Re: 10 REASONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT PAMELA FENN DID NOT HEAR ANY CHILD CRYING ON TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007

by Guest 13.05.19 22:43

Pamela Fenn's witness statement - 20th August 2007

She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below.

At about 23.45, 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....

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.
That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying.

So alarmed was Pamela Fenn about the incident, it didn't occur to her to mention it to the police during their routine door to door inquiries - instead she waited for over three months? If Pamela Fenn had mentioned the incident to the police following the incident, they would most certainly have been interested.

There were other guests accommodated around apartment 5a, didn't anyone else hear a child crying hysterically?

Something doesn't add up.

by Phoebe 14.05.19 0:29

We have no way of knowing what Mrs Fenn did or did not tell the police when they first spoke to her. There is no information whatsoever about the content of this informal questioning. She may well have mentioned hearing a child cry two days before the "abduction" occurred. It wouldn't be immediately pertinent to a crime which occurred two days later, nor would it help the police in their investigation of Tannerman or Krowkoski which was their immediate concern after Madeleine vanished.
They did not formally question the Moyes, who were also in residence on that night, but they were interested in speaking to Mrs Fenn again formally. Obviously, they felt she had useful information, although she had nothing to tell them about the night of the "abduction".
Martin Grime arrived with Eddie and Keela on July 30th '07 and carried out their examination of 5A on July 31st. Their findings changed the course of the investigation and led Dr. Amaral and his team to suspect that Madeleine had died, possibly as a result of a fall from the back of the sofa. In this scenario, a witness who could testify that the children were NOT all safely sound asleep during their parent's nightly Tapas meals (as was claimed by the McCanns) was certainly of interest as the police began to pursue this angle of investigation. It makes sense that they would THEN ask Mrs. Fenn to make a formal statement which would confirm this.

by Guest 14.05.19 1:06

You just make it up as you go along don't you Phoebe.

I really can't be bothered with your constant baseless rambling. I'll leave you to it, it's all an unnecessary distraction and I've got more important things to attend to.

by Guest 14.05.19 17:20

Question number 11 - to add to the 10 REASONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT PAMELA FENN DID NOT HEAR ANY CHILD CRYING ON TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007

Why didn't the child crying within apartment 5a, presumed to have been Madeleine, wake the other two children said to be in the same room/apartment?

A three year old crying loudly and expressively, as described by Pamela Fenn, would almost certainly be heard in the immediate vicinity but there is no record of any witness to verify the claim - what then of the twins? Why were they not disturbed by the loud expressive crying coming from the same apartment they were allegedly sleeping?

If the child crying was Madeleine, as implied by Mr Fenn in her statement given on 20th August 2007, logic dictates she couldn't have been sedated so surely it can't be assumed that the twins were sedated but not Madeleine. Were they even there?

Mrs Fenn states that the crying ceased when the parents returned to the apartment, this cannot be taken as evidence as there is no way she could have known it was the parents returning, she is presuming. She heard the patio door open-close, she must therefore have known that the McCanns left their children in an unlocked apartment every night - or at least on the night of the alleged crying incident. It could have been anyone entering or leaving the apartment, yet it didn't occur to Mrs Fenn to mention it to the police during their routine door to door inquiries?

I don't believe the McCanns left their three children unattended every night, let alone in an apartment with an unlocked door, nor do I believe the story of the crying incident as reported over three months later by resident Pamela Fenn.

Just why would any parent in their right mind, leave a child or children alone in an unlocked apartment?

