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

I found this clip of Justine McGuiness giving a statement on behalf of GM & KM 31st August 2007. Three months into this drama and they're already talking libel action !

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


Which brings me back to the video taken at the hairdresser. Among the chatterings someone had possibly mentioned that Mrs Fenn had been talking to the hairdresser about the crying incident. A reporter (possibly) then goes to the hairdresser (secretly) video's the little chat with her. Reporter then has a juicy story.

In any of the then flurry of reports did a reporter mention the 'source' being the hairdresser or the video at the hairdresser. Was the hairdresser quoted in these reports ?

I'm off to do more digging......

For me the most important question is why the McCann's placed SO MUCH importance on the 'crying incident' from so early on?

They both mentioned it in their 4th May statements (despite being brief, it still warranted a mention). They both asked the UK Police Liaison Officers on the 5th May to pass their concerns on to the PJ again - to the exclusion of almost anything else according to the officers rogatory statements.

For the McCann's, from day one, the 'crying incident' was more important than anything else - in direct contrast to how they subsequently tried to play it down as a 'passing comment' when the incident was leaked to the media.

My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked).

So the crux of the whole thing for me is to ascertain if KM did actually mention it to her fellow diners on Thursday - if so - why? Would it only make any sense if it was the truth?

For the theory the 'crying incident' never took place to hold any water, we should be looking for a plausible reason as to WHY the McCann's themselves placed SO much importance on it rather than trying to prove, one way or the other, the veracity of Mrs Fenn's statement. The suggestion that the McCann's were hinting at a 'dry run' by the abductor doesn't really make much sense - what they would be effectively saying is "after our children cried, we thought someone may have entered the apartment and upset them - so guess what, we left them all alone again!" These are narcissists - they would never deliberately court criticism.

I'm stumped. I can't think of an entirely plausible scenario as to why the McCann's placed so much emphasis on this so early on, ESPECIALLY if you feel it didn't even take place.

If it DIDN'T happen, why on earth one would suggest something that highlighted your neglectful parenting, is beyond me. Any number of far less damaging scenarios could have been chosen if it was being 'made up' to falsify any suggested narrative.

If it DID happen, I could make a similar argument against it being a damage limitation exercise by the McCann's. I can think of many better ways of handling it - keeping one's gob shut would be a start. Wait until you know more details then come up with a really good lie to explain it! One that didn't involve admitting neglect.

Either way you look at it, there doesn't appear to be any really important logical reason, that compelled the McCann's to go out of their way to disseminate the 'crying incident' to the PJ on the 4th and 5th May.

Could it have been as simple as them getting wind of Mrs Fenn telling the PJ something? I'm beginning to have doubts about that now, although people can make rash decisions under pressure.

Inventing the 'crying incident' seems to me to make far less sense. 

Is there another theory that ticks most of the boxes?

The "crying incident" was to show that Madeleine was "alive" at that time AND to hold weight to their "neglect" otherwise an "abduction" could not have taken place IMO

The "crying incident" is a bit like the "extra bed" for me......


'The frustration and anger were reaching boiling point. I felt like a caged, demented animal. This was torture of the cruellest kind, Finally, I erupted. I began to scream, swear and lash out. 
''I kicked an extra bed that had been brought into the apartment and smashed the end right off.''
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Was there any further information on why the need or for whom there was an extra bed, was it a bed or a cot? which the maid thought she had seen in their bedroom previously!
Off topic I know, just to show how some things which are said have some "extra" meaning or maybe a "deflection" of some sort?
In this case it was to explain her "bruises"?  
In my opinion. 

Equity wrote:For me the most important question is why the McCann's placed SO MUCH importance on the 'crying incident' from so early on?

They both mentioned it in their 4th May statements (despite being brief, it still warranted a mention). They both asked the UK Police Liaison Officers on the 5th May to pass their concerns on to the PJ again - to the exclusion of almost anything else according to the officers rogatory statements.

