The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

@Maria
Your comments are not upsetting me!
Please keep posting 

Thank you both

I had more typed up but it didn't appear for some reason.  I just basically said I'm certainly not leaving this forum, it's by far the best, but on this topic I'll just lurk.  I need to be reading other topics in here anyway that I havn't touched on yet and perhaps post in more lighthearted areas.

 And I had a ps to Plebgate saying that as far as I can remember my username has never changed. 

@HiDeHo:  "We seem to differ regarding the consideration of press reports."

Being an inveterate cynic, I'm of the seeing is believing school of thought.  The press worldwide, particularly the UK tabloids, thrive on sensationalism so what they don't know they invent and what they do know they exaggerate in order to sell their story - I don't have any faith whatsoever in their reportage.  I do agree that quite often there must be an element of truth in their reports but not sufficient enough to bear any resemblance of fact/accuracy - or even close.

Having said that, I do appreciate why you use press reports as a means to build a fuller picture of any given subject, I haven't read everything you've ever written but from what I've seen, your method works for you.  I too sometimes use press reports to emphasize a particular point, only usually for the opposite reason:)

I have a little first hand experience of the UK's press inaccuracy - more to the point blatant lies.  Not on any grand international scale but local stuff, nonetheless it gives an indication as to how the press is used to deceive the public - no scruples!

Maria wrote:Thank you both

I had more typed up but it didn't appear for some reason.  I just basically said I'm certainly not leaving this forum, it's by far the best, but on this topic I'll just lurk.  I need to be reading other topics in here anyway that I havn't touched on yet and perhaps post in more lighthearted areas.

 And I had a ps to Plebgate saying that as far as I can remember my username has never changed. 

Thanks Maria, very courteous of you - wasn't only aimed at you.

MayMuse wrote:Does anyone else think that perhaps sometimes some of the things they say are deliberate? To try to "provoke" some form of reaction in some way?  
I've been looking at past statements and some videos of interviews and they really do strike me as not just odd but something largely amiss. It is not just their "cold" and "detached" demeanour, I have thought this before, they seem scripted somewhat, the hand holding, the turn of a head to look at the other, then the other steps in to speak... if you watch their expressions without sound it is almost like a "synchronistic event? IMO

It's as if they are acting the parts of concerned parents of an abducted child without knowing how that would feel. 
They bring the props and learn the lines, but it looks wooden, rehearsed and awkward. 
That's just my opinion by the way.

MayMuse wrote:Does anyone else think that perhaps sometimes some of the things they say are deliberate? To try to "provoke" some form of reaction in some way?  
I've been looking at past statements and some videos of interviews and they really do strike me as not just odd but something largely amiss. It is not just their "cold" and "detached" demeanour, I have thought this before, they seem scripted somewhat, the hand holding, the turn of a head to look at the other, then the other steps in to speak... if you watch their expressions without sound it is almost like a "synchronistic event? IMO

I really get what you mean, there's something there that you just can't put your finger on and I've had a few random thoughts about it all being a big charade, for some agenda.

I begin by making the observation that, contrary to the fears and opinions of some, this thread is a credit to CMOMM. 

It deals head-on with a very important factual issue (the alleged crying incident and whether it proves that Madeleine was alive on 1 May). It was started by a member (Hobs) who has regularly provided with us with insights from ‘statement analysis’. The discussion has been joined by some of the best-informed members. And by and large it has been a constructive debate with very few personal comments or insults.  

Next I want to continue with what I hope will be some observations with which everyone who has contributed to this thread can agree. These I think are factual matters with which all can agree: 

1. There is no evidence at all that Mrs Fenn gave any evidence about any ‘crying incident’ before Monday 20 August.

2. Martin Grime and his dogs were in Praia da Luz Weds 1 August to Weds 8 August.

3. From 6 August onwards, there were increasingly lurid stories in the British press about cadaver dogs, blood, DNA and Madeleine being dead (References from McCannFiles:     

Monday August 6: Portuguese newspaper reports that British sniffer dogs have found traces of blood on a wall in the apartment where Madeleine went missing. Detectives now believe it is most likely Madeleine is dead, having been killed accidentally, the Jornal de Noticias claimed.

Wednesday August 8: A friend of the McCanns says she is disgusted at an apparent smear campaign against them. Rachael Oldfield, who ate with the McCanns on the night Madeleine disappeared, said: "I think there are some leaks coming from the police because a lot of what I have read recently has been completely untrue."

