The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Quick question

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 20.07.13 21:16

Hi all,

Just a quick question about little EOB.  I can't find any sign of her name on the creche records on the McCannfilesPJ site. although there is at least one mention of her being dropped off at the creche on 30th April in Russell O'Brien's Rogatory. I can see Sean, Amelie and L ok but not EB. As I'm trying to build RO's timeline this is annoying :) Any of you forum sleuths tell me where to look?
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by suzyjohnson on 21.07.13 2:08

On the McCann Files site, the creche records show that the twins were allocated to Jellyfish, Toddlers over 2 years old.

O'Briens youngest daughter was born in late 2005 so she would have been in Toddlers 1 as she would only have been about 18 months old at the time.

I don't know whether the records for this group are to be found online, possibly not.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 21.07.13 4:15

@suzyjohnson wrote:On the McCann Files site, the creche records show that the twins were allocated to Jellyfish, Toddlers over 2 years old.

O'Briens youngest daughter was born in late 2005 so she would have been in Toddlers 1 as she would only have been about 18 months old at the time.

I don't know whether the records for this group are to be found online, possibly not.

 Hi Suzy,

thanks for the info. Ella and Madeleine were "lobsters" and their club was at the Ocean Club main reception, whereas Sean, Amelie and Lily are "jelllyfish" (Toddlers 2) situated near the Tapas Bar.  Having said that Lily's entries are next to useless with time in and out hardly ever recorded. 

That leaves the two youngest Evie and Scarlet who were one year old and so on Toddler 1 crèche records, which, as you say, are not on the McCannfiles website or any other that I have google skimmed. So that solves that mystery.  I guess I'll just have to use lobster sibling times as a guide to timelines.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by susible on 21.07.13 11:49

Sorry to sound like a boring old fart, but is it really necessary to pore over the activities of the other tapas kids, using their names etc? Yes, I do realise that the creche records have many inconsistencies and possibly hold some clues as to whether Madeleine actually attended at the times she is recorded as being there, but I just feel that publicly displaying the names of these children, who were nothing more than babies at the time, and therefore not complicit in any way, is unfair and possibly damaging to them.

They're all much older now and as they grow they will go through all of the usual stuff that kids, then teens go through and particularly now with the internet being what it is, I just feel that using the kids names in context of discussing this case, could leave them open to all sorts of potential online abuse.

We all know who all of the kids are and I think we could easily refer to them by surname or initials, that's what ultimately happened on 3A. Whilst the McCanns remaining children are often referred to in the media by their parents, I can accept using their names...sadly for them they will always be associated with the case, but in my opinion the other kids have not been thrust into the limelight by their own parents and I don't think that we should be doing it either.

susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by susible on 21.07.13 11:52

Another point..I'm not sure why you are re-hashing all of the creche records and the rogatory interviews, that's already been done and is widely available, so it's really just duplication.

susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by suzyjohnson on 21.07.13 12:00

Another thing that crossed my mind ... I don't suppose the Tapas group would be too happy about anyone discussing their children by name, I think you should be wary of possible legal action in this regard

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by susible on 21.07.13 12:06

@suzyjohnson wrote:Another thing that crossed my mind ... I don't suppose the Tapas group would be too happy about anyone discussing their children by name, I think you should be wary of possible legal action in this regard

Absolutely..Totally agree thumbup 

susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 21.07.13 12:30

@susible wrote:Sorry to sound like a boring old fart, but is it really necessary to pore over the activities of the other tapas kids, using their names etc?  Yes, I do realise that the creche records have many inconsistencies and possibly hold some clues as to whether Madeleine actually attended at the times she is recorded as being there, but I just feel that publicly displaying the names of these children, who were nothing more than babies at the time, and therefore not complicit in any way, is unfair and possibly damaging to them.

They're all much older now and as they grow they will go through all of the usual stuff that kids, then teens go through and particularly now with the internet being what it is, I just feel that using the kids names in context of discussing this case, could leave them open to all sorts of potential online abuse.

We all know who all of the kids are and I think we could easily refer to them by surname or initials, that's what ultimately happened on 3A.  Whilst the McCanns remaining children are often referred to in the media by their parents, I can accept using their names...sadly for them they will always be associated with the case, but in my opinion the other kids have not been thrust into the limelight by their own parents and I don't think that we should be doing it either.

 Hi Susible,

I take your point, and will use initials from now on.  Unfortunately for them, their names are in the public domain already, and freely available on the net.  I am not interested in the minutiae of what the children were doing, where they were doing it, and at what time.  I am interested in the detailed whereabouts of the parents, and crèche records are one of the few items of evidence that can place them at any individual place and time and cut through the flimflam and vagueness of their testimony.

