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

lj wrote:

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.

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?

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.

Pennylane wrote:  Immense effort by TM has gone into not only discrediting Mrs Fenn, but altering the date and flipping the damning occurrence upside down on its head. 

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:

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?

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.

ROB and JT are in the thick of whatever happened (imo) so their recollection of crying/unattended toddlers isn't likely to see any form of daylight.

I remain convinced the crying happened on 1st May as stated by Mrs Fenn to the police!  Immense effort by TM has gone into not only discrediting Mrs Fenn, but altering the date and flipping the damning occurrence upside down on its head. The crying Mrs Fenn heard on 1st May 2007 is major to this case (imo) and to what finally happened to little Maddie. Sadly I believe it was the beginning of the end........

Are you saying Tony, and other members of this forum, are TM then?

plebgate wrote:

No I am not.  We are debating and giving our opinion in the hope that some kind of sense can be made of it all, but up til now, no-one imo has shown that Mrs. Fenn was not genuine.

Doug D wrote:TB:
 
‘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. ‘
 
CM first met GM on 21^st May and left Portugal on about 10^th June on their return from Morocco.
 
Justine arrived on 22^nd June.
 
According to the bewk...

REPLY: Hmmm...

they ‘heard’ from CM on 8^th September and he rejoined the party on 17^th September.
 
Do we have any actual evidence of his involvement in June, July & August?

REPLY: I think Clarence Mitchell supplies it himself in his own boasting, most recently in his speech to the CommsCon conference in Australia. Richard hall produced a useful; 10-minute cut and analysis of his hour-long talk:   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw    ...and if you look say between 2 mins and 5 mins there are numerous references to his continual involvement with the media, there's a particularly useful quote on this at about 4 mins 55 secs.

I can't be sure of exactly when he was in England and when he was in Portugal, but there can surely be no doubt whatsoever that Mitchell, not McGuiness, was in charge throughout.  

I continue to suggest that one person placed those 'crying incident' and 'burglary' stories in the British press on 18th and 19th August - Clarence Mitchell. NOT Justine McGuiness     
 
I’ll have to start looking at the summer photos.

aquila wrote:Here's something to ponder on. Mrs Fenn states she heard a child crying for 75 minutes. This would be at a time of evening on a cold evening when her doors and windows would probably be closed due to cool temperature. Is it therefore correct to believe that Mrs Fenn was sitting in silence in her apartment i.e. no television or radio on? Was she sitting listening to a ticking clock whilst reading a book etc?

I ask this because elderly people in my experience have their televisions/radios on just that tad louder than younger folk. It would have to have been a helluva screaming session to be audible above a telly/radio even taking into account the cavern effect of a concrete building with ceramic floors - and add to that closed windows and doors.

There is something not quite right about this statement if for no other reason than it doesn't question what noise was going on in Mrs Fenn's apartment when she heard a child's cry.

aquila wrote:Here's something to ponder on. Mrs Fenn states she heard a child crying for 75 minutes. This would be at a time of evening on a cold evening when her doors and windows would probably be closed due to cool temperature. Is it therefore correct to believe that Mrs Fenn was sitting in silence in her apartment i.e. no television or radio on? Was she sitting listening to a ticking clock whilst reading a book etc?

I ask this because elderly people in my experience have their televisions/radios on just that tad louder than younger folk. It would have to have been a helluva screaming session to be audible above a telly/radio even taking into account the cavern effect of a concrete building with ceramic floors - and add to that closed windows and doors.

There is something not quite right about this statement if for no other reason than it doesn't question what noise was going on in Mrs Fenn's apartment when she heard a child's cry.

plebgate wrote:@Tony I have learned by now after having read Mrs Fenn's statement that it has been very basically translated.   We cannot go word by word of what is written.

REPLY: Really? So are you saying we don't know what she really said? So how do we know which parts have been 'properly' translated and which were only 'basically' translated.     

I believe she must have heard voices to suggest that "the parents" arrived. 

REPLY: She doesn't actually say that. Therefore it a matter of 'belief'.

Whether that was Mr. & Mrs. or someone else with one or other of them we do not know.

REPLY: If it was anyone at all.

I do not think where any of the children were comes into my question of whether it was possible that someone could have used the key and then let someone else in via the patio doors.

REPLY: But the issue of where the children were comes into something much more fundamental. If they were all being cared for in one place, for which there is evidence, then Mrs Fenn's evidence is false. And of course if something serious happened to Madeleine on the Sunday or Monday, as some think, then even if a child was crying, it could not have been Madeleine.     

Although you say it is highly improbable in my opinion it is still quite possible that could have happened as there is no evidence to show that it didn't.

REPLY: There is most certainly evidence that the crying incident did not happen; I have put together pages of it on the forum. It is of course a matter of judgment as to how persuasive that evidence is. Some are persuaded by it. Others (probably in the majority at the moment) are not persuaded by it. 

You say I make assumptions,

REPLY: No, I did not say that. I was quite clear in saying that your suggestion of a third party entering the patio door was speculation without evidence, not an assumption. Speculation and assumptions are two very different things. It is quite all right to make working assumptions so long as there is a basis for them and people explain what they are. My problem with speculation e.g. about a third party entering the patio door is that it is without evidence, without foundation.     
  
well everyone is and we are making assumptions on things that do not flow when broken down line by line.   Therefore we have to try and make an overall judgement of what MIGHT have happened.  

REPLY: Agreed. Which is what we are all trying to do here. In difficult circumstances, considering the degree of lying and obfuscation which has taken place in this case!  

Putting different bits and pieces together to me at least my scenario does make sense and might well have happened. Until someone shows me that it didn't I don't think anyone can say that Mrs. Fenn was not genuine.

