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

by whodunit 17.06.16 19:01

HiDeHo wrote:
whodunit wrote:

In simple terms, her statement was false. There was no 'crying incident', there was no burglary attempt.

Several things I would like to address, but unfortunately don't have time right now...However...if you are going to claim the above as fact then I would like to see proof...

We don't have any proof only assumptions assumptions and therefore I understand that you believe that (and may be true) but it does not make it a fact..and should not be claimed to be a fact.

A theory...a hypothesis by some, but with no proof it is not a fact.

I just gave you proof. A Portuguese police source claims Mrs. Fenn was interviewed prior to her statement of August 20. He claims she needed to be RE-interviewed because of NEW evidence. What was her re-interview pertaining to? The crying incident, making the 'crying incident' the new evidence. If the 'crying incident' was new information in August, it means Mrs. Fenn did not mention it in May during the first time she was interviewed by Portuguese police. If she did not mention the incident the first time she was interviewed, then her later statement is simply not credible and subject to suspicion of witness tampering. Surely you can understand this? If you have crucial information related to the disappearance of a young child yet fail to mention it at the earliest opportunity then you forfeit credibility. Imagine the police questioning YOU under the circumstances: "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary?" then imagine yourself not mentioning the sound of a child crying hysterically for 75 minutes, the sound having come from the very apartment where the child had gone missing...by what rationale do you NOT MENTION IT?? The ONLY rationale is that it did not happen.

by **HiDeHo** 17.06.16 19:33

Thanks whodunnit. Do we know if the new evidence is what she was telling them or was it new evidence that they now had after the dogs and possibly reinterviewed more OC staff as well?

by whodunit 17.06.16 19:50

Why would the police interview Mrs. Fenn about the dogs? What could she possibly add? "Oh yeah, I heard them barking"?
In her statement Mrs. Fenn only spoke about a. the crying incident b. what she heard and saw the night of the alarm being raised and c. the burglary attempt. No mention of the dogs. If the dogs were the 'new evidence' they wanted to ask Mrs. Fenn about they would have at least mentioned it but the subject wasn't broached. Clearly when the police want to interview a witness about 'new evidence' they address it directly, which they did.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.16 20:00

whodunit wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
whodunit wrote:

In simple terms, her statement was false. There was no 'crying incident', there was no burglary attempt.

Several things I would like to address, but unfortunately don't have time right now...However...if you are going to claim the above as fact then I would like to see proof...

We don't have any proof only assumptions assumptions and therefore I understand that you believe that (and may be true) but it does not make it a fact..and should not be claimed to be a fact.

A theory...a hypothesis by some, but with no proof it is not a fact.

I just gave you proof. A Portuguese police source claims Mrs. Fenn was interviewed prior to her statement of August 20. He claims she needed to be RE-interviewed because of NEW evidence. What was her re-interview pertaining to? The crying incident, making the 'crying incident' the new evidence. If the 'crying incident' was new information in August, it means Mrs. Fenn did not mention it in May during the first time she was interviewed by Portuguese police. If she did not mention the incident the first time she was interviewed, then her later statement is simply not credible and subject to suspicion of witness tampering. Surely you can understand this? If you have crucial information related to the disappearance of a young child yet fail to mention it at the earliest opportunity then you forfeit credibility. Imagine the police questioning YOU under the circumstances: "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary?" then imagine yourself not mentioning the sound of a child crying hysterically for 75 minutes, the sound having come from the very apartment where the child had gone missing...by what rationale do you NOT MENTION IT?? The ONLY rationale is that it did not happen.

Thank you once again @ whodunit for cutting through all the ifs, buts and maybes and laying out the solution to the matter of Mrs Fenn's evidence in such stark and simple terms.

All my surrounding circumstantial evidence goes only to add some padding to the obvious conclusion you have so elegantly stated.

I only want us all to get to the truth

by Liz Eagles 17.06.16 20:02

I also agree with 'whodunnit'.

by whodunit 17.06.16 20:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
whodunit wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
whodunit wrote:

In simple terms, her statement was false. There was no 'crying incident', there was no burglary attempt.

