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

Tony Bennett wrote:

BarryTheHatchet wrote:Oh, here we go with the accusations and innuendo again.  If you have something to say Plebgate, why don't you just come out and say it.  I am not spoiling anything and I have never claimed to be "hard done by".  I have volunteered an opinon and I expected it to be debated properly, amongst grown adults, not silly little gangs playing childish games.  No wonder new posters are scared off from here.  Well let me tell you, I've been around for far too long to be bullied away by the likes of you and your silly little groupies.

I'm not sure how many posters are 'scared off', Barry - well over 1,000 new members have already joined CMOMM this year, and tens of thousands read here every day.

Sadly a handful of new members, like yourself, come here not to help us but to hinder us.

They are sometime 'put off' by us tolerating folk like yourself for a bit too long.

Exactly Tony, I don't see any posters being scared off but we have seen it all before sadly.


Posts such as

  "no wonder posters wont post, bullying, silly groupies, bad language.   This from a new members is being tolerated - why? "

If anything puts posters off imo it is behaviour like that and it certainly comes across to me as being aggressive.

Well a thriving thread certainly seems to have gone quiet.   I wonder why that is?

Onward and upwards as ever is my motto.

Tony Bennett wrote:

tinkier wrote:

Tony, It's very obvious your views on Mrs Fenn, you think that she is lying. Why would an 81 year old lady allow someone to coerce her into telling these lies for the McCann's benefit?

A few people on this thread have said, in terms: "How awful, Tony, you are accusing Mrs Fenn of lying".

Let me restate once again what I am suggesting: namely that certain people pursuing a certain agenda prevailed upon Mrs Fenn to visit the PJ on 20 August 2007 and claim (a) that she heard a child crying loudly for 75 continuous minutes and (b) that she was burgled. And I have set out comprehensive reasons for doubting both claims. That is quite different from saying: 'Mrs Fenn lied' or 'Mrs Fenn was a liar'.

As for the reasons why she should succumb to such pressure (if she did), that would be sheer speculation, but I suggest that the most likely possibility is that she thought she was doing a favour for some people around her.

Morning Tony…..I have great respect for you and the amount of work/research you have put into this case. Your views are always very well thought out by the evidence presented, however on this occasion I can not agree with your opinion. I do not believe an 81 year old lady would lie for anyone. Imo she only gave answers to the  questions put to her, thus allowing her to put an age to the child that was crying that night.

plebgate wrote:Well a thriving thread certainly seems to have gone quiet.   I wonder why that is?

Onward and upwards as ever is my motto.

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

tinkier wrote:

Morning Tony…..I have great respect for you and the amount of work/research you have put into this case. Your views are always very well thought out by the evidence presented, however on this occasion I can not agree with your opinion. I do not believe an 81 year old lady would lie for anyone. Imo she only gave answers to the  questions put to her, thus allowing her to put an age to the child that was crying that night.

I don't agree with Tony all the time.

I'm undecided on Mrs Fenn.

Disagreement is ok so long as arguments are rational.

skyrocket wrote:There are 2 unswaying camps in this debate and there is no way of confirming either side. The fact is that a legal statement exists, and the witness cannot now be re-questioned. 

We can never know for sure whether Mrs Fenn was truthful or had been somehow pressured into saying what she said. The only person who can corroborate Mrs Fenn's statement is Edna Glyn. I do think however, that Mrs Fenn's apparent character has to be taken into account - if she lied, there had to be an overwhelmingly good reason, which can only be guessed at. 

It's a possibility also that it wasn't until the dogs arrived and the press started pointing fingers towards the Mc's on about 7 August, that Mrs Fenn realised that there might be significance to any crying she heard 2 nights before the 'disappearance'. 

Second guessing what others did or didn't do or why they did what they did is, IMO, impossible.

