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

by Guest 25.09.18 21:14

Phoebe wrote:
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.!

The linked thread is about media interview transcripts, not witness statement transcripts. The Moyes interview transcript is clearly headed ....

Search for Maddie BBC - Stoke and Staffordshire

The balconies for the apartment block are at the rear of the building facing the pool area, playground, tennis courts, Tapas bar/restaurant etc. The claimed encounter between Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins and Jane Tanner's alleged sighting were at the opposite side, i.e. the front of the building.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Rear facing pool and Tapas

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

by Doug D 25.09.18 22:13

Verdi:

‘The claimed encounter between Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins and Jane Tanner's alleged sighting were at the opposite side, i.e. the front of the building.’

No.

They were at the side somewhere between the Mc’s side gate and the secondary OC reception.
It was only Tannerman walking left to right at the top of the hill that was at the front of the building.

JW:

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

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

‘I have drawn a map of the complex and marked an X where I saw Jerry on Thursday evening ' JW 1.’

JT:

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

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

‘Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.

She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children.

Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.’

by Phoebe 25.09.18 23:38

@ Doug D. Agreed. The Moyes balcony was directly above Mrs. Fenn's.

According to Jane Tanner's statement (May 10th '07) -

"About 21h10 GM left the restaurant having gone to the apartment to see his children. Five or ten minutes later (21h15 - 21h20) the deponent (Jane T.) left, having gone to her apartment to check all was well with her girls. At that time (21h15 - 21h20) she observed GM talking to an English citizen called Jez that they had met on these holidays"...."after having gone to see the child she returned to the restaurant. on her return GM was no longer talking where she had seen him. When she arrived at the restaurant GM was already seated at the table accompanied by his wife KH and all the others."

Firstly, given that the Moyes, at 9h15, were on their balcony which overlooks the Tapas Bar and the route from it to 5A, they were perfectly positioned to confirm whether they had seen -
A) Gerry, either leaving the Tapas Bar on his way TO 5A or returning to the Tapas bar FROM 5A.

B) They would have seen Jane exit the Tapas Bar through the reception entrance and make her way uphill toward the block.

C) As Doug D points out, the conversation between Jez and Gerry (which Jane places at 9h15 - 9h20) took place at the side gate, which lead to the steps up into 5A. This was just off to the side of the Moyes balcony. Not only could they possibly have seen the actual encounter between Gerry and Wilkins, they would - given that they were seated almost directly above it - have heard the sound of voices conversing beneath them.

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

by Guest 25.09.18 23:47

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

Susan Moyes: "Sure. We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed."

Moyes states in this radio interview, she and her husband arrived at the Ocean Club just before Madeleine disappeared and stayed for one month. If this be true, they would have returned to their homeland at the beginning of June, not August. The interview, the first time a Moye has been heard in public, was a matter of days before Pamela Fenn gave her witness statement to the PJ.

I strongly suggest this interview was 'arranged' with pecunary incentive. Reading the interview, this person is less than convincing - I doubt they know anything. There isn't even any evidence that they were there at the Ocean Club when they claimed to be.

by Guest 26.09.18 0:19

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

by Phoebe 26.09.18 0:33

below is a good perspective IMO -

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

by Phoebe 26.09.18 0:39

@ Verdi You state above -
"Moyes states in this radio interview, she and her husband arrived at the Ocean Club just before Madeleine disappeared and stayed for one month. If this be true, they would have returned to their homeland at the beginning of June, not August"

This is perfectly correct. Unfortunately, I was unable to amend my original post of 24th Sept @ 1.05 so I posted again today at 18h19 with the correct month -

"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.!

by Phoebe 26.09.18 11:31

@ Verdi You state above -

"I strongly suggest this interview was 'arranged' with pecunary incentive. Reading the interview, this person is less than convincing - I doubt they know anything. There isn't even any evidence that they were there at the Ocean Club when they claimed to be"

I can't imagine that the Moyes told lies a on Radio show for a few quid. By all accounts I 've seen, they were financially comfortable. If the suggestion is that they too (like Mrs Fenn) were "plants" working for team McCann then the latter should demand a refund! The Moyes' interview merely adds to doubts about Jane's version of events, and the confirmation that both apartments above the McCanns' flat were occupied from shortly after 9 p.m. onward casts further doubt on the notion that someone would risk breaking into 5A. at that time.