Several things I would like to address, but unfortunately don't have time right now...However...if you are going to claim the above as fact then I would like to see proof...

We don't have any proof only assumptions assumptions and therefore I understand that you believe that (and may be true) but it does not make it a fact..and should not be claimed to be a fact.

A theory...a hypothesis by some, but with no proof it is not a fact.

I just gave you proof. A Portuguese police source claims Mrs. Fenn was interviewed prior to her statement of August 20. He claims she needed to be RE-interviewed because of NEW evidence. What was her re-interview pertaining to? The crying incident, making the 'crying incident' the new evidence. If the 'crying incident' was new information in August, it means Mrs. Fenn did not mention it in May during the first time she was interviewed by Portuguese police. If she did not mention the incident the first time she was interviewed, then her later statement is simply not credible and subject to suspicion of witness tampering. Surely you can understand this? If you have crucial information related to the disappearance of a young child yet fail to mention it at the earliest opportunity then you forfeit credibility. Imagine the police questioning YOU under the circumstances: "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary?" then imagine yourself not mentioning the sound of a child crying hysterically for 75 minutes, the sound having come from the very apartment where the child had gone missing...by what rationale do you NOT MENTION IT?? The ONLY rationale is that it did not happen.

Thank you once again @ whodunit for cutting through all the ifs, buts and maybes and laying out the solution to the matter of Mrs Fenn's evidence in such stark and simple terms.

All my surrounding circumstantial evidence goes only to add some padding to the obvious conclusion you have so elegantly stated.

I only want us all to get to the truth

Thank you Tony, and thank you for always remaining calm and rational in the face of extreme provocation.

by tinkier 17.06.16 21:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] extreme provocation, have I missed something…I thought it was called debate? No one can be 100% if Mrs Fenn lied or told the truth. I still remain in the believe camp re the crying incident, the burglar incident is another matter….UK msm at what they do best, SENSATIONALIZED bull----.inspired by a serial liar!

by whodunit 17.06.16 21:07

I was not speaking of this topic in particular. I've seen the comments made about Mr. Bennett elsewhere, and I've seen members here in other topics try to provoke him into making ill-advised statements. I simply admire his fortitude and said so.

by MayMuse 17.06.16 21:12

I got a bit lost way back in the thread due to the long posts and have tried to follow intermittently; however I was under the impression that the new evidence was the dogs "findings"? ( I may be wrong here) and that the PJ perhaps re-interviewed due to this new "information/intelligence" to ascertain "last" sightings/hearings of Madeleine? And not just the "crying incident"!

Open to be corrected if I had misunderstood?

by tinkier 17.06.16 21:20

whodunit wrote:
tinkier wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] extreme provocation, have I missed something…I thought it was called debate? No one can be 100% if Mrs Fenn lied or told the truth. I still remain in the believe camp re the crying incident, the burglar incident is another matter….UK msm at what they do best, SENSATIONALIZED bull----.inspired by a serial liar!

I was not speaking of this topic in particular. I've seen the comments made about Mr. Bennett elsewhere, and I've seen members here in other topics try to provoke him into making ill-advised statements. I simply admire his fortitude and said so.

Ok, then I apologise…I thought your comments were directed at this thread. Of course [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think that goes for us all here, we all admire Tony's courage/commitment in trying to find out the truth of what happened to poor little Madeleine. yes

by Verdi 17.06.16 21:32

whodunit wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
whodunit wrote:

In simple terms, her statement was false. There was no 'crying incident', there was no burglary attempt.

Several things I would like to address, but unfortunately don't have time right now...However...if you are going to claim the above as fact then I would like to see proof...

We don't have any proof only assumptions assumptions and therefore I understand that you believe that (and may be true) but it does not make it a fact..and should not be claimed to be a fact.

A theory...a hypothesis by some, but with no proof it is not a fact.

