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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.09.18 13:29

Sundance wrote:Crying children would have been a routine occurrence for her, living in a block that lets to holidaymakers. Besides, she was 81 and probably sick of everyone's sh1t at that point. Why should she intervene? She may have intervened 30 times before over the years, she may have been told to get back in her box several times over the years. She may have raised concerns to Mark Warner and given the brush off in the past.
Besides, at least part of her account was corroborated by the McCann's.
And I know this is an old thread, but as per usual the poll options are skewed - there are other permutations.

Of all the excuses ever given for Pamela Fenn not to report a child crying ever louder and louder for 75 minutes this is about the flimsiest I've seen yet.

I wonder also @ Sundance whether you think (as her statement claims) that Mrs Fenn is able to distinguish between the crying of a two-year-old and a three-year-old?

by willowthewisp 17.09.18 17:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:How odd that all these people who back up the McCann stories or provide other assistance are either British expats, regular visitors to PDL or own property there.

For starters:

REPLY: I will add to your list

Robert Murat - Property developer and son of the man who helped to develop PDL
Pamela Fenn - British expat
Edward Smethurst - regular visitor
Smiths - Regular visitor and property owner
Carole Tramner - (if true) claimed that she was there in search of property
Mrs Jenny Murat, mother of Robert - set up stall so that the public could give her information
The late Sir Clement Freud - had villa in PdL and invited the McCanns round for lunch and drinks
Ralph and Sally Eveleigh - aunt and uncle of Robert Murat - ran 'adult' holidays at their Salsalita villa in Burgau
Jon Corner, Madeleine's godfather - said in 2007 'been to Praia da Luz many times'
Nuno Lourenco - mother lives in Sagres, he has moved back there from Germany - made up ludicrous story about Wojchiech Krokowski trying to kidnap his daughter

There are more - I am sure that there is a link here somewhere

REPLY: So many roads in this case lead to Robert Murat...

It seems as though people are having a "Knicker Twisting Moment" Smith Family sighting Mrs Fenn moment crying,MMRG Thesis?
In regard to above and Property, they have a vested interest in more ways than Property alone,Clink!

Kate has stated the Portugal PJ were trying to "Frame Them"on possible evidence found that alluded to a Non Abduction,that Portugal didn't want a "Murder investigation" due to economy being affected.Travel business?

If there was No Smith Family sighting of a person carrying a young girl away near "Kelly's Bar" from the apartment block where Madeleine disappeared from 5a,then DCI Andy Redwood,would have dismissed it,therefore logically it is a Major sticking point for Operation Grange?

DCI Andy Redwood,"Moving Time Frame Period",he is trying to state Jane's earlier "Abductor Sighting" 21.15 PM to possibly be E-fit Man 22.00 PM Smith family sighting,but as yet hasn't found E-fit Man?

Yet DCI Andy Redwood states having met a "Father" who had kept his clothes and his daughters Pyjamas from when he picked his daughter up from a "Night Creche" in Portugal but doesn't state whose Night Creche,Mark Warner?
Then by a "Master Stroke" a fellow Doctor,Mr Julian Totman(Known to Tapas) puts himself forward as this possible person,who may have been sighted by the Smith family and Jane"Moving Time Frame",is this too much of an inconvenience,coincidence?

MMRG,states that something has happened to Madeleine McCann very Early on in the Holiday(Sunday/Monday),where the whole group Tapas diverge into different directions,casting doubt on crying incident thought to be Madeleine or Sean,Not Amellie?,the only person's stating this are the parents of Madeleine on Camera as a fact?
There is No independent witness to this incident who can confirm the "Crying" from Wednesday Evening,but it has been presented as a fact?

Put both acts together,Smith sighting Confirmed, Crying- unconfirmed on face value is leading up to an alive Madeleine McCann after Sunday,Monday through to Wednesday.Parents video?

If you discount the Smith family sighting of an individual carrying a young girl(Decoy)you discount an abductor,that is the Rub of Operation Grange,they have interviewed the Smith family and are sticking to what they have described,it may Not be a facial description, recognition but the person they have seen knows that Family had seen them and he knows they had seen someone!

Therefore,Creche Records manipulated for an alive substitute until Thursday?

Thus the necessity to have a"Simulation Abduction" on Thursday,Jez Wilkens(Cock Up) Robert Murat quote 21.15 Jane abduction sighting?

If that person turns out to be a member of the Tapas group and unaccounted for at the Table on 3 May 2007,now why would you need a pact of silence Dr David Payne,"It's Nobody Else's Business"?