On the whole I would agree with the thrust of all of the above comments and I guess most people on this thread would also agree with you. The issue is of great importance, however, because on the simple basis of Mrs Fenn's statement, it is taken as absolute proof by many that Madeleine McCann was alive and crying for 75 minutes between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May. And that is why I have devoted a lot of attention to Mrs Fenn's statement.

I would like to probe in more detail the possibility that you've promoted (in bold type above) that Mrs Fenn may have suddenly realised round about 7 August that her recollection of the crying incident might be important. 

First of all, I cannot possibly agree that having lived above the very scene of Madeleine's reported disappearance, and being a resident of Praia da Luz amidst the international media frenzy that was going on there from 3 May onwards, that the first thought of reporting any crying incident occurred to her about 7 August - 98 days later.

So once again let us put under the microscope the actual key events, namely:

1. Sudden rash of newspaper stories in most British mainstream newspapers on Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 August 2007, clearly trailing in advance what Mrs Fenn was going to say (a) about an alleged crying incident and (b) about an alleged burglary 

2. The extreme probability that these stories were placed there by someone acting on behalf of the McCann Team, the most likely candidate by far being Clarence Mitchell (who I think was in London at the time and therefore best placed to arrange this)

3. Following on from the above, the probability that these stories were planted in those newspapers by conversations between Mitchell and the respective newspaper editors on or about, say, Thursday 16 and Friday 17 August

4. Following on from the above points, it is clear that Mitchell must have known by then (a) that Mrs Fenn was going to make a statement to the PJ on 20 August (i.e. he had advance knowledge of the date of her appointment, and (b) at least in general terms, what she was going to tell them

5. Following on from that, it follows that either Mrs Fenn spoke directly to Clarence Mitcehll (very unlikely) or (much more likely) she spoke to intermediaries in Portugal who in turn spoke to Mitchell.

I believe that most on this thread would agree with the above analysis.

What Mrs Fenn may have said to these intermediaries, and why, is I agree a matter for speculation and no-one here can prove it either way.     

To which I would add one thing. Mrs Fenn said merely that there had been 'a burglary'. All the other contradictory claims about this alleged burglary that filled the papers in Britain and Portugal on 18 August and the days following (and which I have analysed in detail on another thread) seem certain to have been created by another source and not Mrs Fenn herself.

Overall, I don't think that Mrs Fenn would be brazen enough to deliberately tell bare face lies to the Police. However, she may well have been 'got at' and her thinking influenced by some very persuasive people with an agenda, some of who she perhaps knew and trusted. Her probable sympathy for the situation (as she perceived) and eruption of chaos at the time making her susceptible to suggestion.

Meanwhile (and slightly off topic).........OG continues. The various predictions of closure and whitewash in the spring hasn't happened. I wonder why ?

I hardly think Mrs. Fenn telling the police that she heard a child crying for 75 mins is going to help the McCanns. 

OK, so it suggests a child was alive on the evening of 1st May, but it is pretty damning of the McCanns that they left a child alone for that long.  

If it was a story manufactured by TM they would, IMO, have got her to say 15/20 mins not 75 mins.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Overall, I don't think that Mrs Fenn would be brazen enough to deliberately tell bare face lies to the Police. However, she may well have been 'got at' and her thinking influenced by some very persuasive people with an agenda, some of who she perhaps knew and trusted. Her probable sympathy for the situation (as she perceived) and eruption of chaos at the time making her susceptible to suggestion.

Meanwhile (and slightly off topic).........OG continues. The various predictions of closure and whitewash in the spring hasn't happened. I wonder why ?

If Mrs Fenn were a blood relative maybe I could entertain a possibility she was 'got at.'   However I don't believe an innocent 81 year old lady could be dragged into the midst of such a sordid crime and give a disturbing and fictional account to the police of what may have been Maddie's last moments/days alive.  It just isn't feasible to me she would be willing to pervert the course of justice because a neighbor/acquaintance suggested she do so.