I just gave you proof. A Portuguese police source claims Mrs. Fenn was interviewed prior to her statement of August 20. He claims she needed to be RE-interviewed because of NEW evidence. What was her re-interview pertaining to? The crying incident, making the 'crying incident' the new evidence. If the 'crying incident' was new information in August, it means Mrs. Fenn did not mention it in May during the first time she was interviewed by Portuguese police. If she did not mention the incident the first time she was interviewed, then her later statement is simply not credible and subject to suspicion of witness tampering. Surely you can understand this? If you have crucial information related to the disappearance of a young child yet fail to mention it at the earliest opportunity then you forfeit credibility. Imagine the police questioning YOU under the circumstances: "Did you see or hear anything out of the ordinary?" then imagine yourself not mentioning the sound of a child crying hysterically for 75 minutes, the sound having come from the very apartment where the child had gone missing...by what rationale do you NOT MENTION IT?? The ONLY rationale is that it did not happen.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I sincerely thank you for telling it like it is - something I've been trying to do for a quite a few days with nil success. At least you have managed to make yourself understood and provoke a positive response !

I will take this opportunity to add - if Pamela Fenn was interviewed informally on the night of 3rd May or morning of 4th May, along with all the other house to house interviews, if she had nothing of interest to say then it wouldn't be recorded in the PJ files.

Also it's been suggested that Pamela Fenn's interview in August 2007 had some connection with the dog alerts - Eddie and Keela did not search Pamela Fenn's apartment, that's not why they were deployed so there was no need to question Pamela Fenn on the subject.

Keep it coming thumbsup

.

by MayMuse 17.06.16 21:52

My suggestion was not that Mrs Fenn was re-interviewed because of the dogs but that of their "findings" which the PJ were aware of; I would not have thought that they would reveal any "findings" to just anyone but perhaps inquire as to "sightings" or any further information in order to get a better picture as those results pointed to Madeleine having died in the apartment! After all she was a neighbour, so very close proximity and we all know the "hit" was in 5a and that her apartment was not part of the "dogs" investigation.
I do find it difficult that this thread is suggesting that in someway Mrs Fenn reporting on the "crying" was a "plant" or she was lying???

Would this not mean that there are far more more connections, links, favours etc to amass a cover up on a grander scale?

One point is why would she do that anyhow? What was in it for her?
Surely a crying incident would be much better if it did not exist, albeit some seem to thing this adds credence to "neglect" I'm not buying it!
Just my opinion
I'll leave you to it!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.16 21:57

tinkier wrote:
whodunit wrote:
tinkier wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] extreme provocation, have I missed something…I thought it was called debate? No one can be 100% if Mrs Fenn lied or told the truth. I still remain in the believe camp re the crying incident, the burglar incident is another matter….UK msm at what they do best, SENSATIONALIZED bull----.inspired by a serial liar!

I was not speaking of this topic in particular. I've seen the comments made about Mr. Bennett elsewhere, and I've seen members here in other topics try to provoke him into making ill-advised statements. I simply admire his fortitude and said so.
Ok, then I apologise…I thought your comments were directed at this thread. Of course [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think that goes for us all here, we all admire Tony's courage/commitment in trying to find out the truth of what happened to poor little Madeleine.

@ tinkier Well done with your swift apology - 'twas an easy mistake to make, words on a screen don't always convey exactly what you mean to say and sometimes one misses the context - and then, to be frank, some people (myself included) do not always make themselves clear. Therefore forum misunderstandings are common.

As one who has indeed suffered much provocation, I was able to see straightaway what @ whodunit meant.

