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

Tony if we take away the statements as you seem to be saying that we can't believe ANYTHING anyone has said about the whole week and then take away the media stories because they are also untrue. Take away the books, the videos.
What do we have left ? Nothing.
So what do we use to establish what happened? Because once you discount all of the above the only thing left is that fact MBM disappeared.

That is it. A girl disappeared on 4th May 2007. The end.

This is so unbelievably complicated! Is anyone else really struggling to follow all the theories?

Could reality EVER be this convoluted?

The logical side of my brain tells me, that if a child had died accidentally or otherwise, and for whatever reason her demise needed to be covered up, why not hire a car ASAP, tell everyone you were off to Meia Praia for the day and as soon as the chance arose, run to the lifeguard and report said child missing.

Only two hurdles to overcome, make it look as if you have 3 children when you get in the car next to apartment and when you arrive at the beach. Props required, one double buggy a pillow and two hats.

"We only took our eyes off her for a minute and she had disappeared" her parents told our reporter on the ground.

Things no longer required...

1. Pact of silence
2. Timeline written on the back of a colouring book
3. Apartment checking procedure
4. Robert Murat translation services
5. Mrs Fenn
6. Locked/unlocked front/patio doors
7. Payne visit
8. Faked creche records
9. Smith sighting
10. Tanner abductor man
11. Last fecking photo!
12. Jemmied shutters
13. Pretending to neglect your children night after night to allow for an 'abduction'.
14. The crime scene becoming... well, the crime scene
15. Forensics
16. A fridge/freezer
17. A blue sports bag
18. A spot chosen for concealment that requires a more permanent location
19. 48 Unanswered questions
20. Crying incident
21. Tea stain
22. Whooshing curtains
23. Leaving the twins alone to raise the alarm
24. Not searching
25. Substitute child for one/two/three/four days
26. The need to start a media frenzy
27 Clarence Mitchell :-)))
28. Confusion
29. Operation Grange
30. Tractor man/junkies/burglars

Etc etc etc

Could anyone, especially doctors, really be so obtuse as to choose a plan requiring this much bewildering intricacy.

I'm not even sure in the 'child goes missing from beach' scenario, cadaver dogs would have ever been deployed at the apartment complex. The searches would be concentrated far away from the possible scene of the crime/accident. No other parties needed to be involved/corrupted. They may have actually received universal sympathy and KM would now be heading the charity 'beachwatch'.

I'm sure, given another 5 minutes I could come up with many other equally simple plans.

I'm beginning to to get the feeling the actual answer will be so far out of left field it hasn't yet been considered?

aquila wrote:Slightly off topic here but there's one thing I'd really like to know and that is how Robert Murat became a translator and was involved in the case.

I'd like to know how the Portuguese police allowed Robert Murat in any capacity to translate - and when I say 'any capacity' I mean it. How was Robert Murat allowed to translate? Was it in some form of official capacity? if not, why wasn't there an official translator?

Hi 'aquila'

There are two entirely separate - and contradictory - accounts of how Robert Murat became the translator.

Version 1 - the one we are meant to believe - goes like this. Stephen Carpenter got up early on Friday 4th May. He went for a little walk. Her passed by Robert Murat's hedge. Murat heard him (must have been out in his garden). Having no idea of what happened (cough), he asked Carpenter, a bit like Eastenders: 'Wass going on?' (I think it was something like 'What were all those sirens about that I heard last night?'  Carpenter said: 'A 3-year-old British girl went missing last night'. To which Murat allegedly replied something like: 'Goodness gracious! How awful! And I have a daughter the same age. I must do something! Hey, I'm bilingual in English and Portuguese! Maybe I could offer to help. And so they went off to find the police and - hey presto! - Murat became the main translator. (How very convenient).

Version 2 - which has evidence to support it - is that an arrangement was made between the British ambassador and the police for Murat to become the main translator. Whether this happened before or after Madeleine was reported misisng is a moot point.

I wrote all of this up in a 122-page article about Robert Murat which I am not allowed to reproduce for legal reasons, and has been removed from the forum.

You can find Version 1 on CMOMM by searching under 'Carpenter'.

