Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Holiday Time!!!

It’s holiday time and this blog has its priorities set right, which means family and friends come first.

After that, fun.

We’ll be back after the holiday’s.

If you wish to entertain your self during this period, do look at the Paraíso Bar’s photos.

Yes, you’ve seen them, but now LOOK at them (as you can see Maddie’s “logo” can be used for good purposes).

Happy holidays!


Having had my ears smacked by people I respect (and maintain that as intact as it ever was), and seeing my readers, who I respect, admire and am grateful for, going into various directions and not wanting to spoil anybody's festive season let me just say very succintly, running the risk of spoiling future surprises, what I intended when I proposed to revisit the Paraíso's photos.

I wanted you to "see" two things. That's it.

First I wanted you to see, for yourselves, that the space of the Paraiso is very similar, if not larger (at least has much more eating places) to the Tapas, and AS THE PICTURES show, NINE adults would be much more noticeable than said by the TAPAS employees.

Second, I would have liked for you to see how Russel O'Brien and Matthew Oldfield seem to be anything but freshly out of a "sailing accident"' where one saved the other from the cold early May PdL waters.

I do believe that according to some Tapas's statement it was a chilly afternoon.  

Rachael wouldn't be sunbathing that afternoon. Yet there they are, all nice and fresh, and there's no reference of them going back to change.

Is this important?

Well, I would tell you why, but then could be accused again of sending you on another wild goose chase.

Those are the two main facts I wished you "see".

Instead of concentrating on "what can I see what others can't" do LOOK instead at "what are these pictures showing? Wait a minute, that doesn't fit with that..."

Well but that's me, I might be just the crazy idiot some say I am.

Apologise if I've made you waste your time. Far from me to EVER wish you to do that here.

I must confess that you've placed some interesting facts, that I had not noticed before, and will certainly be digested, so, once again, I do thank all the honest, selfless help you've given me.

Now, let me get back to my Holiday Season.

Thank you.

Monday, 29 November 2010

BBC, the Caeser's Wife

The Portuguese have a saying, reporting to the Roman times, that “Caeser’s wife mustn’t only be faithful, she must also appear to be faithful”.

Pardon the Portuguese for having translated “séria” into “faithful”, as it could have many other interpretations,

 I chose this one, because, as you know, I’m perverse.

This saying is to tell all of us, that appearances do matter, and credibility is made up of many things for one to appear credible.

It’s easy to pretend that one is credible, when one is, and one can always pretend credibility when one is not.

What one cannot do is not to give a care about the image one projects and then, demand that others perceive otherwise than the message sent.

This saying is applicable to the British Media.

If the tabloids one would hesitate between slavery and freedmen, there are some "serious" media which one would also hesitate where to rank it.

Their Roman citizenship is unquestionable, the problem resides to classify some between being just citizens, or a if the title of Senator is the adequate.

Will not refer names, but if we had to name royalty in this “society” I think BBC would stand out as the ruler, for its credibility, its status, its highly commendable work in WWII.

After all it was the voice of a Nation in its noblest of moments.

This was received by a reader, from BBC, after having complained:  

"Thanks for contacting the BBC regarding ‘East Midlands Today’

I’m sorry to read from your email that you were unhappy with some of the content which featured in this programme. I understand you felt the McCann family were given a platform to voice their opinions while Goncalo Amaral wasn’t there to offer a response

It is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes.  

The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. 

Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting

Account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time; perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion while overall it is a more achievable goal. 

We’re guided by the feedback that we receive and to that end I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. 

This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers. 

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. 

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us." 

BBC, may I remind you that we’re still waiting like for you to release for public use the footage of the “Amaral F-word slander”, as you most certainly do not wish to denigrate Gonçalo Amaral, nor side with the McCanns by promoting their version of what happened to their daughter, all in the sake of confirming your confidentiality the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.

We fully understand that in an isolated occurrence it’s sometimes difficult to achieve perfect balance, however, unless you know something we don’t, which is likely, it’s not understandable where the difficulty resides in this particular one, so please do allow the testing of all views rigorously and fairly.

Thank you, and will remain patiently waiting.

It's up to you how long and how many times you wish to be reminded of this.

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Thank You!

Circles of Lies

At this point in time, I propose that we stop and reflect for a minute.

Evidence shows clearly that Mrs Fenn was not truthful in her statement to the PJ.

What that means is much more relevant than the why she does it.

Later, I’ll give my opinion on that, although an Anon basically has summed it up quite adequately: “The time that she gave it is really interesting for me- It is when in UK, the DNA was under test, PJ was in standby waiting for the results and the British tabloids very busy trying to bring some entropy to the public to dismiss the work of the police and blame PJ.” 

By the way, addressing, just for a moment, those that promote the idea that I dislike or mistreat those who disagree with me, as I write these words, I basically disagree with this Anon’s opinion on Carol Tranmer-Fenn.

While Anon thinks she’s as much a phony as her aunt, I think otherwise. But this Anon has presented pretty good arguments to back up his/her opinions, so, valid contributions that they are, they will be savored carefully as any good food for thought is to be.

And if I had as goal proving that (s)he’s wrong, I would be making the same mistake many accuse me of, and, unfortunately, some do make it.

The idea is to assimilate the information given, which I hereby thank, overlap it with my perception of the facts portrayed and reach a personal conclusion, to the best of my capacity, as to what is valid information and what isn’t.

The result might be that what I thought was, may not have been, or was not at all; or what I thought may have been, now is. It’s personal and it’s subjective. So, if in a near future I insist on Carol’s honesty that is not to be taken neither as sign of stubbornness, nor that of weakness if I question what she has said.

At the right time in life I enjoyed, plentifully I may add, my childhood days. I threw the tantrums I should have and my life’s purpose was to make my parent’s one as miserable as possible just because.

Those times are gone. Even the times when I suffered the reverse of the "teen-coin" have gone too. I now help those, my grandchildren, whose turn it is to make life terrible for others, their parents.

Here however, time is for maturity and realization of the seriousness of the issue handled and the responsibility assumed. Egos must be set aside.

I’ve been, I think so at least otherwise there would be no point in my writing, right up to now, not because I’m smarter than you, but because I 've done things very slowly and carefully, and because I don't jump to conclusions and am not afraid to listen.

Oh, also for having have called the Black Hats threatening bluffs from the first minute.

I’m fully aware that I'm not the owner of the truth. I said it before, that it's not, nor I assume it is, to hand out Justice. But I'm entitled to an opinion and have the right to express it.

Sometimes, I feel that the some pieces simply don’t fit the puzzle. When that happens, either I just put them aside, or I clearly warn that I’m speculating.

Learned with my mistake when, initially, in my theory, I wrongly stated, although I felt something wasn't right when I said it (as later I thoroughly explained) that the Smith Sighting was Gerry McCann disposing of Maddie’s body.

By the way, that theory is full of mistakes, but, before you trash it, its backbone remains as valid today as it did on the day I wrote it.

And talking about Mr. Smith, there was still a piece or two that remained lying around. These, whenever I “forced” them into the puzzle, made others fell out. As all the others fitted with perfection, the mistake could only be in the way I was forcing them in.

So I just put them a aside, and waited until they made sense. Help from surprising sources, have now clarified those issues, and I will, one of these days, and when opportune, place these pieces in their rightful place, to the sadness of some but happiness of most, I hope.

But today, as I said, is time for reflection. On what means Mrs Fenn having lied.

Disregard for a moment both her motives and her pretended message. Concentrate simply what really is implied if she’s, in fact, lying.

Imagine that you hold a magic pencil, with which you’re able to draw Circles of Lies.

To draw any of these Circles, you have to understand the reasons why all those that you put inside it have to lie.

Only then can you group people, because, basically that’s what you’re doing.

It’s then easy to draw the Circle of Lie around Kate and Gerry. We all know that it’s pretty hard to find a word of truth uttered by a McCann mouth, as they lie so blatantly and candidly.

 It’s also easy to draw the Circle of Lie around the Tapas, as their inconsistencies will baffle mathematicians for a long time to come.