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye

by Phoebe 15.05.19 0:03

As parents know, some children are capable of sleeping through all manner of noise and commotion. At night in countries like Spain and Portugal etc. it is quite common to see children remain fast asleep in buggies while parents eat at outdoor restaurants, go to "midnight markets" or watch parades etc. during fiesta time. One of my own children was like this. He managed to sleep through a crowded festival with a firework display, cannon fire and a noisy throng on two successive occasions - and he wasn't even in a buggy - he just stretched out on the seating, fell sound asleep and didn't awaken even when being carried home.
The Moyes were not in residence IIRC on May 1st and next door to the McCann apartment were the Oldfields then the O' Briens who were down at the Tapas bar. Mrs. Fenn was the sole resident in situ near enough to hear crying coming from directly beneath her. It was off season and there were few people around. It was also quite late with the crying only beginning at 10.30 p.m.
Again, we have NO Idea what Mrs Fenn did or did not mention to police during her initial questioning. To state that she did or did not mention something is speculation.

by **Silentscope** 08.11.23 18:34

Has anyone noticed the following from Jane Tanners and Fiona Payne' Statements that contradicts the one possibly written for Mrs Fenn?

1. Jane Tanner
Questioned about an episode where she related that one of the twins, Sean, and MBM (both children of GM and KH), had cried in the night (the one prior to the events) she said she knew of that situation but only from the beginning of dinner on 3 May when KH commented at the table that MBM had, that morning, asked the reason why her parents had not come to the bedroom when she and her brother had cried (the previous night). Asked, she says that none of the adults were aware of that situation on the night that it supposedly occurred.

Source: https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

So, not Tuesday Night but WEDNESDAY?

Did Kate perhaps inadvertantly, tell Jane the truth, and it was later changed by someone else to Tuesday night?

Fenn Statement says 22:30 up to 23:45 on Tuesday Night was the Crying, and that she phoned Glynn after 23:00!

2. Fiona Payne
It seems that Fiona Payne also heard this conversation, and sounds a little confused ???? Even though the Interviewing Officer tells her it was Tuesday!

1485
'Alright. Do you recall on the Tuesday night, I believe, Madeleine crying or somebody from the McCANN's apartment crying''

(WHY does 1485 believe this?)

Reply
'I thought that was Wednesday night.
You see, I mean, I only knew about that because on Thursday night Kate had said, erm, as we were chatting at the table 'Oh', you know, 'I wonder', you know, 'what', 'what she cried about' or, you know, she'd asked Madeleine, erm, because I think Madeleine had said something 'Where were you mummy, me and Sean cried' and, you know, 'where were you' and that had obviously worried Kate and she couldn't get anything more out of Madeleine, Madeleine had sort of moved on and, you know, didn't say anything more than that and wouldn't say, you know, whether she'd heard anything or been woken up or whether she had just woken up herself'

1485
'Yeah'.

Reply
'So that was on her mind'.

1485
'Right. So Kate told you that that happened on the Wednesday''

Reply
'Well she told me about it on the Thursday'.

1485
'Told you on the Thursday, yeah'.

Reply
'So, yeah, thinking now, I just was thinking it was the Wednesday night'.

00.12.42
1485
'But you can't remember whether she said it was Wednesday night that it happened''

Reply
'No, I can't say that she said it was the night before'.

1485
'Right'.

Reply
'But I know I heard about it on the Thursday night when we were sat, sat down'.

1485
'Did you hear any shouting or crying at all''

Reply
'No'.

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

Not to mention Payne uses the same Phrases as Gerry about it being like Dining in your back Garden. She seems to have been instructed by Gerry, or follows his phrasing?
Or is Gerry following hers?

I find the leading Questions and Two different persons saying it was Wednesday night most intrueging...

by Guest 08.11.23 19:36

nothing new in that, pamela fenn could tell only about tuesday evening, she was not home on the wednesday evening.

but i can see the other friends got questions about it, because of kate het story of 'why didn't you come, when we, or sean, or every other combination of the mccann children cried.

so if jane and fiona got a story out about wednesday evening, it was not a question that could be used to tell anything about what pamela fenn had stated.

that 'crying, not there story always is placed by kate at thursday morning at breakfast time. it must be even in some video's retold. wasn't one at the oprah show(???), and another in the jon corner interview.

it could shown some light onto the sleeping habits of the children, that would not been as good, as was suggested.

and there is even another one, gerry told they started to use the patio sliding door, because they did not want to risk to wake the children up. that too could be a sign, they had been not the good and sound sleepers they portrayed them.

