Re: Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated'

by jozi 21.05.13 9:21

Praiaaa wrote:They did seem untouchable, but after Jimmy Savile, I think the 'untouchablility' is breaking down - and particularly now that there have been recent high profile cases of child deaths caused by parents (Philpot) and parents' friends (Tia Sharpe) the public will be less surprised if TM turn out to be implicated.

IMO the public knows something is wrong with this case but can't quite put a finger on it ? Everybody is sick to death of the McCanns and their mouth piece Clarry and have faith the Police will do something if there is anything dodgy (we all do ) .....Its only the ones who have followed this case closely that think WTF ?

They don't have as many supporters as they want us to believe, they have ? Thats Clarrys job though , to try and change public opinion and tell us the public " that is why in every newspaper the McCanns are pushed down our throats " there is nothing wrong here,everyone loves us and feels sorry !!!

When in reality the public are sick to death of seeing and hearing them !!!

by russiandoll 21.05.13 9:22

It was written for a reason as was the tweet from M Brunt. He still has not briefly stated why he had to delete and re-post using "disappearance ", a quite understandable error using " murder" when there had been numerous tweets re 2 ongoing murder trials, children as victims. I believe that was done with an agenda as was the Express piece.

by Angelique 21.05.13 9:42

russiandoll wrote:
tiny wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tiny wrote:Have there been any comments from the mccanns via Clarence Mitchell to this latest news, if not why not
This story both confirms kate's words about someone coming in the night before but simultaneously wrecks their version of checking. I can't see how they can respond to this - snookered springs to mind.
Yes I can see that,but if it confirms kate words why don't they just admit they never checked at all or would that throw a bigger spanner in the works.

By admitting to fewer or even no checks, it widens the abduction window, conveniently. It also inconveniently demonstrates that by concealing this fact of fewer or no checks, they hindered the investigation and led police deliberately down a path limited to a tiny timeframe on 3. 5 07. Now with a beloved child gone, why on earth would they do that?
They can't spin their way out of this one.
q: do you believe it is the truth or a piece of journalistic mischief with a "wider agenda "?

I think you are right about the "spin" but I think its self inflicted - but it does widen the window for abduction which is one of the reasons why I think its occurred.

I think it also proves that the T9 are involved and TM is a cover up machine. Their PR machine may think its time to use any of the various options they have, or maybe they are paid so it brings in income. They gain some publicity, further encourage their supporters into ever more furious support or ultimately suggest more "suspects". But I doubt we will we see a proper investigation into what really happened. Is it possibly that if they are exposed - they will expose all of those surrounding this case.

by russiandoll 21.05.13 10:08

I understand what you are saying Angelique, it certainly feeds "the intruders casing the joint the previous evening and returnng to take Maddie" scenario

It simultaneously blows the McCann and tapas accounts out of the water though.....no rational person can believe all of the following :

couple heard crying as they were closer than parents [ plausible due to closed doors, windows, distance from tapas bar]
so distressed and worried they entered 5a rather than quickly alert reception , one person doing this while other ran to tapas to check if parents were there
managed, as 2 unkowns, to calm rather than further distress the child, to the extent that she was sound asleep in time for next check
everything looked as it did at time of last check, couple gone with not a sign that they had been there
Maddie next morning did not mention this visit to her parents.

However you look at this, the McCanns and friends have lied during an investigation, that is what you have to read from the Express article if you believe it is fact.
If not fact, why fabricated? Taken at other than face value, it does not help the McCanns one bit.
Rachel did not hear any crying. She was close by.

by Angelique 21.05.13 10:21

russiandoll wrote:I understand what you are saying Angelique, it certainly feeds "the intruders casing the joint the previous evening and returnng to take Maddie" scenario

It simultaneously blows the McCann and tapas accounts out of the water though.....no rational person can believe all of the following :

couple heard crying as they were closer than parents [ plausible due to closed doors, windows, distance from tapas bar]
so distressed and worried they entered 5a rather than quickly alert reception , one person doing this while other ran to tapas to check if parents were there
managed, as 2 unkowns, to calm rather than further distress the child, to the extent that she was sound asleep in time for next check
everything looked as it did at time of last check, couple gone with not a sign that they had been there
Maddie next morning did not mention this visit to her parents.