Yet Operation Grange have these 600 mysterious persons to eliminate first,yeah,pull the other one,Ding,Ding!

by Sundance 18.09.18 11:53

Crying children would have been a routine occurrence for her, living in a block that lets to holidaymakers. Besides, she was 81 and probably sick of everyone's sh1t at that point. Why should she intervene? She may have intervened 30 times before over the years, she may have been told to get back in her box several times over the years. She may have raised concerns to Mark Warner and given the brush off in the past.
Besides, at least part of her account was corroborated by the McCann's.
And I know this is an old thread, but as per usual the poll options are skewed - there are other permutations.
Of all the excuses ever given for Pamela Fenn not to report a child crying ever louder and louder for 75 minutes this is about the flimsiest I've seen yet.

I wonder also @ Sundance whether you think (as her statement claims) that Mrs Fenn is able to distinguish between the crying of a two-year-old and a three-year-old?

I'm not making excuses, Your Highness, I'm stating that we're discussing the vagaries of a human being; there's a multitude of factors that go towards each decision, I listed just a few.
Who knows what drove her decision making, or otherwise for that matter, and why she probably concocted the whole burglar ruse?
As for the flimsiest excuse yet - why? If she is sick of the sh1t dished out by a succession of tourists, there's every chance she would ignore the crying, it's none of her business.
My neighbour's 82. He's the biggest curmudgeonly pain in the arse going. He thinks everyone owes him a living purely due to his age. He once informed me that he saw the boot of my car open the previous night, but only decided to tell me the following morning. It rained incessantly that night. Why didn't he tell me, or ring me? I don't know. People's motives are often at odds with 'common sense'.

Secondly, regarding the crying - she might be able to. She might have been a nursery nurse for 40 years, she might have raised 13 kids and 38 grandkids, she might have wrote a thesis called 'Distinction of Infant Crying Pitch, Volume, Resonance and Wavelength Analysis - Ages 1 - 3', she might have listened to innumerable wailing kids every night during the holiday season and thus, has attuned her hearing to succinct age groups and is able to tune it out so she can still hear Eastenders.

I find it fascinating, being relatively new here and being vastly less 'read' on this subject, how you pour scorn on anything outside your paradigm. I know you are held in the highest esteem due to your research and analysis on this forum (with good reason), but to me, so far, you're just another internet wind-up merchant, on a mission to deride counter opinion. If you could've dispensed with the first line of your response, that would have been reasonable.

Penultimately, if you've deigned to read this far, are all of these people lying? They can't all be lying FFS. Mrs. Fenn - odd, contradictory statement - LIAR, Catriona Baker - bemused, rambling, lowly paid, doesn't know what days they're open - LIAR, Martin Smith, Irish - LIAR, Martin Smith's 12 year old daughter - amazing eye for fashion detail - LIAR, the priest with the key to the church - states that he didn't give them the key - priest not in control of keys? - LIAR, woman finds bag of clothes at airport - McCann plant - LIAR, etc, etc.

Finally, Professor, you're still guessing, just like me, just like all the newbie bellends that rock up.

[mod]

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

Please tone down your attitude towards the forum and it's members. Thank you.
[/mod]

by **Tony Bennett** 18.09.18 13:17

Sundance wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Sundance wrote:Crying children would have been a routine occurrence for her, living in a block that lets to holidaymakers. Besides, she was 81 and probably sick of everyone's sh1t at that point. Why should she intervene? She may have intervened 30 times before over the years, she may have been told to get back in her box several times over the years. She may have raised concerns to Mark Warner and given the brush off in the past.
Besides, at least part of her account was corroborated by the McCann's.
And I know this is an old thread, but as per usual the poll options are skewed - there are other permutations.
Of all the excuses ever given for Pamela Fenn not to report a child crying ever louder and louder for 75 minutes this is about the flimsiest I've seen yet.

I wonder also @ Sundance whether you think (as her statement claims) that Mrs Fenn is able to distinguish between the crying of a two-year-old and a three-year-old?
I'm not making excuses, Your Highness, I'm stating that we're discussing the vagaries of a human being; there's a multitude of factors that go towards each decision, I listed just a few.
Who knows what drove her decision making, or otherwise for that matter, and why she probably concocted the whole burglar ruse?
As for the flimsiest excuse yet - why? If she is sick of the sh1t dished out by a succession of tourists, there's every chance she would ignore the crying, it's none of her business.
My neighbour's 82. He's the biggest curmudgeonly pain in the arse going. He thinks everyone owes him a living purely due to his age. He once informed me that he saw the boot of my car open the previous night, but only decided to tell me the following morning. It rained incessantly that night. Why didn't he tell me, or ring me? I don't know. People's motives are often at odds with 'common sense'.