and it is quite a riddle, that children who have supposedly told they have waken up, that same girl already had come during the night to her parents bedroom because one of the twins or both had been making noise, that would easily could get to be woken by using a front door, but twins who slept trough all conundrum late evening may 3, 2007.

when we have to believe windows had been openend and closed again, shutters opened and closed, and tried at least by 2 people, gm and diane. lights on and of, strangers in the bedroom looking for madeleine. crying and shouting parents, one even who was aggressive to a headboard and other stuff. blowing curtains.

so yes, i can understand the pj had a lot of questions about that. and mostly about sleeping patterns of the 3 children. but also who could hear something.

i can understand from all these opponent stories about the sleeping habits of the mccann 3 children, the pj got to look for signs and got idea's about the use of sedation.

again, just one of many of the cakes, you can not have and eat it.

by Guest 09.11.23 13:02

There were two crying episodes - allegedly, one on Tuesday night as Pamela Fenn witnessed and one on Wednesday night.

I think for obvious reasons the investigating police would have singled out the Wednesday night episode during the witness questioning because it preceded the reported disappearance time frame.

Kate McCann's witness statement - 6th September 2007

When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding this night [Wednesday] she says that none of the children cried, she would have noticed as she was in the room. Regarding the fact that Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room, she presumes that this crying must have been before she and Gerry returned to the apartment. When she asked Madeleine about this however, the child gave no importance to the matter. On this night they also checked on the children every half hour; however she thinks that 45 minutes had gone by from the time of the last check to when they arrived, as exceptionally they went to the Tapas bar. On this day she thinks that Gerry arrived at the apartment around 23:50 and she arrived 5 minutes afterwards. She went to sleep in Madeleine's room 15/20 minutes afterwards. Before this she spent a few minutes in her bed next to Gerry's.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.23 14:34

Point 7 of my 10 Reasons was this:

7. In any event, Mrs Fenn’s account of contacting Mrs Glyn about the crying appears to conflict with the account of a police officer, who testified that Robert Murat had said that ‘some foreign woman’ had ’phoned him up on the night of the ‘crying incident’

It is clear that there was a lot of 'talk' about a 'crying incident' but it is not at all clear that there was a 'crying incident'.

I beiieve that the very first reference to a 'crying incident' was the one above i.e. Robert Murat's call to the police officer about 'some foreign woman', which we now know to be Pamela Fenn.

I believe this came before the McCanns invented the story about Madeleine crying 'the night before' saying, "Why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying".

No wonder all the stories about the crying incident couldn't settle on whether it was Tuesday or Wednesday night.

A bit like the alleged 'tennis balls photo' - Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, take your pick!

Or Madeleine kicking a football to and fro with Louie for an hour by the pool Wednesday, when it was claimed that the pool photo was on Thursday, when in fact Petermac proved it was taken on Sunday.

And so on.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When we practice to deceive" - Shakespeare

It would be great if there were still enough researchers on the forum to go looking at all the mentions of the alleged 'crying incident' in chronological order.

But I don't think there are

by Guest 09.11.23 16:08

5-Processos Vol V Pages 1344 to 1345

TRANSLATION BY INES
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1344
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1344
Witness Statement

Date: 2007/05/16

Paolo Jorge Carvaihosa da Costa

Occupation: GNR Officer

He has been a GNR officer since 1996. He is a soldier and works at the Lagos GNR post.

On 3rd May when he was at home, he was contacted by the GNR post commander who asked him to go to P da L.

He arrived at the OC at 00.05 on 4th May having contacted his colleague Nelson Costa who informed him about the situation.

After having been informed ha began to search the perimeter of the tourist complex. First he revised the perimeter alone and was later accompanied by Officer Pimentel. During his time on the scene he did not talk to anyone.

Neither did he enter the apartment from which Madeleine had disappeared. There many people at the scene but nobody particularly drew his attention.

When asked he said that he never saw Robert Murat in all the times he visited the scene.

He does remember however, that on a day he cannot recall, an individual who identified himself as Robert, saying that he was in P da L as a translator helping the PJ, phoned the Lagos post saying:

That some foreign women, who had already been interviewed by the police, had phoned him, telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them.es
No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

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

I can't see anything untoward here, looks quite straightforward to me.