Saturday August 11: 100 days since Madeleine disappeared. Portuguese police acknowledge for the first time that Madeleine could be dead. Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa tells the BBC new evidence had given ‘intensity’ to the possibility she was killed. He says the parents are not being considered as suspects. A McCann family friend says it is ‘extraordinary’ the police had ‘not had the decency’ to tell the couple they now believed Madeleine could be dead before stating it in an on-the-record interview.

4. There was a raft of stories in the British press on Sat 18 August and Sun 19 August giving details of what Mrs Pamela Fenn is going to say about (a) a crying incident and (b) a burglary incident. Someone gave this information to the British press. As I have set out in detail on this forum, there was a mass of contradictory information about when the burglary was supposed to have happened, how the burglary happened, whether Carole Tranmer was there or not, whether it was ever reported to the police etc.   

5. On Mon 20 August Mrs Fenn made a statement about the alleged crying and burglary incidents. There is no evidence that she gave any facts about the burglary incident except to say that there was one.  

6. On Tues 21 August and Weds 22 August there was a raft of stories in the Portuguese newspapers about Mrs Fenn’s evidence.

7. On Weds 22 August Mrs Fenn was interviewed by a Portuguese journalist about her evidence and told him: “It’s all rubbish…forget it”.
 

Assuming I have the agreement of all to those facts, I have proceeded to identify Clarence Mitchell as the person who must have supplied all the mixed-up contradictions about the burglary to the British media, sometime during the period Mon 13 August to Fri 17 August. I do not think there is any other candidate. 

I do not accuse Mrs Fenn of having been the source of all the multiple and frankly unlikely accounts of this burglary. But she did tell the police there was a burglary. 

From all the above facts, and from (a) my working assumption that Mitchell placed the ‘crying’ and ‘burglary’ incidents in the British press, and (b) my analysis of a number of question marks within Mrs Fenn’s statements about the alleged crying incident, I put forward the hypothesis the Mrs Fenn was leaned on/cajoled into making a statement about a crying incident and a burglary incident that never happened. 

I respect anyone on CMOMM who puts forward a better or a contrary hypothesis and gives good reasons for doing so. I do believe however that no-one has yet given a convincing alternative explanation as to why the burglary story is full of so many contradictions and improbabilities.  

Contrary to @ whatsupdoc I assert that it is perfectly logical to hold that if one part of a witness statement can be shown to be untrue, iy follows as night follows day that suspicions naturally arise about other parts of that statement.

Finally I reply to some points made by @ Hideho     

She quoted this from Diario de Noticas: 

Diario de Noticas

In the deposition that was made at PJ in Portimao, which has been functioning as the headquarters of the investigation, Pamela Fenn confirmed she had made herself available to contact police authorities, although Kate McCann dismissed that offer saying the alert had been made. The crossing of the time at which this conversation took place with the record of the alert to GNR is one of the important elements for the reconstitution of what happened during those moments.

The date for the deposition was scheduled with the witness in order to avoid pressure from the media. The interrogation was scheduled for yesterday, but was then anticipated on the last few days and kept secret. Even yesterday, Olegario Sousa, the PJ’s spokesman, assured he could not confirm the diligence, while a few days earlier he had denied it completely.              

My comment: The forthcoming interview with Mrs Fenn was clearly not kept secret as someone told all the British press about it several days earlier!    

@ Hideho offered these two alternatives: 

1. As carefully researched by Tony that Mrs Fenn was coerced in some way to give an unsubstantiated claim of a crying incident and burglar attempt for the benefit of McCanns at a time when the details of the DNA were starting to arrive...

 2. As opposed to Mrs Fenn hearing the crying as claimed in her August 20th statement, which seems to have been required because of possible UK suspect charges, following a 48-hr search warrant when all police were called from their holidays (Not in files but reported in media in a credible manner (imo), keeping in mind that not all actions of the police were added to files.) 

My comment: @ Hideho is making the case that the Portuguese police wanted to re-interview Mrs Fenn because they were on the verge of arresting Russell Oldfield. This didn’t happen of course and I join with @ Verdi in not placing very much reliance on those media reports which @ Hideho says are ‘credible’. 

Last point: @ Hideho wrote: “Debate...Discuss...Disagree is all healthy in seeking the truth - but to ‘blindly believe’, unless/until you have that info to convince you, can lead to confusion, and it’s always good to keep oneself open to possibilities of being wrong...”. 

With that I wholeheartedly agree and thank you as always @ Hideho for all your well-informed contributions on here and elsewhere. 

