Kate’s Handwriting at Ocean Club Crèche looks like a forgery

This article first appeared on fakedabduction.com.

The handwriting in the creche records for the days that Madeleine was signed into the child care facility at the Ocean Club resort offer many clues to suggest that the records are forgeries.

Prior to the McCanns’ holiday in Portugal in that ill-fated first week of May 2007, we seemed to have no independent records of Kate and Gerry’s handwriting to compare with the creche records.

However, two known examples of handwriting exist and both were supplied by the McCanns courtesy of their home videos.

The first example comes from the Christmas 2007 video where we see Madeleine handing Kate a present that bears a card with the text:

To Sean

Merry Christmas

Love from


& Amelie

Here is a still from the Christmas 2007 appeal video.

The card on the Christmas present at Christmas 2006 and shown in the McCanns' Christmas 2007 appeal video. The video is clearly from a time that predates the fateful trip in Portugal.

This is the word 'Madeleine' magnified from the previous picture.

There are four examples of the word “Madeleine” in the creche records where Madeleine was allegedly signed in and signed out. The four examples do not look like faithful copies all written by the same hand but it is worthwhile looking at them together.

Four versions of the way Kate Healy allegedly wrote 'Madeleine' in the creche records.

The other example of the name “Madeleine” comes from the Madeleine Was Here documentary made by Mentorn Media. This video was also used, in part, by Oprah Winfrey on her interview with the McCanns two years after Madeleine’s disappearance (May 2009). We catch a glimpse of Kate’s handwriting when she shows us some pictures that Madeleine drew after the family trip to Donegal in April 2007.

A section of the picture on the wall in the McCanns' kitchen in Rothley. Kate shows us a picture that bears the text 'Madeleine - Donegal / Easter 2007'.

The picture of the train on a track may have been contemporary to the trip in Donegal in April 2007. However, there is no way to reliably know the date when Kate wrote “Madeleine – Donegal / Easter 2007” at the foot of the picture.

As the word “Madeleine” here is clearly different to the handwriting on the Christmas 2006 gift, it is a mystery as to which version of the handwriting is the natural one.

What is interesting is that the version on the kitchen wall looks more like the four versions in Praia da Luz but even that has some basic differences. Look at the lower case “a” for example. It is consistently written the same way in “Madeleine” and in “Donegal” but it is written completely different in the word “Easter”. If anything, the handwriting looks like it has been made to match the strange writing in the creche records whereas the Christmas 2006 version looks the most natural of all.

The word 'Madeleine' magnified from the Donegal/Easter picture.

While the creche records and handwriting analysis may not solve the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, it is almost certain that there is some falsification of one or more of the entries in the creche records.

A doctor’s handwriting is notoriously bad to read but in this case the writing is perfectly legible – it just lacks authenticity due to poor repeatability.

Read more about this topic in “Interesting Details From the Files” in Faked Abduction.

27 Responses to “Kate’s Handwriting at Ocean Club Crèche looks like a forgery”

  1. 1
    Amy Says:

    What does this prove?

    I’m sure it proves something, and I totally agree the McCanns are bogus..

    Site Admin: The creche records are part of the framework of evidence that is required by the McCanns and their Tapas friends to inform the world that Madeleine was alive and well on May 3, 2007. The more you investigate the case and in particular the events of May 3, there is little real and tangible proof that Madeleine was even present at the creche. Nanny Catriona Baker personally visited the McCanns in late 2007 back in England. It was Ms. Baker’s handwriting and “amendments” on several of the creche sign-in/out sheets. Assuming that the creche records are bogus, what evidence is there to prove that Madeleine was there? Answer: No evidence.

  2. 2
    james Says:

    what utter rubbish.

    the hand writing for the present could be the fathers, and the other hand writing would be the mothers.
    the hand writing on the picture matches the hand writing in the creche register.


    Site Admin: The handwriting on the present does not match the father’s. Look in the police file to see examples of Gerry’s handwriting. When you say the handwriting on the picture matches the handwriting in the creche register we assume you mean the picture of the train tracks. If so, then Kate had a year to create that handwriting because the police file (with creche register pages) had been in the public domain since the summer of 2008.

    The handwriting in the Mentorn Media documentary does not match that on the Christmas present.