However you look at this, the McCanns and friends have lied during an investigation, that is what you have to read from the Express article if you believe it is fact.
If not fact, why fabricated? Taken at other than face value, it does not help the McCanns one bit.
Rachel did not hear any crying. She was close by.

Yes agreed - it makes a mess of all their supposed statements - maybe they have reached the point where the only concern is to keep the machine pushing forward. A sort of "throw anything on the fire - just keep it going" attitude. But indeed, it does expose the soft fleshy behind of their defence via the Express - who wait.

by plebgate 21.05.13 10:25

russiandoll wrote:if in wrong place, please move :

ANORAK : THE COUPLE WHO HEARD A CHILD CRYING AT NIGHT AND WENT TO HELP.

In “WHO SOOTHED WEEPING MADDIE?" the Daily Express leads
with a Madeleine McCann “exclusive”. It adds: “Police seek couple who
entered McCann apartment when Madeleine was crying.”

This becomes:

Mystery couple seen going into McCanns’ flat on night before sobbing Madeleine disappeared

The
night before? A couple of strangers walked into the McCanns’ apartment
where a child was crying the night before that child vanished? How does
the Express know it was Madeleine who was crying? Three children were in
the McCanns’ apartment.

SCOTLAND YARD detectives are trying to
find a middle-aged couple said to have entered Madeleine McCann’s
holiday apartment to comfort her because she was crying, we can reveal
today.

This looks like new news. James Murray adds:

It is
believed they entered the bedroom on May 2, 2007, the evening before
Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz on Portugal’s
Algarve.

Believed? By whom? Who did they tell?

The tip-off was given by two key witnesses who were reinterviewed as part of the Yard’s two-year, £4.5million investigation.

It
is already known that Pamela Fenn, who lived directly above apartment
5a, heard a child, believed to be Madeleine, crying for about an hour on
the evening of May 2.

She was so concerned she rang a friend in the village to ask what to do and considered ringing Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria.

At the time, Madeleine’s mother Kate and father Gerry were dining with friends at a tapas bar some 50 yards from the apartment.

Had she only have rang the police things may well have been different for Madeleine.

An unnamed source tells the Express that a couple also heard the crying and went to help.

Pamela Fenn has since died. In 2007, The Daily Mail reported:

Pamela
Fenn, 81, lives above the apartment where Madeleine disappeared and is
reported to have told police she heard Madeleine screaming below. But
yesterday she broke her silence to say it was “absolute rubbish” she had
made any such claims to police. Mrs Fenn said: “I didn’t even know that
family was in there.”

So. What Murray says is “already known” is “rubbish”.

Murray
then does have some news. He says a couple, presumably the aforesaid
“key witnesses” who had been staying in the same block as the McCanns,
gave police a statement back in February. British police had previously
spoken with them. Murray reproduces extracts from that statement. He
also says the couple were never formally interviewed by Portuguese
detectives. The statement tells us:

“I stood on the balcony at about 9.15 with a whisky.

“I
saw people eating at the tapas bar and children in the play area. We
went to bed at 10pm-ish. We were woken up by our bell ringing at
11.30pm. It was a friend of the McCanns, saying that a little girl had
been abducted. The friend asked if we had a computer so they could get
the media involved in the search.

“Two police were on the corner
of our block, one lady said that off-duty police had come and were
searching. We did see single men on mobiles while we were out who could
have been police…

“We walked back up towards our apartment, a
group had gathered on the corner. The McCanns were in bits, he was
crying on the shoulder of a friend. She was screaming: ‘The f*****g
bastards have taken her’. Finally, at around 4am, we said: ‘Is it OK if
we go to bed?’ We directed this comment towards a man in a white shirt
and jeans, who seemed to be authoritative.”

The couple had not seen anything suspicious:

“We
have one of the best views of the whole block. We are sure of the
timings. If we had seen anyone we would have remembered. We will
continue to answer the Yard’s questions. We have given our fingerprints
and DNA. We were happy to assist. They should be left to get on with
their inquiries.”