I think that the extraordinary news about Clement Freud is adding some valuable new pieces to the jigsaw, so let us all strive even harder here to continue sifting truth from fiction and so get nearer answering that $64,000 question: what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

grouphug

by **HiDeHo** 17.06.16 22:13

I do hope I havent been included in the 'provocation' comment. Tony knows that is the farthest from my agenda...I have a lot of respect for Tony and I hope everyone knows that... I started a thread dedicated to Tony and have quite a few compiled videos created for Tony. My support has always been there

We just don't always agree :)

Regarding the new evidence ie dogs evidence.... On Friday 17th the first of the FSS reports (the one that appears to have disappeared? was received and the new evidence may have been in relation to the sudden turnaround in the investigation looking towards the parents and apparently created a few more official statements that may have been able to give more information...so it would be no surprise to see Mrs Fenn interviewed to find out if there was anything she heard that may have supported the dogs findings...

Her 'rubbish' comment appears to have possibly been about the 'out of control' quote...

Most of us would deny any negative comments about the McCanns in her situation...especially if she wasnt the person to tell them...but they were direct quotes...

I still have not seen facts. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone...

by Doug D 17.06.16 22:25

Verdi @ 1.46:

The stone stairs with gate clearly access the veranda/patio/balcony (call it what you will) to all apartments so if it was Matt Oldfield he must have been entering and/or leaving by the patio door. This would imply that the couple left the patio door unlocked whilst out - his other half couldn't have been in there as she was down at the beach with the rest of the group (minus the McCann family). I don't think that very likely.

The obvious stone stairs in this picture only access the Oldfield’s flat. In picture 2, above there is a separate set of stairs for flat ‘C’ running down tight to the building, (you can just see the diagonal running down to the right above the bush in 'C's garden towards the Oldfield's garden wall, in the same manner as the Mc’s flight of stairs), leading to their own garden, with their gate marked by the red ‘C’ in the picture below, again which cannot be seen very clearly.

From the statement snippets below, it is clear that Matthew left when Rachael returned from tennis, leaving her in the apartment with a still-sleeping Grace, to lock up and leave by the front door when she went to the beach.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Mrs Fenn’s balcony is the one above the left hand ‘A’ of the Mc’s flat overlooking the Oldfield’s stairs & gate.

Next door ‘C’ was empty & the Tanner/O’Brien flat had its own staircase which runs down to the left and it’s own gate a fair distance from where CT was supposedly sitting or standing. It doesn't matter which, as from her statements it was definitely not the Mc's gate she was talking about.

The Oldfield's went to the Millenium for breakfast every morning, which, in view of the distance and logistics, suggests to me that they had a buggy, with the obvious route out of the apartment being by the front door, rather than down the stairs.

From her interviews she said:

Nothing about the afternoon in her 4^th May 2007 statement.

Statement of 11^th May 2007 interspersed with rogatory in red below:

Rogatory 9^th April 2008

I mean if we were just sort of all popping out and just quickly to the pool, we'd go out the patio doors and just leave them unlocked, erm cos you couldn't lock them from the outside but I mean certainly at night when we went to dinner and if we were gonna be off for a couple of hours, then we went out the front door and you could you know, double lock it so'.

we would have picked up Grace from creche at sort of twelve, half twelve I think and then that first day I think we just had lunch sort of in the Tapas but you know the menu wasn't really that suitable for your kids, erm and then took her back to the room to have a sleep, erm and then while she slept you know, we just kind of read outside on the, on the balcony on the veranda

Sunday……I mean Grace was asleep for about two hours, so she would get up about half three, four o'clock

Monday……………..we'd take Grace down for a sleep and you know, so she was generally sleeping between two and four

Thursday………

we went to Dave and Fi's you know, for lunch as usual, Dave and Fi's apartment, erm and then when Grace was having her sleep, erm Jane and I went down to the tennis court and had a hit, erm cos she'd had her lesson that morning and I'd had mine so, we had about an hour hitting, just hitting the ball really, erm and Gerry and Kate were watching and erm and then we went back up and Grace was still asleep I think, so was Evie, erm so Matt and Russell went down to the beach to go sailing and you know, Jane and I said we'd get the kids up and then we'd head down to the beach when they were up, erm and then I think we ended up going down to the beach perhaps about, must have been about four, half four,

Matt & Russell were both babysitting early afternoon, which is confirmed by Jane Tanner and also Rachael (11/5 in red) below:

JT:
afterwards at about 14h00 the witness played tennis again (8) with Rachael.