Secondly, regarding the crying - she might be able to. She might have been a nursery nurse for 40 years, she might have raised 13 kids and 38 grandkids, she might have wrote a thesis called 'Distinction of Infant Crying Pitch, Volume, Resonance and Wavelength Analysis - Ages 1 - 3', she might have listened to innumerable wailing kids every night during the holiday season and thus, has attuned her hearing to succinct age groups and is able to tune it out so she can still hear Eastenders.

I find it fascinating, being relatively new here and being vastly less 'read' on this subject, how you pour scorn on anything outside your paradigm. I know you are held in the highest esteem due to your research and analysis on this forum (with good reason), but to me, so far, you're just another internet wind-up merchant, on a mission to deride counter opinion. If you could've dispensed with the first line of your response, that would have been reasonable.

Penultimately, if you've deigned to read this far, are all of these people lying? They can't all be lying FFS. Mrs. Fenn - odd, contradictory statement - LIAR, Catriona Baker - bemused, rambling, lowly paid, doesn't know what days they're open - LIAR, Martin Smith, Irish - LIAR, Martin Smith's 12 year old daughter - amazing eye for fashion detail - LIAR, the priest with the key to the church - states that he didn't give them the key - priest not in control of keys? - LIAR, woman finds bag of clothes at airport - McCann plant - LIAR, etc, etc.

Finally, Professor, you're still guessing, just like me, just like all the newbie bellends that rock up.

I think some of us have an idea already of why you are here - but no matter, let me reply.

I'm sorry if you were offended by me stating my opinion that your argument re Mrs Fenn was 'flimsy'. It doesn't seem an especially harsh criticism, but let me say that this forum is an investigative forum where we all work hard together to research, sift evidence, test it, find new evidence (e.g. The Last Photo) and between us weigh up what is good evidence and what is poor, flimsy or non-existent evidence. This is not a place for snowflakes.

Turning now to the first part of your post, I noted that your analysis was spattered with these phrases, quote

who knows
probably
if she is sick
there's every chance
she might be able to
she might have been a nursery nurse for 40 years,
she might have raised 13 kids and 38 grandkids,
she might have wrote a thesis called 'Distinction of Infant Crying Pitch’
she might have listened to innumerable wailing kids every night

=====

That is not merely flimsy evidence. It is no evidence whatsoever. It is pure supposition from start to finish.

The actual salient facts of the matter are: 1. Mrs Fenn says the child was crying for 75 minutes 2. Mrs Fenn says it grew louder and louder 3. There's no evidence anyone else heard it 4. She did nothing about it except have the briefest of chats with a friend.

I come now to the question of whether certain people may have been lying. You named 6 people I am supposed to have accused of lying. The final two I have NOT accused of telling untruths. What you said about the other 4 I reproduce below:

Penultimately, if you've deigned to read this far, are all of these people lying? They can't all be lying FFS.
Mrs. Fenn - odd, contradictory statement - LIAR,
Catriona Baker - bemused, rambling, lowly paid, doesn't know what days they're open - LIAR,
Martin Smith, Irish - LIAR,
Martin Smith's 12 year old daughter - amazing eye for fashion detail - LIAR

'Lying' is not a word I have generally used when discussing thee evidence of these four people.

It is my opinion based on careful research of Mrs Fenn's statement that she was leant on by others to make that statement. I think an outline of it was drafter for her. In support I cite these facts: 1. We've no evidence she reported this alleged crying incident before 20 August 2. Details of what she was GOING TO SAY on 20 August was printed in several British newspapers on 18 August showing evidence that someone knew at least days in advance what she would say 3. When confronted by a journalist afterwards, she emphatically denied the reports of what she had said - and described them as 'rubbish'.

So far as Catriona Baker's evidence is concerned, I do not consider her evidence to be remotely reliable because 1. it contradicts the evidence of others and 2. it very clearly conflicts with the agreed forum opinion on what happened to Madeleine and when. I was NOT by the way responsible myself for putting that agreed statement on the forum home page.

So far as the Smiths' evidence is concerned the word I prefer to use is that they were all fabricated, for reasons I've given in the SMITHMAN1 to SMITHMAN12 threads and elsewhere.