Such are the facts…

I know my head is done in with all of this, but I thought there is a statement on file from Mrs. Fenn?

by Angelique 21.05.13 10:33

I know exactly how you feel - here

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

by russiandoll 21.05.13 10:40

I think it very interesting that McCanns spokesman has not said anything about the Express piece....after saying earlier that the couple were very pleased with the review so far. Why has he not come out and said it is rubbish?What could he possibly say about a couple of strangers entering 5a, so concerned that they did not even bother going to report it at nearby reception, but went right in after being so upset by the prolonged crying? He can't say it is garbage because Kate has promoted the someone in there the previous evening scenario, on the face of it, it helps them

Whatever he says will not add up to damage limitation. As much as it promotes easy to enter and exit, without being seen [next step logically...easy to abduct] it says so much more about the goings-on during that holiday and what has been withheld by the people closest to the victim. The amount of checking and how far away they were.

It also tells us that Maddie cried 2 nights running, but magically, not on 3rd. How strange she even went to sleep having been scared by those strangers. Yet she and her twins slept very soundly, Maddie so soundly that she did not wake up even as she was lifted from her bed and carried away.

They have, without a doubt, lied. Now WHY under the circumstances would they do that?

by Kepharel 21.05.13 11:13

If I and my wife were strolling by an apartment from which we could here crying/sobbing my initial reaction would be that the parents were at home and having a hard time with their kids. It would have to be a considerable time interval before, walking past again and still hearing the crying/sobbing, that I might decide to maybe just have a quick look into the apartment, and seeing it in darkness decide that something was amiss. Whether I would try the doors and go in, knock on the door AND THEN pop down to reception and alert the staff, or alert the few diners in the tapas I could not say; Probably the last option, with the first being the least likely. So what would you do?

by Guest 21.05.13 11:23

[quote="Angelique"]I know exactly how you feel - here

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm[/quote]

Snipped from file

She said that after the mothers shouts, she had seen many people in the streets looking for the girl. She also refers to an episode when Gerry was speaking to a policeman and he refused to recognised the police force, saying that more agents of authority were needed to carry out the search

Why would GM not recognise the police force? What did he mean by more agents of authority?

I too I'm suprised the spoksman hasn't given a press release on the Express piece, no interviews or TV appearences, seems strange when in the early days he was always there denying or spinning what had appeared in print.

by plebgate 21.05.13 11:28

Yes, early doors could not get spokesperson off the screen, but other than being pleased with SY review, nothing.

Why no denial that according to Express headlines Maddie was sobbing, that does not look good for them imo and I would certainly not be happy with headlines like that if I were them.

by littlepixie 21.05.13 12:46

You wouldn't go into someones apartment if you heard a child crying - you simply wouldn't. Unless the child was visible/ stood in the window and maybe injured.

by Guest 21.05.13 12:49

The only situation I can think of where someone brave enough would go in is if the place was on fire - having called the emergency services before doing so.

by worriedmum 21.05.13 13:11

How can anyone 'know' that this couple were 'soothing' a crying Madeleine?

a)Because the person/s that 'know' this were present in the apartment?
b)Because the couple told someone that's what they were doing?
c)Because the crying stopped after the couple entered the apartment?
d)Because the only child in the apartment was Madeleine?

by **PeterMac** 21.05.13 13:51

e) Because they were told to say so ?

by jozi 21.05.13 14:11

PeterMac wrote:e) Because they were told to say so ?

Exactly.....who is the person leaking this BS and how do they know of this ........all ties in nicely with the nice childless couple who abducted Maddie and are treating her like a princess though !!!

by ShuBob 21.05.13 14:21

Kepharel wrote:If I and my wife were strolling by an apartment from which we could here crying/sobbing my initial reaction would be that the parents were at home and having a hard time with their kids. It would have to be a considerable time interval before, walking past again and still hearing the crying/sobbing, that I might decide to maybe just have a quick look into the apartment, and seeing it in darkness decide that something was amiss. Whether I would try the doors and go in, knock on the door AND THEN pop down to reception and alert the staff, or alert the few diners in the tapas I could not say; Probably the last option, with the first being the least likely. So what would you do?

I suspect entering a stranger's apartment in such circumstances would be the absolute last resort. For all you know, there could have been an intruder with a weapon in the premises or even someone who was a legal occupant of the property may have gone berserk. It happens.

by tiny 21.05.13 14:48

PeterMac wrote:e) Because they were told to say so ?