Her daughters and Rachael's daughter stayed in the apartment (1) with their respective parents.

After finishing playing tennis at about 14h45, the witness went to her apartment (1) where she stayed with her daughter E**e. Her partner had gone sailing with Matthew.

At about 15h45 she went to the beach with Rachael, Dianne, Fiona, L*** and S****** Payne, taking her daughter E**e along.

Meanwhile Russell arrived from the boat trip and went straight to pick up E**a from the Kids Club. They joined the witness at the beach (7) where they stayed until 18h10-18h15.

Back to Rachael:

so I guess we were down there about half four-ish, quarter to five, erm and the kids just played on the beach a bit and sort of paddled in the sea a little bit and Matt and Russell came in from their sail and Matt had fallen overboard and Russell had managed to go back and rescue him so, cos it was, it was quite windy and I think they were quite big waves and Matt couldn't see the boat and it was like, well this will be the story of the holiday, you know, the story to tell the grandchildren which is, you know which is what we said at the table at dinner that night, erm, erm, so they came in from their sail, Dave came in from his windsurf and you know, we just hung about on the beach for a bit, and then we decided that the kids, we'd give the kids their tea at the erm, there's a restaurant on the beach, I think its called Paradiso, erm give the kid, the kids their tea there, rather than go back up for high tea

At 13h45, the three returned to their apartment, where they put down her daughter who slept for about two hours. The deponent went to play tennis with Jane until 15h00, while her husband Matthew went to the balcony of Russell to talk, or vice versa, she doesn't know exactly, their apartment being located to the side of his and there is only one other apartment between the two.

After the game of tennis, the witness returned home to rest, her husband and Russell having gone to the beach of Luz to sail. At about 15h45, her daughter having woken up, she took her to the beach of Luz in the company of Dianne, Jane, Fiona and their respective children, where they found Matthew, Russell and David. At 17h30 the children dined in one of restaurants by the beach, [she] not having detected any abnormal or strange situation.

…………………………………………………

No definite evidence, but I would still suggest that it was Matthew seen by CT, leaving the apartment by the patio doors/balcony, closing, (what may have been a creaky) gate, quietly so as not to wake the baby, who may well have been asleep in her buggy out on the balcony, either waving or signing something to Rachael and/or looking around or signaling to Russell, in order to go sailing, some time after 3.00 when Rachael & Jane returned from tennis.

This ties in well enough with the guessed time of the CT sighting:

I am certain that we were on the terrace between 3:00/3:30 until 5:30 on Thursday afternoon.

DC1485'And if I were to give you hints, because you could ask yourself this, was it at the beginning of your stay, close to 3:30'

CT'Definitive at the beginning because there was a lot of light, yes.

DC1485'More, more than 5:30'

CT'Yes, yes.

DC1485'Well think, think about the possibility of 3:30, would you say 4:30'

CT'4:30, yes.

DC1485'Well, given the window of between 3:30 and 4:30'

CT 'Yes. I suppose so. It is only a guess.

So some time after 3.00 and before 5.30, earlier rather than later, close to 3.30, or 4.30. She basically hasn't got a clue, other than it was sometime that afternoon, fairly soon after they got back from the restaurant. So quite likely about 4.00.

If Rachael and the buggy were close to the patio doors, either inside or outside, with Grace on the left hand side of the balcony in the shade (sun would have been coming from the west (left hand side), CT could not possibly have seen them from her balcony, however far she leaned out, so she would have had no idea whether someone else was there. Rachael did not go down to the beach till, 3.45, 4.00 or 4.30. Take your pick. Until that time the patio door would almost certainly have been open. Similarly, no-one would see them from the path below.
It is highly unlikely imo that any 'stranger' would go through the gate and up the steps, in the middle of the afternoon, overlooked by the 'open' iron-railed Fenn balcony where he would be able to see people sitting, to a balcony he could not see from the path, knowing full well that there could be someone sat there enjoying a siesta.