But with Mrs Fenn, this task suddenly stops being easy.

With Mrs Fenn we have someone that is outside the inner Circles of the McCanns & Tapas, and outside the slightly larger Circle of “casual” tourists, like Wilkins.

We’re before a PdL resident, owner of an apartment, and apparently with no reason whatsoever to lie.

With this Mrs Fenn phenomenon, you’re faced with a big problem, and that is, if she’s lying, where on earth does the lying stop?

You simply just don’t know how large a Circle you have to draw to include this particular lady.

Do you remember when I said that the PJ Files were simply filled with FACTS of said facts? The incomprehensibility of Fenn’s lying depicts not a situation of implausibility but one where all the borders of credibility simply have vanished from where they were.

But the borders are there, just not where you thought they were.  

Mrs Fenn’s statement proves that one has to be very careful before assuming where the truth lies, and be very “forgiving” on where one where one decides to draw the line in any PdL’s Circle of Lie.

And no one is to be exempted, isn’t that so Mr. Smith?

Do have a nice weekend.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

My Thanksgiving Turkey to ALL of You.

Our friend yawn has, once again, made his/her appearance in this blog.

This is the comment (s)he left, on our "All Paths Lead to Rome" post, that I decided to give it a much greater visibility. by publishing it here:

"@ anon 2.39pm
What a load of complete horsesh*t.
At least try to get your facts right. Mrs Fenn did report the incident to the police very soon after Madeleine was taken - it was months before they decided to take a proper statement from her. What I think about the McCanns is unprintable. And so is what I think of people who insult and denigrate an entirely innocent witness simply in the furtherance of promoting their own barmy theory"

It was not because of yawn’s fetish with horse manure that I did publish the comment here, nor about, a trademark of this character, how (s)he claims to loath the McCanns so much, but just loathes slightly more all those that accuse, in his/her opinion, a particular set of "innocent" people.

The last time, if I recall, was when we here talked of the Murats. Now, it’s because of Fenn.

I did find strange the silence when we here exposed Jez Wilkins' “lesser truths”, but that has got to do with yawn's blog, or at least the one I think (s)he's running, whereby (s)he purposefully pursued a misconstruction based on the Jez’s guilt.

But that just a side issue, of the many that many try to get me distracted with.

I printed this comment because of the second paragraph.

According to this charming character, Mrs Fenn reported to the police this soon after the incident, a fact ignored by Mrs Fenn in her own statement, as she makes no reference whatsoever to any prior reporting.

Then, yawn, with the usual absence of justification or evidence, proceeds to accuse the, to him/her blundering, cops to take months to decide to take a proper statement from this witness.

But, there is some backing to what yawn has to say, although (s)he’s not polite enough to let us know, and that is s/he's relaying what has been said in that reliable source of truthful information that is The Sun, our inseparable friend in all this journey, in a story printed on Aug 18th, 2007:

“Meanwhile Portuguese cops were again under fire. The woman living in the apartment above the McCanns claimed she had not been spoken to by police until the British team arrived two weeks ago.

Is it me, or do I detect a slight hint of racism in these words?

It seems that the “Portuguese cops” weren’t astute enough to determine that the McCanns had an upstairs neighbour, that could be of interest to have been heard as soon as possible.

Only when the British team arrived, were they, apparently, enlightened of this fact.

By the way, which “British team” is this that arrived at the beginning of August 2007?

Or is The Sun implying that the British authorities started to cooperate with the Portuguese from ONLY then on?

“Expat Pamela Fenn, 73, told them she disturbed a burglar at her apartment about three weeks before Maddie vanished. She is now to give a formal statement to Portuguese officers.”

Odd behavior for non-curious, non-busybody elderly lady, about the burglar, but the relevant thing here is that we have a newspaper reporting on August 18th, 2007, a Saturday, that Mrs Fenn, although contacted by her friends of the “British team” somewhere in the two weeks before, has yet, on that date, to be heard by the Portuguese police.

And effectively she’s only heard on Monday, Aug 20th.

As everyone knows, the Portuguese police only work on week days, and, as also everyone was aware at the time, Maddie had then very little priority for them, or to anyone else  in Portugal, or the world for that matter.

After all, it was still sardine-munching time of year wasn’t it?

But wait… if the story was printed on a Saturday, then the interview must at least have been done on the Friday before. If she wasn't heard that Friday, it must've been because the Portuguese cops must have had that afternoon off as well. You know, these lunches filled with whisky tend to prolong themselves until it's time to close office...

“A friend said: "She was surprised that neither the police nor the McCanns had approached her before."”

Always good to have a friend when you need one, and, as you can see, the full appliance of the beautiful technique of going against the McCanns to achieve what the McCanns want.

Pamela also said her niece, who stayed with her the week Maddie disappeared, spotted somebody fitting the description of a man seen carrying a child away under a blanket. The pal added: "He was acting suspiciously." The niece has given a statement to police in Britain.””

Compliant with what she says to the PJ on the 20th, although leaving out in this interview that the facts happened on May 3rd, and leaving out in her statement to the PJ the important fact that her niece had seen a man that  fitted the description of a man seen carrying a child away with a blanket. A perfectly minor and overlookable detail...

So, according to The Sun, quoting Mrs Fenn, we’re to believe, that the PJ questions everyone, from the Tapas to the maids, and whoever got a finger pointed at for supposedly having been seen with a blonde little girl at that time of year, but forgets to enquire the upstairs neighbour of where the supposed abduction occurred.

There’s no written statement from Mrs Fenn on the days that followed, but does that mean that the PJ didn’t knock on her door?

They certainly did. And if they got an answer that she saw or heard anything suspicious, from the day her downstairs neighbours arrived to the day the supposed events were supposed to have happened, would there be a written statement from her? Of course there would.

But there isn't one then, and that's a fact. The PJ, comprehensibly, only made statements out of those people that had something to say, even if apparently insignificant, like the first statements by Jez Wilkins.

There are also statements from people who provide no information at all, like those by some Ocean Club workers, but these were called in as a group, and as I just said, their existence in the process is correct and useful, like it would have been in the case of Mrs Fenn if they had written it down, and have her signed, that she heard and saw absolutely nothing.

And I say this not because of any particular suspicion towards the witnesss, but because this “absence” of clues from someone so close to the events, is a clue in itself, as she had nothing to declare.

Does the fact that there’s no Fenn statement in the PJ Files dated in the following days of the alleged abduction, prove that the PJ didn’t speak to her? No, and you know it doesn’t.

It’s a normal case of asking a witness if she saw or heard anything, and he/she saying that he/she didn’t hear or see anything suspicious, and the cops moving on to the next possible witness.

If all who said to the cops, when asked, that they saw nothing, had their statement put on the file, we’d have a ridiculous amount of paper added to the already rather large existing one.

But the fact that Mrs Fenn, not once, says, or hints, that she’s spoken to the police before, is proof that she either didn’t speak to them, or when she did, she said nothing they felt they had to report.

To even consider that the police would forget to speak to this potential witness is even beyond yawn as can be read in the comment above, as only the police's indecision is to be blamed.

But yawn’s comment, reflects, my friends, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT thing that I’ve ever posted to date, it certainly is one of the most important. Its content is crucial to unravel the whole Maddie McCann mystery: the very peculiar relationship between Mrs Fenn and the police.

So says Mrs Fenn, on Aug 20th, 2007: On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment, situation which has been told to the police, her family member even made a photo fit"”

I’ve put the whole paragraph in bold, because there’s not one word in it that’s not important.

So let try and break down into main ideas:

#1 - On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning.

# 2 - “Carole” (Carol Tranmer-Fenn) (…) said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment.

#3 - (This) situation (…) has been told to the police, her family member even made a photo fit.

First, if she had stated, on the evening of May 3rd, to the GNR, what she says above, wouldn’t she certainly have been one of the people to be heard by the PJ on May, 4th?

And her niece called in at once to testify?