You could be right here as is reinforces the neglect issue, and that is what the mccanns want us all to believe.shame it aint gonna happen Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 3639775017

Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 3639775017

by **Nina** 21.05.13 15:43

If I was trying to quieten a very upset child then I would not call it soothe. The word for me is related to pain, not being upset.

by russiandoll 21.05.13 15:54

It is an ambiguous word all right. Maybe the child was crying because she was in pain.

However, I believe that this story comes straight from Team McCann and is a tactic with an agenda, as always.

reinforce neglect, even if it makes you look like f*****g bastards.
anything to promote ABDUCTION.

because they would rather have people think badly of them for that than for what really happened.

back to the good old days of 2007.

I even heard a discussion about the case on tv, demanding to know why were the cops only now visiting bars and restaurants 6 years later, when they should have done this at the time [ believing tabloid nonsense that they didn't, rather than research the police files for facts]
Portugal needs to forget abot saving face, forget national pride and arrogance and invite SY over to help them do their job properly!

Great innit ?!

by aiyoyo 21.05.13 16:30

jozi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:e) Because they were told to say so ?

Exactly.....who is the person leaking this BS and how do they know of this ........all ties in nicely with the nice childless couple who abducted Maddie and are treating her like a princess though !!!

Yeap, I can believe that! (Pigs could fly first).
That a nice kindly middle-aged childless couple came in and checked on their product the night before (knowing the parents left her alone in a scary dark apt) found a very obedient child willing to stop crying when coached, then decided to come back next night same time to snatch her without leaving any hallmarks of their two nights visit. They must be blind to have missed the twins - just think of the bonus they missed.

The marvellous part of this all is that they didn't have to touch anything while they were there not even having to slide open the patio door - NO forensics was left behind, not even a teeny weeny modicum trace of it.

Whoever told the story would have us believed the couple floated in and floated out with Maddie on their back like apparitions then just vanished into thin air. Because the same two witnesses who saw the couple entering 5A night before, did not see anything on night of Maddie was taken, despite having hung around their balcony whisky in hands. They did not see the abductor, JT, Gerry or JW who were all crossing one another's path right under their nose from the balcony view.

This tale of a mysterious couple with a sobbing Maddie make the Mccanns look bad parents who serially neglected Maddie while they went out to nightly to have "into each other" adult time. This is despite Maddie having alerted her mum to the crying, so we were told by the Mrs.

O/T
Speculation that the group was swingers (liking bits of tapas to one main entree) just makes me want to puke. Just imagine the poor guy that draws the short straw to get a sack of skeleton Mrs who looks high as kite most times when not having to pretend for the Camera.

by bristow 21.05.13 16:40

I reckon that we know the couple were 'soothing' Madeleine because KM has recently told SY that that is the case.

When we go back to her account of the crying, in her bewk she says Madeleine said "Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying?"
I suspect Kate will say that the "You" in this case means someone else came and not them (you) and miraculously she has remembered that Madeleine told her the someone else was a couple.

Deviation tactics IMO.

by lufc50337 21.05.13 17:21

Could it be that a couple going past heard the kids distress and reported it to reception and hung around to check it was dealt with as they were worried about the language barrier.

If reception had trouble finding the parents and the situation became desperate would MW under these circumstances let themselves into the flat to comfort the children? Maybe followed by the concerned couple as they were English speakers.

In the early days there was unsubstantiated forum info that the McCanns had to be bought back from Chaplins 1 night, under these circumstances they would take a bit of time to locate.

OR

The couple who went to the flat are known to the McCanns and did so at their request.

To me the 'Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying last night' was to pre empt something and IMO this is it.

by bobbin 21.05.13 17:35

aiyoyo wrote:
jozi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:e) Because they were told to say so ?

Exactly.....who is the person leaking this BS and how do they know of this ........all ties in nicely with the nice childless couple who abducted Maddie and are treating her like a princess though !!!

Yeap, I can believe that! (Pigs could fly first).
That a nice kindly middle-aged childless couple came in and checked on their product the night before (knowing the parents left her alone in a scary dark apt) found a very obedient child willing to stop crying when coached, then decided to come back next night same time to snatch her without leaving any hallmarks of their two nights visit. They must be blind to have missed the twins - just think of the bonus they missed.

The marvellous part of this all is that they didn't have to touch anything while they were there not even having to slide open the patio door - NO forensics was left behind, not even a teeny weeny modicum trace of it.

