Re: What was 5A really used for?

by Guest 26.01.12 16:00

Precisely bobbin and thank you for the support and understanding. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Rainbow-fairy, this is purely an operational move to keep the forum running smoothly, it's nothing personal. I fully appreciate you were one of the ones that was happy for Praia to post here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It may be only a temporary move, but we will all have to wait and see what develops.

by Guest 27.01.12 15:28

There is much confusion between Carole Tranmer’s first statement given on the 8^th May 2007 and her next one given on 22^nd April 2008, over her arrival date. Here DC1485, is asking her to clarify the actual day she arrived.

From Carole Tranmer’s Rogatory Interview:

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”.

Carole Tranmer by her own admission, arrived in Portugal on the 28^th April 2007.

She also states that she was present when an intruder was there.

DC1485 “You spoke, you spoke of, of, of another man you saw”.

CT “Mmm”.

DC1485 “You saw him leaving your aunt's terrace”

CT “Mmm, mmm”

But, on the 19^th and 20^th of August 2007, some 8 days before Carol Tranmer claims to have arrived in Portugal, two British Newspapers are reporting that she was already there and witnessed this intruder.

Daily Mail published on 19 August 2007:

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

It states that two burglaries occurred, one of them was in Mrs Fenn’s apartment – two week before the McCann’s arrived.

“Mrs Fenn has told friends she heard a noise as she watched television and found a man escaping through her bedroom window. Her niece, who was staying with her, also saw the man”.

Telegraph published on 20 August 2007:

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

“Mrs Fenn has said that in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance she scared off an intruder in her apartment.

There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may have had a key to let himself into the flat. She will be making a formal statement today at police headquarters in the city of Portimao. There was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which police also suspected the intruder had a key.

Mrs Fenn's niece was staying with her aunt in the week that the McCanns were on holiday. She saw a suspicious-looking man hanging around the McCanns' apartment about the time Madeleine vanished”.

The question is, how did The Daily Mail and the Telegraph know about this sighting by Carole Tranmer, one week before she claims to have even arrived in Portugal?

by Miraflores 27.01.12 16:23

The question is,
how did The Daily Mail and the Telegraph know about this sighting by
Carole Tranmer, one week before she claims to have even arrived in
Portugal?

The Telegraph refers to 'another burglary' in the complex i.e. not Mrs Fenn's flat.

"There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may
have had a key to let himself into the flat. She will be making a formal
statement today at police headquarters in the city of Portimao. There
was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which
police also suspected the intruder had a key."

The Daily Mail has probably just got it wrong, and have made something up.

by uppatoffee 27.01.12 16:34

Mrs Fenn makes no mention of her niece being there during the burglary in her witness statement in August 2007.

Reading through the newspaper reports from the time, it seems like Mrs Fenn was giving a statement to the police for the first time in August. Dont know whether this is true or not. Her statement is certainly very short given she is supposed to have been above the apartment where it all happened.

by Genbug 27.01.12 17:01

Stella, as well as not knowing when she arrived in Portugal, she also seems unsure when her birthday is too. In her rogatory she says: "Humm...my name is Carol TRANMER and my date of birth is the first day of 1948 and I live at, humm... " (detail removed).

From reading that, you would believe that her birthday was the 1st of January. However, later on, she says that they were celebrating her birthday on Tuesday 1st of May.

Obviously a mistranscription on the first part, I imagine she would have actually said "my date of birth is the first day of May 1948..." Little things like that can completely throw you!

by Guest 28.01.12 7:55

Genbug wrote:Stella, as well as not knowing when she arrived in Portugal, she also seems unsure when her birthday is too. In her rogatory she says: "Humm...my name is Carol TRANMER and my date of birth is the first day of 1948 and I live at, humm... " (detail removed).

From reading that, you would believe that her birthday was the 1st of January. However, later on, she says that they were celebrating her birthday on Tuesday 1st of May.

Obviously a mistranscription on the first part, I imagine she would have actually said "my date of birth is the first day of May 1948..." Little things like that can completely throw you!

I think it may have been a deliberate move by the person doing the translation, to protect her date of birth info. But as we can see, much further into the statement it is very easy to work out what it actually is.

by Genbug 28.01.12 8:04

Ah, so the interview was presumably in English, translated to Portuguese and then back to English again?

by Guest 28.01.12 8:07

uppatoffee wrote:Mrs Fenn makes no mention of her niece being there during the burglary in her witness statement in August 2007.

Mrs Fenn's statement is dated the 20th August. If the papers are correct on the 19th & 20th in the UK, so presumably earlier than that in Portugal, the incident would have only just happened and been fresh in her mind. So why does she not mention it? Especially since it fully supports someone getting into apartments without damage looking for something?