by NickE 01.01.19 21:18

Here is a tweet on the subject from one of the most notorious Pro-McCann tweeter,some says this tweeter is close to the family.
"Indeed, it COULD NOT have been" Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard.
Already gone?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.19 9:11

NickE wrote:Here is a tweet on the subject from one of the most notorious Pro-McCann tweeter,some says this tweeter is close to the family.
"Indeed, it COULD NOT have been" Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard.
Already gone?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That is one of the many troubles with Twitter.

Who knows what exactly is meant by those 11 words posted by 'Killa Dog'.

If, as you say, the person is a McCann-supporter, maybe it is what we would call a 'Freudian slip'? (don't know if you have the same expression in your language?)

Has 'Killa Dog' been asked for an explanation?

I stand by my assertions about Mrs Fenn's evidence, including

(1) It was first given over three-and-a-half months after the McCanns' holiday
(2) Her evidence appeared in several British newspapers on 18 & 19 August before she even made a statement to the PJ on Monday 20 August
(3) She clearly told local news reporters that what had been said about her evidence in the media was "rubbish" - yet the media were only reporting exactly what she said in her statement
(4) Her statement is unbelievable on the face of it (a child crying ever louder for 75 minutes, nobody else hearing the crying, Mrs Fenn failing to report it etc.
(5) Her statement has a number of inconsistencies
(6) Her statement looks very much contrived in order to 'fit' Madeleine: "a child of more than two years of age" - how can she tell the difference between the4 crying of a two-year-old and a three-year-old?!
(7) Multiple contradictions in the varying accounts of the alleged attempted burglary she is supposed to have suffered e.g. 1 week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks or 'several' weeks before the McCanns' holiday
(8) Implausibility of the event as described e.g. an 82-year-old leaping across the room to try and grab the mythical burglar by the ankles as he leapt from a first-floor window.

How any rational person, having carefully examined all the evidence, can take Mrs Fenn's statement seriously, is quite beyond me

by Phoebe 02.01.19 11:08

The McCanns claimed that they had checked on their children at least every half hour. If Mrs. Fenn heard Madeleine cry for an hour and a half then the McCanns schedule of checking must be a lie. I believe this is what is at issue in the tweet quoted above by Killa Dog. He is defending the McCanns' "checking regularly" tale. In simple terms if the McCanns are not liars then they would have come across Madeleine crying during one of their half-hourly checks on the Tuesday night and, presumably, would have stayed with their distressed child.
Mrs. Fenn stated that she had never spoken to any reporters, about her statement or any burglary thwarting. I believe this is what she meant when she claimed that, as she had never spoken to any reporters, what they claimed she had told them was all rubbish.The ridiculous stories of her allegedly explaining to the press how she grabbed a burglar by the ankle as he tried to escape through a high window are indeed "rubbish".

by NickE 02.01.19 14:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:Here is a tweet on the subject from one of the most notorious Pro-McCann tweeter,some says this tweeter is close to the family.
"Indeed, it COULD NOT have been" Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard.
Already gone?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That is one of the many troubles with Twitter.

Who knows what exactly is meant by those 11 words posted by 'Killa Dog'.

If, as you say, the person is a McCann-supporter, maybe it is what we would call a 'Freudian slip'? (don't know if you have the same expression in your language?)

Has 'Killa Dog' been asked for an explanation?

I stand by my assertions about Mrs Fenn's evidence, including

(1) It was first given over three-and-a-half months after the McCanns' holiday
(2) Her evidence appeared in several British newspapers on 18 & 19 August before she even made a statement to the PJ on Monday 20 August
(3) She clearly told local news reporters that what had been said about her evidence in the media was "rubbish" - yet the media were only reporting exactly what she said in her statement
(4) Her statement is unbelievable on the face of it (a child crying ever louder for 75 minutes, nobody else hearing the crying, Mrs Fenn failing to report it etc.
(5) Her statement has a number of inconsistencies
(6) Her statement looks very much contrived in order to 'fit' Madeleine: "a child of more than two years of age" - how can she tell the difference between the4 crying of a two-year-old and a three-year-old?!
(7) Multiple contradictions in the varying accounts of the alleged attempted burglary she is supposed to have suffered e.g. 1 week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks or 'several' weeks before the McCanns' holiday
(8) Implausibility of the event as described e.g. an 82-year-old leaping across the room to try and grab the mythical burglar by the ankles as he leapt from a first-floor window.