  3. 3
    dewi Says:

    The star-shaped card on the present is in a woman’s writing. KM might farm out this duty, to a babysitter or an aunt. The four examples in the creche records I have always suspected were written by one of the creche workers. Especially the last, with the mis-spelt “Madelene”. It seems as though somebody was having trouble with the two “n”s at the end of McCann. Maybe the picture on the wall has been “doctored”?

    Site Admin: Kate had a year to view the creche records before the documentary aired where we saw the picture on the wall. She could have tweaked her handwriting style to match those in the creche records. However, we believe the Lobsters creche records are substantially faked. In Catriona Baker’s witness statements she says that there was a separate page for the morning and afternoon sessions. This is the case in the creche where the twins attended. But Ms Baker contradicts herself because the Lobster’s creche records are contained on one per day with a squiggly line (or gap) between the AM and PM sessions.

  4. 4
    Babtface Says:

    This is ridiculous, the more i read the more frustrated i get! This is not evidence! My handwriting hardly ever looks the same!!! As I’m sure nor does other peoples, sometimes I write joined and italic other times it looks rushed unjoined and not written on an angle! You say evidence suggests she died, what evidence suggests that??? There is no real hard evidence that the little girl is dead or alive, and while ever there is no evidence to fully prove either theories we should presume she is alive and continue to look! I don’t know what happened, neither do the police evidently, all I know is we should keep an open mind and hope to find the child until REAL evidence suggests otherwise! If there was any evidence against her parents they would be in prison! So stop speculating, as all this means nothing while there is no evidence to suggest she I dead or alive! Be realists!

    Site Admin: Let us correct you on one thing you say about evidence: Madeleine is definitely dead or alive (with or without evidence)!

    Regarding your belief that “this is not evidence”, everything is evidence. Right down to the lies that the McCanns have told in the past 4 years. The ever-changing story of how a non-existent abductor initially broke in to the apartment and now (in Kate’s latest book), she acknowledges that the non-existent abductor did not break in to the apartment.

  5. 5
    Marc Reeves Says:

    I’m sorry, but all your credibility goes out the window WHEN YOU ARE TRYING MAKE MONEY OFF A CHILD THAT IS EITHER MISSING OR DEAD. Who knows whether the mccanns are guilty, but you are disgusting for trying to sell this sensationalist rubbish to people.

    Site Admin: Your post must be the funniest and most ironic we’ve received to date. You say that credibility goes out the window when someone is trying to make money off a child that is missing or dead.

    Well, that accusation must certainly be leveled at the McCann family then:

    1) They set up a fund only days after their daughter was reported as missing,
    2) They initially stated that the fund would be used for legal expenditure,
    3) They were financially broke in 2007 but they paid their mortgage from the fund,
    4) They paid over a million pounds to 2 organisations with no track record for finding people (Metodo 3 and proven fraudster Kevin Halligen),
    5) They paid £100,000 to translate the 11,300 page police file,
    6) They paid over £37,000 for a website (created by a teenage friend of the family) that would cost under £1000 at normal market rates,
    7) They sued and were paid over £550,000 for a phony libel claim against the Express Group Newspapers (the stories they claimed were libelous were and still are being repeated by other papers),
    8) The Tapas 7 sued for libel and paid the “Fund” their payout of almost £400,000,
    9) They received an undisclosed fee for appearing on Oprah,
    10) They are trying to sue Goncalo Amaral for expressing his opinion as the chief investigating officer that Madeleine is dead (of course they are – if everyone knows Madeleine is dead, their fund ceases to have any reason to exist and their money supply will dry up!),
    11) Kate has written a work of fiction which is serialized in the Sun newspaper and is generating more money.

    Take all those into consideration when you realize that nothing up there is “searching for Madeleine.”

    You are completely right – it is scandalous that the McCanns are making money off false pretences when they already know that Madeleine McCann is dead.

  6. 6
    chantal Says:

    i think this is based on a pile of rubbish have u written ur name urself a couple a days in a row handwriting is never the same, smae as signatures… if u want to suspect them find a better story then this..
    i do agree on allot of stuff on here but htis is just too far fetched,

    Site Admin: Evidently you know nothing about the forensic science of handwriting analysis – not to be confused with the pseudoscience of graphology. Handwriting analysis is used by law enforcement agencies in the detection of a crime. I suggest you read about the subject before pouring scorn on it. This is not like reading tea-leaves. A person’s handwriting is unique even though it obviously varies slightly each time they put pen to paper.

    Check out: http://www.handwritingforensics.com/ as a starting point.