With THAT importance of information, she obviously didn’t need to have the police come to her, she HAD the obligation to, as soon she heard from Gerry’s mouth that a mall girl had been abducted, tell him there and then that vital piece of information, and get that information as quickly as possible to the adequate authorities.

But she doesn't do that, does she?

But that’s not what I said would be important about this post. About #1 and #2, I’ll get to it later.

Let’s get our hands on what matters: #3: this situation has been told to the police, her niece Carol even made a photo fit.

Have you ever seen this photo fit?

Have you, before Aug 20th, ever read any statement by Mrs Fenn’s niece?

No, you haven’t.

Is Mrs Fenn lying? No, this time she’s saying the absolute truth.

So where are Carol’s statement and her photo fit?

Let’s give a closer look at Mrs Fenn’s niece, Carol Tranmer-Fenn, April 22nd, 2008, rogatory statement:

CAROL TRANMER-FENN: After arriving home, Sunday (May 6th, 2007) morning we woke and read the Times Sunday paper. There we saw my aunt's apartment and the notice about the missing child. I did not want to believe it and for this reason telephoned her and said: 'Did you see'' to which she responded 'It was been an inferno, terrible since both of you left'.
After this I spoke with my cousin, whose son is at ****** and told her 'What do you think we should do, do you think'' because at this time I remembered that I had seen something.
It did not come to me right away but afterwards I told my husband 'Well, I saw that funny situation, you know'that type of behavior of the individual, with a sneaky aspect' to which he responded, 'Well you should talk to the police', and I said 'Yes, but it is likely that it has nothing to do with it'.
After, we thought a bit more about it and I telephoned my cousin who is at ****** and he told me that I should call the police and tell them.
I did exactly this. I telephoned the Windsor police and told them, more or less, what I had told him and to my family. They told me that they would give me a number to call the Leicester police. We passed by the Windsor squadron but it is clear that no one was there so I called the Leicester police and told them basically what I had seen.
They told me, well'thank you, we are going to get in touch with you, and after that everything happened. This is what happened, more or less.

CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Thus, this was when I called them, that is when you, sir, called me.
DC1485: Yes.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: After that, you booked a meeting time so that someone could come and speak with me
DC1485: Yes.


DC1485: Okay Carol. I have read your statement from the 8th of May, 2007, more or less one week after you saw the individual. It would be easier if you read the statement yourself and tell me if there is anything you want to add.
DC1485: I would like to analyse a few parts of your statement with you, if you allow me, and to stimulate your memory to see if you remember anything else in relation to your stay.


DC1485: Perhaps you have already answered before but what I want you to do, it to respond with as much detail possible. Good, the first questions is ' do you attest to you statement given to the British police in May of two thousand'eight of may of 2007. Do you attest to the statement that was made on this day to the police, the same statement that I showed you on the 8th of May'
DC1485: This statement is yours
DC1485: I will only, it is not necessary to read, but I am going to show you as it is necessary to confirm your statement and that it is your statement.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: It appears to be, yes.
DC1485: Yes.
DC1485: Okay, thank you, and the only anomaly is the incorrect date.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: The date, the date is definitely wrong.
DC1485: Yes.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: We had arrived on the 28th or the 29th of...
DC1485: April.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: April, yes. It was in April and not in May.

Now, isn’t this interesting? We apparently have a statement given on May 8th, 2007, to the Leicester police (with a photo fit, which is also quite adventurous and I’ll speak about it later), that is NOT to be found on the PJ Files.

You might say that there are pages missing from the PJ Files, and that could be it.

It doesn’t explain though, why after we’ve been fed by so many photo-fits, THIS ONE has never been presented to us to this day.

But is Carol Tranmer-Fenn’s (CTF) statement really missing? We know, for certain that it was taken on May 8th, 2007, by CTF’s initiative, and not by any request made by the PJ.

A further proof that Mrs Fenn said nothing to the authorities at the time she should have said so.

Notice that CFT’s decision to come forward comes after contacts with relatives in the UK and not with her aunt.

Probably, somewhere along the line, Mrs Fenn got to know that CFT had been to the police, but there’s nothing to guarantee us that.

What we have guaranteed is that the PJ is totally unaware that CFT has spoken to the British police on May 8th, 2007.

Let’s see what the PJ Files tell us:

1 to 118 – all pages accounted for.
119 to 120 - External diligence carried out re: Jeremy Wilkins
121 to 217 – all pages accounted for.

Vol II
218 to 473 – all pages accounted for.
474 - Missing page
475 to 493 – all pages accounted for.
494 to 505 - Sketch provided by Jeremy Wilkins and statement in English 2007.05.07 506 - Confirmation above fax sent
507 to 510 – all pages accounted for.
510 to 512 - Letter from Dr. Amaral regarding possible questions for Jeremy Wilkins 2007.05.07 ( English) 513 - Conformation above letter sent
514 to 520 – all pages accounted for.

521 to 728 – all pages accounted for.
729 to 736 - Translation of Leicestershire police constabulary documents with Wilkins - statement
737 to 753 – all pages accounted for.
754 to 757 - Missing pages
758 to 831 – all pages accounted for.

Vol IV
832 to 1118 – all pages accounted for.

Vol V
1119 to 1245 – all pages accounted for.
1246 to 1254 - Missing pages (events 13/14 May)

No sign of CFT’s May 8th, 2007 statement. We see that the Leicester Police fax machine was working on May 7th, 2007, when it sent Jez Wilkin's hand written statement, given on that same day.

Later, 224 pages later, Jez Wilkins statement appears in the files, in its translated form.

Could the CFT May 8th, 2007, statement be the missing pages from 754 to 757? They could certainly, but where are then the pages with the respective translated form?

As you can see next set of missing pages only appear 500 pages later, 489 to be precise, and with a whole volume in-between, and the documentation that was inserted had to do with events around May 13th/14th , which would mean 5 days to translate 3 pages.

And would those 3 pages translate into 8? Jez Wilkins’ 11 pages, turned out to be only 7 translated ones. So where is CFT’s May 8th, 2007, statement?

The Leicester police withheld it.

Why, is something we’ll discuss later, the relevant fact, right now is that the British police withheld it.

CFT is called in for rogatory statement, only AFTER her aunt refers her name, on Aug 20th, 2007, because “Carole (Carol Tranmer-Fenn) (…) said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment”.

Isn’t this a RELEVANT piece of information to be sent to the leading investigators, the PJ, taking into account that the facts witnessed happened on the afternoon the victim was abducted? No question about it, whatsoever.

Just from this, and until proven otherwise, and I honestly don't see how it can be, this is PROOF, that the Leicester Police, intentionally DID NOT SEND pertinent information to the PJ.

This is, as far as I know, called obstruction of justice.

A serious crime, and a serious accusation to make about a police force, but, unfortunately, in this case, it seems not be an unconsubstantiated one.

It confirms what we already suspected but had no proof of.

The British have their own agenda, and certainly isn’t finding Justice for Maddie.

This means that relevant information to the investigation concerning the disappearance of the British citizen, Madeleine Beth McCann, was withheld in Britain, by official British authorities, from those responsible to lead the said investigation, the PJ.

This can only mean that after only five days that Maddie had disappeared, the British police knew clearly that there had been no abduction, and that what was happening in the Algarve was just a wild goose chase. Portuguese tax-payers money thrown away by the bundles.

It also means that the same police was making pretty sure that the hounds turned on the hunters so that the fox would get away, to use as an example a typical British “sport”, that I think to be deplorable.

The statement was shown to CFT on April 22nd, 2008, and she acknowledges, so it was neither destroyed, nor lost somewhere.

Distraction is also not an excuse. Not only because its content is much too relevant, but as well as, that as from when The Sun reports it, and Mrs Fenn speaks ot it, until April 22nd, 2008, there’s plenty of time to send it in.

And it could always have been sent together with CFT’s rogatory statement, couldn’t it?

And, if you remember, Mr. Smith also came on his own foot to the Irish police, and the PJ was promptly informed.

But that was in Ireland, not UK.