You might be able to find Version 2 by Googling something like: 'Murat', 'McCann', 'Translator', 'Ambassador'. If not, I will try and find what I wrote before and see if I can reproduce that part of my article - and will put it on the latest Robert Murat thread.

dottyaussie wrote:Tony if we take away the statements as you seem to be saying that we can't believe ANYTHING anyone has said about the whole week and then take away the media stories because they are also untrue. Take away the books, the videos.
What do we have left ? Nothing.
So what do we use to establish what happened? Because once you discount all of the above the only thing left is that fact MBM disappeared. That is it. A girl disappeared on 4th May 2007. The end.

I mean this kindly, and with great respect, but you could not be more wrong.

First of all, you have (I'm sure quite unintentionally) misrepresented what I said. 

I said that it becomes difficult to believe many of the witness statements where they deal with events after Sunday lunchtime. This is where IMO many fabrications, contradictions and evasions al begin. 

Next, I said nothing about 'taking away' media stories, books and videos. All of these may contain much relevant evidence but, from an evidence point of you, everything must be carefully checked, weighed and analysed.

Yes, I say we must look with considerable suspicion as to the accuracy of many witness statements dealing with events from Sunday lunchtime (29 April) to Thursday night (3 May). 

But look what a wealth of other material we have available to us. Just by way of example:

* Near certainty that the Last Photo was taken at Sunday lunchtime and that there are no other photos of Madeleine that week

* Evidence that the Tennis Balls Photo is not what it purports to be 

* The suspicious booking of the Tapas restaurant on the Sunday evening, with different reasons being given for who did the booking, when and why it was done etc.

* The late night ‘phone call to Robert Murat on the Sunday night asking him to ‘come quickly’

* The multiple lies told by Murat about what he was really doing in the three days leading up to the alarm being raised

* The damage done to the shutters by Gerry McCann on the Sunday, needing it to be repaired on the Monday

* Evidence (OK, I know it is disputed) that Mrs Fenn’s statement on 20 August 2007 was fabricated

* Absence of any proven photos of Madeleine after Sunday

* Evidence that the apartment may have been professionally cleaned before the alarm was raised

* Evidence that the children were not left on their own all week but were cared for by one or other of the Tapas 7

* The absence (as per Hideho’s post last year) of any convincing independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday night

* Multiple inconsistencies from many witnesses about the real events of that week, especially having regard to the McCanns’ own account of that week

* Clear evidence that Nuno Lourenco was deliberately primed to pin the abduction on Wojcheich Krokowski, an event that would have required detailed advance planning e.g. obtaining a photo of Krokowski’s hired car

* Clear evidence that Nuno Lourenco's claim that his child was 'nearly kidnapped' by Wojchiech Krokowski was fabricated

* Evidence that Jane Tanner's 'Tannerman' was also based on a description of Wojchiech Krokowski  

* Hairs of the same haplotype of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat being found at Krokowlsi’s Sol a Mar apartment

* The presence of the Director and his deputy of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised

* The unconvincing and vague evidence given by Cat Baker about what Madeleine was actually doing in the crèche all week

* The multiple contradictions in the evidence about the alleged ‘high tea’ at about 5pm-6pm on 3rd May

* The disturbing evidence published by Dr Martin Roberts that Madeleine’s pyjamas may have been photographed on a blue hessian background, similar to that of the settee in the McCanns’ apartment, before the alarm was raised

* The reference to the ‘brown tea stain’ and the very doubtful need to wash Madeleine’s pyjamas on the Thursday (3^rd May).


Here (and these are only some examples off the top of my head) we have an array of good quality raw material to enable us to make certain deductions about what really did happen that week

Tony Bennett wrote:

aquila wrote:Slightly off topic here but there's one thing I'd really like to know and that is how Robert Murat became a translator and was involved in the case.

I'd like to know how the Portuguese police allowed Robert Murat in any capacity to translate - and when I say 'any capacity' I mean it. How was Robert Murat allowed to translate? Was it in some form of official capacity? if not, why wasn't there an official translator?

Hi 'aquila'

There are two entirely separate - and contradictory - accounts of how Robert Murat became the translator.

Version 1 - the one we are meant to believe - goes like this. Stephen Carpenter got up early on Friday 4th May. He went for a little walk. Her passed by Robert Murat's hedge. Murat heard him (must have been out in his garden). Having no idea of what happened (cough), he asked Carpenter, a bit like Eastenders: 'Wass going on?' (I think it was something like 'What were all those sirens about that I heard last night?'  Carpenter said: 'A 3-year-old British girl went missing last night'. To which Murat allegedly replied something like: 'Goodness gracious! How awful! And I have a daughter the same age. I must do something! Hey, I'm bilingual in English and Portuguese! Maybe I could offer to help. And so they went off to find the police and - hey presto! - Murat became the main translator. (How very convenient).