How any rational person, having carefully examined all the evidence, can take Mrs Fenn's statement seriously, is quite beyond me

Yes, "freudian slip" is the same in Swedish.
I've asked him why it could not have been Madeleine Mrs Fenn heard.
He has been active all the time but no reply so far.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.19 22:50

Phoebe wrote:The McCanns claimed that they had checked on their children at least every half hour. If Mrs. Fenn heard Madeleine cry for an hour and a half then the McCanns schedule of checking must be a lie. I believe this is what is at issue in the tweet quoted above by Killa Dog. He is defending the McCanns' "checking regularly" tale. In simple terms if the McCanns are not liars then they would have come across Madeleine crying during one of their half-hourly checks on the Tuesday night and, presumably, would have stayed with their distressed child.
Mrs. Fenn stated that she had never spoken to any reporters, about her statement or any burglary thwarting. I believe this is what she meant when she claimed that, as she had never spoken to any reporters, what they claimed she had told them was all rubbish.The ridiculous stories of her allegedly explaining to the press how she grabbed a burglar by the ankle as he tried to escape through a high window are indeed "rubbish".

@ Phoebe Thank you for your reply. Thank you for addressing one of the nine points about Mrs Fenn's evidence that I listed.

We have the facts about the alleged burglary mainly from the media reports of 18 and 19 August 2007, on that I agree with you. But we also have her statement, which on its face has multiple problems with it that seriously undermine its credibility.

The fact is that she claims she had a burglar, and the media reports have, it seems, embellished this, with a whole series of different accounts of this burglary, when it happened, what happened, when and if it was reported to police etc. etc.

Mrs Fenn said it was all rubbish. Your claim that she was saying it was rubbish because of the exaggerated reports of the burglary is just a guess on your part, isn't it? It is a bit of speculation without any evidence whatsoever. You may be right. But you may well be entirely wrong.

Do you agree that the very fact that we have had all these varied claims about when the burglary happened (1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, several weeks before), about how the burglar got in, what he did when was in the apartment, whether Mrs Fenn leapt to grab him etc. - do you agree that this suggests the very real possibility that this burglary story is an invention by the McCann camp and their advisers to put in people's minds that Praia da Luz was a place prone to break-ins and burglaries?

If this burglary really happened, Mrs Fenn and the media would have surely have given a coherent account of it, don't you agree?

WHEN it happened.
HOW he got in.
WHAT he did when he was there.
WHETHER he leapt out of the window or got out through the door.
WHEN it was reported to the police and WHAT the police did about it.

But we have none of this. We have a mass of inconsistencies instead. On this basis I suggest again that this burglary never happened.

It follows from what I say that it is possible that persons unknown 'leaned on' Mrs Fenn to claim a burglary. Who they were, and why Mrs Fenn complied (if she did), I cannot say.

Finally, you have at least tried to address one of my nine points.

I am not sure if you believe that Mrs Fenn was a truthful and reliable witness?

If you do, I would find it helpful if you addressed the other eight points I listed - thanks!

by Guest 04.01.19 0:24

When considering the authenticity of Pamela Fenn's testimony and associated reports, it essential to factor in the witness statement of her niece, Carole Tranmer.