Once Grace woke and Rachael went to the beach, which was certainly after this time, she would have taken the buggy out of the front door rather than trying to navigate a steep and narrow set of steps on her own, presumably locking the patio door.

by MayMuse 17.06.16 22:28

HiDeHo wrote:I do hope I havent been included in the 'provocation' comment. Tony knows that is the farthest from my agenda...I have a lot of respect for Tony and I hope everyone knows that... I started a thread dedicated to Tony and have quite a few compiled videos created for Tony. My support has always been there

We just don't always agree :)

Regarding the new evidence ie dogs evidence.... On Friday 17th the first of the FSS reports (the one that appears to have disappeared? was received and the new evidence may have been in relation to the sudden turnaround in the investigation looking towards the parents and apparently created a few more official statements that may have been able to give more information...so it would be no surprise to see Mrs Fenn interviewed to find out if there was anything she heard that may have supported the dogs findings...

Her 'rubbish' comment appears to have possibly been about the 'out of control' quote...

Most of us would deny any negative comments about the McCanns in her situation...especially if she wasnt the person to tell them...but they were direct quotes...

I still have not seen facts. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone...

Thanks [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] That's what I believe and was trying to say, you have put it in a clearer way than I did

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.16 22:34

HiDeHo wrote:I do hope I haven't been included in the 'provocation' comment.

REPLY: I am sure whodunit had nothing like that in his mind, and of course neither did I

Tony knows that is the farthest from my agenda...

REPLY: Yes

Regarding the new evidence ie dogs evidence...On Friday 17th the first of the FSS reports (the one that appears to have disappeared?) was received and the new evidence may have been in relation to the sudden turnaround in the investigation looking towards the parents and apparently created a few more official statements that may have been able to give more information...so it would be no surprise to see Mrs Fenn interviewed to find out if there was anything she heard that may have supported the dogs findings...

REPLY: That's guesswork, and doesn't really help us answer one of the key questions on this thread, namely where did Pilditch get his information for that article on 18 August

Her 'rubbish' comment appears to have possibly been about the 'out of control' quote...

REPLY: I see no basis whatsoever for that. We have Mrs Fenn's actual words and unless we have convincing reasons for thinking otherwise, prima facie we should take them at face value. 'Rubbish'...'Ignore it' - it's a simple, clear message

I still have not seen facts. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone...

REPLY: I'm not upset, but surprised. Dozens of actual facts have been posted on the 39-page thread so far. If however you really meant that we are unable to draw firm conclusions on many of the key issues raised on the thread, I could agree with you.

For example, is there sufficient proof that Mrs Fenn's police statement is true?

I think not

by **HiDeHo** 17.06.16 23:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I do hope I haven't been included in the 'provocation' comment.

REPLY: I am sure whodunit had nothing like that in his mind, and of course neither did I

Tony knows that is the farthest from my agenda...

REPLY: Yes

Regarding the new evidence ie dogs evidence...On Friday 17th the first of the FSS reports (the one that appears to have disappeared?) was received and the new evidence may have been in relation to the sudden turnaround in the investigation looking towards the parents and apparently created a few more official statements that may have been able to give more information...so it would be no surprise to see Mrs Fenn interviewed to find out if there was anything she heard that may have supported the dogs findings...

REPLY: That's guesswork, and doesn't really help us answer one of the key questions on this thread, namely where did Pilditch get his information for that article on 18 August

Her 'rubbish' comment appears to have possibly been about the 'out of control' quote...

REPLY: I see no basis whatsoever for that. We have Mrs Fenn's actual words and unless we have convincing reasons for thinking otherwise, prima facie we should take them at face value. 'Rubbish'...'Ignore it' - it's a simple, clear message

I still have not seen facts. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone...

REPLY: I'm not upset, but surprised. Dozens of actual facts have been posted on the 39-page thread so far. If however you really meant that we are unable to draw firm conclusions on many of the key issues raised on the thread, I could agree with you.