For the McCann's, from day one, the 'crying incident' was more important than anything else - in direct contrast to how they subsequently tried to play it down as a 'passing comment' when the incident was leaked to the media.

My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked).

So the crux of the whole thing for me is to ascertain if KM did actually mention it to her fellow diners on Thursday - if so - why? Would it only make any sense if it was the truth?

For the theory the 'crying incident' never took place to hold any water, we should be looking for a plausible reason as to WHY the McCann's themselves placed SO much importance on it rather than trying to prove, one way or the other, the veracity of Mrs Fenn's statement. The suggestion that the McCann's were hinting at a 'dry run' by the abductor doesn't really make much sense - what they would be effectively saying is "after our children cried, we thought someone may have entered the apartment and upset them - so guess what, we left them all alone again!" These are narcissists - they would never deliberately court criticism.

I'm stumped. I can't think of an entirely plausible scenario as to why the McCann's placed so much emphasis on this so early on, ESPECIALLY if you feel it didn't even take place.

If it DIDN'T happen, why on earth one would suggest something that highlighted your neglectful parenting, is beyond me. Any number of far less damaging scenarios could have been chosen if it was being 'made up' to falsify any suggested narrative.

If it DID happen, I could make a similar argument against it being a damage limitation exercise by the McCann's. I can think of many better ways of handling it - keeping one's gob shut would be a start. Wait until you know more details then come up with a really good lie to explain it! One that didn't involve admitting neglect.

Either way you look at it, there doesn't appear to be any really important logical reason, that compelled the McCann's to go out of their way to disseminate the 'crying incident' to the PJ on the 4th and 5th May.

Could it have been as simple as them getting wind of Mrs Fenn telling the PJ something? I'm beginning to have doubts about that now, although people can make rash decisions under pressure.

Inventing the 'crying incident' seems to me to make far less sense. 

Is there another theory that ticks most of the boxes?

They highlighted the crying incident because they need to proof that Madeleine was still around during week just like the last photo and "Why didn't you come when me and Sean was crying" and the mysterious "Tennis Ball photo" and in the end, "no neglect no abduction".

If David Payne's rogatory interview is to be believed, he was fully aware of Warners child care arrangements available to the Ocean Club guests, before leaving the UK, add to that his past experience of Warners holidays, he would have been aware of how the listening service operated, they thought their own system would be more effective than relying on the available child care staff.   Thus, the group opted to mimic the Warner listening service, knowing full well by doing so they could never be charged with neglect.

I believe they played on the neglect issue, hyped it up to maximum, to provide plenty of opportunity for an abductor to pounce - especially an abductor they thought to be watching the family during the week.  The crying incident/s but an attempt to prove Madeleine was alive on and after Tuesday 1st May until her claimed disappearance on the night of the 3rd.  It's possible that one of the other children was crying, after all episodes of sickness did occur, so the McCanns took advantage of the situation - then there was the stained top belinging to Madeleine that mother claims to have washed sometime on the 3rd, depending on which version takes your fancy.

Although they, Gerry at least, are so cock sure that Madeleine will never be found, they must know as well as the rest of us that 100% assurance is not guaranteed - for this reason alone maybe they emphasised the neglect, the crying and  the stain.  That innocent explanation for anything the police may or may not find - Doctors McCann would surely be conversant with the basics of forensic evidence?

When you think aboutit, there is no conclusive evidence to even suggest, let alone prove, that Madeleine was alive and well up to the night of 3rd May - there is no evidence of her physical presence other than the word of the Tapas group and one or two less than reliable witnesses.  I can see why the need for propagating stories that might make people believe Madeleine was around all week, inthe absence of hard evidence.

snipped from equity's last post on this page:

"My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked)."


You could  be right but is it possible that if it was mentioned on the Thursday night at the table it could well have been because they were offered the services of a baby sitter that night.  Were they offered the babysitter service because of different reports of crying (not Mrs. Fenn)  and maybe it was mentioned in Mrs' 4th May statement because of this and not because of anything Mrs. Fenn may have reported on 4th May.  