Richard IV wrote:I hardly think Mrs. Fenn telling the police that she heard a child crying for 75 mins is going to help the McCanns. 

OK, so it suggests a child was alive on the evening of 1st May, but it is pretty damning of the McCanns that they left a child alone for that long.  

If it was a story manufactured by TM they would, IMO, have got her to say 15/20 mins not 75 mins.

Exactly Richard!

OR as I posted previously, why would they not put pressure on Mrs Fenn to say she heard Madeleine laughing/playing/singing/running/jumping!

All would have the same result but without the negative press!

It just doesn't make any sense to suggest Team McCann would ask Mrs Fenn to say something so damning when there are so many other alternatives.

I'm still sticking to my theory in my previous posts.

Going slightly sideways for a min wasn't August 2007 the same time the sedation drama was happening as well. There were approx 12 people who had concerns about the twins not waking up. Who out of those 12 or so people did something about their concerns ?

I live in a semi-detached I share a main wall with my neighbour and the daughter who has a baby (well he is two now) visits pretty much everyday. He is a bloody crier !! Several times the crying has gone on for at least half and hour sometimes longer. I know for a fact the two grandparents and the mother are in that room while the baby is crying and both myself and my daughter have sat here in distress wondering why the hell no one is consoling this child !!!! There have been times that I have to turn my TV up extremely loud to not be able to hear it. On one particular time after there was persistent crying the father arrived, within minutes of him going inside the crying stopped. Another time it was a lovely, sunny peaceful day, I was outside, they were outside, the crying started, the crying continued, again three adults were sat there doing nothing. After rather loudly mildly cursing so they could hear I came back inside. 

I have thought on many occasions to report these happenings to an authority, but I haven't mainly because even if I did it anonymously they are going to know it was me. They are not the kind of people you want to be on the wrong side of.

pennylane wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Overall, I don't think that Mrs Fenn would be brazen enough to deliberately tell bare face lies to the Police. However, she may well have been 'got at' and her thinking influenced by some very persuasive people with an agenda, some of who she perhaps knew and trusted. Her probable sympathy for the situation (as she perceived) and eruption of chaos at the time making her susceptible to suggestion.

Meanwhile (and slightly off topic).........OG continues. The various predictions of closure and whitewash in the spring hasn't happened. I wonder why ?

If Mrs Fenn were a blood relative maybe I could entertain a possibility she was 'got at.'   However I don't believe an innocent 81 year old lady could be dragged into the midst of such a sordid crime and give a disturbing and fictional account to the police of what may have been Maddie's last moments/days alive.  It just isn't feasible to me she would be willing to pervert the course of justice because a neighbor/acquaintance suggested she do so.

Thanks Pennylane, perhaps 'got at' is a poor choice of words and infers something more sinister. I actually do agree with you that Mrs Fenn likely believed what she was saying.

As I have said a few times on this forum, post 'abduction', some may have been vulnerable to suggestion, and so a plausible set of events put forward in a certain way then becomes someone's firm belief. I think Mrs Fenn, like others, in the spirit of trying to help a couple in crisis who, importantly, were under no suspicion, may have been duped into thinking that certain events did or didn't occur.

I have seen it with my own eyes in a courtroom where people gave evidence under oath, only for their 'recollection' to fall apart when challenged/questioned. They weren't guilty of any offence such as perjury, they just looked very stupid.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Overall, I don't think that Mrs Fenn would be brazen enough to deliberately tell bare face lies to the Police. However, she may well have been 'got at' and her thinking influenced by some very persuasive people with an agenda, some of who she perhaps knew and trusted. Her probable sympathy for the situation (as she perceived) and eruption of chaos at the time making her susceptible to suggestion.

Meanwhile (and slightly off topic).........OG continues. The various predictions of closure and whitewash in the spring hasn't happened. I wonder why ?