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

If anything is going to cast doubt, this cements the deal. Carole Tranmer was but a visitor, a passing non-entity - but just look how much she had to say !?!

think

by Phoebe 04.01.19 0:36

@ Tony Bennett. Actually Tony, my post above was not intended as a reply to you but rather to a post by NickE, in which he pointed out that a pro McCann tweeter had claimed that Mrs. Fenn could not have heard Madeleine cry for an hour and a half on the Tuesday night. He seemed to be pondering whether this meant that "Killa Dog" knew that Madeleine wasn't alive in order to do so. My post was to offer another simpler explanation which Killa Dog might have intended ie that as the McCanns claimed to have checked their children half-hourly they would have encountered Madeleine crying and done something about it.
With regard to Mrs. Fenn having said that the press reports were "all rubbish" well, if she hadn't spoken to them and they had printed nonsense about the attempted robbery, when it occurred and what allegedly happened, then I find her comment perfectly
normal.
All she told the police in her statement was that there had been an attempted robbery a week previously at her apartment, that it was unsuccessful and that nothing was taken.
Mrs Fenn cannot be held responsible for the timing of her police interview. It is clear from her statement of August 20th that there had already been contact between her family and the police and that her niece Carol Tranmer had already, at that stage, spoken to the police.
It is not unreasonable to believe that the P.J. had already spoken to Mrs Fenn well before they invited her in to give her official statement on August 20th '07. She lived directly above the crime scene after all, and was at home when the alleged crime occurred!
Her information wasn't that important. All she could confirm for them was that a child had been crying and therefore unsupervised for an hour and a half two nights before Madeleine went missing.
I do agree that the media attempted to exaggerate Mrs. Fenn's robbery to support the abduction claim but cannot see that she is to blame for this. Nor can I see how her claim to have heard Madeleine crying is anything but detrimental to the McCanns' cause.

by Guest 04.01.19 1:05

Phoebe wrote:Her information wasn't that important. All she could confirm for them was that a child had been crying and therefore unsupervised for an hour and a half two nights before Madeleine went missing.

Not important what

!?!

by **sharonl** 04.01.19 8:30

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Her information wasn't that important. All she could confirm for them was that a child had been crying and therefore unsupervised for an hour and a half two nights before Madeleine went missing.
Not important !?!

Actually, she made a point of saying that it was a child and not a baby of 2 or younger.

Why did she even need to specify the age of the child? Was she just trying to say that Madeleine was alive at that point?

If one child cried for this length of time, why didn't she hear the other children too? Wouldn't the 2 year olds have woken and joined in?

by Phoebe 04.01.19 11:32

If Mrs Fenn's purpose was to "prove" that Madeleine was alive on Tuesday then A) she went about it in the oddest way and B) such "proof" was of no assistance to the McCanns.
If she had been part of some plan to show that Madeleine was alive on Tuesday ( and why would she be needed to do this - eye-witnesses claim to have seen her alive two days later, ergo she was alive on Tuesday!) - she could simply have claimed to have seen her coming or going to 5A. Job done!
"Proving" that Madeleine was alive on Tuesday night was pointless, the police already accepted this, therefore, no need to assist in proving this. What the P.J. WERE interested in was the events of Thursday May 3rd from 5.30 p.m. onward Her evidence re. this period was of little value. She saw nothing and heard nothing until after the alarm was raised on the night the crime occurred. All she could tell police was that a child was crying loudly and calling out for its father for an hour and a half two nights before the crime occurred - despite the parent's claims that they checked their children half hourly. So yes, IMO her evidence about the actual disappearance is of little value to the P.J. - she witnessed nothing which could help them find how Madeleine disappeared from the flat on Thursday night. All her evidence does do is suggest that the McCanns left their children unchecked for a lengthy period two nights earlier and were therefore careless parents and liars. Hardly helpful to their plight!

by Guest 04.01.19 11:46

sharonl wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Her information wasn't that important. All she could confirm for them was that a child had been crying and therefore unsupervised for an hour and a half two nights before Madeleine went missing.
Not important !?!

Actually, she made a point of saying that it was a child and not a baby of 2 or younger.

Why did she even need to specify the age of the child? Was she just trying to say that Madeleine was alive at that point?

If one child cried for this length of time, why didn't she hear the other children too? Wouldn't the 2 year olds have woken and joined in?

Exactly!
Exactly!
Exactly!

by **Tony Bennett** 04.01.19 11:47

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett.

With regard to Mrs. Fenn having said that the press reports were "all rubbish" well...

REST SNIPPED

@ Phoebe

Replying to the main points in your post:

PHOEBE: “If Mrs. Fenn hadn't spoken to [the [press] and they had printed nonsense about the attempted robbery, when it occurred and what allegedly happened, then I find her comment perfectly normal”.