There was the story of the soothing couple who heard crying on the 2nd May so maybe that is why the babysitter was offered on 3rd May?

Equity wrote:For me the most important question is why the McCann's placed SO MUCH importance on the 'crying incident' from so early on?

They both mentioned it in their 4th May statements (despite being brief, it still warranted a mention). They both asked the UK Police Liaison Officers on the 5th May to pass their concerns on to the PJ again - to the exclusion of almost anything else according to the officers rogatory statements.

For the McCann's, from day one, the 'crying incident' was more important than anything else - in direct contrast to how they subsequently tried to play it down as a 'passing comment' when the incident was leaked to the media.

My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked).

So the crux of the whole thing for me is to ascertain if KM did actually mention it to her fellow diners on Thursday - if so - why? Would it only make any sense if it was the truth?

For the theory the 'crying incident' never took place to hold any water, we should be looking for a plausible reason as to WHY the McCann's themselves placed SO much importance on it rather than trying to prove, one way or the other, the veracity of Mrs Fenn's statement. The suggestion that the McCann's were hinting at a 'dry run' by the abductor doesn't really make much sense - what they would be effectively saying is "after our children cried, we thought someone may have entered the apartment and upset them - so guess what, we left them all alone again!" These are narcissists - they would never deliberately court criticism.

I'm stumped. I can't think of an entirely plausible scenario as to why the McCann's placed so much emphasis on this so early on, ESPECIALLY if you feel it didn't even take place.

If it DIDN'T happen, why on earth one would suggest something that highlighted your neglectful parenting, is beyond me. Any number of far less damaging scenarios could have been chosen if it was being 'made up' to falsify any suggested narrative.

If it DID happen, I could make a similar argument against it being a damage limitation exercise by the McCann's. I can think of many better ways of handling it - keeping one's gob shut would be a start. Wait until you know more details then come up with a really good lie to explain it! One that didn't involve admitting neglect.

Either way you look at it, there doesn't appear to be any really important logical reason, that compelled the McCann's to go out of their way to disseminate the 'crying incident' to the PJ on the 4th and 5th May.

Could it have been as simple as them getting wind of Mrs Fenn telling the PJ something? I'm beginning to have doubts about that now, although people can make rash decisions under pressure.

Inventing the 'crying incident' seems to me to make far less sense. 

Is there another theory that ticks most of the boxes?

My thoughts NOT SUBSTANTIATED but POSSIBLE...


Something happened to Madeleine and for whatever reason they decided that the consequences of lying about it were more beneficial than the truth...

A 'normal' couple on holiday with their friends and their world turned upside down...

Could it be that something happened on Tuesday night which created a child to be crying for more than an hour...

MAYBE Mrs Fenn above reported it and Mark Warner were aware of the crying...

We don't know if Kate was at the tapas (quiz mistress did not see her or possibly David Payne) and just before the crying started Kates phone showed a 'flurry' of calls between 10.16pm and 10.27.pm

Is it possible that after the quiz mistress finished the quiz and spending time at Gerry's table at 9.50pm was moving on to Chaplins for the quiz there?  Did Gerry follow leaving Kate alone at the apartment (or wherever she was?)

Something happened that created the alleged crying and the ONE cot found in the McCann's bedroom the following morning that was important enough for the McCanns to have DENIED.

There was no getting away from it... the crying happened and may have been known by more than one person... Normally on a holiday this would not be odd but they may have felt they had to be careful and while being interviewed had decided that it was best to preempt by saying in their statements that Maddie had told them the twins were crying... (in their May 4th statements)

During the week they may have discovered (by some means) that Mrs Fenn had been specific that it was a young child that she heard and not a 2 year old, so Gerry changed his statement on May 11th to claim it was Maddie and Sean that had been crying..

They informed Fiona and Jane that the plan was to say that Madeleine and Sean had been crying...but only AFTER it was decided to change it from the twins..

