Introduction and viewpoint.

by monkey mind 20.12.11 13:39

Good afternoon to all, thought I would introduce myself.

Having recently finished reading the 54 pages on the crèche record thread I thought I had better join. It is a remarkable piece of detective work the implications of which are undeniable, those responsible are to be commended primarily it seems, Kikoratton and Stella. Well done, most impressive.

To be perfectly frank, I never believed a word of this original story, from the outset the old bs meter had gone through the red and into the puce, but for whatever reason never really afforded it much attention until coming across an article several days ago.

At this point, not having attended much thought to the issues, I suppose like many others I was in the ‘accident’ camp - probably a natural function of the psyche, always wanting to see the better in situations. However, it appeared quite quickly to me that an accident between 8 to 10pm on 3/5, whilst not entirely impossible stretches the bounds of credulity when one considers, along with other factors, the practicalities involved. I was forced to drop this. It could of course have happened between 5.30 and 8.0pm, but then it would hardly have been an accident and the practicalities (and other factors) are still enormous.

I was then drawn to the night of 1/5 but this created its own problems in M’s crèche attendance, a seemingly inexplicable enigma which does exactly what it was designed to do, point one back to the 3 May. This of course led me to the crèche thread and so here I am saying hello.

The crèche thread solves many problems for me, and whilst inserting an M substitute on say the morning of the 2^nd would be quite ludicrous, to do so on the 29^th is patently feasible. One must be led by the facts not the emotions, and in this case the facts are painting a bulls eye on 28/29 April. It raises one fundamental question. What is the sinister, terrible secret that binds these people together? I can only arrive at two possibilities. Maybe tis a combination of both.

Anyway, that’s how I come to be here, apologies if that was a little long.

by Guest 20.12.11 13:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] to the forum monkey mind.

In my opinion you have summed up perfectly, exactly where we stand. May I suggest your next port of call should be the 'Tapas Phone Autopsy' thread (see link below). When you combine some of the call logs to the creche activities, you will see an even better picture developing. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by Gillyspot 20.12.11 14:01

monkey mind

You certainly jumped in at the deep end with the creche autopsy wow

by Guest 20.12.11 14:26

Hi monkey mind and welcome
welcome2

by **tigger** 20.12.11 14:45

Monkey mind, thanks for your brilliant introduction. Looking forward for more of your posts.

by russiandoll 20.12.11 15:30

Brillaint intro and far from being over -long, it was concise yet comprehensive..full marks for that.
The more you read with a cool analytical and skeptical eye the more things jump right out at you and huge red flags are raised.

Try not to get tied up in knots on this forum, it is easily done due to the huge amount of interesting and intelligent material here!
I look forward to reading your contributions, they promise to make very good reading.

by monkey mind 20.12.11 16:51

Thanks to all for the very warm welcome, you are most kind. It’s genuinely appreciated..

Yes, I did rather jump in at the deep end with the crèche thread, didn’t I. Chuckle.

Stella, thanks for the link to the phone autopsy thread, much appreciated. Actually, I read that one straight after the crèche. I think I am right in saying that the Portuguese police have held back phone records from the 28/29/30 is that right? And am I right in thinking they had records for most of that summer including July?

At the moment I’m quickly trying to get as general an idea and feel as possible and now somehow find myself on the where would a body be hidden thread..

by **tigger** 20.12.11 20:05

monkey mind wrote:Thanks to all for the very warm welcome, you are most kind. It’s genuinely appreciated..

Yes, I did rather jump in at the deep end with the crèche thread, didn’t I. Chuckle.

Stella, thanks for the link to the phone autopsy thread, much appreciated. Actually, I read that one straight after the crèche. I think I am right in saying that the Portuguese police have held back phone records from the 28/29/30 is that right? And am I right in thinking they had records for most of that summer including July?

At the moment I’m quickly trying to get as general an idea and feel as possible and now somehow find myself on the where would a body be hidden thread..