   


ETA:  I should have remembered to warmly thank @ whodunit for articulating so clearly the evidential arguments on this matter and especially her/his remarks on the burden of proof when making assertions - and on the obvious problems in explaining the contradictions in all the various burglary stories 

       

Now that were back on topic (hopefully) I was trawling through the statements again and found a few things interesting:

Tues Night


Rachel, Fiona, Jane and Russell (when he finally makes his mind up) all say Russell was not at dinner.
This was the quiz night with Najoua Chekaya which finished at 9.30pm after which she spent 20mins or so at TM's table so till say 9.50pm.
Ms Chekaya says that there was someone missing from the table and when shown a photo of TM she thought is was David Payne that wasn't there. But she also didn't remember Kate being there.
This was also the night that Kate made or received calls/texts between 10.16pm and 10.27pm.
And also that Madeleine had come to their room because Amelie was crying (Which KM says she also heard and MBM stayed in their room).
It was also the night that Mrs Fenn heard crying. But she says this was between 10.30 pm and 11.15 pm.
Russell doesn't say anything about hearing any crying even though he was in his apartment. His apartment was further away though. But he did say something that was interesting:
"I know on one of the evenings either Mon/Tues I stayed in the flat with E*** she wasn't well and Jane brought her over. This occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz" Umm brought her over from where exactly ?

Wed Night


Rachel & Jane and Russell all say Rachel was not at dinner.
Kate & Gerry both say this was the night of the crying incident. But that is was 1. The Twins 2. Madeleine 3. Madeleine & Sean
Rachel says she didn't hear any crying. In her 10 May statement she says "None of the adults were aware of crying incident".
This is the night that KM says she was annoyed with Gerry for ignoring her and she slept in the other room with the kids.
(Gerry was more likely to have been ignoring her Tues Night when the lovely Ms Chekaya was at the table)

Thurs Night


In Jane's 8 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MBM mentioned about MBM and Sean waking up.
In Rachel's 9 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MBM and Sean had been crying on the Wed Night. Kate also reminded her of this after MBM disappeared.
In Fiona's 10 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MBM and Sean woke up.
This was the night Russell on his check found E*** had been sick. After Jane finished her meal she went back and Russell returned to the Tapas.
Kate left after Russell had eaten. So Jane was still at the apartment when Kate had gone and found MBM had disappeared and raised the alarm.
In Jane's 10 May statement she says "She looked out of the window towards the Tapas and saw that no-one was at the table. Later she heard KM & FP in the corridor calling for Madeleine. She saw Kate who told her that Madeleine had disappeared".


Gerry in his 10 May 2007 statement thought that it was either Mon/Tues night Madeleine slept in their room because (as Kate told him) one or both of the twins were crying.

They certainly don't make it easy do they !!!

dottyaussie wrote:Now that were back on topic (hopefully) I was trawling through the statements again and found a few things interesting:

Tues Night

Rachel, Fiona, Jane and Russell (when he finally makes his mind up) all say Russell was not at dinner.
This was the quiz night with Najoua Chekaya which finished at 9.30pm after which she spent 20mins or so at TM's table so till say 9.50pm.
Ms Chekaya says that there was someone missing from the table and when shown a photo of TM she thought is was David Payne that wasn't there. But she also didn't remember Kate being there.
This was also the night that Kate made or received calls/texts between 10.16pm and 10.27pm.
And also that Madeleine had come to their room because Amelie was crying (Which KM says she also heard and MBM stayed in their room).
It was also the night that Mrs Fenn heard crying. But she says this was between 10.30 pm and 11.15 pm.
Russell doesn't say anything about hearing any crying even though he was in his apartment. His apartment was further away though. But he did say something that was interesting:
"I know on one of the evenings either Mon/Tues I stayed in the flat with E*** she wasn't well and Jane brought her over. This occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz" Umm brought her over from where exactly ?

Wed Night

Rachel & Jane and Russell all say Rachel was not at dinner.
Kate & Gerry both say this was the night of the crying incident. But that is was 1. The Twins 2. Madeleine 3. Madeleine & Sean
Rachel says she didn't hear any crying. In her 10 May statement she says "None of the adults were aware of crying incident".
This is the night that KM says she was annoyed with Gerry for ignoring her and she slept in the other room with the kids.
(Gerry was more likely to have been ignoring her Tues Night when the lovely Ms Chekaya was at the table)

Thurs Night

In Jane's 8 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MSM mentioned about MSM and Sean waking up.
In Rachel's 9 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MSM and Sean had been crying on the Wed Night. Kate also reminded her of this after MSM disappeared.
In Fiona's 10 April 08 statement she said Kate told her that evening MSM and Sean woke up.
This was the night Russell on his check found E*** had been sick. After Jane finished her meal she went back and Russell returned to the Tapas.
Kate left after Russell had eaten. So Jane was still at the apartment when Kate had gone and found MSM had disappeared and raised the alarm.
In Jane's 10 May statement she says "She looked out of the window towards the Tapas and saw that no-one was at the table. Later she heard KM & FP in the corridor calling for Madeleine. She saw Kate who told her that Madeleine had disappeared".