So far as Aoife Smith's evidence is concerned, it is astonishingly detailed for someone who has only seen a person for second or two in the dark. So far as the buttons on the man's trousers are concerned, photos of Gerry McCann's trousers were already in circulation before 26 May when they made their statements, and on the balance of probability I believe, based on all I have read about the Smiths and their evidence, that she added this detail to the police based not on what she claims to have seen that night but on what she saw in a newspaper some time before 26 May.

====

I am grateful for your concession that, quote:  "Mrs Fenn probably concocted the whole burglar ruse", but that then leads me to ask you: "Why on earth should we believe anything she has to say if she concocted the burglary story?"

The obvious concoction of that burglary story is a major reason why I doubt the rest of what she says.

Finally, there really is no need to call me 'Your Highness' or 'Professor'. Most people say 'Tony' and I am fine with that, thanks

.

by Sundance 18.09.18 13:45

Tony Bennett wrote:

who knows
probably
if she is sick
there's every chance
she might be able to
she might have been a nursery nurse for 40 years,
she might have raised 13 kids and 38 grandkids,
she might have wrote a thesis called 'Distinction of Infant Crying Pitch’
she might have listened to innumerable wailing kids every night

=====

That is not merely flimsy evidence. It is no evidence whatsoever. It is pure supposition from start to finish.

But I'm not providing 'evidence', once again as you missed it first time round, I'm showing that there's innumerable reasons for the discrepancies / incongruences, most of which we know nothing about, including you. So the list of 'might haves' and 'probables' is just that, it's not evidence of anything. I don't know why she didn't report it, apart from her stated account.
As for the 'lying' part, I'm making a broader statement - there's a very real penchant across this case for everything to be a conspiracy and there are multifarious players at work, even down to the cook and bottle washer. And, as you so not very cryptically alluded to from the outset of your previous post, including me in some capacity of a 'shill' no doubt.
Guys, I'm just a dude with too much time on his hands at work searching answers, whilst injecting a little humour in to the mix. I'd like nothing more than to see the truth out, mainly because as a British tax payer, I'm sick of this charade that we are bankrolling.
I'm not here for a keyboard war on the internets - I did all that many years ago. I'm certainly not going to take you on, as I'm not conceited enough to think that it wouldn't be anything other than a mismatch in your favour. (Yer see, there's two compliments already, and we've hardly got to know eachother).

Edit: Sorry, just re-read this: I am grateful for your concession that, quote: "Mrs Fenn probably concocted the whole burglar ruse", but that then leads me to ask you: "Why on earth should we believe anything she has to say if she concocted the burglary story?"

Well because it was at least partially corroborated by the pair themselves, you know, the old curly lip episode in the interview. So if it was revisionism on their part stating that 'Madeleine asked us why we didn't come when we cried', they could have rebutted that immediately and denied it. So we know that at least that part of her statement is true.

by Phoebe 18.09.18 14:21

When Mrs Fenn said "I've never spoken to a journalist and they've written rubbish..... honestly, it's all rubbish". I'm inclined to believe her. She told the P.J. in her statement that she had been the victim of an unsuccessful robbery attempt "a week previously" and that is that. Everything else which might suggest that she gave conflicting accounts about this robbery came from - yes - the MEDIA (again!) The woman clearly said she had not spoken to the media, so why should we believe their fantastical tales about her catching a robber by the leg (as he fled out a second floor window) any more than we believe Media tales of the smelly man who broke in to sit on little girls' beds!

Actually, I don't doubt her claim to have assumed the crying child -

" seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger".

In my personal experience, very young children tire quite quickly and tend to cry themselves into sleep, whereas older children seem to have more stamina, greater vocal power and endurance, and can keep it up for a longer duration.
One of my own children (as he grew) had remarkable perseverance in vocalising his objections at being put to bed when he decided he wasn't ready to go! At a younger age he was also reluctant, but he couldn't have kept it up for an hour or more. He simply would n't have had the stamina or vocal strength at an earlier age!
I have always assumed this is what Mrs Fenn meant. The crying, she states, "grew louder and more expressive" so that is suggestive of a child with the necessary vocal strength and stamina, something toddlers tend to lack, especially at 10-11.15 p.m.

by willowthewisp 18.09.18 15:07

Phoebe wrote:When Mrs Fenn said "I've never spoken to a journalist and they've written rubbish..... honestly, it's all rubbish". I'm inclined to believe her. She told the P.J. in her statement that she had been the victim of an unsuccessful robbery attempt "a week previously" and that is that. Everything else which might suggest that she gave conflicting accounts about this robbery came from - yes - the MEDIA (again!) The woman clearly said she had not spoken to the media, so why should we believe their fantastical tales about her catching a robber by the leg (as he fled out a second floor window) any more than we believe Media tales of the smelly man who broke in to sit on little girls' beds!