Have a look at the Huelva thread, very interesting on that subject.

by Gillyspot 20.12.11 21:40

Tigger there are 100's of interesting thread on here LOL

Dip your toe in, have a read and just ask if you have any questions monkey mind thumbup

by Pershing36 20.12.11 22:21

Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

by Daisy 20.12.11 22:47

Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

According to eye witness Bridget O'Donnell it was confusing telling all the little girls apart.

" we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old
girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys."

"Earlier that day there had been tennis lessons for the children, with
some of the parents watching proudly as their girls ran across the court
chasing tennis balls. They took photos. Madeleine must have been there,
but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the
same - all blonde, all pink and pretty."

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

Welcome monkey mind. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Angelique 20.12.11 23:50

monkey mind and welcome2

I am not as clued up as everyone else on here and I generally try to keep up and follow the flow! I look forward to your posts. smilie

by jd 21.12.11 0:51

Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

This tweeted by Kikoratton today

@kikoratton
dewi lennard
So Ger #McCann signed in a banker's daughter (E*** N*****) and her best childhood friend. D'you know why? I do!! Tic toc Gerry. Going down!

@kikoratton
dewi lennard
#McCann took 2 girls to creche, signed them both in. Neither of them was his!! One was L** N***** child of investment banker (Landsbanki).

by uppatoffee 21.12.11 1:03

Pershing, the creche thread has a lot about these records, but it looks like Gerry signed in a girl called Elizabeth Naylor at the same time as signing in a (substitute) Madeline. It has been suggested that these two are good friends. Quite a few people have suggested that this Madeline was a substitute from the beginning of the week, which I am finding more convincing an argument the more I read.

by monkey mind 21.12.11 9:39

tigger wrote:
monkey mind wrote:Thanks to all for the very warm welcome, you are most kind. It’s genuinely appreciated..

Yes, I did rather jump in at the deep end with the crèche thread, didn’t I. Chuckle.

Stella, thanks for the link to the phone autopsy thread, much appreciated. Actually, I read that one straight after the crèche. I think I am right in saying that the Portuguese police have held back phone records from the 28/29/30 is that right? And am I right in thinking they had records for most of that summer including July?

At the moment I’m quickly trying to get as general an idea and feel as possible and now somehow find myself on the where would a body be hidden thread..

Have a look at the Huelva thread, very interesting on that subject.

Tigger, many thanks, I’ll certainly do that. Another one on the list.

by monkey mind 21.12.11 10:28

Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

Pershing, if there was a substitute, no I have no idea who that could be, but it appears others, after considerable research have come up with a plausible candidate.

As for where did she go, she would simply have left with her real parent or guardian, ample opportunity, very elegant really.

Thing is, if you dismiss the abduction theory, you have to decide whether she met her fate on the 3^rd. If she didn’t, and I don’t see how she could have then you have to look to an earlier date of which the 1^st appears the next likely option. But then how do we explain her attendance at crèche the two subsequent days? We are left with three options...

!. She didn’t attend and the entire weeks crèche records were somehow forged on the night of 3/4 May. Potentially under the nose of the police? There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this. There is decent evidence to indicate that many entries for E.Naylor and M. McCann may have been written in the same hand starting on 29/4. Why would that be when there is no indication as yet that the parents of these two children even knew one another? Only they can answer this. It’s a valid question and deserves an answer.

2. An M look alike attended on those two days 2^nd and 3rd. Wouldn’t the crèche staff have noticed? Even if she were near identical she would have to answer to the name Madeleine or Maddie, as would any sub, and one thing is for sure any 3 to 4 year old is going to soon set you right for using the wrong name. One cannot conceive of the staff being deceived in this way or the enormous twist of fate required to provide, on hand a child that fits the bill and whose parents are willing. It would appear far easier, more plausible to have the sub from the outset.

3. The crèche staff aren’t telling the truth. Why? Not very likely is it?

by Guest 21.12.11 12:03

monkey mind wrote:Pershing, if there was a substitute, no I have no idea who that could be, but it appears others, after considerable research have come up with a plausible candidate.

As for where did she go, she would simply have left with her real parent or guardian, ample opportunity, very elegant really.