  7. 7
    chantal Says:

    still not agreeing my handwriting has changed big time I had the same curly letters as above now its nothing like that.. its because ppl use computers and dont write anymore… they may have a point on this website but still think you are really looking for things that arent there.

  8. 8
    Cookie Says:

    Well done site admin, strange though that you are the ones under scrutiny !!

    People above are making assumptions based solely on the handwriting and dismissing any negativety against the McCanns purely on this point. I suggest that people really interested in the search for Madeleine take the time to read both for and against with an open mind, look at the police files and evidence given by the two specialist dogs sent from the UK, in fact all the officers who worked with the Portugese police from the UK came to the same conclusions that all the evidence points to, that a dead body was at some point in that apartment, in the McCanns hire car and near Kate`s clothes, seems strange all this at the same time their child dissapeared!Do your homework people before opening your mouths – or using your fingers that is!!

    Site Admin: Thank you. The really strange thing about the whole case is the way that some people become vitriolic with rage towards anyone who questions the McCanns and implies that they could be responsible. This is not normal. Thousands of cases over the years have proven, time and time again that those closest to a missing or dead family member are top of the list when it comes to being the potential perpetrator. Nothing the McCanns say stacks up. They lie and contradict themselves. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are implicated in what happened. All they do is try to defend that position saying things like “there’s no evidence”. This is absurd. This website attempts to look at all the clues and it has never engaged in foul mouthed name calling towards the McCanns or any of the Tapas 7. So why do people attack those wishing to find the truth? It truly is a bizarre situation. We also find it strange how the close family have bought in to the McCanns’ story without questioning their strange behaviour. As you say in another comment, a burglar doesn’t walk around for half an hour with a swag bag. He legs it out of there as fast as possible. Likewise, no normal parent would have to think twice about leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment with the door open – inviting all kinds of problems, not just abduction, but the theft of personal belongings like passport, money etc.

    In a holiday I had in Majorca in 1985, thieves broke my apartment door off the hinges while I was on the beach. They stole money and all kinds of strange things like my friend’s shoe-horn and his socks! Every British tourist going on holiday in Europe knows that you get a safe in your room and you keep doors locked to deter or prevent petty theft. The whole story of it being like dining in your backgarden doesn’t make any kind of sense. It sounds more like a poorly made up cover story. Kate even reveals that Gerry sat in on her first interview with police on May 4. That in itself is ludicrous and for that I do blame the Portuguese Police for being too lax on procedure to allow that to happen.

    We may never find the truth in this sad case. Undoubtedly Madeleine is dead and the major players have stated that she is on several occasions…including Gerry himself. Clarence Mitchell also used the term “Madeleine’s death”. The problem with lies and liars is that it is difficult to keep lying about something that didn’t happen. This is why they keep making slip-ups. All we can hope for is some kind of breakthrough or someone within to break ranks and spill the beans.

    Whether this will happen, who knows? One piece of intelligence came in to our site recently when we learned that Gerry McCann has a girlfriend.

  9. 9
    cookie Says:

    I agree with you of course and having only just started to research the case wouldn`t say that this site is hell bent on slurring the Mcanns, the site merely points out the evidence and other facts about the case and people involved – as adults we take this information in and make our judgements. When in reciept of as much knowledge and information from both sides as possible we try to put together a picture of what happened, good old fashioned detective work as they would say in the force! its what we all do as adults throughout our years about a great many things, in that way you get to trust your judgements and gut feelings, obviously in this case we could all be wrong and have jumped to the wrong conclusions,, indeed i hope thats the case, however when you do the things i said above and get the feelings and understanding of the case and evidence it leads any logical thinking brain to the fact that the abduction story just does not stack up. If you have doubts that the abduction took place then you have to logically implicate all those who do support the abduction theory, the how`s why`s and wherefor`s are incidental – if there was no abduction then at least 7 of the people eating at the tapas restaurant that night know about it. I do find it strange that those people and the families of the Mcanns would cover this up though, thats what naggs at me but as there is no evidence to look at in that respect we can only look at the evidence that there is, thast what a jury would do. There could be good explanations to counter my argument and indeed Kate put`s all these in her book which i read in all truthfulness and honesty as my first introduction apart from what i had seen on the T.V, after reading it i just had the feeling that it wasn`t right, it wasn`t how i could visualise it happening and panning out. When a baby is born anyone looking at it can see something of the mother, father, grandparent etc.. if you passed the same baby to another family they would do the same, my point is that sometimes we make things fit to what we want to see, hear, feel and to me thats the danger here in making the evidence fit, the only problem is it fits all to easily!

