75 minutes of crying

It has been said that Madeleine and all the other children were not really left alone and that someone was with them every night and that the child checking system was just an excuse to be guilty of neglect rather than something worse.

I wonder why Madeleine was heard crying for 75 minutes by Mrs Fenn and what was happening to her. Why did her crying end abruptly? Is it thought that this is the night Madeleine died?

Donna wrote:It has been said that Madeleine and all the other children were not really left alone and that someone was with them every night and that the child checking system was just an excuse to be guilty of neglect rather than something worse.

I wonder why Madeleine was heard crying for 75 minutes by Mrs Fenn and what was happening to her. Why did her crying end abruptly? Is it thought that this is the night Madeleine died?

Hi Donna

Yes a child was heard, but people have only assumed it was Madeleine, it could have been any child. One thing for sure is, if all 3 McCann children had been left in that room, more than one child would have eventually been heard crying. But there was nothing else. One child, any child, could have been left there just to ensure that someone heard the cries, to back up their claims. We only have their claims that all of the children were left all alone. No third party can back these claims up and this is their problem.

"Why did the crying end abruptly"? A child left alone for that long finally sees someone they know, I'm quite sure they would have been absolutely relieved.

Is this the night Madeleine died? No. The phone calls and creche records show that it most likely happened on the 29th.

No disrespect to the memory of Mrs Fenn but does anyone know if she contacted Warner staff or anyone else at the time the crying was going on? I couldn't have stood it for 15 minutes, let alone 75.

Mrs Fenn called her friend about it, to which she replied she wasn't surprised. What is surprising is that Russell O'Brien was off sick that night two doors down and never mentioned any crying. But maybe he wasn't asked.

Have just posted this on discrepancy thread. Two totally different versions - Mrs Fenn's statement, and what Kate has allegedly written in the book




Pamela Fenn’s witness statement (20th August 2007):

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

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22H30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out "we have let her down" which she repeated several times, quite upset. She then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, she asked the father, GERRY, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to GERRY from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that when GERRY said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered GERRY help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22H30.

Mrs Fenn has no reason to lie.

Kate’s account (page 75):

Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.

Remarkable memory for detail considering this is supposed to have happened at the height of Kate’s emotional state when memories generally become foggy and blurred.

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

Something that als might be attributed to the Australian wine and some more.

Mrs Fenn puts the conversation at 10.30 - Kate Mccann puts it at 11pm - maybe the lady on the balcony was not Mrs Fenn, but from a different apartment? The conversations don't match either. Rather rude of Mrs Mccann though.

rose58 wrote:Mrs Fenn called her friend about it, to which she replied she wasn't surprised. What is surprising is that Russell O'Brien was off sick that night two doors down and never mentioned any crying. But maybe he wasn't asked.

Maybe he wasn't really staying 2 doors down. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We are led to believe he was in G5D, which is a T1, 1 bed apartment. According to the OC paperwork.

But according to Jane Tanner, they were staying in a 2 bed, similar to the McCann's apartment. If she is telling the truth, they cannot have been staying in G5D !!

Yes Stella, it was three doors down, not two. From the Mark Waner booking in sheets you can see they asked for a one bedroomed apartment. How do you know whether 5D was one or two bedroomed? Did Jane Tanner say in one of her interviews they had a two bedroomed apartment? Sorry, I've veered off topic now.

It's still a mystery how a child in the flat below or even in a neighbouring flat was crying for so long, and not one of the Tapas Group said anything about it.

rose58 wrote:Yes Stella, it was three doors down, not two. From the Mark Waner booking in sheets you can see they asked for a one bedroomed apartment. How do you know whether 5D was one or two bedroomed? Did Jane Tanner say in one of her interviews they had a two bedroomed apartment? Sorry, I've veered off topic now.

Hi rose, you can read in full on this thread in our library. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you look down the OC lists for O'Brien's apartment, G5D. You will see under "tipo" (type) it says a T1, which is a 1 bedroom.

Thanks Stella.

Apologies for resurrecting this topic but just been reading Textusa and gleaned a few points.

In the period of time that the crying incident took place - nearly two hours - the other Tapas must have been checking their children. If they were doing so, at least three times one or two people would have passed 5a and the window twice.
So how come no one alerted the McCanns that non stop crying came from 5a?

The crying, if it could be heard by Mrs. Fenn and taking into consideration the paper-thin walls might also be picked up on the Payne's baby monitor.
But there's no two ways about it, there was no checking or there was checking only by the hard-of-hearing or hard-of-understanding.

If the crying incident is set into the context of the other people supposedly present it makes no sense at all. As an earlier post here points out, if one child cried, it would not be alone for long before other children joined in.

Tigger, I've registered that long time ago. It IS/or SEEMS the ultimate proof of neglect. With neglect over such extended times, "abduction"would have been possible. In early days I went into this and other directions: WAW, accident on the road, picked up by good/bad meaning passers-by, etc. My direction changed, rather fixed, when we got word that cadaver dogs hit in their apartment, their holiday villa, their rented car and their clothes & belongings. And nowhere else ... And IMO "the" crying could have been triggered by a variety of causes.