If Mrs Fenn were a blood relative maybe I could entertain a possibility she was 'got at.'   However I don't believe an innocent 81 year old lady could be dragged into the midst of such a sordid crime and give a disturbing and fictional account to the police of what may have been Maddie's last moments/days alive.  It just isn't feasible to me she would be willing to pervert the course of justice because a neighbor/acquaintance suggested she do so.

Thanks Pennylane, perhaps 'got at' is a poor choice of words and infers something more sinister. I actually do agree with you that Mrs Fenn likely believed what she was saying.

As I have said a few times on this forum, post 'abduction', some may have been vulnerable to suggestion, and so a plausible set of events put forward in a certain way then becomes someone's firm belief. I think Mrs Fenn, like others, in the spirit of trying to help a couple in crisis who, importantly, were under no suspicion, may have been duped into thinking that certain events did or didn't occur.

I have seen it with my own eyes in a courtroom where people gave evidence under oath, only for their 'recollection' to fall apart when challenged/questioned. They weren't guilty of any offence such as perjury, they just looked very stupid.

Hi Doc,
I don't believe Mrs Fenn was mistaken in any way in hearing crying for 75 minutes on 1st May 2007, and in light of what happened two days later, it makes perfect sense to me.  Plus Mc's have been doing back flips to minimise it's damning effect (imo)

Equity wrote:OR as I posted previously, why would they not put pressure on Mrs Fenn to say she heard Madeleine laughing/playing/singing/running/jumping!

All would have the same result but without the negative press!

It just doesn't make any sense to suggest Team McCann would ask Mrs Fenn to say something so damning when there are so many other alternatives.

Spot on!

Equity wrote:OR as I posted previously, why would they not put pressure on Mrs Fenn to say she heard Madeleine laughing/playing/singing/running/jumping!

All would have the same result but without the negative press!

It just doesn't make any sense to suggest Team McCann would ask Mrs Fenn to say something so damning when there are so many other alternatives.

You`re right.

The only reason I can think of for Mrs. Fenn being involved in any manipulations is if it came from Windsor Castle via the niece and the other members of the family connected to Sandhurst Academy/Royals etc.

But if this was the case she would have said 15/20 mins, not 75 mins.

Also apparently KM didn't like Mrs Fenn anyway.

Does anyone have a page reference from KM's bewk where she describes Mrs Fenn, something along the lines of, "Mrs Fenn, was the nosey neighbour from upstairs with the plummy voice who had treated her predicament as if a 'tin of beans had fallen off a shelf'

To me this is not describing someone they had coerced into doing them a favour.

I can't understand why the consensus of opinion is favourable towards Pamela Fenn just because she was an octogenarian - does that automatically make her a paragon of virtue?  I've noticed in the past whenever an individual is brought into play by a negative light, most people jump to their defence making all sorts of excuses for the individual to explain something they know nothing about.   I did not know Mrs Fenn, how then can I assess the type of person she was - haven't got the vaguest idea about her moral values or any other aspect of her character but I can try to assess how she may have been embroiled in this case by witness statements, her location at the time, the circles she moved in etc. - not forgetting the part her niece, Carol Tranmer, played.

A near relative of mine worked with the elderly for London social services for many years - and my the stories she could tell about these dear sweet old people.  She did so much to try and help improve their lives, some in her own time unpaid but were they appreciative?  Were they hell!  Face to face they couldn't be sweeter but behind the facade evil was lurking.  One occasion a small group of them got together and wrote an anonymous letter to the director of social services, accusing her of the most horrendous acts (all untrue) which led to an internal inquiry.  Another occasion an anonymous letter was sent asking that she be sacked because she was a chain smoking hippy !?!  Just how nasty can it get?