It can't reasonably be said PeterMac 'proved' the poolside photograph was not taken on 3rd May 2007, an indication it was not taken at the said time but that does not constitute proof.

In my view there's nothing to be gained by anyone drawing up a chronological list of the various accounts relating to the crying incident/s, although it shouldn't be difficult, there being only a handful of people whose statements have been recorded - all of which are witness interviews in answer to questions posed by the presiding police officer.

I'm in no doubt the official investigation conducted by the Portuguese police would have picked-up on any anomalies.

They did thoroughly investigate Robert Murat but found no evidence with which to build a case.

I will just add, Pamela Fenn has since died, it's not very fair on her memory nor her family to make unfounded allegations against her.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.23 16:28

Verdi wrote:
5-Processos Vol V Pages 1344 to 1345

TRANSLATION BY INES
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1344
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1344
Witness Statement

Date: 2007/05/16

Paolo Jorge Carvaihosa da Costa

Occupation: GNR Officer

He has been a GNR officer since 1996. He is a soldier and works at the Lagos GNR post.

On 3rd May when he was at home, he was contacted by the GNR post commander who asked him to go to P da L.

He arrived at the OC at 00.05 on 4th May having contacted his colleague Nelson Costa who informed him about the situation.

After having been informed ha began to search the perimeter of the tourist complex. First he revised the perimeter alone and was later accompanied by Officer Pimentel. During his time on the scene he did not talk to anyone.

Neither did he enter the apartment from which Madeleine had disappeared. There many people at the scene but nobody particularly drew his attention.

When asked he said that he never saw Robert Murat in all the times he visited the scene.

He does remember however, that on a day he cannot recall, an individual who identified himself as Robert, saying that he was in P da L as a translator helping the PJ, phoned the Lagos post saying:

That some foreign women, who had already been interviewed by the police, had phoned him, telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them.es
No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

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

I can't see anything untoward here, looks quite straightforward to me.

It can't reasonably be said PeterMac 'proved' the poolside photograph was not taken on 3rd May 2007, an indication it was not taken at the said time but that does not constitute proof.

In my view there's nothing to be gained by anyone drawing up a chronological list of the various accounts relating to the crying incident/s, although it shouldn't be difficult, there being only a handful of people whose statements have been recorded - all of which are witness interviews in answer to questions posed by the presiding police officer.

I'm in no doubt the official investigation conducted by the Portuguese police would have picked-up on any anomalies.

They did thoroughly investigate Robert Murat but found no evidence with which to build a case.

I will just add, Pamela Fenn has since died, it's not very fair on her memory nor her family to make unfounded allegations against her.

Thank you very much for finding that valuable piece of evidence so quickly, Verdi.

So, the statement was taken on Wednesday 16 May - and Robert Murat's call about the woman (it says 'women' in the statement) must have been on an occasion between 3rd and 16th May - probably nearer 3rd May as he couldn't remember which day it was - presumably it wasn't just a day or so before the 16th, otherwise he would have remembered the day.

I have an idea from somewhere else that this telephone call was made very early on, but as crusader says, the statement doesn't say it was 3rd May.

What would be really good to know now is when the McCanns first mentioned the crying incident.

by **Silentscope** 09.11.23 17:00

Gerry 04.05.07 @11:15
Between the 28th April, the day they arrived and the time the disappearance was discovered, he says that nothing unusual happened, only referring to an episode on the morning of the 3rd May, when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom, however he finds his daughter's comment to be strange, maybe because it was the first time that she had made it.

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

Kate 04.05.07@ 14:20
Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.

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

by **Silentscope** 09.11.23 18:17

Snipped from Tigger's Post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the Crying Sub thread.

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

From Dr. Roberts' 'A crying shame'

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.

(See Jane Tanner and Fiona Paynes Statements) Post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Refers.

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."

They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.