Gerry in his 10 May 2007 statement thought that it was either Mon/Tues night Madeleine slept in their room because (as Kate told him) one or both of the twins were crying.

They certainly don't make it easy do they !!!

Excellent and concise collection of so many contradictory statements about the events of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings - well done!

And without even mentioning what Mrs Fenn said!  

Has there ever been a case where it's been harder to separate truth from fiction?

dottyaussie''"I know on one of the evenings either Mon/Tues I stayed in the flat with E*** she wasn't well and Jane brought her over. This occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz" Umm brought her over from where exactly ?''

Great point.

Also, could Jane really have seen who was at the table in the tapas? It was dark. Weren't they behind opaque awning? Jane Tanner's eyesight seems to me to be nothing short of remarkable.

ps MBM not MSM?

Thank you Tony 

@worriedmum haha yes MBM not MSM it was too late to correct it after I posted (needed a cuppa) 

@dottyaussie wrote:  "I know on one of the evenings either Mon/Tues I stayed in the flat with E*** she wasn't well and Jane brought her over. This occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz" Umm brought her over from where exactly ?

To put this comment in context it's better to reproduce the entire reply..

1578    “Right.  ‘I recall there was a Trivia Quiz on either the Tuesday or Wednesday evening’”.


Reply    “So that might be better, jumping back up to where I have said ‘I know on one of the evenings, either the Monday or Tuesday, I stayed in the flat with Evie, she wasn’t well and Jane brought her over’, so if at the end of that statement, that paragraph, it then says ‘this occurred on the night where there was a Trivia Quiz, possibly conducted by the aerobics instructor’, I mean, that would, that would, erm.  And then when, when the statements are, you know, are cross-referenced, then I think it would be probably fairly apparent to know which night that was”.
----------

As can be seen,  at this stage of the rogatory interview, Russell O'Brien was correcting his previous account of events, those few words 'Jane brought her over' could be seen as a genuine error.  Prior to this, during the rogatory interview he says..



"I know that on one of the evenings either Monday or Tuesday I stayed in the flat with Evie as she wasn’t well Jane brought my meals over to me this was mentioned in my first statement...."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm


I think the latter is more likely to be the true account - all supposing it happened at all.

Well superb just tried to edit/correct the MSM to MBM and it worked !!!!! YAY

In Russell o.Brian's rog. statement he says disappeared not abducted. Funny that....

Ahhh yes I can see that now Verdi, thanks.

His was one of the hardest statements to go through. 
IIRC he said Matt was ill on Sun but then also said Sun he checked GM & KM's and also Matt's with Matt's keys ?? 

I think so far Sun Matt was ill, Tues Russell was ill, Wed Rachel was ill and Thurs Evie was sick. Who was ill Mon (The day we shall not speak of) ?

dottyaussie wrote:Ahhh yes I can see that now Verdi, thanks.

His was one of the hardest statements to go through. 
IIRC he said Matt was ill on Sun but then also said Sun he checked GM & KM's and also Matt's with Matt's keys ?? 

I think so far Sun Matt was ill, Tues Russell was ill, Wed Rachel was ill and Thurs Evie was sick. Who was ill Mon (The day we shall not speak of) ?

As I say - if any of this happened at all, which I have grave doubts.  The child's sickness for example, if I remember correctly there was no record of the Ocean Club staff being requested to launder soiled bed linen - sorry if anyone's just eaten.  Of course it could have been bundled in the on site washing machine but speaking personally, it's not something I would choose to do on holiday if there was an alternative.  How would they dry it, like Madeleine's stained top - on the balcony?

Off on a tangent but as you mentioned Matt's keys.  I have never believed that the McCanns left their patio door unlocked at any stage of the week - least of all for ease of access so their friends could check on Madeleine and the twins.  They were all sitting at the same restaurant table, wouldn't it be just as easy (and definitely more sensible) to pass over their key?