Thing is, if you dismiss the abduction theory, you have to decide whether she met her fate on the 3^rd. If she didn’t, and I don’t see how she could have then you have to look to an earlier date of which the 1^st appears the next likely option. But then how do we explain her attendance at crèche the two subsequent days? We are left with three options...

!. She didn’t attend and the entire weeks crèche records were somehow forged on the night of 3/4 May. Potentially under the nose of the police? There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this. There is decent evidence to indicate that many entries for E.Naylor and M. McCann may have been written in the same hand starting on 29/4. Why would that be when there is no indication as yet that the parents of these two children even knew one another? Only they can answer this. It’s a valid question and deserves an answer.

2. An M look alike attended on those two days 2^nd and 3rd. Wouldn’t the crèche staff have noticed? Even if she were near identical she would have to answer to the name Madeleine or Maddie, as would any sub, and one thing is for sure any 3 to 4 year old is going to soon set you right for using the wrong name. One cannot conceive of the staff being deceived in this way or the enormous twist of fate required to provide, on hand a child that fits the bill and whose parents are willing. It would appear far easier, more plausible to have the sub from the outset.

3. The crèche staff aren’t telling the truth. Why? Not very likely is it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] another excellent post. You are coming up to speed very nicely. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As you say, the creche sheets are either genuine or forged. This can be confirmed in one day, by visiting the other names on those sheets to confirm either yes or no, that this is their signature. If the answers from them (with proof provided) is yes, then the deception must have started on the 29th. To have happened on any other day, the switch-over would have been obvious to all.

by Guest 21.12.11 12:24

The best text format to work with this forum is Arial 12pt.

by Guest 21.12.11 12:48

Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

We have to remember that not every room rented out, is organised through MW. Which means not all names are listed on the OC daily run reports. Many apartments and villas are privately rented out, directly with the owner. Which means there could be an infinite number of candidates for the substitute. The most interesting detail we can see, is that there were 2 lots of Naylor's booked in that week. One through MW, which is Robert and Ainne Nayor. The other booking we know nothing about, other than it was also in the name of Naylor. Did these two families know each other? Are they related? Did they have a little girl with a name like Madeleine? These are the questions that need to be answered.

by **tigger** 21.12.11 13:08

Daisy wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

According to eye witness Bridget O'Donnell it was confusing telling all the little girls apart.

" we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old
girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys."

"Earlier that day there had been tennis lessons for the children, with
some of the parents watching proudly as their girls ran across the court
chasing tennis balls. They took photos. Madeleine must have been there,
but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the
same - all blonde, all pink and pretty."

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

Welcome monkey mind. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's amazing. So is this why Jon Corner had to say that Maddie stood out? That she lit up a room when she entered? (Has he read a lot of Mills and Boone?). The question is then: why was Maddie chosen out of so many other little blond girls?
Well, it's all academic.
But I read the hagiography of Kate by this wannabee journalist, if I was so proud of my children, I'd introduce them to my new 'friends', Kate didn't do that. Nearly everything to do with Madeleine happened in isolation, with the family, probably for a good reason.

by monkey mind 21.12.11 16:38

Stella wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Any ideas then, who could the creche child be?? I have seen the unusual photographs, but who is this mystery child, where did she go? This is the bit I get a bit lost.

We have to remember that not every room rented out, is organised through MW. Which means not all names are listed on the OC daily run reports. Many apartments and villas are privately rented out, directly with the owner. Which means there could be an infinite number of candidates for the substitute. The most interesting detail we can see, is that there were 2 lots of Naylor's booked in that week. One through MW, which is Robert and Ainne Nayor. The other booking we know nothing about, other than it was also in the name of Naylor. Did these two families know each other? Are they related? Did they have a little girl with a name like Madeleine? These are the questions that need to be answered.

Another Naylor family, that’s interesting. Whilst it’s not exactly an unusual name neither is it the most common. I suppose nothing further is known about them – children etc else you would have mentioned. The Portuguese police should have obtained details of occupants of all rooms on the complex, how many occupants, names, passport numbers if applicable, dates of birth, children if applicable, in short, sufficient details to check upon and trace at a later date if necessary. Did they do that and simply haven’t released this information? What’s the betting, the odds, that if by some mysterious circumstance these two Naylor families are related, that the as yet unidentified one are aged late 30s, one being a medico with two very young children?

I’ve changed my font, thanks. Due to my software I can’t type directly into the post boxes on forums or emails, have to copy from word and paste, it’s a bit of a tedious to do.

@Daisy, thanks for the welcome, most kind.

by monkey mind 21.12.11 17:39

Ah, it seems the font still too small, probably need to change in the post box. See if this is better....

by Nina 21.12.11 17:46

monkey mind wrote:Ah, it seems the font still too small, probably need to change in the post box. See if this is better....

Hi Monkey Mind and welcome, that font is good. My old eyes struggled with the smaller, but the struggle was worthwhile as your posts are very interesting.

by Guest 22.12.11 9:47

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

This is a copy of the original OC daily run reports. G4N is in block 4. Block 4 is right beside block 5. The G4N Naylor booking arranged through the owner, is a T2, which is a 2 bedroom apartment and could have contained children. It is the child in this apartment that I believe Kiko is focussing on.

What is more interesting is why the dates and only the dates, flying in and out for the McCann's as seen above, have slipped down the page slightly. It's clearly visible on the copies the PJ hold in the files and printers cannot do that.

From what I have seen in the files, it would seem that a few guests were asked to stay on for an extra week. This can be seen through their booking extensions and police statements given. But I think they never made the connection with the creche sheets, which probably means they never spoke with all of the parents of the other children in Madeleine's creche group. If they did suspect the creche sheets were dubious, they would never have released them to the public. There must be something in the creche entries they did spot, as both the first and last days in the mornings, have been kept back from the twins creche sheets.

What I think is most revealing, is the timing of Amaral's removal. By his own admission, he was removed just when he was trying to locate this other apartment the McCann's were seen entering that week.

by monkey mind 22.12.11 21:13

Stella wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a copy of the original OC daily run reports. G4N is in block 4. Block 4 is right beside block 5. The G4N Naylor booking arranged through the owner, is a T2, which is a 2 bedroom apartment and could have contained children. It is the child in this apartment that I believe Kiko is focussing on.

What is more interesting is why the dates and only the dates, flying in and out for the McCann's as seen above, have slipped down the page slightly. It's clearly visible on the copies the PJ hold in the files and printers cannot do that.

From what I have seen in the files, it would seem that a few guests were asked to stay on for an extra week. This can be seen through their booking extensions and police statements given. But I think they never made the connection with the creche sheets, which probably means they never spoke with all of the parents of the other children in Madeleine's creche group. If they did suspect the creche sheets were dubious, they would never have released them to the public. There must be something in the creche entries they did spot, as both the first and last days in the mornings, have been kept back from the twins creche sheets.

What I think is most revealing, is the timing of Amaral's removal. By his own admission, he was removed just when he was trying to locate this other apartment the McCann's were seen entering that week.

This really is most interesting. I wasn’t aware that Amaral was looking for another room – his book is on my ‘to do’ list. I knew some of the twins crèche sheets had been held back, would be revealing to see those, but not the Lobsters group, which would indicate if Kiko is right, Amaral didn’t fully appreciate the potential importance of this room, looking for it but not necessarily for the right reasons so to speak, assuming of course these two rooms turn out to be one and the same. He must have known who owned G4N, one would think, or at least had a list of names of all owners.

You really are very observant Stella. Once again we see a McCann entry directly above or below a Naylor entry and something not right about it. You are right, a printer wouldn’t do that, and if there were a crease in the sheet then I would expect that entry to be slightly slanted along with one or two others.

It reminds me of the days with the old manual typewriters when having removed the paper from the machine an error is discovered tippex applied and then trying to realign it back in the machine was next to impossible I could never get it level.

I’ve not seen the version in the PJ files, haven’t tried finding my way around there yet, but if that version is clearer did you notice any evidence of overtype or alteration? There also appears to be a mark to the left of the McCann dates but not against any of the others.

The last column is filled with zeros save that against the second Naylors, the number 1. Any idea as to what that represents?