken out there especially to fill the part, or was she nominated very quickly on the night of the 28th or in the early hours of the 29th? Why would anyone phone someone around 4am?, yet the call records show someone did on the 29th. If my phone goes during the night, my first thoughts are someone has died.

I used to work with a girl from South Africa who told me that the reason she had to leave home was because it held too many bad memories for her. As a child she remembers being gang raped by a group of men known to her Father. They would have this BBQ for all the men and then a few of them after quite a few drinks came looking for her on the farm. Even to this day she is still too afraid to ask her Mother if she knew what was going on. She was only 6 years old. She is afraid to know what the answer may be and if she did know, why she never did anything about it. She has seen about 8 different therapists in 3 different countries and no one can help her to move forward.

Maybe, something like what happened to my friend, was happening out there - the planned part. Maybe the substitute girl was the unplanned part and why as a collective, they needed to come up with a master plan to save 6 or more families reputations. Maybe they were using the drug where girls are left with no memories?

by kikoraton 10.06.11 4:44

If my theory is correct, then the substitute girl must have been planned well in advance. I find it very difficult to imagine that everything could have been in place - two families meeting the McCs for the first time, both willing to participate, a girl with a name that sounds as though it should be spelled Madeleine - unless there had been prior intention.
I hear a mumble of dissent! OK, how then do you explain one person (GM) signing the register against the names of two children, and attempting a signature (for the parent of the child that wasn't his) which he can't get right and therefore has as many variations as the number of times it appears. In other words, five.
And might not it all fit quite well with the call or text which is known to have cropped up on Jane Tanner's mobile, at 0415 on the 29 April?

by Guest 10.06.11 18:52

The fiddle in the creche records alone convinced me that Madeleine died before May 3rd. For those of you who remember me, I was adamant that she died on the 3rd just because Goncalo Amaral had said so. So it's only been in the last 4-5 months I think now, that I am convinced otherwise.

As for explanations;

1. Gerry was indeed taking another child along to creche with MM, but felt the need to replicate RN's signature. But why? and why did he never mention this. Why did the creche workers never mention this. If it was all totally innocent, why keep this quiet?

2. Gerry did not have MM with him, but a child all the creche workers thought was her. Which had to have started on the first day of creche on the 29th, just as the creche sheets suggest. No one is the wiser.

Personally I don't think the deception stops there. I think they all had the use of other apartments. Fiona said they were the only ones who booked a 2 bed, everyone else got an upgrade. The Paynes made the booking, so why did the MW reservation say a 2 bed for the McCann's plus an extra bed? If Fiona is correct Tanner and Oldfield could not have been staying in G5B & G5D, as they are both 1 beds. G5A did not contain any of the childrens hairs or DNA. Another reason to believe the McCann's were living elsewhere.

If MW/OC received a group booking every year and have done for the last 10 years. Let's say 20 rooms at a time, 3 or 4 times a year, would they be more inclined to accomodate the group on other levels? Remember the tapas booking? Would a threat to withdraw a large piece of their annual business be enough to make them turn a little blind eye ?? The hotel business is one of the dodgiest businesses I know of. So many rooms with an infinite amount of people passing through them, with some staff who can arrange anything for a good backhand. Oh yes, this is an industry where nothing can be taken for granted.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.06.11 6:22

Stella wrote:The fiddle in the creche records alone convinced me that Madeleine died before May 3rd. For those of you who remember me, I was adamant that she died on the 3rd just because Goncalo Amaral had said so. So it's only been in the last 4-5 months I think now, that I am convinced otherwise.

As for explanations;

1. Gerry was indeed taking another child along to creche with MM, but felt the need to replicate RN's signature. But why? and why did he never mention this. Why did the creche workers never mention this. If it was all totally innocent, why keep this quiet?

2. Gerry did not have MM with him, but a child all the creche workers thought was her. Which had to have started on the first day of creche on the 29th, just as the creche sheets suggest. No one is the wiser.