Whether one agrees with Tony Bennett or not is neither here nor there, fact remains that he puts a heck of a lot of work into this forum, he always takes great pains to explain why he reaches a conclusion, he listens to what other have to say and includes different views in his evaluation of any given subject.  He invites alternative views to counteract his own vision of a subject so every member has the opportunity to speak out.  So far, rather than presenting good reason to counteract Tony's work, all I read are attempts to excuse Mrs Fenn by ifs buts and maybes without a scrap of evidence to back it up and all because what?  Mrs Fenn was an elderly woman, an upright law abiding citizen by all accounts, and elderly upright law abiding citizens just don't do things like that.  It's grossly unreasonable to fault Tony Bennett's presentation when there is nothing to substantiate objection.

Up-thread, @aquilla made an excellent point about a day in the life of an ex-pat.  It's worth reading again if you have any further doubts about local communities and how they thrive on local gossip and scandal.

dottyaussie wrote:Also apparently KM didn't like Mrs Fenn anyway.

Does anyone have a page reference from KM's bewk where she describes Mrs Fenn, something along the lines of, "Mrs Fenn, was the nosey neighbour from upstairs with the plummy voice who had treated her predicament as if a 'tin of beans had fallen off a shelf'

To me this is not describing someone they had coerced into doing them a favour.

Ah yes, Kate McCann's book.  Once upon a time there was "her version of the truth" -THE END.

How could Kate McCann not like Pamela Fenn if she didn't even know her?  You don't need a page number, your memory serves you well..

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

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Richard IV wrote:

Equity wrote:OR as I posted previously, why would they not put pressure on Mrs Fenn to say she heard Madeleine laughing/playing/singing/running/jumping!

All would have the same result but without the negative press!

It just doesn't make any sense to suggest Team McCann would ask Mrs Fenn to say something so damning when there are so many other alternatives.

You`re right.

The only reason I can think of for Mrs. Fenn being involved in any manipulations is if it came from Windsor Castle via the niece and the other members of the family connected to Sandhurst Academy/Royals etc.

But if this was the case she would have said 15/20 mins, not 75 mins.

I wouldn't like to speculate on this level of involvement without something to substantiate the thought but must admit, I'm very curious to know why Mrs Fenn's niece, Carol Tranmer, needed to contact relatives at Sandhurst on two separate occasions to ask advice about reporting something she thought suspicious witnessed whilst in Portugal.

Red flag!

I'm certainly not sticking up for Pamela Fenn or trying to criticize TBs research in anyway.

If anyone could post a plausible explanation as to why Mrs Fenn wasn't asked to say Madeleine was laughing or singing or making a generally 'happy racket' but was coerced into saying something that portrayed the parents in such a bad light and led to many uncomfortable questions during media appearances - I would change my mind.

pennylane wrote:

Richard IV wrote:I hardly think Mrs. Fenn telling the police that she heard a child crying for 75 mins is going to help the McCanns. 

OK, so it suggests a child was alive on the evening of 1st May, but it is pretty damning of the McCanns that they left a child alone for that long.  

If it was a story manufactured by TM they would, IMO, have got her to say 15/20 mins not 75 mins.

Exactly Richard!

I fully agree that this is a valid point which is hard to explain.

The story as we know did help the McCann Team in two very significant ways: (1) it 'proved' Madeleine was alive on Tuesday evening and (2) the burglary suggested people on the loose breaking into apartments. 

But why '75 minutes' and not '15/20 mins'?

I have thought about this a lot and I think the possibility (on my scenario) is that she agreed to report a crying incident and a burglary, but then was pressed for more details, e.g. on when exactly the crying incident happened and for how long it happened.

When pressed, she said it started at 10.30pm and went on to 11.45pm.

If that is right, it might well of course explain this comment from 'dottyaussie':

Also apparently KM didn't like Mrs Fenn anyway.

Does anyone have a page reference from KM's bewk where she describes Mrs Fenn, something along the lines of, "Mrs Fenn, was the nosey neighbour from upstairs with the plummy voice who had treated her predicament as if a 'tin of beans had fallen off a shelf'."

To me this is not describing someone they had coerced into doing them a favour.