For example, is there sufficient proof that Mrs Fenn's police statement is true?

I think not

I'm glad we agree on the FACT that this is nothing to do with anything on a personal level... As long as Verdi and whodunnit know thatIt seems we have a different criteria for 'fact'..

I cannot claim anything is fact because everything (that I may find) points in that direction...

I claim that it appears that Maddie died because the police files claim that (maybe from an FSS report that was changed/lost.)

I claim the possibility that something happened to Maddie early in the week as all the witness statements appear to be covering up something from Tuesday morning and not one sighting of Maddie that is specific and credible since Sunday lunchtime...but I have never claimed it is a FACT that Maddie died earlier on the week because of course we dont know and my 'findings' allow for her having possibly died on Thursday.

In a similar manner...although research may show. for some, a compelling possibility that Clarence coerced Mrs Fenn, I have yet to see any proof...we cannot presume Mrs Fenn didnt tell the police or SOMEONE earlier in the investigation.. and with the new evidence from the dogs and the report arriving on August 17th I see nothing odd about Mrs Fenn being brought in for an interview..

It was suggested that there is nothing to prove she was asked to come in for questioning... there is nothing to prove ANYONE was asked to come in for questioning, but the logic of the date does appear to be of no coincidence...

If there was new evidence that something happened inside that apartment, the first person I would want to interview would be a neighbour that may have heard something...

It was not an interview out of thin air... It is apparent/likely they had a good reason to interview her...

PT journalists were aware of the police procedure at that time and subsequently David Pilditch...hence it was ONLY the PT news that reported on the crying...(and Pilditch)

by Verdi 18.06.16 0:05

Doug D @ 10:25 pm

Thank you for taking the trouble to post such a detailed reply to my comment about Matt Oldfield - I'm even more confused now.

The Tapas groups witness statements are so contradictory I don't think it possible to deduce anything positive, I'm therefore still of the opinion that the man Carol Tranmer claims to have seen at a gate at the foot of stairs somewhere below her aunts apartment, was not Matthew Oldfield.

It matters not in the grand scheme of things. Carol Tranmer's identi-kit drawn-up at the request of the unidentified man from Reading would confirm one way or the other for the purpose of the investigation.

by plebgate 18.06.16 0:20

Without having all the case file notes NOBODY can claim that it is a fact that Mrs. Fenn's statment was false/coerced.

Is whodunnit privvy to information the rest of the forum and other bloggers are not?

Mr. Lee Rainbow was of the opinion that Mr. should be questioned again so it could be possible that Mrs. Fenn was re-interviewed to see if any further information could be gleaned from her as well as the point HDH made about the dogs' findings.

so not FACT at all and still maybes and could be's imo of course.

by Guest 18.06.16 0:43

plebgate wrote:Without having all the case file notes NOBODY can claim that it is a fact that Mrs. Fenn's statment was false/coerced.

This thread has been a fascinating read and I have gleaned a lot from both sides of the debate.

But I have to agree with this statement.

At the end of the day, both sides of the fence have only supposition of reasoning to support their arguments. Personally I feel that Mrs Fenn probably heard cries, but that they weren't Madeleine, but rather one/both of the twins who were left alone while Gerry was still out at either Chaplins or Kelly's after the Milan vs. Man Utd match, and Kate was who knows where. Maybe even in the apartment on the other side of a door (maybe that first statement mentioned hearing an adult voice, but that aspect was retracted later).

Those cries became a convenient cross to bear. By design or not, I couldn't say.

To the aforementioned 'women' described by RM (thank you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for confirming this), this again falls under speculation. It could've referred to Mrs Fenn (we need only look at Mr Eveleigh catching Krokowski on CCTV to know how 'flukes' seem to appear in the case). It could've been a throwaway comment without followup. Or it could've referred to one of the myriad witnesses whose names weren't recorded in the released files for their own good/privacy.