REPLY: We have made different judgments on the same set of available facts.

I believe the PJ knew that without a reconstruction no-one would make sense of any of it.

Tony Bennett wrote:

plebgate wrote:@Tony I have learned by now after having read Mrs Fenn's statement that it has been very basically translated.   We cannot go word by word of what is written.

REPLY: Really? So are you saying we don't know what she really said? So how do we know which parts have been 'properly' translated and which were only 'basically' translated.  

I am saying we know what she read re. the crying incident - what we don't know is the questions (and we know questions were put) were asked and what part of those quesitons are missing (if any)  

I believe she must have heard voices to suggest that "the parents" arrived. 

REPLY: She doesn't actually say that. Therefore it a matter of 'belief'.

Exactly my point in my replies.

Whether that was Mr. & Mrs. or someone else with one or other of them we do not know.

REPLY: If it was anyone at all.

Exactly
I do not think where any of the children were comes into my question of whether it was possible that someone could have used the key and then let someone else in via the patio doors.

REPLY: But the issue of where the children were comes into something much more fundamental. If they were all being cared for in one place, for which there is evidence, then Mrs Fenn's evidence is false. And of course if something serious happened to Madeleine on the Sunday or Monday, as some think, then even if a child was crying, it could not have been Madeleine.  

Mrs. Fenn did not say it was Maddie crying.   There may be some evidence going on the statements but there again without a reconstruction we simply do not know.

Although you say it is highly improbable in my opinion it is still quite possible that could have happened as there is no evidence to show that it didn't.

REPLY: There is most certainly evidence that the crying incident did not happen; I have put together pages of it on the forum. It is of course a matter of judgment as to how persuasive that evidence is. Some are persuaded by it. Others (probably in the majority at the moment) are not persuaded by it.

Exactly we have to go with our own opinions

You say I make assumptions,

REPLY: No, I did not say that. I was quite clear in saying that your suggestion of a third party entering the patio door was speculation without evidence, not an assumption. Speculation and assumptions are two very different things. It is quite all right to make working assumptions so long as there is a basis for them and people explain what they are. My problem with speculation e.g. about a third party entering the patio door is that it is without evidence, without foundation. 

Specualtion like everyong else is speculating!  
  
well everyone is and we are making assumptions on things that do not flow when broken down line by line.   Therefore we have to try and make an overall judgement of what MIGHT have happened.  

REPLY: Agreed. Which is what we are all trying to do here. In difficult circumstances, considering the degree of lying and obfuscation which has taken place in this case!  

Putting different bits and pieces together to me at least my scenario does make sense and might well have happened. Until someone shows me that it didn't I don't think anyone can say that Mrs. Fenn was not genuine.

REPLY: We have made different judgments on the same set of available facts.

I believe the PJ knew that without a reconstruction no-one would make sense of any of it.

aquila wrote:I don't find Mrs. Fenn's statement any more credible than Nuno Lorenko's or Jane Tanner's. I'm sorry if that offends people on the forum but there's absolutely nothing I can see whereby Mrs. Fenn has been questioned in depth by the PJ. I find it all grist to the mill and that mill is a PR powerhouse with a lot of high profile government bods and the removal of Goncalo Amaral.

pennylane wrote:

aquila wrote:Here's something to ponder on. Mrs Fenn states she heard a child crying for 75 minutes. This would be at a time of evening on a cold evening when her doors and windows would probably be closed due to cool temperature. Is it therefore correct to believe that Mrs Fenn was sitting in silence in her apartment i.e. no television or radio on? Was she sitting listening to a ticking clock whilst reading a book etc?

I ask this because elderly people in my experience have their televisions/radios on just that tad louder than younger folk. It would have to have been a helluva screaming session to be audible above a telly/radio even taking into account the cavern effect of a concrete building with ceramic floors - and add to that closed windows and doors.

There is something not quite right about this statement if for no other reason than it doesn't question what noise was going on in Mrs Fenn's apartment when she heard a child's cry.

You could hear the TV in the apartment next door to my mums, as the lounges were right next to each other.  Before that Mum used to live in a flat below another, and then you could hear a heck of a lot more, even the couple arguing and slamming doors, etc.

My most recent stay in a hotel is I could hear the TV in the next room, and definitely the shower turning on. This was night and morning, as I was out during the day, as were most people.

dottyaussie wrote:As far as the crying being on the Tuesday night we have touched on it actually being Kate. This would be reasonable as it could be that MBM, as some of us believe, had already umm gone by this point. Already grieving Kate was now really peeved off as Gerry was ignoring her and flirting with Ms Chekaya. Kate leaves the table in a huff around 10.15 pm makes a few calls either on her way back to the apartment or at the apartment. After talking to her friend she has a massive meltdown. Gerry returns at 11.45 pm and she lets him in through the patio doors. 

REPLY: Ingenious speculation, but it hardly fits Mrs Fenn's carefully worded description of 'the sound of a child crying that was older than a baby of two years', does it? - and screaming 'Daddy, Daddy'?

The tapas lot say it was Wed night they had the late night, if we move this to Tues that would fit.

REPLY: Another example of a clear contradiction, but evidentially we can't just 'swap' these dates around. This is clear evidence of a series of false, fabricated statements being made by various people about all events from Sunday lunchtime onwards. 

On another note regarding the illnesses, if Russell was so ill on the Tuesday why was Jane bringing his meals to him?

REPLY: In all probability, both are untrue. He wasn't ill. He didn't have any meals brought to him. 

plebgate wrote:Press reports again but Hi-de-Ho has been told she cannot go on press reports.