Almost the entire focus of Tapas timelines are on the events of 3rd May 2007. As I have said before in posts, I would like timelines throughout the week, if only because there are not a few theories that place MM's disappearance as being before 3rd May 2007.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE_ANOMALIES.htm

For that reason alone I don't think my preoccupation here is merely pedantry.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Guest on 21.07.13 12:37

I have changed title of thread. Kepharel was only wanting where he/she could find more info. As said the information is out there, namely in the PJ files which are freely available on the net. But, in future please try not to mention the children, and if you must only use initials as a last resort. Thank you.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by susible on 21.07.13 12:38

Hi kepharel. thanks for adopting the initials only approach, yes I understand that their names are obviously available in the police case files etc but they are official documents and are rightly included, I suppose I just feel that thread titles and public forum content should avoid naming them in full as it just makes it easier to track them down very quickly on the net.

I also understand your desire to track the movements of the entire group through the whole week, but yet again it's just my personal opinion that we've already waded through Payne's rogartory (pain being the operative word) and I suppose I just thought "oh lord do we need another version lol

But thanks for understanding my point of view re: the other kids.

____________________


susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by susible on 21.07.13 12:42

candyfloss wrote:I have changed title of thread.  Kepharel was only wanting where he/she could find more info.  As said the information is out there, namely in the PJ files which are freely available on the net.  But, in future please try not to mention the children, and if you must only use initials as a last resort.  Thank you.

Thanks candyfloss

susible

Posts : 330
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 21.07.13 12:51

@susible wrote:Hi kepharel.  thanks for adopting the initials only approach, yes I understand that their names are obviously available in the police case files etc but they are official documents and are rightly included, I suppose I just feel that thread titles and public forum content should avoid naming them in full as it just makes it easier to track them down very quickly on the net.

I also understand your desire to track the movements of the entire group through the whole week, but yet again it's just my personal opinion that we've already waded through Payne's rogartory (pain being the operative word) and I suppose I just thought "oh lord do we need another version lol

But thanks for understanding my point of view re: the other kids.

 Hi susible,

I know that what I appear to be doing has been done a thousand times before, I have read most of it.smilie 

Over time, new research, if not questioned, becomes stratified and takes on the mantle of fact from which all other research is then based.  I would imagine that original research, say when doing an MA or Phd is an important lesson for the student to take nothing for granted.  If what I do serves no other purpose than to verify what has gone before then two things result.  Firstly, it is yet another vote of confidence in the status quo that current thinking is correct.  Secondly, I will have learned quite a few lessons along the way, satisfied my own curiosity, and you never know, something new or overlooked might just...just come to light.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Casey5 on 21.07.13 14:39

@Kepharel wrote:

Over time, new research, if not questioned, becomes stratified and takes on the mantle of fact from which all other research is then based.  I would imagine that original research, say when doing an MA or Phd is an important lesson for the student to take nothing for granted.  If what I do serves no other purpose than to verify what has gone before then two things result.  Firstly, it is yet another vote of confidence in the status quo that current thinking is correct.  Secondly, I will have learned quite a few lessons along the way, satisfied my own curiosity, and you never know, something new or overlooked might just...just come to light.

Hi Kepharel,

Please carry on the good work, I'm sure it all helps. Just lately the fact of the shutters in front of the patio doors has been brought to the fore again, sadly going fairly unremarked on for years - and an important point. It was new to me and I've followed this case since May 4th 2007. There's so much trivia and general obfuscation in this case that small but important points can be missed and then found.
It does no harm to go over the parts that interest you again imo.

Casey5

Posts : 339
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 22.07.13 6:36

Hi Casey,

Thanks for the encouragement, but I do rather seem to have drawn a collective yawn from the forum on this post regarding timelines et al. People like to read new things I guess, and I think I may have put my own personal preoccupations before the Forum's thrust of debate. I can remember the days when my fish and chips were wrapped in yesterday's newspaper and from that came the perceived wisdom of the fate of old news. I think I'll keep my own counsel about going over all this old ground for the time being winkwink 

regards.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by aquila on 22.07.13 14:49

Kepharel,

No offense here but you have asked people for their email addresses so as not to clog up the forum with your info. I hope no-one sent you their personal details as I find it quite suspect.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8698
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 22.07.13 16:21

@aquila wrote:Kepharel,

No offense here but you have asked people for their email addresses so as not to clog up the forum with your info. I hope no-one sent you their personal details as I find it quite suspect.

 I have not asked for anyone's personal email addresses, I was suggesting that correspondence might take place through the personal messaging (internal mail) service within this site.  But If anyone were to ask for mine I would take them in good faith and provide an email address as I have no reason to suspect anyone on here of being anything but genuine.