REPLY: Your answer remains speculation, a guess. Perhaps the most relevant question is this: was there an attempted robbery at all?” I’m afraid that just because there is a brief reference to an alleged robbery in her statement is no proof whatsoever that it happened. Consider again that:

1 She gives no detail about this alleged robbery
2 She does not say if she previously reported it to the police
3 The conflicting claims in the media about when this burglary is supposed to have happened, what actually happened, and whether she reported it to the police at all, immediately suggest that this is a fabricated event.

PHOEBE: “Mrs Fenn cannot be held responsible for the timing of her police interview. It is clear from her statement of August 20th that there had already been contact between her family and the police and that her niece Carol Tranmer had already, at that stage, spoken to the police”.

REPLY: I’m afraid you have made a key assumption here for which there is no evidence. You say: “Mrs Fenn cannot be held responsible for the timing of her police interview”. What is the evidence that the police called her in for interview? The evidence is the other way around. We have the evidence from the British media reports of 18 and 19 August about what she was going to say in her statement. She had not made any statement yet. She made it on 20 August. The point is that whoever provided the British media with broadly correct details about what she was going to say, must have known in advance what she was likely to tell the Portuguese police.

The press must have had this information on or before 17 August. Who supplied it to them? I think the chief suspect is Clarence Mitchell, is it not? Remember the context here. In the first two weeks of August 2007, there were numerous stories in the British and Portuguese press about cadaver dogs, blood, DNA evidence etc. These took hold after Martin Grime and his dogs had been to Praia da Luz at the very end of August. The McCann Team needed stories in the media to counteract these alarming reports.

By the way, you mentioned Carol Tranmner. ‘Verdi’ upthread was absolutely spot on to say that Mrs Fenn’s evidence should be weighed together with that of Carole Tranmer. For starters, the two disagree about whether she was present when the alleged burglary is supposed to have happened.

PHOEBE: “It is not unreasonable to believe that the P.J. had already spoken to Mrs Fenn well before they invited her in to give her official statement on August 20th '07. She lived directly above the crime scene after all, and was at home when the alleged crime occurred!”

REPLY: I agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that during the 24 hours after the reported disappearance of Madeleine the Portuguese police visited Mrs Fenn along with all other near neighbours of the McCanns. However, there is zero evidence that she made any statement to them at the time. That is curious IF (a) there really had been a crying incident and (b) IF there really had been a recent burglary. All this tends to suggest that her statement of 20 August was concocted at the instigation of others, mostly likely the McCann Team.

PHOEBE: “Nor can I see how her claim to have heard Madeleine crying is anything but detrimental to the McCanns' cause”.

REPLY: I would have thought this was obvious! Her statement appeared to ‘prove’ that Madeleine was alive on the evening of Tuesday 1 May. It also conveniently put an alleged ‘burglar’ into the frame, thus paving the way for a succession of ‘burglary gone wrong’ claims from the McCann Team and Operation Grange.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.01.19 11:51

Verdi wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Her information wasn't that important. All she could confirm for them was that a child had been crying and therefore unsupervised for an hour and a half two nights before Madeleine went missing.
Not important !?!

Actually, she made a point of saying that it was a child and not a baby of 2 or younger.

Why did she even need to specify the age of the child? Was she just trying to say that Madeleine was alive at that point?

If one child cried for this length of time, why didn't she hear the other children too? Wouldn't the 2 year olds have woken and joined in?
Exactly!
Exactly!
Exactly!

+1

It would be hard to think of a more contrived statement than that the child she heard crying for 75 minutes was a child of "more than two years of age".

Who put those contrived words into her mouth?

by Phoebe 04.01.19 12:29

Many of us parents have had the gruesome experience of a child who sleeps badly and cries often during the night. Personally, I spent over two years with one of mine who, nightly, kept each parent up in turn. The rest of the family slept on. However, I will admit that the crying child was in his own room! We have only the McCanns word that all 3 children occupied the same bedroom and the cleaner's testimony seems to contradict this. I find it perfectly credible that the twins, aged just over two, on the go all day without naps, might not awaken if their sister was crying, especially if she was in a different room.
A child with the energy to cry loudly for 75 mins and call out to a parent would strike me (if I were to hear such a thing) as likely to be older. Again, if Mrs. Fenn was "put up to it" in order to prove Madeleine was alive why didn't she simply say she had seen her, preferably on Thursday. Why say she heard a crying child two nights earlier whom she could not definitively identify as Madeleine. Her evidence merely casts the McCanns as horrible, selfish parents.