CFT's April 22nd, 2008 statement is filed and stored somewhere, in Britain. That means that Kate McCann is absolutely correct when she says that there are TWO processes that should be joined up. Obviously one of them shouldn’t exist, as per letter received from the Home Office : “The Government’s primary concern in this case is the welfare of Madeleine herself. This remains a Portuguese case and decisions about its handing are a matter for them. We continue to liaise with them as appropriate”

To liaise does not mean you run your own investigation, it means you liaise with whoever is running it. That simple.

This attitude on the part of the British police might, however, explain many things

For example, it might explain why things were centralized in the Leicestershire Constabulary instead of in the Scotland Yard where it should, in my opinion, have been.

The supposed crime occurred with a British citizen overseas, not in his area of residence. In Portugal, the PJ took this issue into their own hands, and did not send it to the local Lagos police station to control and run the case.

It might also explain why the DNA sample results got lost somewhere… in Britain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I’m speculating for the first time in this post, they are together with CFT’s May 08th, 2007 statement and a blue tennis bag filled with compromising clothing.

Also maybe, and speculating again, it explains why and how the Amaral’s F-Word BBC footage has “disappeared”, together with the one where a Mrs Fenn’s friend speaks about the McCanns and Chaplins.

It certainly explains why people are stopping to believe in Justice and are seeking in us, bloggers, the respect that they feel has been taken away from them.

The respect that is due to those wanting to live in a just, fair and truthful world.

Justice is supposed to be blind to all those that betray her, but has now become blind to herself.

That’s why “The Establishment” hates so much and does all it can to minimizes the blogs and minimize their importance.

Can you now see how important Mrs. Fenn’s statement really is, and what it really, really entails? Now may be opportune the time for one to ask, where have all the good journalists gone?

Do have a happy and fulfilling Thanksgiving.

I’m off to a friend’s house, where we all will remember to thank the so many little wonderful things that our everyday lives sometimes do make us forget we should really be grateful for, so your comments, if any, will only be posted tomorrow morning.
Many thanks to Pamalam.

Wednesday, 24 November 2010


It seems that by raising the mere possibility of Mrs Fenn having not exactly told the truth in her statement,  I’ve committed an unforgivable crime against the elderly.

As far as I know, and as I’ve said before, a fact is what a fact is, and not because we’re told it is however nice it is said to us, how however innocent looking is the one who tells us.

Saying someone is lying just because they're lying is as invalid as saying someone is telling the truth, because they're telling the truth.

This is not a blog meant to be popular. With this I mean to say that I’m not writing for ratings.

Obviously I enjoy, and feel rewarded with the amount of readers I’m receiving. I do believe that I’m heading for the 80K figure, which was something unthinkable at the beginning of this year.

For that, as you know, I have Ironside to thank.

But it’s not for the readers that I write. I write in the name of what I see as truth. Let that be clear. Slandering my name, might result in weaker minds, but only strengthens my resolution. And that of those that have, are and will continue to help me. To them, my sincere thank you!

 Mrs Fenn, if you like me to unveil a little, is just a person minding her own business on that “Train Station” on that fateful day. The train hit the station, and although she suffered no physical damage, she certainly didn’t come out of this unscathed.

All I can say at this point in time, is that if I were her, knowing what she knew then, either by my own interpretation and by what I'd been told, I would probably would have done the same as she did. Which doesn’t make it right, but the wrongness, as you’ll see, is much more upstream than this retired, and astute, lady.

I picked up the following on the Missing Madeleine Forum (MMF), which is not responsible for the opinion of some of its posters, and I’ve deleted most, basically those with interesting and relevant ideas, as well as those complimenting this blog, but you'll be able to read what type of “clutter-argumentation” that I’m up against.

Not complaining though, just enjoying their squirming, and, please, in the future, do not forget what these people say today:

 Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
T4two on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 3:17 am

"Dimsie wrote: Mrs Fenn had no reason to lie AFAIK and I for one don't think she did. I see nothing odd about her not doing anything about the child crying and calling for her daddy, but then asking what was wrong when she heard a woman screaming hysterically.
Children often cry and yell and I imagine Mrs Fenn may have thought it was something of a tantrum on the child's part, rather than the cries of a child in pain, and therefore put off doing anything because she hoped the parents would arrive and that would be an end to it.
Which is more or less what happened; somebody arrived and the noise ceased (or died down). Textusa seems to think Mrs Fenn should then have tackled the parents - why on earth would she do this if she hadn't wanted to get involved at all?
She probably didn't want the parents to think she was accusing them of neglecting their children, after all they were only there on holiday and would soon be going home, it's not like they were her permanent neighbours.
Hearing an adult screaming, though, would be an unusual occurrence, prompting her to ask what was wrong. And Textusa is wrong when she says Kate only said 'We've let her down' at the Tapas bar.
Fiona Payne's rogatory statement makes it clear that Kate was still saying this back at the apartment, she specifically says she kept on saying it.
So for Textusa to say 'Either memory fails me, or she couldn’t have known this unless she had nice conversations, afterwards, in those 109 days and certainly over a nice cup of tea, with Kate.' is just silly; her memory may be failing her or she has simply not read FP's rogatory interview.
Claiming that for Mrs Fenn to know what Kate said means that she must have had 'a nice cup of tea with Kate' in the meantime is totally unfair - where is Textusa's proof of this?
As for who did what checking - how do we know anyone did any checking on any particular night or at what time?
Why should we be expected to believe all the stuff about checks every 30 minutes, just because that's what they said? Does anyone seriously believe these people stuck to a rigid timetable of half hour checks?
Another thing - anyone else who might have heard a child crying as they walked past the apartments might just have thought 'Oh, a child crying' and gone on. Unless they stood there for some time how would they know the child kept on crying for so long? Children do cry and yell, but a passer-by is hardly going to pay much attention to that.
In any case, didn't Gerry McCann and some of the others say there were seldom many people around at that time of night?
Plus although to Mrs Fenn the crying and yelling probably sounded like there was no let-up, that doesn't mean it went on at the same volume without Madeleine stopping to draw breath.
I've been talking to a friend on the phone at times while her toddler yelled and screamed in a tantrum in the background; he'd quieten down and we'd breathe a sigh of relief thinking that was it, then he'd start up again - that's normal behaviour and that's what Madeleine could well have been doing (not necessarily a tantrum, but stopping and starting).
If so, someone going past may have heard nothing at all. Textusa seems to have a bee in her bonnet about Mrs Fenn, but IMO it's never a good idea to let your imagination run away with you." 

Agree 100%. Lay off Mrs Fenn and concentrate on plausible theories.

Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
T4two on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 2:25 pm

Mrs Fenn was quietly enjoying her retirement when it was rudely interrupted by the arrival of the neighbours from hell in the apartment below.
From the moment they arrived the screaming and shouting of the parents, children crying and frequent banging of doors, only stopped in the mornings after the final slamming of the front door and the strident voices proclaiming "feckin' this" and "feckin' that", had receded into the distance. The old lady would breath a sigh of relief.
With the kids in the creche and the parents at the tennis courts, she could enjoy the luxury of a couple of hours peace and quiet at least.
In the evenings the procedure seemed to repeat itself, except that this time there was no slamming of the front door to signal an end to the disturbance, but she could hear the patio door scraping and footsteps receding from the other side of the apartment, which indicated to her that they had left by that route.
If she turned down the TV and listened very carefully, she could make out intermittent sobbing and sniffling noises from the apartment below, as the children cried themselves to sleep.
One night no matter how loud she turned up the TV it was just impossible not to hear the plaintive crying from the apartment below. Mrs Fenn didn't know what to do. Should she call the police or the Ocean Club and report it?
Not having had anything to do with the police ever before she decided against that course of action. Still, there was always the Ocean Club, but what was the telephone number? Where could she find it? In the directory of course but, it was night-time and she would have difficulty reading the small print under the artificial light even with her reading glasses and anyway to make things even more difficult, it was all in Portuguese.
Mrs Fenn agonized about what to do. The child had been crying for at least an hour now; she must do something, there could be something wrong, the child might need help. So Mrs Fenn rang her best friend and explained the situation.
"But if I call the Ocean Club", she said, "I'm afraid that it will cause a lot of bad feeling with the parents. I've already heard the father referring to me as 'that nosey old bag upstairs' and how he'd 'soon get her to keep her nose out of our business.' He's a very intimidating kind of person and so foul-mouthed, you'd never believe it."
Before her friend could answer she heard the scraping of the patio door from below realized that the crying had already stopped as if turned off by a switch.
"They're back", she wispered, "And the crying's stopped. I'll call you tomorrow."
Mrs Fenn replaced the receiver and set about retiring for the night. "Oh well, not to worry, it'll soon be the end of the week," she thought, "And the problem will resolve itself".
She pushed in the little yellow earplugs that her daughter had brought her a couple of days before and soon drifted off into a deep sleep, oblivious to the swearing and the scraping sounds of moving furniture emanating from the apartment below.

Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
Popcorn on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 2:59 pm

Good post (and a rep point from me) T42. I think that's a far more plausible scenario than a bizarre and not terribly helpful double bluff in which Mrs Fenn - an apparent stranger - exaggerates the McCanns' negligence in an attempt to prove their innocence.

Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
fedrules on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 3:10 pm

You write really well T4two and as others have said sum up Mrs Fenn's dilemma perfectly, especially the part about her reluctance about confronting a foul-mouthed, drunken doctor.. You aren't Mrs Fenn or her friend by any chance are you??

Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
T4two on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 3:25 pm

"Popcorn wrote: Good post (and a rep point from me) T42. I think that's a far more plausible scenario than a bizarre and not terribly helpful double bluff in which Mrs Fenn - an apparent stranger - exaggerates the McCanns' negligence in an attempt to prove their innocence."

If one knows much at all about elderly people, then Mrs Fenn conforms to a common behavoural pattern. She probably has a natural middle-class aversion to having anything to do with the police; it's always associated with a scandal.
Fear of people who exhibit coarse and violent behaviour is a natural reaction of the elderly and as such vulnerable members of society, and simply not wanting to get involved is an attitude which strengthens with age.
If you connect these to the problems that the elderly have involving things which seem incredibly simple to younger people, such as reading a telephone directory at night for example, then her behaviour starts to make sense.
IMO she had to overcome so many barriers of this kind in her own mind before saying anything at all to the police; this is what makes her statement so absolutely believable, and so damning for the McCanns.

Re: Textusa: All paths lead to Rome
fedrules on Mon 22 Nov 2010, 3:33 pm

Popcorn wrote: Good post (and a rep point from me) T42. I think that's a far more plausible scenario than a bizarre and not terribly helpful double bluff in which Mrs Fenn - an apparent stranger - exaggerates the McCanns' negligence in an attempt to prove their innocence. 

I agree the whole textusa scenario was very farfetched IMO.

Post Scriptum: As tomorrow is Thanksgiving, I’m finishing stuffing a nice BIG turkey just for you. It will be published here, tomorrow, Nov 25th, 19:00, GMT.

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Praia da Luz, Why Have You Forsaken the McCanns?

Now, for those who don’t believe in Him, an opinion which I respect, you must at least agree with me that PdL seems to have been drawn up by someone that really, really wanted to make life as difficult as possible for the McCanns to get successfully away with their evil deed.

As PdL has been where it has long before the Tapas ever arrived there, one can only attribute this to an Entity beyond humanity.

I call him God, you may, or may not. Call It something else. If you do believe in Him, well, you must also agree that He’s one great prankster with the McCanns.

I can just imagine Him and Maddie giggling down on all the stupidity that her parents have put themselves into and are still stuck with in.

First, if you remember, if someone was to kidnap someone from Apartment 5A at PdL, he would go the opposite way in which Jane Tanner saw him go, as was not it's only the fastest way out for PdL, as it was where the best cover provided for such a thing to be done.

Whoever made those roads go they way they go and connect the way they do could only be thinking in making the McCann's life hard.

Then, we saw that the shortest way to the beach from the Ocean Club is, as you know, blocked. So the natural path takes one by the PdL Church, which the McCanns so much want to us to know that they don’t know it existed.

And you know why they want you to believe that? Because the Church is way too near where all the fun is, and where the fun is, is where you’re most likely to find a witness, when you want to find one.

We also saw that the Rua da Escola Primária was the most possible inconvenient location to stage a abduction simulation. Its shortness, its lighting, its varying steepness and its various multitudes of options to avoid it and avoid being seen in it, makes it mandatory for anyone to be seen there carrying barefooted blonde little girl on chilly night be only because he wanted to be seen there carrying barefooted blonde little girl there.

Couldn’t that street just be a tiny little shorter, a little bit darker and filled all the way with houses from top to bottom?

We also saw that dumping on the body on the beach made no sense whatsoever.

It also made no sense to be in Rua da Escola Primária if you wanted dump a body anywhere on the coast line.

Terrible little town when you just want to get away with a little "white" lie of hiding the fact that a little girl died there…

There are indeed many other little things about PdL that seem to really play against the McCanns that I’ll speak of them later, like the fact that the Tapas Bar has the entrance it has, and the space the bar has, or that the front entrances to the Apartments seem to have been drawn up just to contradict these people, and  other such details, that I’ll keep to myself at this point in time.

It’s like PdL is itself a “Divine Conspiracy” against the McCanns.

Today I want to highlight another one of these of these things.

Mrs Fenn, says “when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out "we have let her down" which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below.”

From her words, besides those that are quite explicit (“Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother” and “from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below”) one can infer that Mrs and Mr McCann are together or close to each other when the facts said above happened. She sees Kate in despair and asks Gerry, right? Now let’s look at the Apartments 5A (McCann’s) and 5G (Fenn’s):
Now from another angle:
Have you noticed where the problem is? No, I’ll help you:
  Doesn’t it seem that that thing was put there just to contradict Mrs Fenn's statement?

Like when they built that building by placing that simply decorative ledge they just “wanted” to clearly hamper the communication between those two specific floors? Making it impossible for the floor to have ANY visual contact with the terrace below?

We now get to know, for certain, that Mrs Fenn, from her balcony, DOESN’T have a view of the terrace, the immediate area of the street near the Apartment 5A, and to see the gate itself, only with a great deal of “leaning”… which might make us go back and review that whole thing about hearing or not the opening of the gate…
Would Gerry McCann be able to communicate with Mrs Fenn if standing on his terrace as pictured above? No, he wouldn’t. But does that mean that Mrs Fenn can’t speak to her downstairs neighbours, from her balcony, if she so desires? Of course she can:

There’s a small space in the McCann’s terrace, right in front of the couple’s bedroom where both parties can speak to each other.

By the way, that litttle ledge of terrace, has almost been ignored as existing up to now, but it’s there, as is shown, and not much used, and not much sense in using it.

Theoretically, then, that’s where Kate and Gerry were standing when Mrs Fenn saw and spoke to them. Kate, hysterically shouting “we’ve let her down, we’ve let her down”, and Gerry providing Mrs Fenn with the necessary clarification that "a small child" (why not his daughter?) had been abducted.

Sounds realistic to you?

To me, it doesn’t either, but let’s not let ourselves just go on feelings here.

We know for an alleged fact, that Kate sounds the alarm down at Tapas, and returns to the Apartment, followed closely by the remainder of the present Tapas, with the exception of Dianne Webster.

So we have either Kate coming up those apartment’s stairs alone, followed by the group where Gerry is included, or the group arriving together, Kate included.

It’s not humanly possible, much less for an elderly lady, for Mrs Fenn to, from when she hears the gate open, have the time to get up from her chair, open her balcony doors and lean over before the whole group is inside the Apartment below.

And Kate, as far as we know, hasn’t started to shout hysterically yet. REPEATEDLY.

And, we must also say, that Mrs Fenn doesn’t say anywhere that she does sees a group… So, definitely it’s not at this moment that she communicates with the couple.

We know also, as an alleged fact, that the McCanns didn’t search outside for their daughter.

We’re almost led to believe that they stayed inside the Apartment the whole time as soon as they arrived there. We now know that that is not allegedly so.