Back on topic, another reason to question Pamela Fenn's account of events.  If the McCanns didn't leave the patio door unlocked, they must have left and entered the apartment through the front door but... if Mrs Fenn genuinely heard the patio door open as she states, then someone must have already been in the apartment for the patio door to be unlocked and/or opened.

In their assorted statements, the McCanns did make quite an issue about how Kate and children left by the patio door, then Gerry locked the door and left by the front door - there doesn't appear to be any logical reason for this daily ritual.  Personally, I believe it had some connection with keeping up a pretense that Madeleine was alive and well until Kate McCann's abduction alert at approx. 10:00 pm on Thursday 3rd.  I can think of no other explanation for such an extraordinary sequence of events.

Verdi wrote:@HiDeHo:  "We seem to differ regarding the consideration of press reports."

Being an inveterate cynic, I'm of the seeing is believing school of thought.  The press worldwide, particularly the UK tabloids, thrive on sensationalism so what they don't know they invent and what they do know they exaggerate in order to sell their story - I don't have any faith whatsoever in their reportage.  I do agree that quite often there must be an element of truth in their reports but not sufficient enough to bear any resemblance of fact/accuracy - or even close.

Having said that, I do appreciate why you use press reports as a means to build a fuller picture of any given subject, I haven't read everything you've ever written but from what I've seen, your method works for you.  I too sometimes use press reports to emphasize a particular point, only usually for the opposite reason:)

I have a little first hand experience of the UK's press inaccuracy - more to the point blatant lies.  Not on any grand international scale but local stuff, nonetheless it gives an indication as to how the press is used to deceive the public - no scruples!

British press reports were a lot different pre Clarrie and I think those are the ones I tend to take notice of as opposed to the garbage in the 'in between years.

The Express in particular used the Portuguese press reports and made a point of referring that the details came from them so they didnt have to make claims..... it was the Portuguese press that said these things... though that didnt work once Clarrie was in on it... 

I am not sure which of the Portuguese newspapers are considered more credible than others..

24 Horas seemed to be very much a red top but CdM, Diario de Noticias seem to be credible in most reports and though some have said SOL was not reliable I would like to just show an example of how in August 2007 we had a good idea of what the files were about to tell us one year later...  There were very few minor differences to what the files actually tell us.  UK media at the time were using the Portuguese press to get information and as you can see a lot of it was very credible... Hence I allow for much of what the Portuguese press claimed at that time (including the possible UK suspect, because also at that time the McCanns seemed to be preempting charges as if they felt that was going to happen... They weren't and neither was the UK suspect...  This may hav been because of the FSS results that changed after the first were sent... Whether the original report still exists is something Goncalo would like to know...as would we all...

Please bear with me for posting this but it may be helpful for some that don't know the timeline of events that night... or at least the timeline as THEY (T9) want us to believe..

It also gives food for thought about how the credibility of the Portuguese press  (and UK copies) (pre Clarrie) really did seem to be worthwhile keeping in mind...

in Sol on August 11 2007 (one year before the files were released)


Under the magnifying glass 

SOL reveals what the McCanns and their friends say they did on the night that Maddie disappeared. Who would have died before dinner. 

by: Felicia Cabrita and Margarida Davim 
translated by: summer 

The tests that were made this week on the car that was used by the McCann couple, indicates that the police admits that Maddie’s body may have been moved from the place where it was initially hidden, over the last two months. 

As Sol could conclude, the investigators look for clues of the cadaver in the Renault Scenic, which was rented by Maddie’s parents after the child’s disappearance. As the abduction possibility is set aside, authorities bet on the reconstitution of the route that was taken to hide the body. During this week, PJ and elements of the English police – accompanied by the c-ockers that SOL surprised on the beach and in a valley that is close to the resort, last week – performed several diligences inside and outside several houses. The authorities seem to have concluded that Maddie’s body is buried in the vicinity of the apartment that was occupied by the McCanns, or was thrown into the sea. 

The English dogs marked the death inside the apartment. And Portuguese dogs did not find any trace on the outside. This fact is devalued by Pinto da Costa, a forensic doctor, who says a perfume on the body is enough to lose the dogs. A source of GNR that was heard by SOL says “the dogs only detected a movement of the child from the bedroom to another location inside the apartment”. 

At the same time, it is still unknown at what time the alleged crime would have taken place. A specialist that was contacted by SOL guarantees: “In order for the dogs to mark the body, it would have had to remain in the area where it died for at least two hours”. If so, and considering that Maddie’s parents say they left for dinner at 8.30 p.m., the girl would have died shortly before that – given the fact the alarm to her disappearance was given at 10 p.m. 