  10. 10
    chris Says:

    I strongly believe that the appartment was always locked; the patio from the inside and the front door double locked. I base this on the fact that several times it has been mentioned that no valuables were taken (apart from Madeleine if you believe in abduction) I dont think the MC`s were in the habit of taking all their valuables with them when they dined at Tapas bar, and I dont think they would have left them in an unlocked appartment. This creates stronger evidence that something happened to Madeleine in the appartment. If you recall they were adamant that Madeleine would not have wandered out of the appartment, and could only have been sure of that if it was totally locked down. Of course this scenario had to change after the initial alarm went out and the `jemmied` window discredited. There also had to be the story of an open patio door as well.

  11. 11
    Kieran Says:

    Whats to say that the name on the train picture or on the Christmas gift was now written by Gerry McCann?

    Site Admin: There are plenty of examples of Gerry’s handwriting. It is consistent and untidy – his handwriting is definitely not the writing on the train or Christmas gift.

  12. 12
    Karen Says:

    I still find it hard to believe that they would leave three children locked in an apartment while they dined – anything could have happened, fire, child vomiting and choking, etc. Did any of the Tapas 7 corroborate seeing Maddie that evening in the apartment alive?

  13. 13
    Anonymous Says:

    Re. the Tapas 7, they were all involved somehow. Re. the creche signatures, this is more than meets the eye. Why is Madeleine’s name spelt incorrectly? Who did that? Another question might be why was it done? There are numerous parts of the affair which suggest involvement of all of the McCanns’ party but also other people along with this group. There are things to suggest that things very, very serious indeed happened.

    It’s hard to believe so many people still suppose that the McCann’s covered up the accidental death of their daughter, Madeleine. That really is the most absurd proposition now. And I think, if the Portugese police believe the McCann’s could have been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, they must now consider them as suspects once again and rule out the possibility of an accident.

    It’s much more than that if the McCanns were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, & for 5 yrs worked as hard as they did at media campaigns, controlling investigations & the fund.

    This says that, where they’ve been involved in the disappearance, something much worse than an accident occurred.Clearly, they would not go on for 5 yrs after a genuine mistake. No-one would. No-one. Wouldn’t it be then something much more sinister which involved theMcCanns? Much, much more sinister?

    When the police entered the appartment for the first time, early in the morning of the 4th, Kate’s took a fit. She jumped up and down on the bed and intentionally hit her head against the wall repeatedly. She said “in anger”, very soon after the alleged kidnapping. She said she broke the bed.

    At the same time, when the police entered first, Gerry McCann fell partly to the floor and began wailing very loudly in front of the police. Their fits occurred at this crucial time.

    I think that watching TV appearances show an underground land of body language of the McCanns, and I think they are operating on the level of trying to tell without saying things out loud. I have come across a research student who made a video of segments of the appearances, a lot of time, concluding with her professor that the McCanns are also communicating to each other with body language when they are in public. But one thing I firmly hold is that they have also been making body language gestures to the public, as if this must be or as if they can’t do it any other way.

    I came across people writing on the Web about the Channel 4 documentary which the McCanns more or less controlled. These people (I’ll try to find a link) say they see clearly that the McCann’s have carefully been involved in choosing the reconstruction of the Smith’s sighting of a man carrying a girl at night.

    These people say that, as the Smiths saw the man at the top of the junction of the street, where the man could easily have gone down another deserted street to the same destination, the fact that he chose this street with a large family walking in it could only mean the sighting was set up. These people state that the psychology of any actual, genuine abductor would more or less absolutely prevent them from walking down the street with a whole, large family walking towards them. The statement is that the McCann’s involvement with choices in the documentary making hide the fact that the man would have seen the family first, and still had the opportunity to walk down a deserted street unseen.

    I go further than that, as this documentary shows the man staying on the one side of the street, opposite the street lamp. The Smith family described that the man crossed the street to walk under the street lamp in reality. The documentary gives a further inaccurate reconstruction.