The stumbling-block for me here is the degree of advanced preparation and the fact that the whole of the Tapas group must have been in on the plot. I suppose it would explain: 'F___ off. I'm not here to enjoy myself'.

Personally I don't think the deception stops there. I think they all had the use of other apartments. Fiona said they were the only ones who booked a 2 bed, everyone else got an upgrade. The Paynes made the booking, so why did the MW reservation say a 2 bed for the McCann's plus an extra bed? If Fiona is correct Tanner and Oldfield could not have been staying in G5B & G5D, as they are both 1 beds. G5A did not contain any of the childrens hairs or DNA. Another reason to believe the McCann's were living elsewhere.

There could be two reasons for the lack of haris and DNA Stella: 1. It was unoccupied as you suggest, or 2. They all had a jolly good clean-up, possibly on 3 May, possibly before.

If MW/OC received a group booking every year and have done for the last 10 years. Let's say 20 rooms at a time, 3 or 4 times a year, would they be more inclined to accomodate the group on other levels? Remember the tapas booking? Would a threat to withdraw a large piece of their annual business be enough to make them turn a little blind eye ?? The hotel business is one of the dodgiest businesses I know of. So many rooms with an infinite amount of people passing through them, with some staff who can arrange anything for a good backhand. Oh yes, this is an industry where nothing can be taken for granted.

Can't remember on which thread this was mooted, or whether it was by e-mail, but one suggestion is that Robert Murat may have been some kind of 'fixer' of, shall we say, 'unusual holidays'. The swift calling up of people like Alex Woolfall and the MD of Mark Warners points in the direction of a cover-up of what was happening that week.

by Guest 11.06.11 18:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:The fiddle in the creche records alone convinced me that Madeleine died before May 3rd. For those of you who remember me, I was adamant that she died on the 3rd just because Goncalo Amaral had said so. So it's only been in the last 4-5 months I think now, that I am convinced otherwise.

As for explanations;

1. Gerry was indeed taking another child along to creche with MM, but felt the need to replicate RN's signature. But why? and why did he never mention this. Why did the creche workers never mention this. If it was all totally innocent, why keep this quiet?

2. Gerry did not have MM with him, but a child all the creche workers thought was her. Which had to have started on the first day of creche on the 29th, just as the creche sheets suggest. No one is the wiser.

The stumbling-block for me here is the degree of advanced preparation and the fact that the whole of the Tapas group must have been in on the plot. I suppose it would explain: 'F___ off. I'm not here to enjoy myself'.
Perhpas there had been a promise of greater things for all. What we need to find out is how different (financially) their lives are today, compared to 2006? In particual, the period between May 2007 and just before we see them all on the steps at The Royal Courts of Justice.

Personally I don't think the deception stops there. I think they all had the use of other apartments. Fiona said they were the only ones who booked a 2 bed, everyone else got an upgrade. The Paynes made the booking, so why did the MW reservation say a 2 bed for the McCann's plus an extra bed? If Fiona is correct Tanner and Oldfield could not have been staying in G5B & G5D, as they are both 1 beds. G5A did not contain any of the childrens hairs or DNA. Another reason to believe the McCann's were living elsewhere.

There could be two reasons for the lack of haris and DNA Stella: 1. It was unoccupied as you suggest, or 2. They all had a jolly good clean-up, possibly on 3 May, possibly before.
Even the best cleaners in the world would have missed something. I cannot believe that Mrs Fenn did not hear an electric vacuum cleaner going over every square inch of that place and in every room, for what must have lasted a good couple of hours. This is what would have needed to be done to ensure that every last piece of DNA was recovered. Plus then they also had to wash down every visible surface. Why would a room not involved in an event also need to be cleaned? Criminals usually make a really bad job of cleaning down just one spot. How could they have cleaned everywhere, so well?