Reading through the newspaper reports from the time, it seems like Mrs Fenn was giving a statement to the police for the first time in August. Dont know whether this is true or not. Her statement is certainly very short given she is supposed to have been above the apartment where it all happened.

Mrs Fenn must have spoken at great length to the PJ just after the alarm was raised, it must have been witheld for some reason. The question is why did they need to speak to her a 2nd time in August 2007, just as other important witnesses were being re-interviewed? Was this something the PJ approached Mrs Fenn about, or was it the other way around?

by Guest 28.01.12 8:09

Genbug wrote:Ah, so the interview was presumably in English, translated to Portuguese and then back to English again?

Yes, in Cartas Rogatories 4, I think, the statement is in Portuguese.

by Guest 28.01.12 8:19

Miraflores wrote:

The question is,
how did The Daily Mail and the Telegraph know about this sighting by
Carole Tranmer, one week before she claims to have even arrived in
Portugal?

The Telegraph refers to 'another burglary' in the complex i.e. not Mrs Fenn's flat.

"There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may
have had a key to let himself into the flat. She will be making a formal
statement today at police headquarters in the city of Portimao. There
was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which
police also suspected the intruder had a key."

The Daily Mail has probably just got it wrong, and have made something up.

The important bit in that article is this Miraflores,

“Mrs Fenn has said that in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance she scared off an intruder in her apartment". You are talking about "another burglary" elsewhere.

Carole Tranmer said she was there to witness this event.

by Guest 28.01.12 8:22

Miraflores wrote:The Daily Mail has probably just got it wrong, and have made something up.

Made something up BEFORE the event had even occurred, BEFORE Carole Tranmer arrived in Portugal? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that is interesting don't you think? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Miraflores 28.01.12 8:44

Stella, the way I read it was that the date Mrs Fenn disturbed the burglar in her flat wasn't mentioned and then the Telegraph said something along the lines of 'and oh, by the way another burglary took place elsewhere in the complex a few weeks earlier'. On the whole, I think the Telegraph does report reliably.

As for the Daily Mail, I think it just made a convenient date up (probably just did a cut and paste job from the Telegraph and got it wrong). I don't think it's a newspaper particularly noted for its accuracy.

I can't really see the importance of the Carol Tranmer - OK so she may or may not have been in Praia de Luz around the same time, but I don't see how she is involved. Or is it being suggested that since she was there she must have seen something? Or if she didn't see something e.g. an abductor, then that can't have happened?

I'm truly baffled and italking about her seems to be taking away attention from the McCanns and their Tapas friends.

by Guest 28.01.12 9:08

Miraflores wrote:Stella, the way I read it was that the date Mrs Fenn disturbed the burglar in her flat wasn't mentioned and then the Telegraph said something along the lines of 'and oh, by the way another burglary took place elsewhere in the complex a few weeks earlier'. On the whole, I think the Telegraph does report reliably.

As for the Daily Mail, I think it just made a convenient date up (probably just did a cut and paste job from the Telegraph and got it wrong). I don't think it's a newspaper particularly noted for its accuracy.

I can't really see the importance of the Carol Tranmer - OK so she may or may not have been in Praia de Luz around the same time, but I don't see how she is involved. Or is it being suggested that since she was there she must have seen something? Or if she didn't see something e.g. an abductor, then that can't have happened?

I'm truly baffled and italking about her seems to be taking away attention from the McCanns and their Tapas friends.

Miraflores, I guess it is quite possible that at that time, the British Papers needed to report a load of old tosh, getting everything confused and upside down, which makes the whole bogeyman story more plausible. Quite why they needed to cover that very ancient story approximately 10 days before the McCann's were about to be made suspects, is beyond me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But we are still left with one very important aspect here. Quite a serious one in fact. In Mrs Fenn's statement, she said 'a week before' Madeleine disappeared, she had an intruder. In Carole Tranmer's statement, she said she was there when 'they both' saw this intruder. Which means one or both of them is not correct.

by Guest 28.01.12 9:33

Other contradictions or odd events in Mrs Fenn’s Statement:

There is no mention of Carole Tranmer’s visit on the 29^thApril. This is the day Christopher Tranmer, allegedly took some lovely family photo’s on the terrace, having just arrived in Portugal.

On the 1^st May 2007, Mrs Fenn says she heard the patio doors open ‘above’ the noise of the 'very loud' crying incident. Yet on the 3^rd, she “did not hear any noise from the McCann's apartment" whatsoever. Not even "the opening of doors”.