Actually, I don't doubt her claim to have assumed the crying child -

" seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger".

In my personal experience, very young children tire quite quickly and tend to cry themselves into sleep, whereas older children seem to have more stamina, greater vocal power and endurance, and can keep it up for a longer duration.
One of my own children (as he grew) had remarkable perseverance in vocalising his objections at being put to bed when he decided he wasn't ready to go! At a younger age he was also reluctant, but he couldn't have kept it up for an hour or more. He simply would n't have had the stamina or vocal strength at an earlier age!
I have always assumed this is what Mrs Fenn meant. The crying, she states, "grew louder and more expressive" so that is suggestive of a child with the necessary vocal strength and stamina, something toddlers tend to lack, especially at 10-11.15 p.m.

I do not know or can substantiate about the crying incident and Mrs Fenn.

But Just imagine for one moment,you have been put to bed by your parents all three of them at the same time?
Then,the "Child" who has sleeping difficulties awakes for whatever reason,distressed?
The child tries to awake one of the other Two children for "comfort", but cannot awaken them,do you think the"stress" levels of the awoken child would diminish, I don't think so,could they grow louder in desperation?

Perhaps on return home to the apartment,the parent(s) could hear the child in a very distressed emotional state and through an act of sudden violence,the child is struck and her life has Gone!
Could that child have been on the Sofa Bed adjacent to the Wall,trying to attract attention due to her circumstances,when an "Accident" happened,Wednesday evening?

There are at least Two people who know what happened,but as yet haven't revealed what they know,but as we all know they are Not suspects or person's of Interest,which Scotland Yard keep regurgitating mantra,Cognitive Dissonance!

by Verdi 19.09.18 1:05

Tony Bennett wrote:So far as Aoife Smith's evidence is concerned, it is astonishingly detailed for someone who has only seen a person for second or two in the dark. So far as the buttons on the man's trousers are concerned, photos of Gerry McCann's trousers were already in circulation before 26 May when they made their statements, and on the balance of probability I believe, based on all I have read about the Smiths and their evidence, that she added this detail to the police based not on what she claims to have seen that night but on what she saw in a newspaper some time before 26 May.

Quite right!

Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing

There lies the key. Gerry McCann was a tourist so that rules him out entirely.

Unless of course anyone is suggesting Gerry McCann donned his best bib and tucker to walk the streets of Praia da Luz with a corpse or drugged decoy (in the hope of being seen) or substitute child.

Martin Smith's statement was the last to be taken following Jane Tanner's evolving sighting and that of the Sagres incident. Jane Tanner's sighting morphed from an egghead into this..

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

.... who coincidentally didn't look like a tourist. So say she!

by **sandancer** 19.09.18 1:23

Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:So far as Aoife Smith's evidence is concerned, it is astonishingly detailed for someone who has only seen a person for second or two in the dark. So far as the buttons on the man's trousers are concerned, photos of Gerry McCann's trousers were already in circulation before 26 May when they made their statements, and on the balance of probability I believe, based on all I have read about the Smiths and their evidence, that she added this detail to the police based not on what she claims to have seen that night but on what she saw in a newspaper some time before 26 May.

Quite right!

Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing

There lies the key. Gerry McCann was a tourist so that rules him out entirely.

Unless of course anyone is suggesting Gerry McCann donned his best bib and tucker to walk the streets of Praia da Luz with a corpse or drugged decoy (in the hope of being seen) or substitute child.

Martin Smith's statement was the last to be taken following Jane Tanner's evolving sighting and that of the Sagres incident. Jane Tanner's sighting morphed from an egghead into this..

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

.... who coincidentally didn't look like a tourist. So say she!

Then along came Crecheman ( 6 years in a coma man !) Who was - wait for it - a tourist !

Next came Julian Totman , hey guess what folks - a tourist !

What exactly is a tourist supposed to look like ? scratchhead

by Verdi 19.09.18 1:35

Sandancer wrote:
What exactly is a tourist supposed to look like ?

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

by Sundance 19.09.18 8:16

sandancer wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Verdi

There lies the key. Gerry McCann was a tourist so that rules him out entirely.

I thought the general consensus was that Martin Smith's account was not to be relied upon?

by jazega 20.09.18 11:07

Asked the question several days ago,as to why would the Smith family lie and make false statements,got no replies.

by Sundance 20.09.18 11:20

jazega wrote:Asked the question several days ago,as to why would the Smith family lie and make false statements,got no replies.