IF Kate had told them at the table on Thursday she would have said what she told the police the following morning...TWINS

They had NO idea of the media attention they were about to be under scrutiny and a combination of preempting the issue of crying as well as 'knowing' Maddie was dead, using Maddie's comment as a way to deflect from Maddie being alive...for the POLICE...

At this point they had NO IDEA of the media attention and the info in the statements would be released...

They had no idea AT ALL about the scrutiny they were about to face and that is why the very early statements and interviews tell us the most..

In reality they did not need to say they left the children alone... Someone was back at the apartment every night and would have been fine to have claimed they werent left alone... but THEY DIDN'T!

WHY?

Ohh...of course...how difficult it would have been to claim they were being looked after... THEN they would have to answer as to how an abductor entered... and that would not have been possible...

NONE OF THE ABOVE IS FACT... I have merely put together a possible scenario...keeping in mind that although I believe something happened to Maddie before Tuesday morning (according to research) I do not know if a crying child was Maddie in distress from something that had happened earlier of another child...Could it have been the child that was in the cot in the parents bedroom that they both denied being there on Wednesday morning?


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

Equity wrote:For me the most important question is why the McCann's placed SO MUCH importance on the 'crying incident' from so early on?  [REST SNIPPED]

Thank you very much for your post @ Equity  and especially for this comment. 

I am not wholly convinced that this is 'the most important' questions, as I believe that there are many very equally important questions about the 'crying incident' and Mrs Fenn's evidence - but I am in wholehearted agreement with you that his jumps out as a question simply crying out for an answer. In their short initial statements, both mention the 'crying incident'. Why? Why? Why?

Your comment enables me to introduce yet another jigsaw piece amongst all the others that have been placed on this thread of 830 posts so far. Our task is to fit this new jigsaw piece into the puzzle and try and somehow fit it in place into the overall jigsaw puzzle. No easy task!

Here is the 'jigsaw piece' - this statement, dated Wednesday 16 May, by a GNR Officer:

--------

  
Date: 2007/05/16

Paolo Jorge Carvaihosa da Costa

Occupation: GNR Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That some foreign woman, who had already been interviewed by the police, had phoned him, telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them".

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

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

These are the relevant facts that I think we can draw from the above:

1. On a date between 3 and 16 May, Robert Murat 'phoned 'The Lagos Post' and referred to 'the crying incident'.

2. I suggest that this conversation probably took place in the first week after Madeleine was reported missing (4 to 10 May), for two specific reasons: (a) he had I think been relieved of his duties by then, and (b) if the GNR officer can't remember the date of the 'phone call, it was probably longer than 2 or 3 days previous.

3. Murat sais there had been a child crying and that it had been reported to him by 'some foreign woman'. Mrs Fenn, of course, to a Portuguese GNR Officer, would be 'foreign'. (We cannot however say that there was such a crying incident, nor either can we say that Murat had had a 'phone call. The only fact is that Murat says these things happened).

The four theories

If I'm correct, we have four theories about Mrs Fenn's evidence running on this thread:

A. There really was a crying incident on either 1 or 2 May. It was Madeleine

B. There really was a crying incident on either 1 or 2 May. It was another child

C. There really was a crying incident on either 1 or 2 May. It was Kate McCann sobbing 'Maddie, Maddie'.   

D. The crying incident has been fabricated from the start and never happened (my hypothesis). 

Those who support theories A, B and C maintain that the McCanns mentioned the crying episode early on 4 May because they knew that Mrs Fenn (or possibly someone else) had heard the crying and had already reported it to the police. Thus they were pre-empting being asked about it. 

My 'take' on how this GNR statement fits into the 'jigsaw'

1. I think there was no crying incident

2. The McCanns may have mentioned the crying incident as a means of proving that Madeleine was alive (either on 1 or 2 May but almost certainly 2 May)

3. The claims that Kate McCann mentioned the 'crying incident' at the table are merely 'self-serving' claims, made post hoc (i.e. after the event), in order to try and confirm the incident, and are worthless as evidence

4. I believe Murat was involved in pre-planning events prior to the alarm about Madeleine being raised. I think he made this 'phone call to the GNR office in Lagos in order to provide 'confirmation' that a crying incident had actually occurred on 1 or 2 May.