Sound conditions were far better on the 3rd, compared to the 1st. So why didn't she hear the patio doors opening and closing at GM’s check, MO’s check and KM’s final visit?

Mrs Fenn states that on the 1st May 2007 during the cying incident, “as soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying”. How did she know it was the parents who returned to the apartment?

Why call her friend Edna Glynn, after the crying event? No one would call anyone at that time of the night, to report something after it had happened. What was the point?

There was nothing to report for May 2^nd

On May 3^rd, Mrs Fenn only mentions Carole arriving in the morning and not Chris and Carole? Is this why they asked Carole where her husband got to after they arrived? Did he speak to someone, did he go somewhere?

Mrs Fenn then goes on to state that, “during the day nothing unusual happened”. But how can this be? Carole said they all went to a lovely fish restaurant, a favourite of her Aunt's, for a Birthday lunch that day. This was the whole purpose of that visit. So why doesn't Mrs Fenn remember this?

Whilst everyone was on the terrace, Mrs Fenn said that Carole “saw a male individual looking into the McCann’s apartment”. This is a complete contradiction to what Carole said, who claims she saw a man ‘leaving’ through the gate of 5B.

This is a very bizarre bit. Mrs Fenn refers to an episode when Gerry was speaking to a policeman and he “refused to recognise the police force, saying that more agents of authority were needed to carry out the search”. How could Gerry have possibly known that the GNR who showed up, were not 'of the right authority'?

It would seem that Mrs Fenn’s statement and Carole Tranmers, conflict somewhat.

by Guest 28.01.12 10:15

Then we have the tesimony of yet another witness whose Grandma used to live in G5A, who sees bundleman, but quite amazingly, also sees Madeleine and and actually waves to her when she is "standing on the balcony".

Tasmin Milburn Silence

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

3-volume III of process Page 800-804 translated by Astro

Deposition of 12-year-old girl according to case files

Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.
Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

"Comes to the process as a witness. Understands the Portuguese Language, as she has been living in Portugal since the age of two months (approximately eleven years ago). Still, an interpreter is present [name withheld].

Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.

She also mentions that she lived in the apartment where the missing child was staying, that belonged to her Grandmother, who is already deceased. That she didn't actually reside there, but spent extensive and repeated periods of time there, with her Grandmother and her Mother. The apartment was bought in 1994 and sold in 2002 and therefore she knows it perfectly, both from the inside and from the outside.

She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road. That when she was walking down she decided to look at the pathway, because as she lived there, she likes to watch the house and the neighbouring garden. She walked with her mother, that she is certain she didn't see the man, and she was walking two dogs on a leash, which forced them to cross the road, a bit further down. At that moment she saw the man more closely, as they crossed the road, and then lost visual angle when they finished crossing.

Says that the man didn't see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony.

She presumes that nobody was on Madeleine's house's balcony, but she cannot state it beyond doubt.

After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn't need to walk down to the 'Ocean Club'. She didn't see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.

That on that day she didn't go to school because she was sick with an infection in her right ear. Still, and feeling somewhat better, at around noon she left on her own, as her mother was at work, with the dogs, and went to the 'Alisuper' supermarket which is located on a perpendicular to Rua Direita, where she bought chocolates for €3,63. Then she walked to the pharmacy, which is located below the 'Baptista' supermarket, on a lateral perspective, where she bought a box of earplugs, to prevent water from getting in, and spent €4,55. Then she went to 'Baptista' supermarket to buy cereal bread, because they don't sell it at 'Alisuper'. She left the dogs tied at the back entrance of 'Baptista' and went in to buy the bread. She paid, left 'Baptista', collected the dogs, and walked across the supermarket's hall to the main entrance, approximately four/five metres, which exits to the street where she had seen the man. She started walking up the street on the left side going up, and saw the man, this time in front of the 'Ocean Club's' reception, once more looking at Madeleine's house in an ostensive manner, where he stood he could observe, she thinks, the house's two side windows and part of the balcony. She thinks that he could also be looking at the other residences that are located in the same direction.

That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent. The distance that she observed him from was the width of the road.

After walking by the individual, she walked towards her house, through the road to the right, and never looked back to the man, or turned around to observe him better.

After that day she never saw him again.

As she said before, she left home at 12 p.m. and returned at 12.35 p.m., which means she crossed with the man at around 12.25/12.28 (the rest of the walk takes about seven minutes).

On the next day, Thursday (0.305.2007) she walked the same path as on the 30th, at the same time, but didn't see the man, and never saw him again, as she said before.

Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn't Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even 'disgusting'.

The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.

Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe 'Nike' in a colour that she can't remember.