Whoever told the story would have us believed the couple floated in and floated out with Maddie on their back like apparitions then just vanished into thin air. Because the same two witnesses who saw the couple entering 5A night before, did not see anything on night of Maddie was taken, despite having hung around their balcony whisky in hands. They did not see the abductor, JT, Gerry or JW who were all crossing one another's path right under their nose from the balcony view.

This tale of a mysterious couple with a sobbing Maddie make the Mccanns look bad parents who serially neglected Maddie while they went out to nightly to have "into each other" adult time. This is despite Maddie having alerted her mum to the crying, so we were told by the Mrs.

O/T
Speculation that the group was swingers (liking bits of tapas to one main entree) just makes me want to puke. Just imagine the poor guy that draws the short straw to get a sack of skeleton Mrs who looks high as kite most times when not having to pretend for the Camera.

yeah, but what about the abominable plight of the 'lady' picking the short straw for the husband. oof, I'd rather file my teeth with a 9 inch metal rasp. Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 172348

Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 172348

by bristow 21.05.13 17:49

sally66 wrote:To me the 'Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying last night' was to pre empt something and IMO this is it.

Yes I totally agree with this.

by margaret 21.05.13 18:27

bristow wrote:
sally66 wrote:To me the 'Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying last night' was to pre empt something and IMO this is it.

Yes I totally agree with this.

But l just can't believe two strangers got into their apartment to soothe Maddie and they still went out and left her alone in an unlocked apartment the next night? Nobody is that daft and evil publically!

by Lance De Boils 21.05.13 18:30

f) Because proof was needed that Maddie was alive and in the apartment on the night of 2nd May?

by margaret 21.05.13 18:38

Lance De Boils wrote:f) Because proof was needed that Maddie was alive and in the apartment on the night of 2nd May?

Oh yes, simples. And it seems people will let any tale, however damning, be put out to reinforce that. goodpost

by bobbin 21.05.13 18:58

margaret wrote:
bristow wrote:
sally66 wrote:To me the 'Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying last night' was to pre empt something and IMO this is it.

Yes I totally agree with this.

But l just can't believe two strangers got into their apartment to soothe Maddie and they still went out and left her alone in an unlocked apartment the next night? Nobody is that daft and evil publically!

Yes, but on the Thursday morning, 3rd May, when Maddie supposedly asked the supposed question, Kate didn't know that a kindly couple had come into the apartment (without leaving an iota of forensic evidence for the police who would arrive later in the evening) and soothed Maddie.
Maddy just brushed Kate's question off instead of taking the opportunity to explain to her mother, "NO, it wasn't when the ~~twins~~, em, me and Sean, were having our bath", it was when the old couple that want to adopt me came in and cuddled and soothed me in a way that you never have and then they went out and said they would be back tomorrow (that's "today" mummy), to take me from my bed, folding the covers back in a little triangle, just like you always tuck me in, so that when you look in (unlike normally when you don't) they are going to leave the door wider open, and then you'll wonder, is it me or the bedding.

What I don't understand is why this kindly soothing couple of oldies suddenly went on the rampage and jemmied the shutters open, taking Maddie out via the narrow window, without scratching the lichen on the window ledge but putting a perfect replica of Kate's finger print on the window. Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 3139096799

Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 2 3139096799

by **tigger** 21.05.13 19:59

Simple narrative:

IMO the mcCanns came back to 5a on Tuesday night because they were told by MW staff that the children were crying.
Now this could be because 'evening' nannies (babysitting nearby) alerted reception who went to find the McCanns - imo at Chaplins.
What the McCanns therefore did know is that a third party (MW) might inform the PJ and so prove that no regular checks were in place.
Best thing to incorporate it in the narrative asap:
4th May: Gerry and Kate both independently: Twins cried, Maddie asked why etc.
10th May: Gerry: Sean and Maddie cried. (not till 7th sept was it Maddie alone).
Soon after: question of sedation.
Added later: mysterious stain on Maddie's pyjamas on morning of the 3rd.

Which can now (thanks to soothing couple) be progressed to:
Paedo entered on 2nd, decided sedation was needed, did something which made Maddie (by now alone or with Sean - it varies) cry and was source of stain.
Or now:
Soothing couple (childless and desperate for child) enter and give Maddie cup of tea.
Q: why didn't they take Amelie?

Personally I don't think it's an issue, I don't think Maddie was there anymore to cry on the 2nd.