Source: https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm

Which also fits with Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy's reporting about the Tuesday night Quiz and Kate being on the Phone that night. Trying to imply that something bad must have happened that night. The Duo are obviously 'notoriously unreliable'!
the above Version coincidentally, is portrayed differently in Kate's Book 'Madeleine' where it is Gerry that storms off to Apartment 5A, not her.

Last Photo alledgedly taken on Thursday, the day after the real Date of Discovery?

Possibly all just a Distraction away from Wednesday?

by Guest 09.11.23 18:57

why do you use old opinions of others, and not form your own, about the basic stuff in the files by yourself.

these people are not active on the forum anymore, so we can not know if they are still of these opinions. for most who are , it is not news, and we can read back as much as we like.

but it often nicer to made your mind up by your self and by doing your own work on the files. none of us is in a position to truly prove anything. and opinions are often personal and could be temporarily, going by what you or what is known to the public at a certain time.

we all can make little mistakes and think we have taken notice of everything, and what is the need to discuss about some old opinions, if you can have access to the basic more neutral information, it is free to use.
there have been so many discussion about so called smaller details, with idea's from others to look again, by yourself with that in mind and still in the end you have to produce your own opinion.

opinions are not facts. they can easily change.

an opinion of tigger or the person behind the nick name dr. martin roberts are theirs, and it is very easy to find in the files, that even if we or anyone els that it is likely or not that rachel must have heard a crying child, when she was in 5b on an evening, that would still not make it into a fact.

can we even know for sure rachel must have heard it, do we know if she was truly awake, made use of ear plugs, or can it be the noise travels different to above than to the next apartment. there is nothing in these comments and opinions to get to such answers, than what is the use in presenting them instead of your own observations?

cold cases are not solved because old opinions about all and everything is just copied from the initial investigation, but by going back in time, read up as much as there is still there of original sources that can have facts and circumstances you could look at again, with fresh eyes, from many different directions.
if you just take over where the others stranded you can never expect to get to overlooked materials, little bits that could be explained differently.

and dr. martin roberts his blog is also mostly covered as originals in nigels archive. he had often his own way of looking into things. you can reread then all overhere;

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

by **Silentscope** 09.11.23 19:46

I just happen to agree with the General opinion that something happened to Madeleine BEFORE she was reported missing.

IMHO the McCanns were already setting the Scene that everything was OK with Madeleine as they sat down to Dine that night.

These other above mentioned stories just support my own personal view.

There are quite possibly more than 10 reasons which suggest Mrs Fenn did not hear anything on Tuesday. Not only Statements, but the number of Attempts to change the Official Storyline through dubious Publications should be taken into account.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.23 20:12

Silentscope wrote:I just happen to agree with the general opinion that something happened to Madeleine BEFORE she was reported missing.

YES

IMHO the McCanns were already setting the scene that everything was OK with Madeleine as they sat down to dine that night.

YES -The crying incident was fake and they were 'setting tte scene'

These other above mentioned stories just support my own personal view.

Agreed.

There are quite possibly more than 10 reasons which suggest Mrs Fenn did not hear anything on Tuesday. Not only statements, but the number of sttempts to change the official storyline through dubious pPublications should be taken into account.

YES

All is much much clearer now, thank you Verdi and silentscope for finding those 'jigsaw pieces' of the puzzle so quickly.

The story was rehearsed.

According to their stories, the McCann group said that (apart from Monday) one of the Tapas 7 remained behind in the apartment each evening, allegedly because they were sick with something or other, but in truth, to look after the twins and the other children, while the rest of the group dined out.

Unless we count the 'Make Up Photo' which may have been taken later on Sunday, the last proven sighting we have of Madeleine was Sunday around 2.30pm by the pool.

Overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests that Madeleine died Sunday late afternoon and that an elaborate hoax abduction was carefully researched over four days, only to be released on the Thursday at 10pm.

The crying story on Tuesday holds no water. Mrs Fenn was undoubtedly used by the plotters and was induced to put her name to a story which is not supprorted - indeed is contradicted - by other evidence.

by **Silentscope** 09.11.23 20:34

IMHO Tony, Mrs Fenn probably never knew what someone else quite possibly wrote for her.