Blank hours 

It is in these four hours – between the time the McCann couple picked up their children at the crèche and the time Kate noticed her daughter was missing – that lies th solution to this mystery. This is also where the inconsistencies are found, between the versions that are reported by the couple and their friends. 

The four friends couples, most of them doctors, always said they took turns among them to watch their children (either by listening through windows or by entering each other’s apartments) every half hour. 

On that night, if the mismatching versions of the group are to be believed, there were up to three persons doing the same job. It is in this context that witness Jane Tanner appears, who is married to Russell O’Brien. He only appeared in the Tapas restaurant almost at the end of the dinner, saying his daughter, who is the same age as Maddie, was feeling ill. Jane, on the other hand, would have left the restaurant to check on her daughter and verify the other children at approximately 9.20 p.m. And she walked a narrow, scarcely lit road. 

On her way, she passes Maddie’s father, who is talking to a friend, Jeremy Wilkins – a tv producer whom he met at the resort’s tennis court. When Jane passed them, the two men were close to a small iron gate that leads to the back entrance of the apartment: “It’s impossible. I didn’t see her”, Jeremy said. 

That gate, which accesses a small patio, and according to Maddie’s father, was used by him and Matthew Oldfield to check on the children. In that moment, the girl’s father noticed that the door to the children’s room was more open and that there was more light than usual. Yet, he thought that Maddie, disturbed by her siblings’ crying, would have gone into her parents’ room, leaving the door open. But he did not check whether his daughter was there. 

With these elements, which were corroborated by Matthew, Maddie’s father left the possibility that at that time the abductor was already inside the room, in the air. 

Contributing to the kidnapping idea, there was also Jane Tanner’s version, who says she saw a man carrying a child, shortly after she crossed ways with Maddie’s father and Jeremy. But the tv producer – who was spending his holidays in a neighbouring apartment block – also dismisses that possibility: “I did not see any man carrying a child”. 

Jane’s testimony was one of the pieces of information that would later be used to incriminate Murat, given the fact that the arguido’s house is on the street where the English woman says the man was walking to. 

Jane walked approximately 5 metres from the individual who was carrying the child. Although there was little light, she describes him with detail. The man, looking Caucasian, was wearing beige trousers, black shoes and was covered in a thick jacket. According to her words, “he didn’t even look like a tourist”. 

In spite of the proximity to the person who would later originate the first drawing of the supposed kidnapper of Maddie, Jane, who socialised with the girl on a daily basis, did not recognise her. According to her statement, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, seemed to be asleep and was barefoot. This was the detail that she found the strangest. 

That night, after Kate discovered the disappearance of her daughter (and after Jane supposedly confirmed with another friend that Maddie was wearing a pyjamas of the same colour), Jane Tanner made no comment. “I did not want to worry Kate even further”, she later guaranteed. 

A witness that was contacted by SOL at that time seems to indicate that Jane, although she never crossed ways with the tv producer, may have described the right person, so if the suspect crossed ways with someone on his way, the versions would match. 

The last diligences that PJ has performed do however put aside the doubts that were on Robert Murat, given the fact that the searches did not find anything that incriminates him. 

---------------- 

The ‘movie’ of the night 

After collecting all the elements, and crossing information from various sources, SOL’s investigation makes a reconstitution of the night that Maddie disappeared. 

6 p.m. The McCanns pick their children up at the Ocean Club’s crèche. 
7.30 Madeleine and the twins go to bed. 
8.30 Gerry and Kate arrive at the Tapas restaurant. 
8.45 Russell, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield go to the restaurant. 
8.55 David and Fiona Payne also arrive at the Tapas. According to David, all the elements of the group were already there. But Rachel assures that Matthew arrived two or three minutes after the Paynes. 
9.00 Matthew went to check on the children. 
9.05 Gerry left the Tapas to check on his children. When he is returning to the dinner, he meets Jeremy Wilkins – an English man he met during the holidays – and chats with him for ten minutes. Neither Gerry nor Jeremy notice Jane or the suspicious man that she says she saw, although they were all on the same narrow street at the same time. 
9.10 Jane went to check on her children and notices a man walking hastily, carrying a child. She memorises the suspect, but fails to recognise Maddie. 
9.25 Gerry returns to Tapas. Russell told PJ that at this time Matt and he went to check the children. 
9.30 Matthew goes into Madeleine’s apartment. Russell O’Brien leaves the restaurant at the same time. In the first statements, Matt does not refer anything strange in Madeleine’s room and Russell fails to explain that he stayed in his apartment because his younger daughter was feeling sick. Later, Matt said that he noticed more light in the McCanns’ apartment and Russell revealed his daughter was vomiting. 
9.35 Matthew Oldfield returned to Tapas. 
9.45 Jane Tanner says at this time – not at 9.30 – Matthew and Russell left the restaurant. 
9.55 Russell returns to the restaurant. 
10.00 Jane goes to the apartment and notices her daughter has disappeared. She goes back to Tapas and raises the alarm. Everybody leaves the restaurant, except Dianne Webster. 
10.05 Dianne Webster goes into Maddie’s room. The twins are sleeping. 
22.15 Dianne returns to Tapas, to pick up her purse and her camera. 