Edited to add - in her official statement of August 20th 07 Mrs. Fenn clearly states that her niece had, by August 20th '07 already spoken to the police. I would be astonished if Mrs. Fenn herself had not also been spoken to before her official statement.
From Pamela Fenn's statement Aug 20th '07 -

"On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment, situation WHICH HAS BEEN TOLD TO THE POLICE, HER FAMILY MEMBER EVEN MADE A PHOTO FIT" (my capitals)

by Liz Eagles 04.01.19 12:51

Comparing the norm of responsible parenting with one's own experience in this instance is to buy the abduction theory.

by Liz Eagles 04.01.19 14:06

I don't believe the Fenn extravaganza anymore than I believe the Smith sighting to have any credibility.

by Guest 04.01.19 15:08

When questioned by police the following day, Friday 4th May 2007, Kate McCann had the presence of mind to tell them of a fleeting conversation with her daughter at breakfast that previous morning, during which Madeleine had asked her mother why she had not come to her room 'when the twins were crying'.

She thought it important to mention as it might have been evidence of a prowler, but, as she later stated .... 'if Madeleine hadn't been abducted we'd never have thought of that comment again'.

This version of the truth changed direction of course - according to the prevailing wind !!!

by Guest 04.01.19 15:22

Phoebe wrote:We have only the McCanns word that all 3 children occupied the same bedroom and the cleaner's testimony seems to contradict this. I find it perfectly credible that the twins, aged just over two, on the go all day without naps, might not awaken if their sister was crying, especially if she was in a different room.

All the cleaner said was there was a cot in the bedroom occupied by the parents - it you look carefully at the cleaner's witness statement you will see that the reference to the cot is not time/day specific. According to David Payne, after their arrival at the Ocean Club, he helped the McCanns put-up a cot. The various accounts of the provision of cots varies from witness to witness.

Apart from that, even if Madeleine was sleeping in separate romm to the twins, the idea that one or the other wouldn't be wakened by another crying is inconceivable. This is a bog basic holiday apartment we're talking about - not Hampton Court.

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

Thinking about it logically, there can beno reasonable explanation as to why the parents would need to deceive or lie about the children's sleeping arrangment.

This is just flying in the face of all the compelling evidence that suggests Madeleine 'disappeared' long before the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. No Madeleine = no Madeleine crying.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.01.19 16:24

Verdi wrote:When questioned by police the following day, Friday 4th May 2007, Kate McCann had the presence of mind to tell them of a fleeting conversation with her daughter at breakfast that previous morning, during which Madeleine had asked her mother why she had not come to her room 'when the twins were crying'.

She thought it important to mention as it might have been evidence of a prowler, but, as she later stated .... 'if Madeleine hadn't been abducted we'd never have thought of that comment again'.

This version of the truth changed direction of course - according to the prevailing wind !!!

If, as some think, Madeleine died on Sunday, they had four whole days to come up with...

1 Jane Tanner's fake sighting

2 Nuno Lourenco's fake abductor (Mr Krokowski)

3 A fake sighting of the McCanns at Sagres beach on the Sunday or Monday

4 A fake 'break-in' scenario...shutters jemmied open etc

5 A fake checking regime on the evening of Thursday 3rd

6 A fake crying incident

7 A fake meeting between David Payne and Kate McCann at 6.30pm on Thursday 3rd

8 A fake high tea with Cat Baker at 5.30pm on Thursday 3rd

9 Fake EXIF data claiming the Last Photo was taken on Thursday not the Sunday

10 A fake story about who took the disputed 'Tennis Balls Photo' and when

11 A fake reason for booking the Tapas restaurant

12 A fake reason for getting Robert Murat over to Praia da Luz

13 A fake set of 2 CDs purporting to be a record of all their holiday photos...

...and so on

by **sharonl** 04.01.19 16:44

Good question Verdi

Why would the McCanns need to lie about the sleeping arrangements?