Might be due to the fact that there's only about a dozen or so active users at the moment and the ones who have extensive research behind them have probably answered these questions ad nauseum. There's another thread somewhere with a list of these answers.
I personally don't think they lied at all and the person seen was someone totally unrelated to the case (apart from geographical proximity). If I was forced in to removing a listless body in such a manner, which I haven't, I would pick the most secluded route with the least foot fall and minimal lighting for the shortest distance possible. Walking several minutes down to 'the beach' or similar would not be an option.

by jazega 20.09.18 11:43

IMO,if they did see a person carrying a child it gives the made up abduction nonsense more credence.

by Verdi 20.09.18 11:56

jazega wrote:Asked the question several days ago,as to why would the Smith family lie and make false statements,got no replies.

You were provided with a link to various threads extensively covering Martin Smith and his family..

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

If you take the time to read through you will find all the answers you are looking for.

Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is Pamela Fenn and the crying incident - back on topic please.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.09.18 13:08

jazega wrote:Asked the question several days ago, as to why would the Smith family lie and make false statements,got no replies.

I didn't see this question before. As I am, so to speak, the Smiths' chief accuser, I am quite happy to answer it. And I will give the same answer to it as I have many times before on CMOMM and elsewhere over the years.

First, some facts. The PJ in their final report described the Smith family's evidence as 'unreliable', and I fully agree with that.

Further, the Smiths' evidence is shot through with contradictions and changes of story that I've covered in depth on the SMITHMAN1 to SMITHMAN12 threads, so much so that I cannot believe them.

Third, those who say that Gerry McCann is Smithman must believe

1 He did walk past all the Smith family at 10pm 3 May carrying Madeleine's dead body...
2 ...at the same time (approximately) as the alarm was raised
3 He and his team then engaged Martin Smith and his family to draw up efits of himself
4 He and his team then milked the Smith sighting on the C4 doc, on their website & in Kate's book...
5 ... and finally they co-operated with Operation Grange to present efits of himself on BBC Crimewatch (2013).

This is unbelievably far-fetched. I therefore come to the conclusion that either the Smiths saw somebody completely different (which I consider very unlikely) or, more likely, they were not telling the truth.

Moreover, if Martin Smith seriously believed that Gerry McCann was carrying his dead or dying daughter somewhere on the night of 3 May, why on earth would be go on to co-operate with the McCann Team? There is a giant mystery at the heart of Smithman.

Now, I do not know why they may not have told the truth.

I have investigated two hoaxes in depth, the alleged 'drowning' of Stuart Lubbock and the alleged concrete mixer 'accident' that is said to have killed Lee Balkwell. In both cases, I have seen an almost unbelievable capacity of people to lie...those involved, others connected to the case, even senior police officers.

People lie for all kinds of reasons. Fear, money, loyalty to others for example. On that last point, I consider there is sufficient evidence at least to suspect that when Martin Smith 'phoned the Irish police on 16 May, that - in view of his association with Robert Murat - he may initially have been acting for him, to protect him.

Children can lie. Children can be - and are - coached by their parents to lie.

by Eleanor Rigby 22.09.18 19:18

I wonder if anyone ever told the truth ...

by jazega 23.09.18 11:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
jazega wrote:Asked the question several days ago, as to why would the Smith family lie and make false statements,got no replies.
I didn't see this question before. As I am, so to speak, the Smiths' chief accuser, I am quite happy to answer it. And I will give the same answer to it as I have many times before on CMOMM and elsewhere over the years.

First, some facts. The PJ in their final report described the Smith family's evidence as 'unreliable', and I fully agree with that.

Further, the Smiths' evidence is shot through with contradictions and changes of story that I've covered in depth on the SMITHMAN1 to SMITHMAN12 threads, so much so that I cannot believe them.

Third, those who say that Gerry McCann is Smithman must believe

1 He did walk past all the Smith family at 10pm 3 May carrying Madeleine's dead body...
2 ...at the same time (approximately) as the alarm was raised
3 He and his team then engaged Martin Smith and his family to draw up efits of himself
4 He and his team then milked the Smith sighting on the C4 doc, on their website & in Kate's book...
5 ... and finally they co-operated with Operation Grange to present efits of himself on BBC Crimewatch (2013).

This is unbelievably far-fetched. I therefore come to the conclusion that either the Smiths saw somebody completely different (which I consider very unlikely) or, more likely, they were not telling the truth.

Moreover, if Martin Smith seriously believed that Gerry McCann was carrying his dead or dying daughter somewhere on the night of 3 May, why on earth would be go on to co-operate with the McCann Team? There is a giant mystery at the heart of Smithman.