If MW/OC received a group booking every year and have done for the last 10 years. Let's say 20 rooms at a time, 3 or 4 times a year, would they be more inclined to accomodate the group on other levels? Remember the tapas booking? Would a threat to withdraw a large piece of their annual business be enough to make them turn a little blind eye ?? The hotel business is one of the dodgiest businesses I know of. So many rooms with an infinite amount of people passing through them, with some staff who can arrange anything for a good backhand. Oh yes, this is an industry where nothing can be taken for granted.

Can't remember on which thread this was mooted, or whether it was by e-mail, but one suggestion is that Robert Murat may have been some kind of 'fixer' of, shall we say, 'unusual holidays'. The swift calling up of people like Alex Woolfall and the MD of Mark Warners points in the direction of a cover-up of what was happening that week.

by Guest 11.06.11 23:51

The McCann legal team can challenge the forensics and the dogs, but how are they going to deal with the handwriting experts who might just stand up in court one day and say, 'yes, in our opinion GM wrote both entries for MM and EN'. ?

No doubt some will say, as they have already said in the past, you will need more than a few words to analyze the handwriting properly. What a load of old rubbish. If they can arrest and successfully prosecute someone for a fake signature on a cheque, they have 10 different lines of information over a space of 5 different days in the creche records.

There will be no getting out of that one. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by kikoraton 12.06.11 1:44

Regarding the number of samples of handwriting, Here we have a small group of seven men.
Let's count Naylor as one of them, although I don't believe he ever came near the Lobster signing-in book. Then Gerry. Then Neil Berry. Totman. Mann. O'Brien. Patel.How come that they all have very individual hand-writing (altho some of them use the book very seldom), and yet the writing against E Naylor and M McCann is virtually if not completely identical? What are the chances of that happening?

by Guest 12.06.11 1:57

Hi kiko,

Just a thought, perhaps the records weren't kept properly, and when Madeleine vanished panic set in. Have you ever thought one of the nannies or other staff could have done this to look above board and proper., and to cover themselves? Not saying they did, but it could have happened to save some people's skins?

by Guest 12.06.11 18:36

candyfloss wrote:Hi kiko,

Just a thought, perhaps the records weren't kept properly, and when Madeleine vanished panic set in. Have you ever thought one of the nannies or other staff could have done this to look above board and proper., and to cover themselves? Not saying they did, but it could have happened to save some people's skins?

Hi Candyfloss.

I had to read your post a couple of times to make sure I was understanding properly what you are saying. I'm still not sure I have it right though. Are you saying that a creche worker may have filled out just the EN entry bit every day, or both the MM and the EN entries every day?

The big question is, is that Gerry's writing? If the answer is no, then you may have a point. But the answer is yes imo. Gerry has a very dinstinct style of slanty writing. If you look at these pages, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you will see Gerry's mark at the tops of the pages and you can see his signature in full at the bottom of the document (note the direction and angle of the slant). I have no doubts in my mind that is Gerry signing in a Madeleine. As such, I have to agree with kiko, the entries for EN are far to similar to be a coincidence. The numerous examples kiko has posted up in the past with the slant in exactly the same locations, proves this beyond reasonable doubt in my eyes.

You can see that one particular nanny was filling in a lot of entries (signing out), which may indeed account for what you have suggested above, but she always used her own name. I think all of the nannies have shall we say, a very youthful type of writing, very curly and very controlled. Completely different to Gerry's, which is more like the beeps on a heart monitor. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gerry's passport [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 12.06.11 18:56

Hi Stella,

I was thinking that they were filling the registers in for any parent that had either forgotten, or hadn't bothered to sign the child in or out. Perhaps it was a very lax system, and one that hadn't caused any probs, but the when Madeleine disappeared the records would be looked at so they were sort of filled in later? It's just a working hypothesis big grin

I agree that the handwriting does look like GM's but perhaps they were trying to copy that, and got muddled with Naylor and McCann in the panic? $i don\'t know$ I always tend to go with the simplest theory yes