The book reference is on page 75 of 'madeleine', by the way. It is very curious. Despite the book being written in 2011, four years after Madeleine was reported missing, Kate - who must know exactly who Mrs Fenn is - merely says: "A lady appeared on a balcony - and in a  plummy voice..." 

Kate says she told Mrs Fenn "as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in", that "She casually responded, 'Oh, I see', almost as if she'd been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf".

Kaye adds: "I remember feeling shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something short and to the point'.

------

I can think of two words they might have uttered

Was JK Rowland the ghost writer of Kates Books about Madeleine?

Equity wrote:I'm certainly not sticking up for Pamela Fenn or trying to criticize TBs research in anyway.

If anyone could post a plausible explanation as to why Mrs Fenn wasn't asked to say Madeleine was laughing or singing or making a generally 'happy racket' but was coerced into saying something that portrayed the parents in such a bad light and led to many uncomfortable questions during media appearances - I would change my mind.

Possibly because if there was a dry run, which is what this thread is about, and the abductor was in the apartment the night before then Madeleine presumably wouldn't be singing or making a 'happy racket' - she'd be screaming 'Daddy Daddy' ? Maybe that suited the TM agenda a bit better.

I do not like to disagree with someone's theory unless I have studied it, not to disprove but to see if I can support it.

I'm not looking to be right...I just want the truth.

For this reason I spent a considerable amount of time studying the press reports around August 18th to see if I could see when, how and why it would happen that TM could coerce Mrs Fenn prior to her August 20th statement.

I was, of course taking info from media but often quotes are used and these within the media reports cannot be ignored.

Here is what I found... RED HIGHLIGHTS ARE QUOTES

I was looking at where the info came from and if from the Portuguese press then that would have unlikely been from TM.  Unfortunately, although the front pages are available I cannot find many of the PT articles except this one...Sol seem to have spoken to Mrs Fenn Friday 17th or before



Sol paper edition, August 18 2007: 

New contradictions in Maddie’s case 

By Felicia Cabrita, with Margarida Davim 

Translation by summer 


The English started by saying they took turns every 15 minutes in order to, through the windows of the rooms where the children were sleeping, listen if anything abnormal was happening. This ‘vigilance’ system, which they assure was efficient throughout a week of holidays, is questioned by an English citizen who lives in the apartment above the one that was occupied by Kate and Gerry McCann. 


Senn (sic) told Sol that, on the night before she disappeared, Maddie cried for quite some time, calling out ‘daddy, daddy!’.

-------------------------------------------- 


The first reports seem to have come from the Express that include a lot of interesting comments...



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



WIDOW WITH VITAL CLUES WAS NEVER QUESTIONED


BRAVERY: Mrs Fenn challenged intruder


Saturday August 18,2007
By David Pilditch in Praia da Luz




A British widow has come forward with new information which could help Portuguese detectives solve the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, the Daily Express can reveal.


Ex-pat Pamela Fenn, who is in her 70’s, has told police she has three "bombshell" clues she believes could be vital to the inquiry.


In the weeks before Madeleine disappeared Mrs Fenn scared off an intruder who had apparently let himself into her apartment with a key.


It was one of a series of similar crimes reported to Portuguese police.


In a second development Mrs Fenn’s niece reported seeing a man who matched the description of a suspect peering into the McCanns holiday apartment around the time Madeleine went missing.


And she revealed vital details of the movements of Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, and their holiday friends in the run up to the night of May 3 - when Madeleine vanished.
ì
Even though she lives in the apartment directly upstairs the police had never tried to get in touch with her
î




Incredibly Mrs Fenn, who lives in the apartment directly above the flat the McCanns were staying in, was never interviewed by Portuguese police, it was claimed yesterday.


It was only when a team of British officers were called in to help carry out a major review of the case that the information was acted on.


Now Mrs Fenn will be formally interviewed for the first time by Portuguese detectives at police headquarters in Portimao on Monday morning.