    And I wonder if the McCann’s – or others’, or both’s – involvement in the programme was here twofold.
    1. to keep support from the innocent, the large body who support the McCanns, as the McCanns in fear think they must do.
    2. Chillingly, to make a statement to those who find it, or to continue their silent communication of the truth as in their body language. The actor stayed away from the street lamp in the programme, arranged by someone involving the McCanns. Could the actor symbolise the actual participants in Maadeleine McCann’s disappearance, the McCanns? Are they making a statement that they are staying hidden, in the dark? Why else would the reconstruction be wrong in this way? After all it was made, as the McCanns said, to help give details to help people (as there were people who could have seen from the bar) remember from the time?

    Going back to considering the involvement of the Tapas 7 and the spelling mistake, and the suggestion that there were more people involved in this, and from which time it is not known. There is the video at the start of the time in Portugal of Gerry McCann replying to a good natured question from one the party, in front of all the children, “F*** off. I’m not here to have fun [or similar 2nd sentence, I can’t remember the exact words]”. There is Madeleine’s crying in the appartment, like terrible, ongoing wailing, a couple of days before the 3rd, when her parents were apparently out, but who was there? Why was that? She was 4 years old, not 1 1/2. She was wailing very loudly, apparently in appalling distress for around 80 minutes.

    One wonders, with the creche signatures, had already things been started to speak out in a way in silence, clues left for people who are looking, intentionally? I will not go into the possibilities of why now, but the possibilities are heinous, monstrous.

    So what was going on? I point to things which appear as evidece to suggestions of somethings, but it is probably not clear to many yet.

    What is most telling to me, is not far into the Channel 4 documentary involving the McCann’s, this is their chance to communicate what they want now, unlike other programmes, Kate McCann is talking with her daughter as she paints. In the face of the TV cameras, there is something very pronounced about Kate suddenly saying to her daughter “What colour did you mix to get grey? … What did you mix with the white?” The child has difficulty answering, she suggests “White.” Kate loudly says “Black.”

    What is this about? How to make a cloudy coloured situation for people? I suggest, maybe, but there is more. This is a satanist code. A code for Black Mass. At times, they just the code word “black”.

    Does this explain the McCann’s and the Tapas 7’s presence in Portugal? How many others were involved?

  14. 14
    Anonymous (as 1st @ April 10th, 2012 at 1:20 am) Says:

    … Just briefly another thing to add for now: this explains two more things on the night of the purported abduction. And indeed perhaps there was an abduction without the McCanns being there, and indeed perhaps it happened yet the McCanns, or one of them, was not sure it would happen.

    As has been confirmed, the words Kate McCann shouted initially were, “They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her!” as well as “She’s gone”. Who were “they”? When the McCann’s companions were at the Tapas Bar.

    “[The Portuguese Police] are understood to view this as suspicious because it indicates that Mrs McCann had already ruled out the possibility of Madeleine wandering off, and regard it as possible evidence that she was already engaged in a cover-up.” [The Daily Mail 9 Nov 2007]

    Kate McCann was telling the Tapas 7 something, and appealing for a certain kind of help from them. But what was that? In this scenario, the Tapas 7 already knew something – well that’s not enough – weren’t they were already involved in something? Was Kate McCann suggesting a course of action? Again, it could be that Madeleine had been taken, and this was not expected, yet all had been involved together somehow with Satanic goings on. This is what makes the creche signatures important, and perhaps for more overt reasons than would be assumed. Satanic scenarios, as well as demonic sacrifice, can involve dare situations. Could it be that the McCanns were involved in being dared to give or sell their daughter?

    (These are suggestions of things that can only be heinous, monstrous things, and which are not made lightly without knowing what they mean, nor casually just for the sake of diverting forum writings. I don’t enjoy suggesting such things, but, like so many people, it seems unprecedently in news events, I can’t accept the official line from the McCanns. I can’t even watch them without having deep feelings that everything is wrong. I’ve tried and it’s impossible. I’m not claiming evidence, but this is a forum, and I have raised issues with from particular found points, which have not been invented but have come from the McCanns’ presentation of events. It makes sense only to question what is very questionable. Anything else is censoring one’s liberty.)

  15. 15
    Anonymous (as 1st @ April 10th, 2012 at 1:20 am) Says:

    (From the end of the first comment I made):

    The word “black” can also have a meaning, in the first instance meaning of or for wrong or evil, but contextually of covert, covered up involvement in wrongdoing by people or authorities who have a link with ‘the right’ and claim publicly to be of ‘the right’.

