Re: Police Interview - Carol Tramner (Pamela Fenn's Niece)

by Silentscope 10.07.20 11:55

If the reported suspect was later found to be actually CB, having done something in the Apartment at that time, or checking to see if the child safety gate squeaked so he could come back later it would fit the theory.

It also fits that during clearing out his house before all this happened, several items such as carnival clothing and wigs were mentioned with which he may have disguised himself - if he really did come back.

by cookiemuncher 10.07.20 12:35

Silentscope wrote:If the reported suspect was later found to be actually CB, having done something in the Apartment at that time, or checking to see if the child safety gate squeaked so he could come back later it would fit the theory.

It also fits that during clearing out his house before all this happened, several items such as carnival clothing and wigs were mentioned with which he may have disguised himself - if he really did come back.

You keep going on and on and on about CB, yet you always seem to ignore the cadaver odour that takes about an hour to form. Why would he have "done something in the Apartment at that time", as you say, why would he check to see if the child safety gate squeaked. Surely if he was going to abduct a dead person he would already know whether the child safety gate squeaked or not as he would have been informed and if he was going to abduct a live person how would the cadaver odour form?

It doesn't matter whether he was disguised or not if he took Madeleine away it still doesn't answer the question about the cadaver odour.

by Silentscope 10.07.20 19:58

The easy answer to your question Is:

1. Was the Cadaver odour the Dogs smelt actually from Maddie?
2. How do we prove that it was and when it was formed?

Or can you prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt to me or the BKA that CB had nothing to do with anything?

All I am saying is that if CB had actually abducted her alive or dead on that night - he couldn’t have put her in the Hire car!

Unless someone else brought it there on the night in question for him?

by cookiemuncher 10.07.20 20:04

Over to you Verdi, I'm not saying anything, my lips are sealed.

by **PeterMac** 10.07.20 21:23

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

by Silentscope 10.07.20 22:04

to 17

cr4_16

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

cr4_17

Witness statement of Michael George Wright (previous Renault Scenic lessee) 2008.05.01
Deposition of: Michael G Wright
Age if less than 18 years:
Occupation: Retired

_______________________________________
This deposition (comprising 1 page and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I testify with the knowledge that, given evidence to the contrary, I will be subject to arrest in the case I have voluntarily testified about something that I know to be false or not to correspond to the truth.
I live at the address previously furnished to the Leicester police and I am currently retired.
In May 2007 I went to Portugal with my wife on a golfing trip known as Wycherts Springs Tour. We were 14 people on a trip organised by Roger Ga.
We were lodged in a house of one of the group members named David Be. and whose address is: Casa xxxxxxxxx, Rua Ricardo Filipe, Quinta das Raposeiras, Bordeira, Santa BÃ¡rbara de Nexe.
Although the trip was organised by by Roger, it was I who reserved the flights for my wife and for me. Our friend John Brown organised the rental vehicle that we were going to use whilst we were in Portugal.
My wife and I caught the Easyjet flight from Luton to Faro on 8 May 2007. At the Faro airport John was to collect the rental car that he had reserved, on which I was added as additional driver. The car was used basically by me and my wife, by John and his wife. The only other person of the group who travelled in the vehicle during that week was Sra Ra.
I don't remember any detail of the car. I think it was a silver-grey Peugeot, but consulting the Budget rental contract I confirm that it was a Renault. The only memory that I have of the vehicle is that it did not have a key to start the ignition, but some kind of credit card that was inserted into a slot.
The car was returned to Rent-a-Car at the airport on 15 May 2007 at the end of our stay.

But no-one other than John Brown and myself drove the vehicle during that week.

I am not known by the McCann family nor have I ever met with any of them.

During the period that I used the vehicle no-one was wounded or had wounds that bled, nor was any cadaver transported nor did anyone die.

This testimony was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

If all the above written statement is true, it cannot possibly be anyone in this statement -
then it CANNOT BE CB and it wasn’t any of the above, It must have been who then?

WHO ELSE Had the vehicle?

Time to tell Herr Wolter what I think. Brückner is being set up. Definitely.

by cookiemuncher 10.07.20 22:12

Silentscope wrote:The easy answer to your question Is:

1. Was the Cadaver odour the Dogs smelt actually from Maddie?
2. How do we prove that it was and when it was formed?

Or can you prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt to me or the BKA that CB had nothing to do with anything?