I am getting quite fed up of all these 'sideways glances' from some members on here about how I conduct myself all the time.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by aquila on 22.07.13 16:32

@Kepharel wrote:
@aquila wrote:Kepharel,

No offense here but you have asked people for their email addresses so as not to clog up the forum with your info. I hope no-one sent you their personal details as I find it quite suspect.

 I have not asked for anyone's personal email addresses, I was suggesting that correspondence might take place through the personal messaging (internal mail) service within this site.  And If anyone were to ask for mine I would take them in good faith and provide an email address as I have no reason to suspect anyone on here of being anything but genuine.

I am getting quite fed up of all these 'sideways glances' from some members on here about how I conduct myself all the time.

This is a forum. If you feel so uncomfortable as to only have the option to conduct your special findings by mail, may I suggest you open your own forum.

No doubt you will now throw the dummy out of the pram and the usual lambasting will come from all quarters but I stand by what I say. Kepharel you asked for correspondence by mail. You did not ask for the personal messaging service - PM.

I am feeding a troll - there you have it. I've used the word - and I'm standing by it.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8698
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 22.07.13 16:41

oh dear, not the troll thing again.  If you don't like my presence here, then why don't you just ignore posts that I put up. and I'll do vice versa for you.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by russiandoll on 22.07.13 16:47

where was the request for personal e mail addresses?
 this one?     " To save clogging up the forums with this kind of stuff, if anyone is interested, maybe I could just mail you"

Kepharel had been asked on the forum, maybe not on this thread, what was the point of going over old ground, hence the mail suggestion, which could well be a ref to the PM system here.
 Even if not, we are all adults who can judge whether or not we wish to engage in private correspondence.

 It is very easy on the forum to simply not engage in debate with people whose posts you find unappealing for whatever reason.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Kepharel on 22.07.13 16:58

@russiandoll wrote:where was the request for personal e mail addresses?

   It is very easy on the forum to simply not engage in debate with people whose posts you find unappealing for whatever reason.

 Hi Russiandoll,

I have never requested anyone's personal email addresses.  If I have used the word mail regarding info it was in a public post not a PM to any individual, and most certainly meant in the context of internal mail. No-one has provided me with any external email addresses, and no-one has until now brought my personal integrity into question concerning this matter.

I can't remember what the post was, and frankly I don't care anymore, so shan't be looking it up.  I imagine Aquila will provide you with the necessary quote.  If he puts it up here I will take a look at it along with everyone else.
avatar
Kepharel

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Guest on 22.07.13 18:00

Aquila, I have deleted your post, you made your point, and pursuing it is only going to cause disruption.  Russiandoll is correct, people here are adults and I'm sure can make their own minds up as to whether to engage in correspondence with a member.  Now can we move on please.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by aquila on 22.07.13 18:07

candyfloss wrote:Aquila, I have deleted your post, you made your point, and pursuing it is only going to cause disruption.  Russiandoll is correct, people here are adults and I'm sure can make their own minds up as to whether to engage in correspondence with a member.  Now can we move on please.

That's fine Candyfloss. I made my point and I stand by it. There isn't much to move onto from this thread as it was a quick question from Kepharel.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8698
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Guest on 22.07.13 19:08

There's a way to communicate between members, without going via the forum for all to read. It's called PM [Private Message]. Kepharel suggested not to clog the forum and request his info via mail. IMO "mail" = e-mail nowadays. Candyfloss wisely reassured Kepharel that s/he could continue to post here, as it was not going to clog the forum. To be honest [Hi Kate  ] I was slightly suspicious too, as it looked like a possible  phishing enterprise to get e-mail addresses ... Just saying ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by Guest on 22.07.13 19:19

Unfortunately this case has made many of us suspicious of anyone and everything, and many times with good reason.  However, posting things about members (I particularly dislike the word troll used) is not going to look good to any new guests that read here.  If you have your suspicions then pm you friends and the mods and make them aware, but try to keep your views off the forum .....it does not look good, causes a bad atmosphere and disruption.  Thank you.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Quick question

Post by aquila on 22.07.13 19:25

candyfloss wrote:Unfortunately this case has made many of us suspicious of anyone and everything, and many times with good reason.  However, posting things about members (I particularly dislike the word troll used) is not going to look good to any new guests that read here.  If you have your suspicions then pm you friends and the mods and make them aware, but try to keep your views off the forum .....it does not look good, causes a bad atmosphere and disruption.  Thank you.

When someone encourages members to mail them for information that can easily be posted on the forum what is expected Candyfloss?

Will new members think there is some sort of secrecy and fear of being unable to post?

I apologise Candyfloss but that thinking is skewed and it's not the spirit of this forum.

I still stand by my opinion.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8698
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum