Crèche records

It's a shame the OC daily run reports are missing for the 29th and the 30th.

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

True, but if they had arrived before 30th, even the first page we have (615) would have shown "28" or "29" wouldn't it?

Stella wrote:Thank you Littlepixie for confirming that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What we now need to know is if the child (on a lap on an airplane) is also listed by full name on any car rental paperwork ?

Just had a look at my itenerary and it doesnt mention names but does mention baby car seat. The Hertz paperwork (when we actually get there) could be different. I have rented cars many times abroad and usually it only contains the names of the drivers, not the passengers.

kikoraton wrote:True, but if they had arrived before 30th, even the first page we have (615) would have shown "28" or "29" wouldn't it?

What I would like to have seen on the list printed on the 29th is, 1. If they were on it, if so what room? and 2. What dates (in & out) does it show for them?

One of the articles says they arrived at the same time as the others on the 28th. As such, you would have expected them to leave at the same time as the others, flying back on the 5th!! But, according to the lists, their arrival was on the 30th, due to fly home on the 7th !! and this is what is unusual. If they arrived on the 28th with the others, then they booked an unusual length of stay, an extra 2 days, why 2 days?, so when did they do this?

*** What if they were originally booked into an apartment from the 28th (returning on the 5th just like the others), but during the day on the 29th (after the 4am JT phone call), they approached OC and paid for a bigger room and got a villa in C block. The list then printed on the 30th, shows them as arriving for the first time on the 30th (in a new villa), flying back on the 7th (a one week holiday). Which would give us the 2 extra days we have all been looking for !!

There has to be a very good reason why the OC daily lists are missing for the first 2 days. Someone has either changed rooms, or someone left on the 30th, whose name is now not visible on any list.

Missing
Tapas list for the 29th
Guest lists for the 29th & 30th
Jellyfish creche for the 29th

I think someone left on the 30th [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"There has to be a very good reason why the OC daily lists are missing for the first 2 days. "
I don't think the PJ ever asked to see a list prior to page 615. That page contains all the info that is necessary for the Tapas9. It shows arrival on 28th. That's all the PJ would have been interested in. Not the Gorrods.
I think it's more likely the gorrods intended to stay somewhere else, either for the first two days or all the holiday. For whatever reason (and I agree it could have been connected with the 0412 phone call/message) they arrived in the OC on 30th.

With acknowledgments to Dr Martin Roberts and mccannfiles, copied from elsewhere in this forum:


EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
26 July 2011


AS IF BY MAGIC


Larger than life American Magicians, Penn & Teller, currently auditioning prospective Las Vegas stage acts via their U.K. T.V. programme 'Fool Us,' have unfortunately been denied the chance to assess potential illusionists Kate and Gerry McCann. Despite the variety of candidates already examined, nothing of what they have been presented with so far quite compares to the remarkable abilities of the duo McCann.

Kate McCann's 'Madeleine,' written as it must have been under the watchful eye of her legal advisors, and promoted as an 'account of the truth,' sets forth particulars of Tuesday May 1, 2007 which include the following:

"One of my photographs is known around the world now: A smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls." (The very same photograph Rachael Oldfield ascribes to Jane Tanner during her Rogatory interview).

"In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach...we wanted to do something different with them, just the five of us." (p.57. Note: they all go to the beach).

This is followed by a 'Woman's Own' style description of rain, discomfort, and agonising over who should fetch the ice creams.

"Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to the Mini Club now, please." (p.58)

After a paragraph defending the significance of all the trivia Kate and Gerry have seemingly worked so hard to recall, and the importance of its accuracy, Kate explains how the parents duly comply with their daughter's request:

"We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea." (p.59).

Drum roll. Curtains back. Big reveal.

And there's Gerry already signing Madeleine into her 'lobster' group at the Mark Warner creche at 2.30 p.m. on the afternoon of Tuesday May 1; not for the last hour and a half as you might expect either. Far from being signed out again at 4.00 p.m., Madeleine is not signed out at all.

And if you think that's an astonishing feat of teleportation, you'll no doubt be amazed to discover that, at the very same time (2.30 p.m.) Kate McCann is elsewhere signing both Sean and Amelie into their 'jellyfish' group, where they stay for fully two hours and fifty minutes, before Kate signs them out again (at 5.20 p.m).

The illusion is made all the more impressive by the two childcare facilities not being equidistant from either the beach or the McCanns' apartment ("Sean and Amelie were enrolled in the Toddler Club for two-year-olds in a building...just across from our apartment on the other side of the main pool...Madeleine's group, the Mini Club for three-to-fives, was slightly further away...").

Penn and Teller would no doubt be disappointed to learn they have missed this trick. The ice creams were clearly a distraction - or should that be misdirection?


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

Dr Roberts has doubtless noticed Kate McCann's well-known tendency - or should that be obsession - with protesting too much. Because her amazing ability to recall this detail is, in fact, intended to cover up the fact that "Madeleine" (the substitute,of course) was not at creche at all. So Gerry had to ensure that he had access to the attendance record just at the right time (in the lunch-break) to sign "Madeleine" in last in the morning, and first for the afternoon. Forgetting that the creche worker always separated the sessions with a wavy line thru a blank space. You are so transparent, Gerry!
Perhaps more interesting - tho' we might never know - is that Kate actually specifies "for the last hour-and-a-half". Why? The afternoon sessions normally lasted nearly twice that time. As Dr Roberts notices, they forgot to sign "Madeleine" out. All the other children were present for well over two hours, if not three. Except one. "Madeleine's" little friend, Elizabeth Naylor, who was always signed in by Gerry when both of them were in the Lobster group simultaneously. And she was there for exactly an hour and a half!
Got confused, did we, Kate? I'm not surprised. So many lies to remember!

The twins, by the way, were incarcerated in the jellyfish group for 2h 50m that afternoon!!!

Looks like exnotwjourno2 is following you Kiko. I tweeted her earlier on not realising she was already following you. She will be able to read your tweets - lets just hope she is genuine.

Thanks littlepixie. I'll try to find him/her. I'm tweeting so much tonite I've fallen off me perch twice!

Here's an example I hadn't noticed before, of GM signing-in O'B's child (3 May). Note no attempt to imitate hand-writing of O'B. The two versions are adjacent, and easy to spot. But why didn't GM put his own initials alongside the afternoon entry? If it was honest and straightforward (as you'd expect it would be, taking a mate's child to creche as a favour) why didn't Gerry put his own initials there?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Got that one already covered on the creche enquiry thread.

It starts on page 4, examples of RoB real signatures on page 6.

Well done, Stella. Anyone know how to upload these examples onto twitter?

I seem to have suddenly lost the ability on twitter to make links to #mccann. As I cannot see any of my posts along with all the others in that section any more.

Jillycomelately I think knows how to do that kiko, do you know her? I wonder if that is the Gilly that's on here now?

I will ask on the technical thread !!!

Stella wrote:Jillycomelately I think knows how to do that kiko, do you know her? I wonder if that is the Gilly that's on here now?

No, I don't think Gilly is jillycl because she sent me a pm the other day asking if I was jillycl.

Not sure about pics on twitter but I think you have to have a twitpic account (like photobucket) and then upload pics to that then post the link on twitter.

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

Isnt this her





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



@ProfilerPatB "It was a good marketing ploy." - This was the excuse Gerry #McCann gave for ignoring police warnings... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

4 hours ago

Doh, sorry, I've got the wrong end of the stick as usual. You wanted to know if she was on here, gawd, I'm losing it[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"I cannot see any of my posts along with all the others in that section any more. "
I seem to recall having the same problem. Then littlepixie told me to relax and stop worrying, so I did. Nowadays, I see my tweets pop up on the Home page, and if I want to massage my ego, I search kikoratton and read everything I've ever posted. (At least, I assume I do, but I've never tried to find them all).
Thanks for the tip about twitpix. I remember trying it one, but it was way too complicated for me. I'll try again.

I've just sent you a URL link from my photobucket account. Did you get it?

Kiko, I've just read JCL on twitter and from her previous posts she seems to be supporting Blacksmithbureau's site. It's no wonder RM is a no go area.

Oh...........I hadn't realised the BS Bureau was Murat-supporting. I knew very well that JCL was. Everyone to their own view, but I base mine on observation of the phone messages from 1 May, including 31 hours of mobile silence coinciding exactly with Gerry's, the way he misled the PJ in his first interrogation (18 fibs), and the use that was made of his and Mama's house-phone on the afternoon of 3 May. Plus any agreement of silence he came to with Kennedy.

kikoraton wrote:Oh...I hadn't realised the BS Bureau was Murat-supporting. I knew very well that JCL was. Everyone to their own view, but I base mine on:

1. observation of the phone messages from 1 May, including
2. 31 hours of mobile silence coinciding exactly with Gerry's,
3. the way he misled the PJ in his first interrogation (18 fibs), and
4. the use that was made of his and Mama's house-phone on the afternoon of 3 May. Plus
5. any agreement of silence he came to with Kennedy.

But there is more (from Section D of 'Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause' on The Madeleine Foundation website, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

D. Murat is suspected, and made ‘arguido’

By 11 May, eight days after Madeleine had been reported missing, one of the Portuguese Police team, Inspector Pedro Varanda, had become suspicious enough about Murat to file an urgent memo to his manager. His report, filed that day, included the following observations:

“Sir,

This relates to an informal conversation I’ve had with Robert Murat. As you will know, today at 11.30am, Inspector Patricia Duarte and I interviewed a British citizen called Dianne Webster. We realised she could not speak Portuguese, so we sought an English-speaking interpreter.

We decided to use a fellow British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat, of whom we were aware from his previous translation work. His address is Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

After we’d finished interviewing Dianne Webster, I had an informal conversation in Portuguese with Murat. During this conversation, he displayed an unusual level of curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3 May.

To give an example, he insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects. He also questioned me about the investigation strategy of the head of our investigation. He even asked about what work the investigation team might be considering in the coming days.

I became highly suspicious. His behavior was absolutely inappropriate for a translator. In response to such an unusual attitude, I played along, ducking the questions. I also reminded him to stick to his contractual role of translating. I pointed out that the whole investigation was still in the initial enquiry phase, and that therefore judicial secrecy rules still applied.

I also need to emphasise that the suspicions I had were reinforced when I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various documents, for example, items being prepared for the case files that make up the present inquiry.

I noticed that Murat also displayed an enormous knowledge of all kinds of matters relating to the ‘Ocean Club Complex’, where the events under investigation had taken place, and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in Praia da Luz. I would add that he has persistently tried to influence the conduct of the present investigation.

He has put forward various ideas which, taken together, could be taken as suggesting that foreigners were to blame for Madeleine’s abduction. I bring these matters to your attention, so you can determine what may be appropriate”.



By any standards, Murat had stepped a long way beyond the role of mere translator.

We now come to a most curious feature of the case - the pointing of the initial finger of suspicion against Robert Murat by Sunday Mirror journalist Lori Campbell. It’s of interest, and possible relevance, to note that the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser, Clarence Mitchell, and Lori Campbell, had previously - a few years earlier - worked very closely together on the tragedy of the two young girls from Soham, killed by Ian Huntley, their school caretaker.

There had been international media frenzy about Madeleine going missing and the world was expecting and desperately hoping for her to be found and the suspected abductor to be apprehended.

Lori Campbell was sent to Praia da Luz to cover the Madeleine McCann case. Within three days, she thought she had reasonable grounds to suspect Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. She reported him to Leicestershire Police in a telephone call on Sunday 6 May.

Only a few days later, as we shall explore below, one of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 9’, Jane Tanner, claimed that Murat was the person she had seen carrying a young girl near the McCanns’ apartment on the evening of 3 May. Just two days after that, another three of the ‘Tapas 9’ also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he strenuously denied.

It seems that, between them, those four - Jane Tanner, Fiona Payne, Dr Russell O’Brien and Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly - made a determined attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat as the likely abductor...

REST SNIPPED

So, could it have been a put-up job? Murat plays along with being made the patsy, with the promise of reward to come? The willing scape-goat, just for the period needed to cover the whole thing in confusion?

That is precisely what I think. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

kikoraton wrote:So, could it have been a put-up job? Murat plays along with being made the patsy, with the promise of reward to come? The willing scape-goat, just for the period needed to cover the whole thing in confusion?

kiko, I think so, but can I please expand by offering a couple of alternative scenarios.

Both scenarios depend I think on Madeleine being dead on or before 30 April.

Scenario 1: Tel. call from McCanns to Murat (they already know each other through past dealings) on or before 30 April: "Madeleine's dead. We need you to find somewhere with a feezer to hide her boday ASAP. We're going to claim abduction on Thursday night. You'll need to find a way to 'accidentally on purpose' offer your services as a translator, we'll need you to find out what you can about the investigation, tell us what the Portuguese cops are saying, and put forward the abduction scenario. Oh, and you'll need to be the 'patsy', to take the heat off us. We'll pay you £xxx,000. Get over here tomorrow am and I'll meet you at the Golf Club/(somewhere else)".

Scenario 2: SIMILAR TO SCENARIO 1, except that the McCanns and their advisers have duped Murat. They haven't told him he is to be the patsy. Not only do they want him to do all that, but they have secretly planned to frame him without telling him. During the period leading up to Sunday 13 May, nameless people from Control Risks, MI5, Leices Police and Britsh security services conduct a profiling exercise which says Murat fits the abductor profile 90% [all explained in a Chapter of Goncalo Amarals' book]. The same shadowy advisers arrange for Murat to walk past the police van in which Tanner has been placed, and instruct Tanner to tell police she is 'adamant' that Murat is the man she saw carrying a child 10 days earlier. Murat gets arrested, then Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien all crawl out of the woodwork and say in unison: "Gosh, we saw Murat hanging around the Ocean Club the night Madeleine vanished". Team McCann make sure this damaging information reaches the British ahd Portuguese press. Murat is bewildered by this as he is totally unprepared and lashes out at the McCanns by saying: 'This is the biggest f___-up ever" and making anti-McCann comments. The reason Team McCann can do this to Murat is because they know that they can prove Murat has been involved in highly illegal activity of some kind that could put him behind bars for a long time. So Murat has to go along with it.

With either scenario, things are sorted out at the 'Kennedy & lawyer Smethurst meet Murat and lawyer Pagarate meeting' on 13 November 2007.

I would add that neither of these two scenarios necessarily requires what I will call 'the substitute Madeleine hypothesis'.