Now, I do not know why they may not have told the truth.

I have investigated two hoaxes in depth, the alleged 'drowning' of Stuart Lubbock and the alleged concrete mixer 'accident' that is said to have killed Lee Balkwell. In both cases, I have seen an almost unbelievable capacity of people to lie...those involved, others connected to the case, even senior police officers.

People lie for all kinds of reasons. Fear, money, loyalty to others for example. On that last point, I consider there is sufficient evidence at least to suspect that when Martin Smith 'phoned the Irish police on 16 May, that - in view of his association with Robert Murat - he may initially have been acting for him, to protect him.

Children can lie. Children can be - and are - coached by their parents to lie.

The Smith family did not say Gerry was carrying the dead body of Madeleine.

by Phoebe 23.09.18 14:46

Copying part of this post which I put on another thread earlier as it should have been put on here.

IMO opinion, Mrs.Fenn's information was not directly connected to the alleged crime of abduction. It referred to an incident two nights previous to this "crime" and contributed little information that the P.J.did not already know ie. that the children were left unattended. The Tapas 9 and various O.C. employees and other witnesses had already informed the police of this.
What it did suggest was that the alleged checks on the children were less frequent than they claimed. As far as the P.J. were concerned what happened on Tuesday night was relatively unimportant, save for this suggestion of the children being left unchecked for much longer periods. They are of the opinion that Madeleine was last seen alive and well at 5.30 p.m. on May 3rd. Therefore, whether Madeleine was crying on Tuesday night was only important because of the alleged duration of this crying and what this implied for the claims of frequent checking.
Mrs Fenn neither saw nor heard anything suspicious or of interest on the crucial night. Therefore, the only role her evidence could play was in building up a picture of how true were the checking claims and the claim that Madeleine always remained soundly safe asleep while her parents dined.
I imagine that the police had more pressing investigations pertaining to the night of the crime to attend to first, and that Mrs. Fenn's evidence was very much secondary in importance to this. She was also a permanent resident in the area and therefore there was no urgent need to take her statement before she left. If she had already been spoken to (and I believe she had) she would have made the police aware of her future ready availability whenever they got around to needing her statement. I see nothing unusual or sinister in this.

by Sundance 23.09.18 14:57

I agree Phoebe and also think that Mrs. Fenn is another character in this that had no reason to lie. Her testimony was corroborated by the McCanns themselves, either truthfully or retrospectively reacting to her evidence with an account of their own. It may be that this somewhat incongruous conversation with Madeleine never took place, but was a reaction fabricated by them, hence the bizarre facial expressions and recounting during one of the interviews. I have no explanation for her account of the burglar, maybe an octaganarian embellishing the truth?
Edit: Actually, thinking about that interview, I can't remember which it was, but if I got to that part and the interviewer asked about the 'crying', and my child was actually missing at that point, I'd crack up right there. I wouldn't be able to continue with sheer pain of missing my child. The fact that at that very point they were both so disdainful and dismissive, with Kates contemptuous curly lip and Gerry with the multiple sideways glances, speak volumes for me.
Off topic, apologies.

by Verdi 23.09.18 22:54

Sundance wrote: Her testimony was corroborated by the McCanns themselves, either truthfully or retrospectively reacting to her evidence with an account of their own.

Kate McCann's witness statement - 4th May 2007

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.
....................

Pamela Fenn's witness statement was taken on 20th August 2007 - the PJ files were released into the public domain in July 2008. The McCanns couldn't possibly have known the content of Pamela Fenn's witness statement.

by Sundance 23.09.18 23:05

So truthfully then. Lends credence to Mrs Fenn.

by **sharonl** 24.09.18 0:00

Verdi wrote:
Sundance wrote: Her testimony was corroborated by the McCanns themselves, either truthfully or retrospectively reacting to her evidence with an account of their own.

Kate McCann's witness statement - 4th May 2007

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.
....................

Pamela Fenn's witness statement was taken on 20th August 2007 - the PJ files were released into the public domain in July 2008. The McCanns couldn't possibly have known the content of Pamela Fenn's witness statement.

But Mrs Fenn could have known about the Kate's comment regarding the crying incident.