Her niece, who has not been named, will also give a sworn testimony next week, after she was asked to fly to Portugal from Britain.


The Daily Express can reveal they are among a series of witnesses will be called in to give statements in the light of new evidence which has emerged.


Detectives are preparing to swoop on new suspects after a breakthrough in a major new line of inquiry.


Investigators are now working on the theory Madeleine, four, died inside the holiday apartment where her family were staying.


A police source told The Daily Express: "Next week we will be taking statements from several witnesses.


"We want to clarify details which may be relevant to the new line of inquiry in the light of the facts we have found."


Mrs Fenn has told police how she scared off an intruder she found in her apartment in the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz in the weeks leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance.


There was no sign of a break-in and police believe he may have used a key to get in through the front door.


The terrified mother was watching TV in the evening and went to investigate a noise coming from her bedroom.


Mrs Fenn, who has lived in Praia da Luz for a number of years, discovered a man scrambling out of the window.


She tried to grab his ankle but he escaped. She reported the incident to police but did not believe anything was taken.


Mrs Fenn told how she had a niece from Britain staying with her in the week the McCanns were on holiday there.


Her niece, who has now been interviewed by detectives in Britain, spotted a suspicious looking man hanging around the McCanns’ apartment around the time Madeleine disappeared.


She told the officer the man matched the description of a suspect seen by Jane Tanner one of the McCanns’ holiday friends.


Miss Tanner reported seeing the man rushing away from the apartment with a child wrapped in a blanket under his arm.


A second witness spotted the man minutes later rushing past the church in the resort and heading to the sea front.


The dark-haired man was wearing white trousers and a dark jacket.


Mrs Fenn also told police that two nights before Madeleine disappeared she heard a child crying in the McCanns’ apartment.


Her screams carried on from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm until family members returned from a night out.


A friend of Mrs Fenn [not Edna Glynn] told The Daily Express last night: "She is an elderly lady who is quite nervous and was very shaken up after the break-in.


"She was surprised that neither the police nor the McCanns had approached her for information before.


"Even though she lives in the apartment directly upstairs the police had never tried to get in touch with her to ask her if she saw or heard anything the night Madeleine disappeared.


"The first time a police officer spoke to her was when the British officers with sniffer dogs knocked on her door and searched her apartment. [July 31st?]


"She told an officer what she knew and now she has been asked to make a formal statement.


"Portuguese officers have told her they will pick her up at 10am on Monday and drive her to police headquarters in Portimao.


"On the night she found an intruder she was sitting at home watching TV when she heard a noise in her bedroom.


"She went to investigate. The man must have heard her coming and was scrambling out of the window. She just saw the back of his head and arm and she tried to push him out of the window.


"She was shaking with fear and called the police. There was no sign of a break in and she thought he must have somehow come in through the front door.


"She now thinks the information may prove significant in the investigation.


"Her niece who lives in England was staying with her when the McCanns were on holiday.


"When details of a suspect were released a few weeks later the niece remembered she had seen a man fitting the description hanging around in the street outside the McCanns’ apartment.


"He was acting suspiciously and appeared to be looking into the window of the apartment. She has given a statement to police in Britain.


"Mrs Fenn says that two nights before Madeleine disappeared one of the children in the apartment was constantly screaming from around 10.30pm to 11.45pm.


"She was crying out for her dad and nobody answered until somebody returned.


"She remembers the times because she was talking to a friend back home on the phone and she was watching the news at 10.30pm.


"On the night Madeleine disappeared the first she knew of it was when there was a commotion downstairs.


"She looked over the balcony and saw the child’s mother. She was in a state of panic. She was repeatedly saying ’We’ve let her down. We’ve let her down.’


"All the people in their group were running in and out of the apartment. She asked someone if she should call the police and was told it had already been done."


Last night Mrs Fenn refused to reveal details of her evidence.


Under Portugal’s strict secrecy laws witnesses are banned from speaking publicly about details of an on-going investigation.