All I am saying is that if CB had actually abducted her alive or dead on that night - he couldn’t have put her in the Hire car!

Unless someone else brought it there on the night in question for him?

So you got around to the obvious in the end, anyone could see that coming. Why has it taken you 10 days going around the houses knowing what you were leading up to? Why didn't you type this comment on the first day instead of spouting all the rubbish you have been?

by Silentscope 10.07.20 22:21

You just confirmed it. Something in that statement is NOT true.

by cookiemuncher 10.07.20 23:24

Silentscope wrote:You just confirmed it. Something in that statement is NOT true.

Idiot, don't be so pedantic. You know full well what I meant that your end game was to diss the dogs, wasn't it, but you've taken 10 days going around the houses to get to that point, am I right?

Please don't play silly bug*ers with the life of a 3 year old girl, it doesn't do your reputation much good. You may not have much concern for her but we on this forum do, so who are you working for? Who is pulling your strings?

by Verdi 11.07.20 0:29

cookiemuncher wrote:Over to you Verdi, I'm not saying anything, my lips are sealed.

But you are .... aren't you?

By the way, I am not your mouthpiece - don't even think it.

by Verdi 11.07.20 0:36

cookiemuncher wrote:
Silentscope wrote:You just confirmed it. Something in that statement is NOT true.
Idiot, don't be so pedantic. You know full well what I meant that your end game was to diss the dogs, wasn't it, but you've taken 10 days going around the houses to get to that point, am I right?

Please don't play silly bug*ers with the life of a 3 year old girl, it doesn't do your reputation much good. You may not have much concern for her but we on this forum do, so who are you working for? Who is pulling your strings?

Enough cookiemuncher!

I have asked you once to treat other new members as you would like to be treated yourself as a new member. You have presently been here for but a month - you are in no position to assume superiority, least of all to be abusive towards other members.

If you wish to remain here on CMOMM you need to clean up your act, or you will no longer be welcome. Your choice.

Be warned!

by Verdi 11.07.20 1:31

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

by Lance De Boils 11.07.20 10:06

I'm jumping in with a question. I'm sure it must have been covered but searched on here aren't revealing much to me yet. I haven't read everything - just skimmed through.

Do we know where the "soothing couple" info/story come from? Original source and who gave that account? And when?

by **sharonl** 19.01.22 22:57

Did MS Tramner slip up here?

CT''We rented a vehicle to travel. My aunt lives in apartment 20, Waterside Gardens, Praia da Luz, Bloco 5G in the Ocean Club. We went to visit her on Sunday, the 29th of May'. Is this wrong'

CT'No, it is not correct. We arrived on Saturday,

DC1485'Well then, it was after, after the disappearance of Madeleine. Was it not'

CT'No, no because this, humm... was in April, it was the 1st of May, Tuesday.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'We arrived more or less in the end of April.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'Therefore, it was... my birthday was on the 1st, Tuesday, and Thursday was the 1st of May.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'Thus, we arrived the Saturday before.

DC1485'Let me show you what you said, where I want to arrive, ma'am, you returned to Portugal after the disappearance of Madeleine'

CT'No.

DC1485'So that date is incorrect'

CT'Yes. It was in fact in April.

DC1485'April, this is it then'

CT'Yes, I should have read this.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'Or no, I don't know.

DC1485'It says here, Saturday, the 28th of May.

CT'It was the 28th of April because it was on the 3rd, Thursday, when we took my aunt to lunch.

CT'Yes and after we went to visit her on Sunday. We visited her on the 29th of April.

DC1485'And here it says May, thus this statement is incorrect, right'

CT'Yes of course.

DC1485'Good. Let us clarify the statement collected on the 8th of May, relative to the dates referred to.

CT'Yes, it was wrong, it was in April.

DC1485'In fact it should be Saturday, the 28th of April.

CT'Sure.

DC1485'This is correct, of course it was.

CT'I got confused when I read this.

DC1485'Yes, I would also get confused.

DC1485'Good, then in relation to the date, everything is now correct'

CT'Yes, yes.

DC1485'Yes, good. Relative to what you said happened on Thursday, your statement states that Thursday, the 3rd, you went to visit your aunt. Therefore, you saw her on Sunday'

CT'Yes.

DC1485'And after that you went in search of properties'

CT'Yes.

DC1485'Passing through the eastern Algarve, right'

CT'That is correct, yes.

DC1485'Thursday, the 3rd of May.