5. I suggest, only as a possibility based on circumstantial evidence, that the reason for Murat's 'phone call may have been this: Is it possible that Mrs Fenn had been 'primed' (before 3 May) to tell the police about the crying incident, but had failed to do so? If Murat was working as a translator for the McCann Team, as indeed he certainly appears to have been, was he also asked to make this 'phone call in an attempt to 'prove' that there had been a crying incident? Did they need someone else, 'independent' to verify the crying? Was Murat sent to the GNR to 'prove' the crying incident.

---------- 

I anticipate further criticism from some members here about my last suggestion. But I think it fits all the known facts and if anyone has got a better explanation for this GNR Officer's evidence, please post it - and if it is better, I will drop my suggestion.      

----------

aw Tony, not criticisms of you but debate to try and work this puzzle out.

If Murat was "working" for TM and Mrs. Fenn was primed before hand but forgot, it seems to me a rather odd that Murat should then be pointed out by Tanner and wasn't Mrs. reported as saying she believed Murat might know something or words to that effect?

Why bring Mrs Glyn into it?  I know this has not been confirmed but I believe Mrs. Fenn did phone her as she had no way of knowing whether the police would confirm this was true or not.

edited to add - there seem a heck of a lot of reports of crying if no such event took place.  What a puzzle indeed.

plebgate wrote:snipped from equity's last post on this page:

"My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked)."


You could  be right but is it possible that if it was mentioned on the Thursday night at the table it could well have been because they were offered the services of a baby sitter that night.  Were they offered the babysitter service because of different reports of crying (not Mrs. Fenn)  and maybe it was mentioned in Mrs' 4th May statement because of this and not because of anything Mrs. Fenn may have reported on 4th May.  

There was the story of the soothing couple who heard crying on the 2nd May so maybe that is why the babysitter was offered on 3rd May?

Plebgate I totally agree.  I think there was more than one complaint and the McCanns were trying to minimize the fall out for neglect by trying to consolidate them, and take control.  It's also entirely possible the McCanns were witnessed elsewhere on the 1st when the lengthy crying was heard and that was why they were paranoid about it.  They would have no idea what the PJ is about to find out, and they will be extremely uptight about anything that could hang them out to dry, so damage limitations was foremost in their minds (imo).

Also there was no need for Kate to 'prove' Madeleine was alive on 3rd (as some claim), as the nanny Catriona Baker was with her (imo), and gave detailed information to the PJ of her time spent with Maddie during that day.  Hence I don't believe that was behind the Mc's 'mummy why didn't you come' statement.

@TB - I've the read above da Costa statement again (and checked the Portuguese version) and Murat actually says 'that some foreign women' rather than 'woman'. All 3 of the relevant words are in the plural form in Portuguese so it isn't just a typo. Also, reading it now, I'm wondering whether the crying being discussed was on a day post-the disappearance as 'telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them', is in the present tense. In effect it could be read either way. 

How many reported crying 'incidents' were there? 

As an aside, there is no mention on the 3 May about Evie having been heard crying through the O'Brien's child monitor before Russell apparently found her upset when he arrived at their apartment. Why does he say in his rogatory that he asked Matt to tell Jane that Evie had been sick and he was staying with her? Why didn't he just speak down the monitor and tell Jane himself? Wouldn't Jane have heard the crying anyway? 

So much bulloni.

(Can I slip another one passed the mods as it's OT but I might forget (!) - in his rogatory David Payne eventually works out that the only route which makes sense for his 'visit' to see Kate on 3 May is through the patio doors of 5A, on his way TO 5H. He then says he goes back out the same way; walks all the way up the road; turns left at the top road and then left again into the car park; and then crosses the car park to the entrance of block 5. Why didn't he just ask Kate if she minded him walking 5 metres through the lounge to the front door of 5A instead of walking all the way round?)