We have at least, that strange episode where Gerry throws himself incomprehensibly on the floor OUTSIDE, and we have Fiona Payne’s rogatory statement that clarifies things quite well:

1485 "How was Kate?”
Reply “Awful, I’ve never seen such horrible raw emotion in my life and I’ve seen a lot of it in my job. She, she was just bereft, she didn’t know what to do, she was just panicking, extremely frightened, extremely frightened for Madeleine and, was wondering where she was or what was happening to her. And the helplessness, of not being able to do anything, what should she be doing, what could they do.
She was angry, really angry, punching walls, kicking walls, she was covered in bruises the next day, because she just didn’t know what, what else to do.
She was angry at herself, she kept saying ‘I’ve let her down. We’ve let her down Gerry’, ‘We should have been here’. She was praying a lot.
I just don’t think she knew what to do, what to do. And she was just howling.
It was just, just awful. I think as time went on it just seemed a massive delay from when we said to Matt to phone the Police, that hour, it was an hour, it just seemed like an eternity, where nothing was happening, tut.
We’re all intelligent people, we were all trying to think what we should be doing and, what’s going to make a difference. And Kate’s ringing, Gerry’s ringing anybody under the sun, family, they just don’t, they honestly just didn’t know what to do..
So there was a lot of, Gerry’s in and out, I mean, they were just sobbing, going between sobbing and then feeling helpless and then ringing people and this frantic activity.
Kate was desperate to have a Priest, which, people find weird, but I think that was just her way of thinking ‘At least I can pray for Madeleine’ and her way of feeling that she was doing something. But she wasn’t functioning”.

1485 “Did the twins wake up at all?”
Reply “They didn’t. They didn’t”.

1485 “In the aftermath?”
Reply “No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay.
But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, so much as blink”.

1485 When you were with Kate in the aftermath, who else was in the apartment, I know you say that Gerry was coming and going, was there any other?”
Reply Gerry was coming and going. Dave came in and, he came in initially with me, when I went to Kate, I don’t think he went in any of the bedrooms, I think he was just mainly in the living room trying to put together what they should all be doing really, he was talking more to Gerry, so he was in. I didn’t see Russell or any of the other group in, in Kate and Gerry’s apartment.
Fairly soon after, a girl called Emma, who, I don’t know what her position in MARK WARNER was, she was sort of I don’t know what you call them, she was mainly working at the reception area, just as a, tut, I don’t know what you call her job title, she was sort of looking after everybody”.

1485 “Just one of the travel assistants or something, yeah?”
Reply “Yeah. I mean, I don’t know what time she got there, it seemed quite early on, she was, she was in the room for the most part, it was me, Emma and Kate with Gerry and Dave sort of to’ing and fro’ing until the first lot of Police arrived”.

From her statement one can easily understand that Gerry went in and out various times, and could, certainly, be called by the non-curious and non-busybody and very reclusive elderly Mrs Fenn, and went into that little ledge of terrace and told her that a small girl had been abducted.

Perfectly natural, one would even dare say, Of course he could have asked her if she had, by any chance seen the small child, which by chance happened to be his daughter, around somewhere near, or, as he was absolutely certain that she had been abducted, if she had seen something or someone strange or unusual.

He could, but doesn’t.

As we know, he knew she hadn’t seen anything, so why bother waste time, when there are more important things are to be done like… ringing up family and everyone under the sun that late at night?

So the conversation between Gerry and Pamela is now, I hope, clear. As mud.

Also, from Fiona’s statement we can deduce that Kate was uncontrolled, INSIDE the apartment, her movements seem to be between the couple’s bedroom to the other to check on the twins. And banging walls.

And from the phrase “when I went to Kate, I don’t think he (David) went in any of the bedrooms”, we’re led to believe that when Fiona arrived, Kate was already in the bedroom, thus answering the previous question if Kate had or not arrived ahead of the group.

Fiona also says that Kate kept SAYING “I’ve let her down”, that she was PRAYING a lot and was just HOWLING.

I don’t know about you, but for me, howling is just the production of sound in an incomprehensible and very loud manner.

Not exactly perceptible, and not, I do think, to be taken as the already mentioned “we’ve let her down” hysterical screaming.

Mrs Fenn’s statement ONLY is coherent with Fiona Payne’s one if Kate went on that little ledge of the terrace and howled or hysterically screamed “we’ve let her down”. Then, and only then,  she could've been seen by the elderly lady, because as the elderly lady says, she did see Kate.

Pity nobody but Mrs Fenn reports such a public demonstration of despair on Kate’s part. Or odd. Or telling.

I’ve said, and maintain, that “we’ve let her down” was an expression used by Kate PUBLICLY ONLY in the Tapas Bar, so either Mrs Fenn learned it in the way I just described above, or somebody told her (possibly over a cup of tea...), that Kate had said those exact words.

And if someone told her that, they might also have told her that she could use that information as if she herad it herself, thet it would be safe and correct to use it. If that did happen then… well, to put it bluntly, she’s lying because it didn't, in reality, occur in her presence.

Unless, of course, like I just said, she did see Kate on that little ledge.

I think that now, and I hope you agree with me, both Gerry’s dialogue, or monologue, with Mrs. Fenn's witnessing Kate’s hysterical shouting is clarified.

I can’t place these three characters, under the described conditions, together at around about 22:30, Mrs Fenn leaning on her balcony and Kate and Gerry being on that little ledge of the terrace. Can you?

I’ll leave you some pictures of where all this supposedly happened, so that you may help me, if you so desire.

Update on Nov 24th, 2010: A photo sent in by a reader (sorry, I couldn't see which other two you were referring to):
Clearly, the lady on the balcony, which we suppose to be Mrs Fenn, can indeed see the stairs, although she does have to lean to do so, as we've said. But what is questionable is her "clear" view to the terrace below, which, in this picture, seems to be impossible.

Also very important in this picture, she CANNOT see the GNR standing outside on the street, or anyone else that might happen to be there.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

All Paths Lead to Rome

The Portuguese have this very wise saying that “all paths lead to Rome”. This saying goes back to the time when the Romans occupied the Iberian Peninsula, and basically means that, like all roads that at that time of human history were built with the main objective to connect everywhere known to the Empire's capital, Rome, so as in many different ways you may choose to do something, you inevitably reach the same conclusion independent of the choice made.

Mrs Fenn’s statement is a perfect example of that. Why is it so important?

Notice that when I make the question I don’t bring up the subject of whether it was true or not, that whatever was said.

You see, it’s simply irrelevant the way you look at her statement, as from any possible angle it’s always HIGHLY unfavorable, not only to the McCanns, but all those that were involved that night.

We now know that it’s a fact that, on Aug 20th, 2007, she said, and signed, that she witnessed a child negligence incident that happened between 22:30 and 23:45, on the night of May 1st, 2007.

Let me just say, beforehand, that if she’s told the truth, then it proves the Tapas hide a greater lie than the one they’ve wanted us to believe in, but, and that’s the beauty of this, it's better for those with a guilty conscience that she has indeed told the truth than have her proven a liar.

That is how important the Mrs Fenn statement is.

Negligence is the most recurrent theme of this never ending story. We keep bumping into it in almost every its chapter. So much so, that when the McCann name is pronounced, the word “negligent” just simply pops up.

It's said that a lie repeated a million times becomes inevitably the truth. History teaches us that.

It also teaches us that those lies that aren't definitely clarified become either legends or urban myths. Time provides them with the necessary cloaking to be impossible for them be proven wrong or right, or even if the events told even happened at all.

And that was on what the McCanns have betted on. That if you discussed hard enough how negligent they were, the abduction would always REMAIN lurking in the background.

And as long as it stayed there, then it became a reality; because it will remain a possibility, however absurd.

From there to "myth" it's just that small step of becoming an "unsolved mistery"... So they've rammed, time and time again, down our throats, that they were the most negligent people ever conceived by mankind.

By the way, I would too. If I had, as they did, my back covered by those responsible for having the Social Services act as they did in the circumstances, which was to make me sure  that they wouldn’t do anything   however much I shouted out loud how negligent I had been.

Better said, if I was assured by someone responsible that they wouldn’t, right Jim? We know the Social Services didn’t, haven’t and won’t, do a thing about the McCanns.

But there’s negligence, and then there’s negligence. It’s said for a just reason that always, really always, one has to be careful on what one wishes for, for one may just may have his wishes granted. And that’s what happened with the McCanns.

Pamela Fenn’s “negligence” has got nothing to do with the McCann's “negligence”.

It’s like asking two people, one who lives in a country cottage, the other in a city apartment, to describe where they reside. Both will speak of “living quarters” but with little else in common.

You see, the McCanns just wanted a thin, evenly spread layer of negligence, you know, it’s there but you can hardly taste it; but Mrs Fenn, dipped an enormous spreader real deep into the jar and applied one nice, rich, thick layer of the thing.

Later, in another post, we’ll see that this was not exactly the result of her enthusiasm but rather to a misleading sense of urgency, so as to nail the negligence message right into some “thick” skull that just kept on insisting on looking towards the wrong direction: the one that pointed to Maddie’s death.

Now, let’s flip a coin. If it is heads we’ll look at Pamela Fenn’s statement as being true, tails, as false. Heads it is. So, let’s pretend it’s true.
But for that to be, we also have to pretend that we have this elderly lady who after having put up, for one hour and fifteen minutes, with a toddler’s ear-piercing crying; that when she finally hears the child’s parents arrive, she doesn’t even bother to come to her balcony, which apparently had a view over the terrace of the floor below, lean over and tell them something.

We know the crying must have been so annoying that she “contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation”.

We know that her friend "was not surprised at the child’s crying”. That might appeased her a bit, but certainly doesn’t seem enough to wipe away her concerns and discomfort that made her make that phone call in the first place.

For some reason she did make it. So why on earth, doesn’t she say something to her parents when she hears them arrive? A simple and justified demand for respect was certainly deserved from these people.

Negligence wouldn’t cross my mind at that moment, but stupidity, egoism and lack of civility definitely would.

I would certainly tell them off, and would also tell them, in no uncertain terms, that a repeat performance would mean the immediate calling of police.

Oh, but say you, this peaceful elderly lady didn’t any problems with her neighbors, and so preferred to remain politely in silence.

I for one, would have dressed up, charged into Tapas and asked if anyone there was the parent of the the child that was crying her heart out alone in her apartment. And if I got no answer, I would make sure I waited for those parents and let them have it.

But Mrs Fenn seems to be a peaceful lady. Me, I'm not peaceful, and some even say I'm no lady. Ok, then, if not out of pure annoyance, shouldn’t she have approached the parents with concerns regarding the child’s health?

It’s not at all natural for a child to be crying for such a long time, so if I hadn’t yet called for help, I would certainly be attentive for the child’s parent's arrival and inform them at once of this vital piece of information. It could prove to be the difference between life and death.

Apparently, Mrs Fenn was the only person to know that that child had cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, so she surely just had to say THAT to the parents, don’t you think?

Oh, say you again, her friend Edna wasn’t surprised that the child cried.

Why, she doesn’t say. It seems then, that like the “Happy Hour” in bars worldwide, there seems to have been in PdL, at least in April/May, an “Unhappy Hour”.

Apparently, it took place between from 22.30 to 23.30 whereby some child was designated to cry her lungs out to the little village’s contentment.

On that particular night, it was Maddie’s turn, as it can be deduced the surprising remark from Mrs Fenn’s unsurprised friend.

So based on her friend’s reliable and justified opinion, Mrs Fenn simply dismisses the one hour and fifteen minutes crying as just perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor”; and when she hears the parents arrive, she either goes to bed, or just adjusts the pillow if she was already in it.

So, for her statement to be TRUE we must then pretend that she’s simply not a curious person, and much less a busybody. Not a hard thing to do. The pretending that is.

Is that all we have to pretend? No. We must also pretend that although she’s not a curious person, and much less a busybody, she was indeed curious enough when two nights later at 22:30 (now that is one unhappy hour in PdL…) “when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out ?we have let her down? which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below.”

So we have a person that when hearing a child crying for one hour and fifteen minutes, and, half an hour after that crying had started, makes a single phone call, is pretty much satisfied with a vague answer from a friend and patiently puts up for another 45 minutes of crying, BUT when she hears the hysterical shouts of a grown woman she immediately goes to the balcony and tries to find out what was going on.

Ok, so we pretend that this is normal and continue, shall we? Sorry, no. We also have to pretend that 109 days afterwards, that's more than THREE months, that, while around her much, much younger people seem to have lost memory for many of the details of what had happened that night, she remembers quite vividly the insistence of both the mother on having let some female down and of the father on there having been an abduction.

Interesting memory selectivity for someone so able to detach herself from whatever surrounds her like that time a child cried, in the apartment directly below, for one hour and fifteen minutes, and as soon as she stopped, she just went back to whatever she was doing.

And so, so interesting capability of remembering Kate’s “we’ve let her down”. I thought that Kate had said this only in the Tapas Bar.

Either memory fails me, or she couldn’t have known this unless she had nice conversations, afterwards, in those 109 days and certainly over a nice cup of tea, with Kate.

Yes, I know I’m starting to annoy you. It’s a little too much to pretend, but the coin determined that we should proceed as if Mrs Fenn statement was TRUE, remember? So this much is what we must pretend, mustn't we?

So Pamela Fenn has spoken the truth, nothing but the truth, and let’s then see what the truth doth tell us.

It tells us, plain and simple, that a single child cried inside Apartment 5A of PdL Ocean Club, on the night of May 1st, 2007, from 22:30 to 23:45. These are FACTS, if, and only if, Mrs Fenn is saying the truth. Don’t forget that for a single minute, please. No other witness report this and this fact is very important.

The McCanns report something of the kind, but having happened on the following night, May 2nd, which is a completely different thing.

Later, you’ll see that I’m not being needlessly precise here, nor leaving any margin of error for Mr. Fenn. She remembers so many details, that two days… are two whole days, and there’s a reason for her to pinpoint this particular day as the day it happened.

From her statement, it’s also a fact that no adult came to that crying child’s rescue during that one hour and fifteen minutes.

Also a fact, according to Pamela, the twins didn’t join or react in anyway, as would be natural and expected, to one hour and fifteen minutes of her sister's crying, in a manner loud enough to concern the upstairs neighbor.

Another fact extracted from this statement is that no other child of the Tapas group not of the McCann clan, joined in or reacted to this crying, clearly audible to the upstairs apartment, so certainly to the neighboring one too.

Now let’s leave Mrs Fenn’s statement for a while, and look what else we know, or better, we have been told, with which it can be implicated with or be relevant to.

We know, and please do forgive me for not detailing where exactly this is said, as the sources are too many, in diversity and quantity, within PJ Files, of the existence of a “Child Checking System” (CCS), implemented, I believe, from April 29th, and executed to the night Maddie disappeared.

Let’s pay some attention to the characteristics of this alleged CCS.

It wasn’t a collective “Tapas CCS”, as each Tapas couple had their respective CCS.

The Payne’s CCS (PCCS) was based on a baby listening device, which spared the members of this family to conduct the personal physical checks. The PCCS is irrelevant for today’s post so we won’t speak of it again today. I’ll say a word or two about the listening device later on however.

The McCann’s CCS (MCCS), the O’Brien’s CCS (O’CCS) and the Oldfield CCS (OCCS), were, apparently, all independent, in which each member of the respective couple would check physically, each half hour, on their own children.

There is no reported “accompanied” checking between the MCCS, O’CCS and the OCCS.

That means that every half an hour, THREE adults would go from the Tapas Bar to the Apartments, and then come back.

If we say, that it took 5 minutes to go from the Tapas to check the children, the round trip would be then of 10 minutes.

That alone means there was a continuous movement of "children checking" up and down that particular street. We have no record on how was this was coordinated between the couples.

It seems that IF it was done in random manner, then there surely would have been, one time or another, a coincidence of schedule’s between the CCSs, meaning that members of different couples would walk together to do the checking.

Nothing more natural… however, not reported once, as far as we know.

We do have one incident reported, and one only (there certainly might have been others, but only this one was reported, so is to be assumed as an exception and not as a rule), that one member of a CCS offered to substitute the member of another. It was when Matt Oldfield checked on the McCann children, by coincidence, minutes before Maddie was supposedly abducted.

We’re also told, with clarity, that both the OCCS and the O’CCS used their apartment’s front door to enter and exit, and certified that the door was locked each time they left.

Back to Fenn’s statement, it’s quite clear that the MCCS collapsed totally on May 1st.

When the McCanns made their first statements on May 4th, they surely knew of this, or at least should have known that for at least one hour and fifteen minutes, on May 1st, they didn’t check on their children.

So when they say nothing unusual happened on May 1st, either they’re lying with all the teeth they have or they consider that one hour and fifteen minutes of not checking their children is perfectly normal and reasonable.

As it is neither normal nor reasonable, even if they consider it so, or be it they’re lying to hide the fact, one can say, with reason, that the MCCS, at least on May 1st, was a total blunder, a complete flop, a disgraceful incompetence.

This lack of checking on the part of the McCanns, would have been noticed by the other parents, however, this collapse of the MCCS isn’t mentioned anywhere by anyone in any statement.

Would it be important to be mentioned? Well, their daughter had just been abducted, they said, they had a CCS mounted up, they said that too, but do not say to the police that this CCS flopped two nights before the kidnap.

Neither do the McCanns say it, nor do any of the other Tapas. Only Mrs Fenn, 109 days later. Strange...

We know from Mrs Fenn that it was AT LEAST one hour and fifteen minutes, but who knows for how long really didn’t the McCanns check on their children?

This would certainly a highly important piece of information for the police to have, as it basically means that for one hour and fifteen minutes there was a “loudspeaker” announcing that the “security system” had a major flaw. Basically like putting up a sign on a shop window saying “Notice: this store has the alarm temporarily out of order. Apologies for the inconvenience”:

With this information the profiling done by the police of the possible abductor would have been completely different.

Remember that it’s assumed that we are before a planned abduction, that the criminal observed this family and pounced when he thought adequate and opportune.

With this piece of information, it would mean that, possibly, on May 1st, the suspect that had had the opportunity for a whole hour and fifteen minutes to abduct Maddie, then and there, opted instead, even seeing how careless the McCanns were, to take action on a different night.

It would raise the possibility of the predator only deciding on the victim then and there, on May 1st, after seeing what he saw, and preparing whatever he had to prepare and attack two days later.

The clues that the abductor could have left in these two days of preparation could have been tracked by the police, and could have quickly led them to the criminal.

But the McCanns decided not to remember to tell this to the police.

They remembered to tell the police all about the tennis, about how far away was the Millenium, and even about the detail of the wine being from New Zealand.

They even remembered that oh-so-touching “Maddie’s question”, but were careful to add it up with the “nothing unusual”.

They just didn’t remember that on the night of May 1st they did no checking after 22:30, until they arrived home at 23:45.

Wasn’t that the night they arrived separately after a jealous spout?

So, they do remember some details of that evening. By the way, Mrs Fenn speaks of the arrival of the parents, and not of separate arrivals.

So she hears the gate, thinks it is the couple, and falls asleep in less than 5 minutes, which, I might dare say, is pretty impressive.

The McCanns might, you say, have been both so drunk, and effectively did no checks, and that they were just too ashamed to admit it.

After all, this would only confirm what they’ve revealed from then on to this day: that they care more about themselves than about their supposedly abducted child.

So the MCCS flunked absolutely, proving that the McCanns were sloppy and careless, thus providing the abductor the opportunity for him (or her) to do the foul deed that would be done two days later.

THAT is what they’d like you think, I hope you realize that by now.

Now stop for a minute and answer this: where were the O’CCS and the OCCS during that one hour and fifteen minutes? We’re talking about FOUR adults, to and fro, every single hour.

That means that in that hour and fifteen minutes, those two other apartments were PHYSICALLY checked by SIX adults. If you can’t do the math, let me explain, TWO per apartment per hour, which makes FOUR between 22:30 and 23:30, plus the first check, ONE per apartment, which means TWO adults, for the second hour, totaling SIX adults.

I’ll be benign, and say FOUR to SIX adults checked their children between 22:30 and 23:45 on May 1st, 2007.

Let’s remember that they do go and do come back. So, clearly, while the child cried, EIGHT to TWELVE adults passed, on the way to and from their own apartments, by the THREE East facing windows of Apartment 5A:
Now, try to picture PdL at night.

Just imagine the immense silence.

There are some people that even hear sirens nobody else does.

I’ll bet that from the balcony of Apartment 5A, you would not understand the conversations at the Tapas bar, but they would certainly be audible.

And the Brit loud laughter is known worldwide, and it is not for its discretion, but is not as loud as the crying of a lonely terrified or sick child. Just ask Mrs Fenn.

And it’s no excuse that Maddie cried indoors. How many times have you heard grown people arguing from inside their homes?

Mrs Fenn, from her apartment hears the gate open, but EIGHT to TWELVE adults, all walking not more than fifteen feet away from a crying child (a daughter of a friend of theirs), hear absolutely nothing… or at least they don’t say they do.

We know that Mrs Fenn heard it, so it would be equally audible in the apartment next door, as was in the one upstairs. Who do we have next door? The Oldfields.

Let’s look then at the OCCS, the neighboring CCS of the flunked MCCS, that although going NEXT door, do not hear the child crying. The Oldfields, as I said, are TWO to THREE times less than fifteen feet, in the case their child is sleeping in the lounge, or much less, if she's sleeping in their room, the ADJACENT one to Maddie's, and INDOORS, from the crying child and simply don’t hear her. Or, once again, never say they do.
Adding these to those said that happened outside, we have ELEVEN to FIFTEEN opportunities for the child to have been heard either by the Oldfields or by the O’Brien’s.

FOUR absolutely deaf adults.

In the silence of the PdL, I bet that even the Payne’s listening device would have picked Maddie’s crying.

If it was switched on, that is, or if Maddie had really cried, but those are whole different stories.

Quiz Night was that night, remember? No wonder Gerry invited Najoua to the table, as, it seems, nobody that sat around it could hear the questions. No, wait… Najoua also had Quiz Night that night of the week at Chaplin’s, so was long gone from Tapas before 22:30

Either the McCanns were negligent and the remainder deaf, or, on THAT particular night, ALL Tapas CCS (except PCCS) were, by coincidence, negligent.

I’ve never heard of any hearing disability of any of them… so I do go for collective negligence of ALL independent CCSs.

You see, if Mrs Fenn has spoken the truth, it proves one of the following: that either the McCanns, the O’Briens and the Oldfields were ALL negligent on their CCS on May 1st, 2007, or that there was simply NO CCS whatsoever, in any of the families.

It does not imply… it proves.

And it’s not only Mrs Fenn that is saying it… it’s the McCanns, the Paynes, the Oldfields and the O’Briens that also say it… by never mentioning it anywhere in their respective statements.

They ALL, with NO EXCEPTIONS, forget to tell about this episode to the police.

And you know why they didn’t? Because they had nothing to say. For anything to fail, it has first to exist. And if it didn’t exist, it's only possible due to the two reasons mentioned, they were either ALL neglectful or a CCS didn’t exist.

And, for ALL of them to have been negligent, there is ONE thing that MUST've happened: they had to be at the Tapas Bar, because if they were somewhere else, then the negligence just flies away with “the good parenting distance”… it becomes ABSENCE.

And that is where Mrs Fenn’s statement is so beautiful, in that if she’s lying, she proves the exact same thing as she does if she’s telling the truth.

But if she's lying, she does prove much more than that. Oh, you’ve forgotten that we were ONLY assuming that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth up to now…

It's alright, I. in turn, "forgot" to tell you that I flipped a double-headed coin.