--------------- 

The McCanns’ friends that the police is watching 

Rachel and Matthew Oldfield 

Rachell Manpilly is 36 and she is married to Matthew Oldfield. The couple has a daughter, who was only 18 months old when Madeleine McCann disappeared. But not even so the Oldfields asked for the Ocean Club’s babysitting service. Matthew met Gerry McCann when both doctors worked together at a hospital in Leicester. Matt has a pending accusation for medical negligence in that hospital, after a late diagnosis resulted in the death of a patient. This was not the first time the Oldfields spent their holidays with this group. The last trip had been to Greece – where they also stayed in a resort of the Ocean Club’s group – but that time Gerry and Kate did not accompany them. 

Dianne Webster 

63 year old Dianne Webster is the oldest element of the group. This credit controller is the mother of Fiona Payne and the grandmother of two of the children from the group that was spending their holidays in the Ocean Club. 
To the Portuguese police, Dianne told she could not precise which elements abandoned the Tapas restaurant during dinner, on the night that Madeleine disappeared. Fiona’s mother is also the only witness that said each couple was responsible for their own children, and did not enter their friends’ apartments. 
After Kate entered the restaurant – visibly upset and yelling “they’ve taken our Madeleine” – Dianne was the only one who stayed seated at the Tapas’ table. Which she only left five minutes later. 

David and Fiona Payne 

It was David Payne who organised the group’s holidays at Praia da Luz. The reservation was made over the internet, after a good experience with the Ocean Club’s group, in Greece. This was the second time that David came to Portugal. The first time was eleven years ago, before he got married. 
David and Fiona have been together for seven years and are both doctors, like the McCanns’ friends. The couple has two children and they were the only ones in the group who used the babyphone system to keep watch over the children during dinners – which always took place without the small ones. 
Fiona was back in the Algarve on July 11, along with Rachel and Russell, in order to give their third deposition to PJ. 

Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner 

Russell O’Brien is a doctor and lives in Exeter – the same English city where the sister of Robert Murat lives. 
After studying at the same university as David Payne, O’Brien met Jane, with whom he has two children. The friendship between Russell and David is so strong that he chose him as his wedding godfather when he made his relationship with Fiona official, in Italy. 
Coincidentally, Jane and Kate became pregnant at the same time, as the O’Brien couple’s oldest daughter is exactly the same age as Maddie. 
Jane Tanner is one of the key witnesses in the ‘Madeleine case’, given the fact she says she saw a suspicious man, walking with a child in his arms, on the night of the disappearance. Jane describes the individual with extreme precision, although she was not capable to recognise the child he was carrying. The man that Jane saw has dark, thick hair and is 1.70 m tall.

Then Clarrie and Hanover PR came on the scene and it all changed.....

Verdi wrote:As I say - if any of this happened at all, which I have grave doubts.  The child's sickness for example, if I remember correctly there was no record of the Ocean Club staff being requested to launder soiled bed linen - sorry if anyone's just eaten.  Of course it could have been bundled in the on site washing machine but speaking personally, it's not something I would choose to do on holiday if there was an alternative.  How would they dry it, like Madeleine's stained top - on the balcony?
snipped

IIRC Russell's excuse for his long absence from the table was that he had to wash the bedding. They might have had a dryer in the apartment.

Is it possible that someone entered through the  ?locked door then let someone in through the patio doors.  Someone they might not have wanted to be seen going into the apartment?

As for Russell not hearing any crying, how do we even know if it was that night, they couldn't even agree on that, so they just settled?   What that even means I do not know.

I think it was Verdi posted up thread that nobody knows what went on.  You can say that again and that's why (imo) the PJ thought a reconstruction needed to be done. 

It's not too late because a reconstruction might just lead to someone remembering something which could get the case re-opened in Portugal.