Who knows what those dodgy PI's may have got up to. Blackmail, Bribery? Either way, it appears that Mrs Fenn, months later, decides to back up the McCanns claims that Madeleine was alive and that there were burglaries in the area. Later she says, "its all rubbish".

by Phoebe 24.09.18 0:28

If Mrs.Fenn was part of some conspiracy to help prove that Madeleine was alive on the Tuesday night then the hatchers of such a conspiracy must be completely stupid. Why would n't they simply have asked Mrs Fenn to say that she SAW Madeleine. If she were part of the conspiracy to defraud, it would be the simplest thing in the world for them to have got Mrs. Fenn to say "Oh yes, I saw the McCanns going into or out of their apartment on ... (pick the necessary day!). There was the Mum, the Dad and three children, an older girl and two younger children". Hey presto - job done!

by Verdi 24.09.18 1:12

Sundance wrote:So truthfully then. Lends credence to Mrs Fenn.

No, it lends credence to the McCanns claim that Madeleine had been crying on one or more occasions, which likewise lends credence to Madeleine being alive and well after Monday 30th April 2007.

Do your homework, it all started to happen on Tuesday 1st May 2007.

Stick to the point - your words Sundance..

Sundance wrote:Her testimony was corroborated by the McCanns themselves, either truthfully or retrospectively reacting to her evidence with an account of their own.

by Verdi 24.09.18 1:34

Pamela Fenn lived above apartment 5a occupied by the McCann family. She would have been questioned informally during the police door to door routine inquiries - to think otherwise if but folly. As there is no recording of any informal interview , nor a later formal interview as a witness, it can be safely said that she had nothing to say that would assist the investigation.

This raises the question - why, many weeks later, did it occur to Pamela Fenn that she might have some useful information to impart that could assist the investigation. It can be said with a degree of certainty that Pamela Fenn was known to Robert Murat's mother, Jenny Murat. Same generation, same locality, both residents - it would be extremely unlikely they didn't know each other, probably quite intimately. Did Mrs Fenn report anything to Jenny Murat when she had her street market stall, inviting people that were shy of the police to impart evidence?

Nothing about this case is simple. It's so much easier to exonerate specific people because they look nice, or they're old, or they are well respected in the community. No doubt the same has been said of the McCanns in and around their home environment.

by Phoebe 24.09.18 2:05

Susan Moyes told a radio program (BBC Stoke and Staffordshire August 14th 2007) that she and her husband Paul arrived in P. de L. on Wednesday May 2nd, the day before Madeleine disappeared and stayed "for a month". Their apartment was directly above that of Mrs. Fenn and the McCanns and Susan Moyes claims they had been sitting on their balcony at around 9.15 p.m. on the night of May 3rd.
What I find truly astonishing is that there is no statement from the Moyes anywhere in the released P.J. files! Now, the Moyes could have been important witnesses, yet it appears that they were never interviewed in any depth about what they had or had not seen.
In this radio interview Susan Moyes makes no reference whatsoever to any contact (informal or otherwise) with the police, although she mentions the P.J. investigation and the subsequent criticism of it from certain quarters.
We know that the P.J. and certainly Dr. Amaral doubted Jane Tanner's story from very early on. And yet, the very people who were in a position to corroborate or contradict Jane's story re. walking up the road and passing Gerry and J. Wilkins were never asked about this during the whole month they were in Portugal!
For me, this puts the delay in taking Pamela Fenn's statement into perspective. I can only assume that basic police work initially saw both the Moyes and Mrs. Fenn being asked very anodyne questions along the lines of "Did you see or hear of anything suspicious that night" and that when they answered negatively, attention was focused elsewhere. By the time they got round to speaking to Mrs. Fenn again, the Moyes had already returned home to the U.K. If they stayed a month, that would have seen them returning home during the first week of August and Mrs. Fenn did not give her evidence until August 20th. There does not seem to have been an urgency to uncover further potential information from the McCanns' neighbours.

by Verdi 24.09.18 2:12

When considering the position of Pamela Fenn in this web of intrigue, it's very important to factor in that of her niece Carole Tranmer...

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

by Verdi 24.09.18 2:44

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

by Phoebe 25.09.18 19:19

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

In the interests of clarity, I think it important to point out that this is a RADIO interview with Mrs. Moyes which she gave to Radio Stoke & Staffordshire after returning home from Portugal. There is no record of, nor reference to, any interview with the P.J. although she claims to have been on the top balcony of the McCanns' apartment block at 9.15. p.m. on May 3rd. and, consequently, would have been in a perfect position to see Jane Tanner, J. Wilkins and Gerry McCann, either as they came toward 5A or walked away from that conversation. Strangely, it appears that she and her husband were never interviewed by the P.J. about what they had or had not seen, despite being in P. de L. until the first week of June.!

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

Mrs Pamela Fenn's Witness Statement of 20th August 2007...