Châtelaine wrote:Tigger, I've registered that long time ago. It IS/or SEEMS the ultimate proof of neglect. With neglect over such extended times, "abduction"would have been possible. In early days I went into this and other directions: WAW, accident on the road, picked up by good/bad meaning passers-by, etc. My direction changed, rather fixed, when we got word that cadaver dogs hit in their apartment, their holiday villa, their rented car and their clothes & belongings. And nowhere else ... And IMO "the" crying could have been triggered by a variety of causes.

I agree with your post, all of it.

It is certainly very strange.
With no checking they could have given a window of opportunity of anything they wanted, up to about two hours.
With checking and the detailed statements from GM, JT and JW, they give a window of opportunity of 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Not enough to soft boil a quail's egg, let alone get in, sedate three children, select one, pick her up, turn her round, and get out again before parading her in front of her own father and other reliable witnesses.

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

These are two useful videos. Old news to many of us, but this topic remains a puzzle that can be solved imo.

Rectification on an earlier post of mine, I stated 'nearly two hours of crying' when the title here is quite exact.

I thought I'd just put a few more relevant posts in, so that a certain amount of information is in one place.

By Dr Martin Roberts
02 July 2010



[size=9]A CRYING SHAME

Just when you think there's nothing more to add, that all of the inconsistencies have been thrashed out like grouse from the undergrowth, up pops another. Admittedly it's not totally new inasmuch as the topic in general has long since come to the media's, and hence public attention. However, the emergence of one extra, small, yet significant detail makes the overall picture just that little bit clearer.

For an en passant remark, adjudged (and so nearly dismissed) as whimsical, Madeleine McCann's question to her parents about why they didn't come when she was crying, must rank as one of the most widely reported quotes to have emerged from the McCann family's Portuguese holiday. It was reported by the McCanns themselves in their 'one year on' documentary of 30 April, 2008, and in their interview with Dermot Murhaghan for Sky News a day later.
( both videos are listed in the post above) Further back in time it was repeated by Kate to Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Jayne Tanner on the evening of May 3, 2007 and by Kate and Gerry independently to the Portuguese police on the occasion of their initial interviews, as revealed by an apparent 'leak' to the media after a year had elapsed.

The bruhaha this 'leak' created when first reported arose on account of there being two implications entailed by the comment in question. The McCann stance was that the question was considered, with the benefit of hindsight, to be of potential significance, suggesting as it did that something or someone made Madeleine cry the night before she was reported missing. The alternative implication to be brought to the fore however was that Madeleine's crying, and hence Madeleine herself, was unattended for some time. This was the unspoken accusation which the McCanns' champion, Clarence Mitchell, stentoriously defended them against when answering questions put by to him by Anna Jones of Sky News, on 11 April, 2008. Clarence very helpfully confirmed that Rachael Oldfield, who happened to be in her own (adjoining) apartment that Wednesday night, heard no crying whatsoever, so slight and transient it must have been. When one considers that the partition walls within the Ocean Club complex are sufficiently insubstantial as to have allowed the Oldfields to hear their immediate neighbours in the shower, it seems rather to have been a case of 'silence is golden', i.e. Rachael Oldfield heard no crying, because there was no crying.

Already there is a chink in the curtains here. Had Madeleine been crying on the Wednesday night she would undoubtedly have been heard by Rachael Oldfield nearby, just as certainly as infant crying from 5A was heard by Mrs Fenn, resident in the apartment above, on the Tuesday night. And those episodes of retelling in hindsight? They took place at the dinner table on Thursday night, i.e. before Madeleine's absence had been noted. That is not hindsight at all, but foresight, the all-important observation being made to friends first, the police afterwards (by both parents on 4 May, Gerry again on 10 May, Kate once more on 6 September and Gerry on the 7th).

We see this particular chink widening further, with the uncovering of a witness statement by Leicestershire Police Officer Stephen Markley, made on 25 April, 2008, in relation to his activities as family communication officer while working in Portugal with the McCanns. The key aspect (for present purposes) of his statement is as follows:

"However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

"One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening."

There is something distinctly unsettling about the McCanns' various bouts of selective amnesia in relation to events surrounding their daughter's as yet unexplained absence from apartment 5A (an unsubstantiated hypothesis, even one of abduction, is not an explanation). When interviewed for Spanish broadcaster Antena 3 they were each unable to offer up any recollection of their last sighting of Madeleine. And yet they attached such importance to one off-hand comment by her, a comment latterly reported as having no importance at all for the child herself, that they repeated it to several friends, and then, on several occasions, the Portuguese Police. They have, as we know from the intervention of their professional mouthpiece, vigorously refuted the implication of child abandonment, whilst publicly expressing the view that it is the implication of some unidentified intruder which drove them to alert the PJ to Madeleine's unusual tale of crying. These are the obvious alternatives. But there is a third, rather less obvious motive to consider; one which might offer a more convincing justification for the McCanns seeking to 'over-egg the pudding' than their calling attention to the possibility of prowlers in a sleepy holiday complex.