    The word black in this meaning [this is of course unrelated, please note] has been used by the ‘truther’ conspiracy movements over alleged 9/11 conspiracy from within government. SEE footnote in this comment for an example.*

    I find this scene in the film difficult to watch. It begins with Kate’s daughter asking Kate for something, saying please. Kate replies, “What’s the little word?” [Why does Kate ask this in response to her daughter’s question which includes “Please”? There is perhaps something of the oft seen attitude of Gerry McCann to Kate at least (but also interviewers) present here.]

    Her daughter, perhaps a model of patience and courtesy in the circumstances, says again, “Please.” Kate: “Thank you.”

    Then, Kate asks “What do you mix with white to get grey?”, and quickly, and it seems strangely and even perhaps with evidence of being emotionally confused, the child shouts loudly with quite a high pitch, a word. Perhaps the word is “green”, or perhaps something else. It seemed to me for a while the child was shouting “breathe”. [“What do you mix with white to get grey?”. Quick reply, “Breathe.” / “Green”?]

    The reply, though quick, leaves long enough for the child to react, possibly emotionally, to a confusion of what type of question she is being asked, or to lose proper concentration. One wonders what the question means exactly to the child, and if it or the answer has been heard before or has some particular significance from the past.

    Then; Kate: “What do you mix with white to get grey? What colour did you put …. [interrupted by child]… No, what colour did you put on here … that made it go grey?”
    Child: “White”. Kate chuckles out loud.
    Child “White… and [shouts] black.”
    Kate: “Black.”
    Child: “Black.”
    Kate: “That’s it.”

    It feels as if Kate is almost saying “That’s it.” as a reassurance to herself for having carried out the strange episode in front of the cameras, rather than a reassurance to her 4 or 5 year old child.

    It seems clear, in any case, that Kate feels she had to stage some kind of home discussion while the cameras are shooting. It turns out to be an inquisition of her child about mixing white and black to get grey. Isn’t that the strangest conversation subject ever? Kate is telling her child and the cameras that if you mix white and black you will get grey.


    The word “black” can also have a meaning, in the first instance meaning of or for wrong or evil, but contextually of covert, covered up involvement in wrongdoing by people or authorities who have a link with ‘the right’ and claim publicly to be of ‘the right’.

    E.g. The American documentary “Flight 77” about the Pentagon on 11.9.2001 begins with text declaring, “In the following presentation we will expose you to independent, verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack was a state sponsored, false-flag, BLACK operation”. (Flight 77 Documentary by Citizen Investigation Team)

  16. 16
    Anonymous (as 1st @ April 10th, 2012 at 1:20 am) Says:

    Sorry to make multiple comments. I ended writing about the documentary film scene, the McCann’s favoured production which they sought to bring about, prematurely.

    Firstly, the child saying the words for most of the start of this scene appear to be Kate’s son Sean, not his twin sister, Amelie. Both are present, beside each other. Amelie interjects a little of the text given in the last context.

    The scene ends before Kate’s voice over:

    Amelie: “Mummy … … that is a lovely picture you’re making, Mummy”
    Kate replies: “Oh, thanks, honey. Do you know what it says?”
    Amelie: “No.”
    Sean: “Black, whack, black-a-nap [or black and nap].”

    Are Sean’s words from a known nursery or folk rhyme?

  17. 17
    Jon Race Says:

    I have read alot of the information on here and it’s been fascinating and I thought a real eye opener and changed my thoughts on the whole situation, after reading this section, it has made me question the authenticity of everything I have read on here as it is plain to see that the 4 lines were definately written by the same hand. I am no expert but my hand writing changes more than that daily.

  18. 18
    Anonymous (as 1st @ April 10th, 2012 at 1:20 am) Says:

    Two things:

    1. Just to point out, what I’ve said is similar to the ideas of a psychic whom I’ve found. My wonderings in the comments above (I don’t consider myself psychic, but who knows?), come within a chord struck by very many people, but I think more specific and disturbing that most have ventured.

    Psychic Matthew James has had notions which come within the ambit of what I was considering. I think Mr. James goes deeper into a scenario he feels. This seems to be a very large scenario indeed. He suggests there is a very well planned, long term organisation which included the Madeleine McCann abduction. Incorporated also into what he claims vision of is the often suggested corrupt Portugese officials scenario (politicians to the highest, maybe police, church members), a big scenario suggested. The abduction of Madeleine McCann he claims is connected, yet also a separate affair of the same type in its own right, that is of the same kind of undertaking, really of the same undertaking, but separately organised. (This makes me think of films such as “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and “Eyes Wide Shut”, but where the intrigue is lost in the sordid, basest, rancid truth of what the affairs are in reality.)