The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn't notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.

The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.

She never saw him with any photo camera, or any mobile phone, although the second time, he might have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.

When asked, she says that she saw no vehicle near the man, only a few vehicles, but near the 'Baptista'.

When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

A map of the area is added, where A is the spot of the first sighting and B the spot for the second one. The 'Baptista' supermarket and Madeleine's apartment.

She said that she can recognise the man both personally and photographically, and create a photofit.

Therefore I interrupt the present deposition and show the deponent photographs of individuals with similar characteristics.

I resume the deposition where it is consigned that the diligence resulted negatively, according to a report that is annexed.

She didn't say anything further. The deposition is read and approved, ratified and signed together with the interpreter that assisted.

The present deposition is written and signed."

by Guest 28.01.12 10:17

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

Walking down the opposite side of the road, you would see nothing.

by Guest 28.01.12 10:22

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

Walking past the gate, supposedly she stops, looks up, sees Madeleine standing right there at the top of those stairs and waves to her.

Edited to correct: According to her statement, she was on the opposite side of the road.

by Guest 28.01.12 10:34

Tasmin Silence : She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine's house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house's balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road. That when she was walking down she decided to look at the pathway, because as she lived there, she likes to watch the house and the neighbouring garden. She walked with her mother, that she is certain she didn't see the man, and she was walking two dogs on a leash, which forced them to cross the road, a bit further down. At that moment she saw the man more closely, as they crossed the road, and then lost visual angle when they finished crossing.

Note the view the PJ officer saw, from that side of the street.

by Guest 28.01.12 10:56

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

Mrs Fenn's apartment was 2 bedroom, just like 5a below. But if you look at this picture, 5G is not set as far back carpark side, as 5A is. The room in 5A, with nothing above it in 5G, was the Kitchen, that is level with the 2nd bedroom.

The PJ asked Carole Tranmer to describe in detail, the layout of the whole apartment. Why was that necessary?

by rainbow-fairy 28.01.12 12:48

This Tasmin Silence strikes me as being a bit of a fantasist. Her description of a man she only passed in the street is remarkably detailed... Wink

by Guest 28.01.12 13:35

rainbow-fairy wrote:This Tasmin Silence strikes me as being a bit of a fantasist. Her description of a man she only passed in the street is remarkably detailed...

Especially for a 12 year old girl.

If the "dogs" being plural, caused her to cross the road 'possibly by pulling', how did she have time to stop and wave to Madeleine? Why didn't the PJ ask her what Madeleine was wearing on the 30th? All very odd indeed.

This is a young girl, who from a very young age often went to stay with her Grandmother, when she lived full time in G5A. I'm guessing that both the Grandmother, the Mother and the little girl, were all well known to Mrs Fenn.

by rainbow-fairy 28.01.12 14:35

Stella wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:This Tasmin Silence strikes me as being a bit of a fantasist. Her description of a man she only passed in the street is remarkably detailed...

Especially for a 12 year old girl.

If the "dogs" being plural, caused her to cross the road 'possibly by pulling', how did she have time to stop and wave to Madeleine? Why didn't the PJ ask her what Madeleine was wearing on the 30th? All very odd indeed.

This is a young girl, who from a very young age often went to stay with her Grandmother, when she lived full time in G5A. I'm guessing that both the Grandmother, the Mother and the little girl, were all well known to Mrs Fenn.

Stella, I hadn't thought of it like that before, but I believe you are correct - they would all have been well known to each other.
Do we know who Silence's parents are? Her grandmother? Do records of property sales exist whereby we could find out the name of the grandmother? Did the family have any links to the McCanns, or anyone around them? Would be interesting, and helpful, to know...
It did strike me that height, colouring, hair etc was similar to Carole Tranmer's description of 'gate man'.
I'm intrigued to know, how did Silence know, IF she even saw a child (which, going by the side of the road she said she was on, seems unlikely) that the child was even Madeleine (unless she personally knew her). It could've been any one. Wasn't it Bridget O Donnell who mentioned in her statement 'all the pink and pretty blonde girls'? Silence seems to infer she saw Madeleine though. Was this just pure assumption, or something else all together?

by Badboys 28.01.12 15:09

Didn't the sillences come from Reading?

I think that is what i read somewhere.

by Guest 28.01.12 15:26

Are we sure that they were both in the block at the same time? Tasmin Sillence, in her statement,says that her family sold 5A in 2002. I think that Carole Tranmer`s statement mentions when PF bought her flat but I need to check.

by Badboys 28.01.12 15:29

Didn't mrs fenn buy her flat circa 20005 after her husband's death?

Log in for more topics