Regardless of whether or not the crying incident really did occur, and whether there was such a telephone call that night, Murat phoned the Lagos post and told them that a foreign woman had called him to tell him that a child was crying in an apartment near her.  This all allegedly took place late evening on the 1st or 2nd of May.

1.  Why would Mrs Fenn phone Robert Murat to say that a child was crying?
2.  Why Robert Murat? What could he possibly do about a crying child that he didn't know?
3.  Did Mrs Fenn already know Robert Murat?
4.  To call someone that late at night you would need to be well acquainted with them.
5.  If this is true, then Mrs Fenn must have been friendly enough with Murat to have had his telephone number
6.  If Mrs Fenn and Murat were such good friends, or so well acquainted prior to May 3rd, that also raises suspicion.

So Murat,  is really telling us that he and Mrs Fenn were known to each other prior to May 3rd, well enough for her to have his telephone number and to call him late at night to chat about a child crying.

sharonl wrote:Regardless of whether or not the crying incident really did occur, and whether there was such a telephone call that night, Murat phoned the Lagos post and told them that a foreign woman had called him to tell him that a child was crying in an apartment near her.  This all allegedly took place late evening on the 1st or 2nd of May.

1.  Why would Mrs Fenn phone Robert Murat to say that a child was crying?
2.  Why Robert Murat? What could he possibly do about a crying child that he didn't know?
3.  Did Mrs Fenn already know Robert Murat?
4.  To call someone that late at night you would need to be well acquainted with them.
5.  If this is true, then Mrs Fenn must have been friendly enough with Murat to have had his telephone number
6.  If Mrs Fenn and Murat were such good friends, or so well acquainted prior to May 3rd, that also raises suspicion.

So Murat,  is really telling us that he and Mrs Fenn were known to each other prior to May 3rd, well enough for her to have his telephone number and to call him late at night to chat about a child crying.

I thought I had covered all bases in my lengthy post.

But you've added six vital points that I should have added - some more important than mine.

Many thanks! 

But note this also:  Murat is cunning enough to refer to 'some foreign woman' rather than say 'Mrs Fenn'. That would have rather given the game away, wouldn't it? And (if this tale by Murat has any truth to it), why didn't he take the lady's name and number? What was the use of telling the police about 'some foreign woman'? There were quite a lot of those in Praia da Luz at the time.

And the $64,000 question is surely this: Who told Murat about any 'crying incident'? Mrs Fenn? Or the McCann Team?

It seems the CRYING INCIDENT was reported ONLY by Portuguese media and Express (who claimed they were given their info from Portuguese journalists with connections to the police.)

LIST OF NEWSPAPERS CLAIMING ABOUT CRYING INCIDENT (AND INTRUDER)

August 18th 2007  -  Sol

August 18th 2007  -  Express (Many quotes from a friend of Mrs Fenn (not Edna Glen)

August 19th 2007  - Journal de Noticias

August 20th 2007  - Journal de Noticias

August 20th 2007  - Journal de Noticias

August 23rd 2007  -  Express

August 23rd 2007  - Portugal Resident

August 24th 2007  - Correio da Manhã

August 30th 2007 -  Express

September 7th 2007 - Journal de Noticias

September 10th 2007 -  Correio da Manhã

September 13th 2007 - Daily Mail

September 23rd 2007 - Mirror

October 30th 2007 -  Express


NEWSPAPERS REPORTING ONLY ON INTRUDER

August 18th 2007 - Telegraph

 
August 18th 2007  - Mirror


August 20th 2007  - Express


August 20th 2007  - Daily Mail


August 20th 2007  - Mirror


August 20th 2007  - Telegraph


August 20th 2007  - Star


August 20th 2007  - Sun


August 21st 2007  - Express

August 21st 2007  -  Star

August 21st 2007  - Times

September 13th 2007 - People

September 14th 2007  -  Mail


Madeleine: Burglar was on loose at Portuguese holiday complex 
Residents asked for more security weeks before she disappeared 

By Anna Davis and Chris Millar 
The DaILY mAIL 
8/22/2007 

A British resident at Madeleine McCann's holiday complex told today of a series of burglaries in the weeks before the girl went missing. 