That would explain her ‘It’s all rubbish’ Statement on Camera.

by **CaKeLoveR** 09.11.23 21:04

Between the last proven sighting of Madeleine and Kate McCann's 'she's been taken' announcement, the McCann's must have had a hard time keeping the illusion that their daughter was alive going. A lot of juggling was required, with their friends, creche staff etc., assuming that no other people were in on the hoax.

by Guest 09.11.23 21:16

there is no such thing as a general opinion about this case, not on anything yet.

at least i did never sign up for one. so it is always nice to hear an opinion of other posters. at least that was the idea about a forum.

there was no word at all about agreeing to the words copied from a post of tigger, that actually are a quotations of an outsider source of the forum, that was indeed correctly quoted by tigger.

i do not think nicking text from another message and asking two questions does count as voicing your opinion out, at all.

what makes your own opinion so special to keep it hidden in this way.

it is always been unacceptable in the world of forums to do such things in such a manner. it was always called for what it was not respectful to other posters.

and i do mind, because a lot of no longer very active posters did a lot of work, putting time in to make their own posts from scratch, searched for material to do quotations and by that have given us quite a legacy of material, they left it by choice to us, to read back when we want and need some reflections from earlier days. to keep their own words and ideas around. and did it by a choice, because with forumotion it is very easy to take it all of screen. i think we owe them at least some respect.

and why is it needed that der levy got rehabilitated at all, they guy was just a professional liar and caught out, the guy is as a broken clock, twice a day on time. for the rest of the time very off. if it is one of your hero's good luck with it, i would prefer to see at least two independent other sources before i would touch the words of that guy as being truthful.

also i agree the mccanns have told many stories, some even with very different remakes, but this case lacks far too much facts and circumstances that form actually a filter to see what they can mean. opinions are never a replacements of facts.

all my opinion of course.

by **crusader** 09.11.23 21:55

The McCann's were at the tapas every night, the Payne's were at the tapas every night as was Dianne Webster.
Jane Tanner was at the tapas every night, so that leaves Matt and Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien who were away from the tapas on one night.
I can't see the Oldfields and Russ O'Brien staying in an apartment to look after all the children whilst the rest of the group went out to the tapas, it doesn't make sense to me.

by **sharonl** 09.11.23 22:14

crusader wrote:The McCann's were at the tapas every night, the Payne's were at the tapas every night as was Dianne Webster.
Jane Tanner was at the tapas every night, so that leaves Matt and Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien who were away from the tapas on one night.
I can't see the Oldfields and Russ O'Brien staying in an apartment to look after all the children whilst the rest of the group went out to the tapas, it doesn't make sense to me.

If they lost one child on the first night, would they risk losing another by leaving them alone?

There was at least one member of the Tapas away from the table each night for various reasons including upset stomachs and sick children.

by **crusader** 09.11.23 22:47

Not according to the statements, only those three were missing.

Sharon wrote
If they lost one child on the first night, would they risk losing another by leaving them alone?

The fact remains they did leave them alone, and if Madeleine died by an accident, why would they think another child was going to suffer the same fate?

I cannot believe nine adults could go about enjoying their holiday knowing one of the childern was dead, and then to arrange someone to stay and look after the other children just in case there was another accident.

These are my findings, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about what they think happened, I would love to be proven wrong, up to now I see no proof Madeleine died earlier than Thursday.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.23 23:21

crusader wrote:The McCann's were at the tapas every night, the Payne's were at the tapas every night as was Dianne Webster.
Jane Tanner was at the tapas every night, so that leaves Matt and Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien who were away from the tapas on one night.
I can't see the Oldfields and Russ O'Brien staying in an apartment to look after all the children whilst the rest of the group went out to the tapas, it doesn't make sense to me.

I believe the person in the Policia Judiciara who succeeded Goncalo Amaral - a name like Ribero if memory serves - stated as a fact that each night one of the group looked after the children - possibly in the Paynes' apartment.