    This is very interesting, as it may suggest something more inherent within society or many societies, knowledge / experience / acts perhaps, common amongst many people. Anyway, it’s a bigger thing than I, looking for simplicity, was happy to put my finger on in expression.

    Matthew James’s site:
    http://mara-gamiel.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Madeleine McCann
    [that seems to be a space within URL near end, otherwise searh in google with web address]

    2. I don’t claim to be psychic, I don’t claim to know. This is all theoretical wondering. I don’t know if Madeleine McCann is alive or dead, though I suspect she is dead. I don’t actually know what the parents did or how / if they were involved. It’s important to say, not out of fear of myself or a site being sued, but also that in a way – really to make it clear the proper context. And that is wondering, being theoretical with probably the most major news story of the last number of years.

    As, in any such event, family or close friends was / were the killer(s) in the great majority of historical cases, to ignore the possibility in any such case – as I’m not personally involved, it’s just wondering – would be a crime against the real context. Like chopping out part of one’s brain. There is no intention whatsoever here to degrade anyone’s name in the minds of right thinking others. Whatever happened, particularly, because of the loss of their daughter to them, I sympathise with the parents of Madeleine McCann.

    My wonderings are just that, considering impersonally, with no regard to any particular character involved or not involved, what the evidence seems most likely to mean. So much wrong seems to point to what I’ve said being the best candidate to me. This is how detectives work, and they don’t claim they are right, usually, unless they have evidence beyond reasonable doubt. I’ve none, but am just suggesting interpretation of facts – suggesting means the same as any suggestion has value – if one does then so does another. But why leave one or some out, because of fear or lack of thoroughness in weighing up possibilities? That would not be right.

  19. 19
    Lyn Agtne Says:

    Gerry McCann has a girlfriend??? WTF??

  20. 20
    Justin Says:

    Just a thought; it’s possible that Maddie was being carried in the arms of the women who wrote the name down, hence the inconsistent handwriting. Watch mothers drop off their kids – you’ll see what I mean.

    I agree, this is evidence – whether proof or not that they did or did not do anything wrong – it’s still evidence.

  21. 21
    Anonymous (as 1st @ April 10th, 2012 at 1:20 am) Says:

    1. The article at the top of this page for some reason refers to Kate McCann by her maiden name – in the caption to the handwriting photo:

    “Four versions of the way Kate Healy allegedly wrote ‘Madeleine’ in the creche records.”

    2. For most people, it must be very unusual for someone who has had a surname for around 9 years, to be named or name themselves by their maiden name. (The obvious time this may happen is meeting someone known before, old friend, aquaintance, associate or something, unseen for years, who knew a person by their maiden name.)

    For an article about the crech signatures, why ever it happened, however irrelevant, it could be pointed out that Kate McCann referred to herself, signed herself, by her maiden name, ‘Kate Healy’, in the creche records on one occasion only. This was on the day before Madeleine was reported missing, 2 May 2007.

    On every other day in the creche signature book, for her signature, Kate McCann used her name of 9 years or so since marrying Gerry. That is 8 signatures of Kate McCann in the signature book for Madeleine, with 1 as Kate Healy, 2 May. And 11 “Kate McCann” signatures in the book for the twins, none as Kate Healy.

    Photos & transcript: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html

  22. 22
    G1 Says:

    What have you suppressed, poor Catriona Baker? Do you even know now?