Ian Robertson, 64, said his apartment in the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, just 100 yards from the McCanns' flat, was broken into in February and he knew of at least three other residents who had been victims. 

The revelation, which comes as reports in Portugal said the investigation was entering a "decisive stage", will add weight to the police theory that Madeleine was the victim of a burglary which went wrong or she was snatched to order. 

Mr Robertson, a welder from Neyland in Pembrokeshire, said he and other residents had asked Ocean Club owner Mark Warner Holidays to provide extra security. 

He said: "It was knocked back on expense." Madeleine was six days short of her fourth birthday when she disappeared from the family's apartment on 3 May while her parents Kate and Gerry dined with friends nearby. 

Mr Robertson said: "When I heard about what happened to Madeleine I thought it could be linked. It is just what I have said from the start. 

"Everyone, including Ocean Club and our estate agent, said nothing like that happens here, but it happened to me and all of a sudden it happens to other people." 

"I have a feeling there has been a lot of this type of opportunistic burglary. 

"It wouldn't surprise me because it's so wide open, so unprotected - could there have been an order to snatch a child?" 

sharonl wrote:Regardless of whether or not the crying incident really did occur, and whether there was such a telephone call that night, Murat phoned the Lagos post and told them that a foreign woman had called him to tell him that a child was crying in an apartment near her.  This all allegedly took place late evening on the 1st or 2nd of May.

1.  Why would Mrs Fenn phone Robert Murat to say that a child was crying?
2.  Why Robert Murat? What could he possibly do about a crying child that he didn't know?
3.  Did Mrs Fenn already know Robert Murat?
4.  To call someone that late at night you would need to be well acquainted with them.
5.  If this is true, then Mrs Fenn must have been friendly enough with Murat to have had his telephone number
6.  If Mrs Fenn and Murat were such good friends, or so well acquainted prior to May 3rd, that also raises suspicion.

So Murat,  is really telling us that he and Mrs Fenn were known to each other prior to May 3rd, well enough for her to have his telephone number and to call him late at night to chat about a child crying.

Agree 100% !

The particular point that jumps out at me - why would Robert Murat call the Lagos post to specifically mention a foreign woman had called to tell him about a child crying in an apartment near her - I don't see how this could refer to anyone but Pamela Fenn but if as he said, the crying had already been reported to the police, why is Murat drawing attention to it again?

Jenny Murat and Pamela Fenn, both pretty much of the same generation living in a close community like PdL - I think it very likely they were well known to each other, most probably friends of sorts and Robert Murat, a familiar figure about town must have been well known to Mrs Fenn.

It definitely reads 'some foreign WOMEN', folks. Not sure how that fits in with the Pamela Fenn theory?

skyrocket wrote:@TB - I've the read above da Costas statement again (and checked the Portuguese version) and he says 'that some foreign women' rather than 'woman'. All 3 of the relevant words are in the plural form in Portuguese so it isn't just a typo. Also, reading it now, I'm wondering whether the crying being discussed was on a day post-the disappearance as 'telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them', is in the present tense. In effect it could be read either way. 

How many reported crying 'incidents' were there? 

As an aside, there is no mention on the 3 May about Evie having been heard crying through the O'Brien's child monitor before Russell apparently found her upset when he arrived at their apartment. Why does he say in his rogatory that he asked Matt to tell Jane that Evie had been sick and he was staying with her? Why didn't he just speak down the monitor and tell Jane himself? Wouldn't Jane have heard the crying anyway? 

So much bulloni.

(Can I slip another one passed the mods as it's OT but I might forget (!) - in his rogatory David Payne eventually works out that the only route which makes sense for his 'visit' to see Kate on 3 May is through the patio doors of 5A, on his way TO 5H. He then says he goes back out the same way; walks all the way up the road; turns left at the top road and then left again into the car park; and then crosses the car park to the entrance of block 5. Why didn't he just ask Kate if she minded him walking 5 metres through the lounge to the front door of 5A instead of walking all the way round?)