I believe this to be true, and it makes perfect sense if Madeline died on Sunday

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.23 23:33

Silentscope wrote:IMHO Tony, Mrs Fenn probably never knew what someone else quite possibly wrote for her.

That would explain her ‘It’s all rubbish’ statement on camera.

Thank you, I think this is very likely.

Is there a record of her formal witness interview with the Portuguese Police?

I think not.

I am not sure she even handed in her statement to the Portuguese police herself.

Also remember that Mrs Fenns's statement and the accompanying press excitement about Mrs Fenn's statement in the UK came as the PJ were gearing up to arrest the McCanns just three weeks later. I think Clarence Mitchell and his media team may have had more than a hand in suddenly producing Mrs Fenn's statement - over three-and-a-half months after the alleged crying incident - just as the PJ were about to arrest the McCanns

by Guest 10.11.23 0:12

Silentscope wrote:IMHO Tony, Mrs Fenn probably never knew what someone else quite possibly wrote for her.

That would explain her ‘It’s all rubbish’ Statement on Camera.

Again you say what you think others want to hear - and brownie points to you, again you've touched the spot.

Clearly your 'source' has read somewhere across cyber myth, an interpretation of Pamela Fenn's words recorded on video. Well let me tell you her words recorded have nothing to do with anything but the moment - it's all been discussed and clarified here on CMOMM if your care to research and read and learn and listen and think for yourself.

Give me strength.

As I've repeatedly said, you know nothing about the case of missing Madeleine McCann, here on the forum you represent someone else - that is patently clear to me.

I implore members not to bad mouth an innocent elderly woman who is no longer of this world. Where is your sense of honour?

You seriously think Pamela Fenn didn't make the recorded statement?

This is so ridiculous it's embarrassing. I said this would happen when old theory was dragged back into the present.

BTW: I haven't received that PM about your problem, your formal complaint, about private messaging.

Admin can't help you if you don't help yourself.

by Guest 10.11.23 0:20

Tony Bennett wrote:All is much much clearer now, thank you Verdi and silentscope for finding those 'jigsaw pieces' of the puzzle so quickly.

Please don't presume to associate my name with that of a charlatan.

bignono

by Guest 10.11.23 0:24

I bid you goodnight!

by **crusader** 10.11.23 7:37

This is Pamela Fenn's statement is it not.

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

Either the PJ and G Amaral were competant and took a statement from Pamela Fenn or they are buffoons who recieved a statement said to have been made by Pamela Fenn and put their signature on it.
Not only that, whoever you think handed the fake statement to the PJ, said to be made by Mrs Fenn, and on official police stationary, even got a police interpreter in on the act.

And as for the PJ inspector, Ribero, who succeeded G Amaral ,who stated as a fact the children were looked after in the Paynes apartment by one of the group, where is his evidence for thinking this?

According to Kate, they didn't want to put the children into the night creche because that would mean taking them out into the cold to bring them home, if they were all in the Paynes apartment, they would still have to take them out into the cold to take them back to their own apartments.

It all makes no sense whatsoever to me.

by **crusader** 10.11.23 8:39

Where is the evidence it was Paulo Rebelo who stated as fact the children were looked after by members of the McCann group.

by **Silentscope** 10.11.23 10:26

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
Either the PJ and G Amaral were competant and took a statement from Pamela Fenn or they are buffoons who recieved a statement said to have been made by Pamela Fenn and put their signature on it.

Silentscope- The Fenn Statement as taken by the PJ I believe to be real and true. How else would they have got all her Personal Data and her Signature?

But where is any Statement made to the British Police though?
When did they Interview her, and what did they write?

Mrs Fenn’s words on Camera to SIC might be taken as her not wanting to say anything due to her also being under ‘Judicial Secrecy’ as a Witness.
It was filmed only 2 days after she had made her Statement.

But the Reporting in the Press and Book are crucial because:

There is a big difference between ‘We have let her down’, and ‘ The B******s have taken her!’ as described by Kate.

‘A child has gone missing’ and an ‘Abuction by Paedophiles’ as described by Gerry.

Even Bilton claims to have spoken with Mrs Fenn.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]