    Some thoughts…
    – What came across – from what made official reports, no less – that Ms. Baker was against the decision to send her away from Praia Da Luz in the time of only a week. She reported a desire to stay in PDL, and leaving against choice.
    – The business group who owned Mark Warner had their much lauded Crisis Management executve present within hours in fact. I thought it must be even before the biggest world media attention (which came very, very soon, very surprisingly). That was some dedication indeed.
    – For Crisis Management – perhaps suggesting emergency relief and aid in cirumstances like these – read damage limitation PR exec instead. A man professionally concerned with situations of liability and internal error, even intentional harm. So his much lauded record shows. No soul doctor for the McCanns or company staff.
    – (So, as of the McCanns for a moment, aside – it’s interesting they themselves had a top professional damage liability and credibility professional quickly placed with them so quickly. This facilitated giving the immediate concern of PR to the McCanns’ handling of themselves for people very near the night of May 3. Subsequently, the parents of the missing child conspicuously were concerned not to mask any prevailing occupation with PR about their acts and campaigns. On the one hand, perhaps. A very involved business.)
    – Returning to Ms. Baker leaving, would this PR man, concerned with MW’s reputation, have more or less insisted that she be sent to Greece, against wishes she must have expressed to MW? At the beginning of a missing child enquiry, when, at 1 week, the police case must clearly become something of foul play of some kind? How could that ever correspond with reputation management for MW?
    – So how could it have happened? Unless nanny supervisor Charlotte Pennington insisted Ms. Baker leave. For Ms. Baker made her stance against leaving public and official. The reason I can think of why Ms. Baker would have to go is that Pennington could not cope, found the idea of Ms. Baker remaining, if Pennington herself was to stay (and she had to), an actual impossibility. These deductions come separate to, even before, the possible meanings of this. This is merely at the logical deduction stage, without being leading, without being driven by possible thoughts of why.
    – Why? Why such impossibility? Thinking of the when – this would seriously hamper what was just becoming a police investigation into possible murder?
    – Why such impossibility?

  23. 23
    enochered Says:

    This is a strange one. I can clearly remember my reaction at the time Madeleine disappeared, I am ashamed to say that the tone of Gerry’s voice touched one of my nerves and I immediately lost sympathy for him. Just recently I have spent many hours looking into the social scene of the high level pedophiles in the UK. Whenever a case like the McCann business crops up the same faces are always present, on this occasion it is Gordon Brown and peripherally a character from the BBC, with the addition of professional fixers from the Establishment. The cries of; “They’ve taken her,” could well be a scene from “Rosemary’s Baby,” or some other film of devil worship, where the Cabal have taken the child and only one of the parents is aware of what is going on. The high level efforts to cover the event is very much as a previous commenter has remarked, hideous. It is reminiscent of the events which took place in Birr Castle in Ireland, where many children were taken to be abused and it is fared that many of the children, whom were orphans, disappeared. Because of high level involvement, meaning Royalty, a complete lock-down was imposed and there has still been no proper inquiry. On that occasion Ted Heath was the Prime Minister whom was implicated. With a Cabal of what could be Free-Mason’s in the vicinity anything is possible.

  24. 24
    norma Says:

    I cannot understand why the McCanns are getting help from such a high level ie as mentioned above, even an recent ex Prime Minister. Also, I was wondering if that woman or ‘troll’as the press called her, was another McCann victim as it all looks a bit suspicious in that the woman just happened to fall down the stairs I believe after she was found by journalists through her emails. I admit it sounds as if she went way too far if she insulted the McCanns other children but to die for it?

  25. 25
    Tina Says:

    I have studied this case very well, See the pics of Kate McCann 2007 her both wrists are bruised. How did she get those bruises? Perhaps this is not accidental death, I believe this was preplanned murder. Kate and Gerry’s behaviour in every interview is very strange. Many lies body talks experts says too the whole thing is been staged. McCann made money out of there daughters death. I wish and hope JUSTICE will be done while I am alive. Maddie’s soul will not rest until those who did her wrong will be in grave.

  26. 26
    G1 Says:

    When Madeleine first disappeared and Kate and Gerry were first back to the apartment together, from the Tapas cafe in the hotel garden area, they both kind of went mad in shock.

    It was reported quite a lot back in spring and summer 2007, they were seen to scream, separately, for some time in shock.
    Both actually threw themselves around the apartment in a kind of madness.
    Kate was seen to have banged her head off the bed post and thrown her arms around, banging them.

    It turns out, it can be the kind of recommended act, by some, for both when you in a state of shock and also when you have been drinking and need to sober up quickly.
    I suppose they can have known this advice, as doctors.

  27. 27
    Sienna Rose Says:

    I think the site administrator are totally spot on regarding their claims. Kate McCann was signing everything with her maiden name Healy, it the first creche records you see Kate Healy then all subsequent records Kate McCann (these are no doubt forgeries). I suspect some that are attacking the admin are actually funded by the McCann PR team to rubbish their evidence. McCanns should already have spent time in prison for child endangerment, neglect and interference with a police investigation, until they find Madeleine corpse.maybe instead of attacking admin, put your energy to good use and write your local politicians to prosecute the McCanns.

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes