Mrs Fenn and that crying child incident revisited.

[Benice]

That's because you're not bothering to read things properly and therefore it is you who have completely missed the point. In Kate's PJ arguido interview she was asked a direct question about the incident to which she replied it was not true. She has since gone on herself to hypothesise regarding the instance and none of her friends came forward to say "actually Kate that was us" so instead it went into her now famous book.

We are talking about a child who went missing. A child who was left alone night after night prior to going missing and you do not consider it relevant or suspicious? What planet are you living on or are you just prepared to defend these people at all costs?

IIRC Your claim is that no-one has 'owned' the fact that it may have been their child who was crying - and that means they deceived the PJ or that Mrs Fenn was lying.     My point is that we don't know because there is nothing in the files to tell us.     You also seem to think the relevant parents should have made this information - (if it exists) - public.    When should they have done that and how and why?   

It's obvious they were not asked about the Mrs. Fenn incident in their first interviews with the PJ because no-one knew about it including the PJ until Mrs Fenn was interviewed months later.  A serious mistake by the PJ IMO.

It's obvious the PJ didn't ask Leicester Police to bring it up in the Rog. interviews otherwise it would be there for all to see.

There is no witness statement from Mrs. Fenns' friend to corroborate what she said.

If you want to blame anyone for the lack on info on this - then blame the PJ who obviously did not consider the matter as important as they should have done.  Maybe you should be asking them what planet they are on.   

IMO You are assuming that three months after the event there is no way Mrs. Fenn could have been mistaken about anything when recalling the incident.     I disagree because memories are notoriously unreliable and I include the McCanns, and their friends in that known fact.

To claim that either someone is guilty of deceiving the PJ  or that Mrs. Fenn lied  - just because you are in the dark about all the facts of the situation is unfair IMO.   

I don't think anyone lied.

[AnneGuedes]

The McCann's are scathing about the Portugese police - yet what did the McCanns do in the hours after Madeleine allegedly was abducted. Kate didn't look for Madeleine that night but nevertheless has the audacity to write, on page 81 of her ghastly book: ' None of them appeared to be doing very much.'

Mrs McCann didn't lose precious time to look for her daughter because she knew her daughter was out of reach and she writes that the police didn't "appear to be doing very much", because they were around searching instead of charter planes and ships and speedy cars.
Isn't that logical ?

[AnneGuedes]

It's obvious the PJ didn't ask Leicester Police to bring it up in the Rog. interviews otherwise it would be there for all to see.

There is no witness statement from Mrs. Fenns' friend to corroborate what she said.

Why do you raise issues that the AG didn't, Benice ? How do you know that Mrs Fenn's friend didn't confirm, not the fact (which would mean she lied), but the time (in case of lapsus of memory) ? This kind of technical confirmation is made on the phone, it's no motive for a statement, Mrs Fenn wasn't an ex-convicted nor a suspect...
Are you mistrusting the AG ?

[Benice]

Why do you raise issues that the AG didn't, Benice ? How do you know that Mrs Fenn's friend didn't confirm, not the fact (which would mean she lied), but the time (in case of lapsus of memory) ? This kind of technical confirmation is made on the phone, it's no motive for a statement, Mrs Fenn wasn't an ex-convicted nor a suspect...
Are you mistrusting the AG ?

No I am assuming that if her friend was formally interviewed there would be a statement in the files.
As 2 people were involved in this - I would expect both people to be interviewed.   Mrs Fenns friend may have remembered something in their conversation which Mrs Fenn may have forgotten after such a long time.

[AnneGuedes]

No I am assuming that if her friend was formally interviewed there would be a statement in the files.
As 2 people were involved in this - I would expect both people to be interviewed.   Mrs Fenns friend may have remembered something in their conversation which Mrs Fenn may have forgotten after such a long time.

Mrs Fenn didn't hesitate nor suggest she wasn't sure, so there was no need for a formal interview of her friend, therefore no statement.
After all it was just a crying 2 days before the abduction, what could it have to do with it ? For Mrs Fenn it was clearly an event that only would hurt the parents. This is so understandable. Who would have the courage ?
When Mrs Fenn spoke, in August, the situation was different : she knew that there was a serious doubt about the abduction and that the dogs had reacted in the flat.

Have you seen in the files written notes saying that Mr X or Mrs Y phoned ? There's none, if the conversation is interesting the witness is asked to come and state.
That's what likely happened with Mrs G and the AG found it fine.

[pegasus]

It may be possible even now to obtain phone records, and look for the 10pm call from witness PF to friend..
Probably landline to landline so its only one phone company to ask.
That should determine whether it was Tue 10pm or Wed 10pm.

[pegasus]

A TV channel in Chile showed a video interview with a hairdresser in PDL who says that Mrs F told her the crying was Tue night. (This is relying on the Spanish subtitles being correct) 

[pathfinder73]

Yes I posted that interview clip on this thread. She also said they were at Chaplins?

[Benice]

Who's child do YOU think it was?

I don't know because  IMO there is not enough information in the public domain  to come to a definite conclusion - and there is certainly not enough known to decide that someone must be lying  - which was the original point I brought up with you.

I don't think Mrs Fenn lied, but she may remembered something incorrectly.

The McCanns say it wasn't Madeleine because they were home at the time - I don't think they lied either.

IMO If the McCanns had come home to find their daughter deeply distressed, then I don't think they would have carried on with the checking system but would have made different arrangements for their meals  - and in any event I certainly don't believe for a second that they would have chosen the very next night to stay out later than usual,  as it was on the 2nd May that they all went into the tapas bar after their meal and stayed until around midnight.   That makes no sense to me.

I do have my own ideas as to what might have happened - but obviously they are pure speculation.






 


 

[slartibartfast]

I don't know because  IMO there is not enough information in the public domain  to come to a definite conclusion - and there is certainly not enough known to decide that someone must be lying  - which was the original point I brought up with you.

I don't think Mrs Fenn lied, but she may remembered something incorrectly.

The McCanns say it wasn't Madeleine because they were home at the time - I don't think they lied either.

IMO If the McCanns had come home to find their daughter deeply distressed, then I don't think they would have carried on with the checking system but would have made different arrangements for their meals  - and in any event I certainly don't believe for a second that they would have chosen the very next night to stay out later than usual,  as it was on the 2nd May that they all went into the tapas bar after their meal and stayed until around midnight.   That makes no sense to me.

I do have my own ideas as to what might have happened - but obviously they are pure speculation.

The strange thing is the Maddie crying comments. Almost as if they were meant to  suggest that Mrs Fenn had the date wrong.

[Benice]

Good point. According to Benice though it's not relevant if you leave your child crying from 10.30pm to 11.45pm and then plead ignorance.

Please do not lie.  I have never said that.

[Benice]

The strange thing is the Maddie crying comments. Almost as if they were meant to  suggest that Mrs Fenn had the date wrong.

But if the crying incident happened on the 2nd - then Rachael Oldfield would have heard crying - as she was next door for the whole evening.

[j.rob]

Not quite sure why it is always other people lying in the McCann case and never the McCanns and their friends. They seem to be happy to go around claiming that anyone who does not agree with them are liars. I suppose it is the classic defence position. You accuse those who do not collude with you of doing what you yourself have done. It is designed to disarm, over-power and confuse. And, don't forget, Gerry likes confusion as: 'non-one knows what's true and what's not'. Well, there it is from the horses mouth.

Whose testimony do the McCanns ignore/cast doubt on/claim are lies.

Mrs Fenn - who Kate shouts at.

Murat - who four of the McCann party claim they saw near the apartment the night Madeleine disappeared. Many other witnesses did not see him that night including the police. He was not there but at home with his mother. Did the four friends of the McCanns who claim he was there have bad eye-sight, collective amnesia or did they lie?

Friends and relatives of the McCanns told the press that the shutters had been broken or jemmied open implying the abductor had forced an entry into the apartment in order to abduct Madeleine. Resort staff refute this. There was no sign of a break-in. So who lied over a break-in?

Jane Tanner, at the earliest stage, claims she saw a suspect with a child. The McCann's and all the group put huge emphasis on this 'sighting' believing he may be Madeleine's abductor. On page 97 Kate writes that what Jane saw 'was in all likelihood Madeleine being carried off. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. Why were the McCanns and their friends so determined to focus on  this sighting which the Portugese police always found unconvincing? Were certain people lying in order to advance a story?

A sighting at 10pm by an Irishman which later came to light (and, given that it is given by someone who does not know they McCanns rather than a friend is likely to carry less bias) describes a different looking man with a different appearance carrying a child in a different way. There is no particular reason to think it might be the same man but Kate in her book claims: 'the similarities speak for themselves'. Why would Kate be so keen to suggest that the later sighting by the Irishman was likely to be the same man that Jane Tanner saw. There is no reason to suppose it was, especially as the manner of holding the child was so different.

Kate and Gerry are suing the detective who was taken off the case, Amaral, for libel. Amaral believed that the McCanns covered-up Madeleine's disappearance with a story about an abduction. If you read Kate's book, you can see that their abduction by a stranger story does not carry any weight. There is no logic to it, no evidence for it and the circumstances surrounding it were dramatically embellished by the McCann's and their friends. Yet they claim they were not there when the child disappeared. They cannot have it both ways. They either had nothing to do it and do not know. Or they do have something to do it and do know. They have stuck themselves in a double bind.

Medical records of Madeleine's were with-held from the police. Why?

Kate refused to answer questions put to her by the police. Why?

The apartment was immaculate as though it had been scrubbed clean so few DNA markers. Why?

Why did the McCanns not search for Madeleine throughout the night she disappeared? Other people did.

They and their friends did not come back to do a re-enactment. Why?

Why did Kate leave the twins in the apartment to raise the alarm given that she thought an intruder had taken Madeleine? Her behaviour is not consistent with this belief.

Why did the McCanns not wake up the twins? Check they were okay and not drugged.

The McCanns claim that they thought the abductor could have drugged all the children. Why did they not then have toxicology tests done on the twins? The fact that these were only done when it was too late to get a result and the twins hair was shorter suggests they did not want to find a result and/or their claim that an abductor drugged their children was not true.

I could go on, and many others have, in a similar vein. None of it adds up. The list of people threatened with libel suits by the McCann's via their legal representatives grows longer. There are very many people who do not believe the McCanns version of events. They believe that the McCanns have lied and they are very suspicious of the use of the Fund money.

[a.baker]

Brilliant post by j.rob and one I personally fully agree with. No hard evidence but plenty of circumstancial imo. The sad case of Mikaeel Kular tends to prove that if there is no evidence or anybody going into a property and taking a child,and no evidence of that child leaving the property of their own accord,then there really only is one answer?

[slartibartfast]

Brilliant post by j.rob and one I personally fully agree with. No hard evidence but plenty of circumstancial imo. The sad case of Mikaeel Kular tends to prove that if there is no evidence or anybody going into a property and taking a child,and no evidence of that child leaving the property of their own accord,then there really only is one answer?

+1