HiDeHo wrote:

British press reports were a lot different pre Clarrie and I think those are the ones I tend to take notice of as opposed to the garbage in the 'in between years.

in Sol on August 11 2007 (one year before the files were released)...

Then Clarrie and Hanover PR came on the scene and it all changed...

@ HideHo

I don't follow this.

Clarence Mitchell, with his task of 'controlling what comes out in the media', was in charge of PR issues from a date in May 2007 - long before the press articles of August 2007. He was seen by the side of the McCanns in countless press conferences and photo-shoots between May and September 2007. 

Hanover PR were only involved for about a week, in September 2007, just after the McCanns were made arguidos.

@ Verdi and @ plebgate

'Verdi' wrote:  "I have never believed that the McCanns left their patio door unlocked at any stage of the week - least of all for ease of access so their friends could check on Madeleine and the twins.  They were all sitting at the same restaurant table, wouldn't it be just as easy (and definitely more sensible) to pass over their key? Back on topic, another reason to question Pamela Fenn's account of events:  If the McCanns didn't leave the patio door unlocked, they must have left and entered the apartment through the front door but... if Mrs Fenn genuinely heard the patio door open as she states, then someone must have already been in the apartment for the patio door to be unlocked and/or opened".

REPLY: I fully agree with all of that reasoning.

'plebgate' wrote: "Is it possible that someone entered through the ?locked door then let someone in through the patio doors?  Someone they might not have wanted to be seen going into the apartment?"

REPLY: I suggest this is highly improbable.

Why highly improbable Tony?

'Verdi' wrote:  "I have never believed that the McCanns left their patio door unlocked at any stage of the week - least of all for ease of access so their friends could check on Madeleine and the twins.  They were all sitting at the same restaurant table, wouldn't it be just as easy (and definitely more sensible) to pass over their key? 

Nobody went into other apartments to check other children except (allegedly) Matthew on the last night.

That is on record.

And an investigative red flag.

plebgate wrote:Why highly improbable Tony?

OK.

For a start, we have a significant amount of evidence that the children, from Sunday night onwards, were not in different apartments, being checked on from time to time, but were all looked after together each night in one of the apartments. Corroboration of this comes from the evidence of the Tapas 7 themselves who claim that, in turn, each night one or other of them was so ill that they couldn't join the others at the table. On top of that, we have improbable claims that some of the children were quite ill - yet it appears that the Ocean Club and crèche workers were never informed of such illnesses, despite the requirement that parents should inform them of any such illnesses. And in addition to that, the investigation co-ordinator after Goncalo Amaral was removed, namely Paulo Rebelo, actually advance the hypothesis of the children all being cared for in one place himself.

Now let's look at the relevant part of Mrs Fenn's statement:

"At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse".

Again I join with Verdi in asserting that is improbable in the extreme that any of the Tapas 9, or anyone staying in any of the apartments for that matter, would leave the patio doors - which could be locked from the inside - would be left open.

 Mrs Fenn claims that she 'heard the parents arrive' AND 'heard the patio doors open'. For a start, I find it very unlikely that Mrs Fenn was out on the balcony, allegedly able to hear this, at a few minutes before midnight. Tuesday night was one of the colder nights that week, The air temperature at midnight was only about 10C to 13 C (50F to 57F). She was 81 years old, of an age where people generally turn in early. She is unlikely to have been out on the balcony at this time and I suggest that, if inside, she would have been unable to hear anyone arriving (unless e.g. they were shouting or talking very loudly) nor would she have heard a patio door being opened.

Finally, if it was just say the McCanns arriving back at 11.45pm, for what possible reason would they not both enter by the same door?

You then ask: "Is it possible that someone entered through the  ?locked door...someone they might not have wanted to be seen going into the apartment?"

This is adding speculation about third parties being sneakily admitted to the McCanns' apartment at 11.45pm - based on the claim that it was someone 'who might not have wanted to be seen going into the apartment'. I cannot see a valid argument that someone was somehow less likely to be seen entering the patio door than through the front door. It was 11.45pm, dark, and most people in Portugal would be safely tucked up on bed that time of night. 

We have significant evidence that Mrs Fenn's accounts of the crying and burglary incidents are untrue. I don't think that inventing a hypothetical third party sneaking in through another door at 11.45pm at the same time as a screaming child is yelling ever louder and louder 'Daddy, Daddy' after 75 minutes' continuous crying is going to rescue the overall improbabilities of Mrs Fenn's 'crying incident' ever having happened.