At the end of the day, we can only surmise.

I think Mrs Fenn originally a gave truthful statement(s), then press got hold of her words through leaks, at an opportune time it hit the news, then she was tied to the headlines (mostly inaccurate) and investigation by proxy. What she said at that point (ie the statement on record) is the only thing we can truly interpret, and as such is not a lot to go on. Whether someone (CM or a proxy of his) got to her in the intervening time, we will probably never know.

Just my opinions, as always I am open to correction.

by **HiDeHo** 18.06.16 1:38

There are so many missing files...many of them appear to be from an important point in the investigation...

The initial statements and from May 3rd are missing...

Diagram of events for the mini sail..

Twins creche records for Thursday morning (Blank or missing pages for the consecutive numbers)

David Paynes statement...referred to in the files but not available.... Caroline Carpenter... carole Tranmers statement to UK police...

Manns...Sperry... were at the tapas that night...

All of the statements given to UK police..

It was by chance the PJ received the Gaspar Statements... Given to UK in May and not received in Portugal 'accidentally' within another fax in October......

Very often Goncalo Amaral will give information that is not in the files...

One important one in my opinion is that none of the T9 on the first floor entered through the back door... they ALL (apparently) used the patio doors...

The impact on that could be huge...

All the communication prior to sitting down for a recorded interview, all of the intelligence discovered by the 200+ detectives on the ground in the first couple of days (and after)

Considering the timeline supplied to us by the T9 is likely not even close to what happened, we have to recognise that there is a LOT of info we are not privy to

The Portuguese press tell us a lot of info that should be considered...but not discussed as fact...

Kate was reported in PT press to have said about the 6 corpses during her interrogation/statements and was immediately reported. They subsequently tried to justify the comment with the time cadaver odour can be identified...

SO much we don't know. We can NEVER presume because something isnt in the files that it doesn't exist...
The biggie for me is David Payne's statement.... WHERE is it and WHY is it not in the files....

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

THANKS TO ALBYM

Document missing from DVD: Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909.
In a memorandum dated 24 October 2007 (Processo Volume XIII, Page 3909) reference is made to a document written by Dr David Payne which document had been read carefully by British Detective Constable Mike Marshall, the author of the memorandum. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The document written by Dr Payne is not in the DVD.

THANKS TO INES

There is only one statement from DP to PJ on the DVD unlike other T7 members. Possibly he made more then one

by **HiDeHo** 18.06.16 1:43

Please note Tony... I haven't ignored your special effort to address my posts...but it is Friday night... I hope you will forgive me if I take a little time ? smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 18.06.16 7:47

HiDeHo wrote:Please note Tony... I haven't ignored your special effort to address my posts...but it is Friday night... I hope you will forgive me if I take a little time ?

Absolutely fine, after all, it took me a week to compile my reply. So long as we all endeavor to shine further light into the dark corners of this deep mystery, let us continue to di it. I think the consensus is that some very reasonable information and analysis has emerged during the thread from all participants in the discussion so far.

I just have one plea to you, though, @ HideHo. You've done it once again, and said: "...although research may show, for some, a compelling possibility that Clarence coerced Mrs Fenn".

I have made it very plain two or three times recently on the thread that this is NOT what I claim, and to repeat for the final time I DO suggest that someone talked Mrs Fenn into making up the crying incident and the burglary but I do NOT say it was Clarence Mitchell. Also I have used the words 'caholed' or 'persuaded' NOT coerced.

Thanks!

@ plebgate Looking again at whodunit's contributions, I think all he is doing is applying clear principles of logic and reasoning - and he wasn't in any way claiming to have special knowledge of something

by plebgate 18.06.16 8:19

Morning Tony - This is what whodunnit said in one post at HDH:

The only rationale is that it did not happen and that s/he (whodunnit) had given proof .

That sounded to me as though whodunnit was claiming it as a fact.

I take your point about the word coerced. It was used at some point during this debate and seems to have "stuck".

cajoled and persuaded it is.

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