On the face of it there's nothing unusual about the McCanns 'wanting the PJ to be aware' of Madeleine's revelation concerning the Wednesday night. It's only when this desire is set against the fact that they had already (4 May) twice told the PJ themselves about the incident, that their request to Officer Markley on the 5th appears overly insistent.

It is noteworthy that, in terms of recollection, Wednesday 2 May in Praia da Luz represents something of a 'black hole' as far as the McCanns and their friends are concerned. We might then ask ourselves this question: As a bare minimum, what does Madeleine's mention of her being unattended confirm? Simply that she was able to refer to it subsequently. If 'the night before' is assumed to have been the Wednesday then the conversation in question can only have taken place on the Thursday morning, and Madeleine was in a position to be 'taken' that night. But there was no crying on the Wednesday to speak of, so why would Madeleine have spoken about it? Or are we to suppose she was referring to the Tuesday? (I ask you, does a 3/4 - year-old carry such issues forward over 30 hours? Certain adolescents of my acquaintance have difficulty in remembering something for 30 minutes).

What stands out most from this determination to bring Madeleine's transient unease to everyone's attention, is that Madeleine herself is portrayed as having drawn attention to it, on the Thursday, from which one is invited to conclude that she must have been in a position so to do - on the Thursday. Hence, verbal 'signs of life', promulgated, of course, by the McCanns, as was the untruth about 'jemmied shutters.'

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

Kate and Gerry's phone activity on that day.
Gerry had none at all. But Kate's mobile use is interesting. Remember the crying began at around 20.30 - which could also be right after the last call.
Lasted until 23.45.
Between 20.31 and 20.37 Kate has four phone calls in rapid succession.
Between 22.16 and 22.27 Kate has six phonecalls in very rapid succession. It has been stated elsewhere that she was in the apartment 5a during the last six calls.

KM
01-May
10.16
11.56
12.17
19.45
20.31
20.33
20.35
20.37
22.16
22.23
22.23
22.24
22.25
22.27 (Crying starts at 22.30sh)

In this video (about halfway - the same interview as above) Gerry interrupts Kate, saying that they can't say too much..... 'there was one night when Madeleine came through - and one of the twins was crying') ????

This video from Hideho needs the volume turning down at the start!

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

Yet another nugget is that both Fiona Payne and Jane Tanner say that Madeleine and one of the twins were crying. Possibly, although I haven't checked, this is in the rogatory interviews.
If that is the case, then imo that was one of the many things sorted during the Rothley Meeting in November.

The other report, that Maddie had told her mother on the night of the 2nd that 'she'd had the best day ever' is also supported by the Tapas 7 in the rogatory interviews. Suddenly, about 11 months after the event, they all feel that the 3rd of May was the best day of the holiday.
Another item on the Rothley agenda?

It has always interested me that the Rothley meeting was in the hotel / pub / Masonic Lodge
The McCanns have a decent sized house, with a dining room and drawing room certainly big enough for 9.
So how many were there, and why did they not want it in their own home ?

PeterMac wrote:It has always interested me that the Rothley meeting was in the hotel / pub / Masonic Lodge
The McCanns have a decent sized house, with a dining room and drawing room certainly big enough for 9.
So how many were there, and why did they not want it in their own home ?

We seem to have quite a number of the agenda points but yes, why not their own house? Or somewhere less obvious than this particular venue.
The meeting, under both Portuguese and British law, whilst they were still named suspects would essentially be illegal as they would be conferring with possible witnesses.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:It has always interested me that the Rothley meeting was in the hotel / pub / Masonic Lodge
The McCanns have a decent sized house, with a dining room and drawing room certainly big enough for 9.
So how many were there, and why did they not want it in their own home ?

We seem to have quite a number of the agenda points but yes, why not their own house? Or somewhere less obvious than this particular venue.
The meeting, under both Portuguese and British law, whilst they were still named suspects would essentially be illegal as they would be conferring with possible witnesses.

And since we know that immediately after the meeting CM was able to reassure the public that the two were NOT going to change their statements, we may wonder about substituting another word for "conferring".

Pressure? Blackmail?
IMO and have no idea, who it may have been and how, etc. ...

But things happened at that meeting. It was in Nov 2007.
They had no idea that in July 2008 all the statements would be put in the public domain.
They had no idea that what Dianne Webster and Fiona Payne had said about sedating the children (and she, an anaesthetist ! ! !) would become public knowledge, even if they already knew. Or that what they had said to Police officers of various nations - similarly.
They had no idea that the exact timings of Gerry's visit and then Tanner's "sighting" would be available for people to compare and contrast and calculate down to the nearest 1 minute and 20 seconds.
They probably still thought that vague stuff about not having watches (CM - April 2008 - remember) would still wash.
And their spin doctor and and their respective lawyers probably thought the same, and let them carry on.
They still had no idea that the Zapata case would rebound so dramatically against them ( which incidentally makes it entirely another mystery why Kate should bang on about it in her book, and why no lawyer would tell her to shut up and change the subject ! !)
And so on.

In their position I might now be contemplating an action against the lawyers and spin doctors for gross negligence.