If Madeleine had disappeared from the apartment on May 3rd as they claim, there would be no need to lie about the sleeping arrangements.

However, if Madeleine disappeared earlier and all the remaining children were being cared for in one apartment as had been suggested by the investigators, one of the Tapas friends being away from the table each night to babysit, then the McCanns would need to lie about the sleeping arrangements. They could hardly claim that Madeleine was abducted from another apartment with 8 other children and an adult. So it had to be that the she was abducted from 5A when the McCanns were out. The whole story including the sleeping arrangements would then be a lie. Does this explain the lack of DNA in the apartment and the claim that the bed had not been slept in?

by Phoebe 04.01.19 18:51

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:We have only the McCanns word that all 3 children occupied the same bedroom and the cleaner's testimony seems to contradict this. I find it perfectly credible that the twins, aged just over two, on the go all day without naps, might not awaken if their sister was crying, especially if she was in a different room.
All the cleaner said was there was a cot in the bedroom occupied by the parents - it you look carefully at the cleaner's witness statement you will see that the reference to the cot is not time/day specific. According to David Payne, after their arrival at the Ocean Club, he helped the McCanns put-up a cot. The various accounts of the provision of cots varies from witness to witness.

Apart from that, even if Madeleine was sleeping in separate romm to the twins, the idea that one or the other wouldn't be wakened by another crying is inconceivable. This is a bog basic holiday apartment we're talking about - not Hampton Court.

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

Thinking about it logically, there can beno reasonable explanation as to why the parents would need to deceive or lie about the children's sleeping arrangment.

This is just flying in the face of all the compelling evidence that suggests Madeleine 'disappeared' long before the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. No Madeleine = no Madeleine crying.

The cleaner Maria Julia Serafim da Silva's statement reads as follows -

"She remembers that when she entered Apartment A on the Wednesday, the parents were inside. After being duly authorized, she entered and carried out her work, because they were already on their way out. While she was in the apartment, there were no children there, and she supposed that they were in the creche. While performing her work, she remembers having noticed that the couple was sleeping in the room located opposite the entrance, where she confirmed the presence of a child's bed (crib)"

IMO it couldn't be any clearer that she is saying that she saw a cot in the parent's room on Wednesday May 2nd.

I think there is a very good reason why the McCanns might lie about the children's sleeping arrangements. They claim that Madeleine was abducted from the front bedroom and that the windows and shutter of this bedroom were open. They could not claim that Madeleine had been taken from the rear bedroom and that the windows and shutter of THIS room were open to facilitate the abduction since Matt could not but have noticed this fact on his 9.30 pm check when he entered by the patio doors beside said window. Kate too would have noticed this before entering the apartment for he 10 p.m. check.
Given that the cleaner was there when the cots first arrived and were set up she obviously was referring to a change of cot positioning on a day other than the first day when the apartment was prepared for the family.

" She remembers that when preparing this apartment, she had just been notified that the apartment was to be occupied by 5 (five) people; she was unaware of children in the group. However, at the exact moment when she and her colleague DTNA were preparing the room, personnel from the company MARK WARNER entered the apartment and proceeded to place two children's beds. It was at this moment that they learned that children would be sleeping in the apartment. "

by Guest 04.01.19 20:52

Phoebe wrote:The cleaner Maria Julia Serafim da Silva's statement reads as follows -

"She remembers that when she entered Apartment A on the Wednesday, the parents were inside. After being duly authorized, she entered and carried out her work, because they were already on their way out. While she was in the apartment, there were no children there, and she supposed that they were in the creche. While performing her work, she remembers having noticed that the couple was sleeping in the room located opposite the entrance, where she confirmed the presence of a child's bed (crib)"

IMO it couldn't be any clearer that she is saying that she saw a cot in the parent's room on Wednesday May 2nd.

It's the presentation of the translation that makes appear so. If you regard the actual document written in Portuguese you will see there is a break between the comment about her entering apartment 5a on the Wednesday and the comment about the presence of a crib.

Lines 29-32 and then lines 33-40

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

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...