Wasn't there a report of a couple seen going to the apartment to comfort a crying child ?

Good point about Evie, and why didn't they hear her being sick ?

skyrocket wrote:It definitely reads 'some foreign WOMEN', folks. Not sure how that fits in with the Pamela Fenn theory?

Perhaps 'the soothing couple' were two women?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yes, so much for their child monitors! And, I thought they said that Ella had been 'trained' to shout down the monitor if there were any problems.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - possibly. What about Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshire - they were in G4J and were there from 21 April until the 12 May.

pennylane wrote:

plebgate wrote:snipped from equity's last post on this page:

"My own (and others) original theory holds no water if KM REALLY did mention the 'crying incident' at the table on Thursday night as it would suggest KM wasn't reacting to a report Mrs Fenn had told the PJ what she heard. The only other person (because she was asked specifically) who mentions KM telling the women at the table on the Thursday night was JT in her 10th May statement. The other women mentioned it in their rogs much later on (but presumably could have mentioned it in their early statements but were never asked)."


You could  be right but is it possible that if it was mentioned on the Thursday night at the table it could well have been because they were offered the services of a baby sitter that night.  Were they offered the babysitter service because of different reports of crying (not Mrs. Fenn)  and maybe it was mentioned in Mrs' 4th May statement because of this and not because of anything Mrs. Fenn may have reported on 4th May.  

There was the story of the soothing couple who heard crying on the 2nd May so maybe that is why the babysitter was offered on 3rd May?

Plebgate I totally agree.  I think there was more than one complaint and the McCanns were trying to minimize the fall out for neglect by trying to consolidate them, and take control.  It's also entirely possible the McCanns were witnessed elsewhere on the 1st when the lengthy crying was heard and that was why they were paranoid about it.  They would have no idea what the PJ is about to find out, and they will be extremely uptight about anything that could hang them out to dry, so damage limitations was foremost in their minds (imo).

Also there was no need for Kate to 'prove' Madeleine was alive on 3rd (as some claim), as the nanny Catriona Baker was with her (imo), and gave detailed information to the PJ of her time spent with Maddie during that day.  Hence I don't believe that was behind the Mc's 'mummy why didn't you come' statement.

Ref. blue highlighting - yes that imo is possible.

pennylane wrote:

skyrocket wrote:It definitely reads 'some foreign WOMEN', folks. Not sure how that fits in with the Pamela Fenn theory?

Perhaps 'the soothing couple' were two women?

I think @ skyrocket is unwittingly creating a diversion here, but if he is, it's a diversion that makes the whole unlikely tale even more unlikely.

Are we now to believe that several foreign women - how many, 3, 5, 7, 20? - all 'phoned up Robert Murat about a crying incident that allegedly occurred on the evening of Tuesday 1 May?

Why, who would know that Murat was 'back in town'? - after all, he'd been out of town for months refurbishing his grandmother's house in Sidmouth, Devon, hadn't he?  

He'd only just got back to Praia da Luz that very day, on the early morning flight from Exeter to Faro.

Was a child heard crying for 75 minutes by several foreign women, who all thought: "Who can I ring? I know! Bob Murat! He's back in town! He's the bloke to ring!".

Maybe 'some foreign woman' spotted Murat back in town during the Tuesday. And immediately pinged another foreign woman saying: 'Psst! Pass it on! Murat's back in town'. And so by nightfall word had got around the expat community that Murat was around in town again, just in time for them all to get on the blower to Murat.

No-one has yet answered the key question - what lay behind Murat 'phoning that GNR officer? 

Thanks HiDeHo they were the only one I could find too.

Several of the ones 22/8/07 - 12/09/07 also mentioned Carole Tranmer's statement.

Tony do you know if Murat was asked about this when he was spoken to by the PJ or if he mentioned it to anyone other than the GNR ?