But when she answered the door at her apartment yesterday she said: "I will speak to the police on Monday."


Last night a Portuguese police source claimed officers had already been given statements by Mrs Fenn and her neice.


A police source said: "We have already spoken to them but they will be re-interviewed because of the new evidence we have.


"They are among a number of witnesses who we will talk to next week. They include employees from the Ocean Club."


Police in Portugal are still awaiting the results of forensic tests carried out on two samples of blood found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment.


The source said friends of Madeleine’s parents who were on holiday with them when their daughter disappeared could also be questioned.


The source said: "It is possible the McCanns friends will be brought in again but not will not happen before we have received the results of the forensic tests.


"The results of the blood tests are important but the investigation does not hinge solely on them.


"The blood is just another clue that could help us in the investigation. If there are four or five major clues that is stronger than just two or three."


Asked why the police had not carried out their weekly update meeting with the McCanns.


The couple reportedly asked for urgent showdown talks after reports were leaked to newspapers that police now believe Madeleine is dead.


Senior police chiefs later confirmed they are now working on that theory.


The source said: "It is not the McCanns who decide when we meet.


"We do that only when there is relevant information to tell them."


A second holidaymaker told police an intruder used a key to enter her Ocean Club apartment just three weeks before Madeleine went missing.


The Scottish woman said that on the first night of her stay in Portugal,she and a friend returned to the flat to find their belongings and £500 worth of foreign money had been taken.
The woman said: "It was in the same block as the one where the little girl was taken from.


"The police were called that night. They told us that someone with a key had got into the flat. There’s no proof of that, but that was their opinion as there was nothing else disturbed. No broken windows, no forced entry."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Although a media report that article gives us lots of information with direct quotes that it seems that Mrs Feen had spoken to the police when the dogs were brought in (July 31?)

This does not appear to me to be a case of TM contacting and urging Mrs Fenn in the days prior to her statement... She likely told the details to the police before (dates not known)


To summarise my belief (to date)..

Mrs Fenn heard crying and the McCanns knew that (at the very least they had a child crying and needed to preempt any discussion on it)

They changed the comment from being  the TWINS on 4th and changed to Madeleine and Sean on 11th... Was that because they knew Mrs Fenn had claimed it was a child more than 2 yrs old and possibly closer to 4 years?


Mrs Fenn apparently at some point made claims against the McCanns behaviour and said 'out of control' among other comments and it was suggested that these are the comments that she denied and not taken out of context meaning it was ALL rubbish...

It is also very likely that she was informally interviewed at least by the police doing 400 house to house interviews of which none are recorded in the files as far as I know.

Once the dogs were brought in and the focus turned to the McCanns it appears Mrs Fenn spoke to the police when Eddie and Keela were brought in.  At this point she likely made it clear to them about the issues of crying and burglars and she was requested to be formally interviewed on August 20th along with several others including possibly her niece and Ocean Club staff (news reports say it was done in secret on the OC premises)

The McCanns and possibly a UK friend that had supposedly been under surveillance were possibly facing 'charges' and these interviews seem to have been because of this and the new information (We know that Philomena had said that Kate was possibly going to be charged)


This all fits together for me as being logical with no proof of any interference by TM and less likely to be Clarence as he was in London and though keeping in touch with the McCanns had not been formally chosen as their PR man, or had any great input at that point as I cannot see them choosing between Clarence and Phil Hall in Septemeber...

BUT we don't know that.. it IS possible he had input, but I cannot see how or when... Before the dogs were brought in and police spoke to Mrs Fenn in July?

Its important to ALWAYS keep in mind theories based on research and I only offer my interpretation of the events as I see it...

I will continue to look at whether Tony's theory fits with anything I see...  As mentioned many times I prefer to go with what the files and quotes etc 'tell' me but am always open to change my opinion and admit to making a mistake if I am  proved wrong with facts.