Version 2 - which has evidence to support it - is that an arrangement was made between the British ambassador and the police for Murat to become the main translator. Whether this happened before or after Madeleine was reported misisng is a moot point.

I wrote all of this up in a 122-page article about Robert Murat which I am not allowed to reproduce for legal reasons, and has been removed from the forum.

You can find Version 1 on CMOMM by searching under 'Carpenter'.

You might be able to find Version 2 by Googling something like: 'Murat', 'McCann', 'Translator', 'Ambassador'. If not, I will try and find what I wrote before and see if I can reproduce that part of my article - and will put it on the latest Robert Murat thread.

It still doesn't explain why Robert Murat was a translator. The PJ were in charge of this case and allowed Murat to translate. It doesn't explain why the PJ allowed Murat to translate unless it was in an official capacity. Portugal isn't a third world country and neither is its policing methods. So why was Murat allowed to translate in anything other than an official capacity?

Murat then becomes arguido and benefits from well over half a million UK pounds in compensation from the UK press without a libel case being brought in front of a court (it's the McCann Machine/UK media way).

The PJ have a lot to explain.

Who or what ever has happened to Madeleine since she was reported as absent from her holiday home 3 May 2007,has had very close assistance in various capacities to obfuscate from the Truth and this involves an immense amount of time dedicated to keeping it from the public's perception,but why the need for this amount of secrecy. Who is so special for this amount of protection?

aquila wrote:

It still doesn't explain why Robert Murat was a translator. The PJ were in charge of this case and allowed Murat to translate. It doesn't explain why the PJ allowed Murat to translate unless it was in an official capacity. Portugal isn't a third world country and neither is its policing methods. So why was Murat allowed to translate in anything other than an official capacity?

Murat then becomes arguido and benefits from well over half a million UK pounds in compensation from the UK press without a libel case being brought in front of a court (it's the McCann Machine/UK media way).

The PJ have a lot to explain.

Robert Murat DID translate in an official capacity.

He was an accredited English-Portuguese police translator and had previously translated in that capacity for Norfolk Police whilst resident in that county. Norfolk has a lot of Portuguese immigrants and temporary workers.

The real point is that it was mightily convenient that he had rushed back to Portugal early on Tuesday 1 May.

Goncalo Amaral, as the initial investigation co-ordinator, may well never have heard of him.

Murat went up to meet the police in Praia da Luz at about breakfast time on Friday 4th May.

He probably told them something like: "Look, here I am, a qualified English-Portuguese translator, look, here's my accreditation".

Probably a senior inspector got Amaral on the blower and said: "Look, I've got a qualified translator here, shall we use him?"

Amaral probably agreed without hesitation, as it saved his staff having to ring round for translators.

Again, how very very convenient for Murat to be there that very morning

plebgate wrote:

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've long since abandoned any attempts at deciphering the Tapas lots rogatory interviews, a load of incoherent nonsense.  I can't get much beyond 'can you confirm your name' !!! 

Whatever, they didn't assist the investigation in any way did they?  Maybe it was the way they were conducted, allowing the interviewees freedom to consult their previous statements, correct thus causing greater confusion and by providing a casual 'tea and biscuit' ambience.

Mr Robert Murat was quickly summoned to return to Portugal 30 April/1 May 2007 on a pretext/mission on a Divorce,separation,but was he to become the"Official Patsy" of this case,"Did you Know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared,I'm not going to(Cough) comment on that!" quickly scurrying away with Clarence Mitchell present?

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 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?
 
I’ll have to start looking at the summer photos.

I think it's fairly clear that Clarence Mitchell was always in the background - an still is in my opinion.

Yes you are right Tony I didn't intend to misrepresent what you had said. I respect you and felt quite proud of your reply

Excellent and concise collection of so many contradictory statements about the events of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings - well done!
to one of my previous posts. It felt like I had just received a gold star 

Researching this involves a lot of hard work and having many tabs open at the same time lol. I'm not particularly computer literate so I tend to do things the 'old school' way - pen & paper, then condensing it into something fairly intelligent before then typing it up into a reasonable post after opening another tab to make sure my spelling is correct lol. One longish post could in fact take a good few hours and a lot of paper to do. I'm certain I won't be called on to be an ambassador for the 'Save The Trees'. This post in reply to you has taken nearly and hour so far !!

What I'm trying to say is that after all the hard work by a lot of people it really is deflating when theories are sometimes quite harshly written off rather than throwing in a little bit of positivity every now and then. I know from researching my family history for the last 20 odd years I can sometimes go back to that brick wall that was stopping me from moving forward a few years before, look at it with fresh eyes and voila the clue was there all along.

So as I do respect you I'm now going to research the points you made and see where that leads me too.

 to everyone on this great forum.

aquila wrote:Slightly off topic here but there's one thing I'd really like to know and that is how Robert Murat became a translator and was involved in the case.

I'd like to know how the Portuguese police allowed Robert Murat in any capacity to translate - and when I say 'any capacity' I mean it. How was Robert Murat allowed to translate? Was it in some form of official capacity? if not, why wasn't there an official translator?

ETA: Portugal isn't a third world country. It has a fairly large population of non-Portuguese and a crime rate that goes with that. So please someone tell me why Robert Murat was a translator for the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Please tell me why the Portuguese police didn't bring in an official translator - not the 'bloke from down the road'.

I've raised this issue myself in the past.  Even if Robert Murat carried around a certificate of accreditation, the chances of being so easily accepted as a translator in a criminal investigation hovers around zero.  From my experience, when an incident involving a British national occurs abroad, the local consulate will recommend a translator/s - which you pay for!

Did Robert Murat receive payment for his services or was it all done in the spirit of camaraderie?

Service Information document dated 11 May 2007 from Inspector Pedro Varanda relating to an informal conversation with Robert Murat

As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.

In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.

In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

The work [the DW interview] being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.

As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.
Before [faced with] such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always countered [ducked the questions], insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.

It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces [items being prepared for the case file] that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own consultation [hunch], in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.

Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden" (in which the events under investigation had taken place) and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had they agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the consummation of the present illegal act [the missing child] to foreign third parties [i.e. to put the blame on, or to attribute the blame to, outside foreigners].

The above being exposed [laid bare] - and without intending in any way to place in question the competence of the above individual, nor the slightest imputation that that [my suspicions] was what he wanted to be [actually intended to do] - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.11 May 2007


Inspector
Pedro Varanda

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

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. 

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

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

Yes, it has been suggested that the crying allegedly heard by Mrs Fenn was in fact Kate McCann.  What hasn't been suggested however, is how anyone could possibly mistake the difference between the cry of a three year old child to that of a grown woman.

Frankly I think the idea is preposterous.

Maybe we need to find a recording of Kate crying (highly unlikely) or go undercover and get one ourselves (again highly unlikely) haha

Verdi wrote:

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. 

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

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

Yes, it has been suggested that the crying allegedly heard by Mrs Fenn was in fact Kate McCann.  What hasn't been suggested however, is how anyone could possibly mistake the difference between the cry of a three year old child to that of a grown woman.

Frankly I think the idea is preposterous.

Ditto!

For those of us that believe the crying incident could have happened, lets not forget that Mrs Fenn was ALSO adjacent to Paynes apartment AND above Oldfields apartment..

Could it be possible the crying was coming from OLDFIELDS apartment?

Their little one was only a year old but Rachel has told us that she did bath Ella (Tanners older child, similar age to Maddie) on at least one occasion.

Could Ella have been crying in Oldfields apartment directly under Mrs Fenns apartment?

I'm confused - call me old fashioned but I find it weird that people other than the parents bathe children, especially with the Tapas lot who couldn't be bothered to do much with their kids on a holiday other than to park them off in creche activities, feed them junk at the end of the day, put them to bed and bugger orf  to have an 'adult' dinner/adult time.

There always seems to be this thing about bath-time and bed-time with the Tapas crew and I can't get my head around it. The Gaspars were concerned about bath-time too.

I think the time the crying was going on ,would have been a bit late forto be  bathing small kids ,most parents were at Tappas were, I think ?We just seem to be clutching at straws  maybe ? must say it gets more confusing by the weeks .joyce1938

@HDH, I think when you live in an apartment you become attuned to the source of noises, especially those above or below you.

You are not old fashioned at all. The surprising issue for me is that there is a group of them of "like minds". I also think that it is a bit odd for a group of any profession/trade to go on holiday together. I can`t think of anything more tedious than "talking shop", which it would probably descend to.

pennylane wrote:@HDH, I think when you live in an apartment you become attuned to the source of noises, especially those above or below you.

Resident, like Mrs Fenn, would become atuned to who was in each apartment and what was unusual.

HiDeHo wrote:For those of us that believe the crying incident could have happened, lets not forget that Mrs Fenn was ALSO adjacent to Paynes apartment AND above Oldfields apartment..

Could it be possible the crying was coming from OLDFIELDS apartment?

Their little one was only a year old but Rachel has told us that she did bath Ella (Tanners older child, similar age to Maddie) on at least one occasion.

Could Ella have been crying in Oldfields apartment directly under Mrs Fenns apartment?

Yes she could but not that time of night. Too late for bath time.
Children make a lot of noise. They shout,laugh, cry, bang doors clatter around. Their parents do too especially if joining in with rough play.  Yet the only sounds we hear about is a child crying for 75 minutes.
I think it was a child because Kate McCann says so. She knows a child cried and is trying to cover this up with what she says about the breakfast conversation.
It is strange though that there has not been any mention of any other child related noises from anyone.

HiDeHo wrote:For those of us that believe the crying incident could have happened, let's not forget that Mrs Fenn was ALSO adjacent to Paynes apartment AND above Oldfield's apartment... Could it be possible the crying was coming from OLDFIELD'S apartment?... Could Ella have been crying in Oldfield's apartment directly under Mrs Fenn's apartment?

Sorry @ HideHo   I just feel that the longer we go on accepting the crying incident as a fact, the more we will go off into ever-deeper realms of fantasy as we are doing.

On the last few pages of this thread, a variety of ingenious but IMO utterly improbable theories have been advanced because, to some, Mrs Fenn's 'crying incident' has been elevated into a kind of 'sacred cow', a fixed point which has become sacrosanct, and 'must be accepted'.

So we have had...

* It was Amelie

* It was Sean

* It was Kate crying 'Maddie'

* There was a strange third party who wanted to keep himself unknown and didn't want to be recognize, so he was let in through the patio door after the McCanns unlocked the front door.

Now we have: * It was Ella being looked after by the Oldfields!

---------

All of the effort to explain this alleged crying incident just ignores the most obvious difficulties about the entire tale, which, if I may summarise, include:

1. The improbability of a child crying continuously for 75 minutes with no-one else hearing it
2. The claim that only one child was crying
3. The unlikelihood of any young child crying ever more loudly for 75 minutes
4. The improbability of neither Mrs Fenn nor Mrs Glyn alerting anyone
5. The delay of 111 days before making a statement about it
6. No evidence whatsoever that she reported it earlier
7. The fact that the British papers were told by someone in advance what she was going to say
8. Mrs Fenn herself saying: 'It's all rubbish - ignore it'
9. The contrived attempt to implicate Madeleine: 'Crying of a young child not a baby of two years'  
10. The long list of contradictions about the burglary claim        
11. No evidence that an alleged burglary with 81-year-old Mrs Fenn trying to grab the burglar's ankle before leap[ing out of a first floor window as ever reported.

Nina wrote:

I think it was a child because Kate McCann says so. She knows a child cried and is trying to cover this up with what she says about the breakfast conversation.

The moment Gerry McCann was asked to give a more detailed account of the week's events (Thursday 10 May, less than a week after Madeleine was reported missing), he volunteered this to the police:

On the day that MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time, between 07H30 and 08H00. When they were having breakfast, MADELEINE addressed her mother and asked her "why didn't you come last night when SEAN and I were crying?" That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never spoken like this and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left without any explanation.

Yet we have no evidence whatsoever that Mrs Fenn (or anyone else) mentioned any 'crying incident' until the British press was full of it on Saturday 18 August and Mrs Fenn made a statement to the PJ about it (and an alleged burglary) two days later.

And the McCanns say it was Wednesday night and Mrs Fenn says it was Tuesday night.

How can we explain this?   

"Where were you when Sean and I cried last night"  "We had maintained the checking system."

So three lies there according to Mrs Fenn's police statement.  1) it wasn't last night; 2) only one child cried; and 3) they say they maintained the checking system!

That's pure McCann damage limitation before the spit hits the fan (imo). Such has been their m.o. from the get go.  There's probably more going on than we even know of, hence the very odd "soothing couple" story.