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.


  1. TotallyConfused21 Nov 2010, 00:10:00

    I am in no doubt that this post will not make sense to some...but it will to Textusa.

    A child crying for that long in a 'holiday' complex...believe me people would have noticed. When my first was 9 weeks old...she got her first bout of colic..11 hours solid of crying. Trust me- I had every woman over the age of 40 in the area knocking on my door offering help and assistance. And every single one said 'Is all OK you need some help?' I have no doubt that if that single event ever happened again, my neighbours would have been suspicious and concerned- particularly if it was regular and the child was almost 4 by then.

    Thank God the colic was a one off event with my 9 week old child but if this was a regular event (even over a few nights in a row) I would expect those around me- even strangers- to be curious about 'just what was happening' in my house. Indeed, I personally think if I didn't ask the question myself (if I heard it in another house) and satisfy myself of the child's well being,I would consider myself guilty of negligence to a child.

    Just more that doesn't add up in this case. More attempts to shift this from a true case of child abuse to the parent's being 'victims'?

    My answer is simple...Who the hell leaves three children of that age unattended? As for the 'eating in the garden' argument.....simple...if it is nice enough to eat 'in the garden' then the bedroom windows would be open and in full view 'on the patio with the BBQ'. Basically, sitting in your back yard with friends having a BBQ on a warmish spring or summer evening is not the same as going to a bar in a different country. (And after all, the backyard example, you and your friends would be running in and out of the house- bathroom, dishes/more vino, changing the music/tv background)

    Not washing with me....


  2. 4 years old left alone calls 911,,,,MOTHER ARRESTED

    listen to the call :

    Maddie did not have that chance and the mccann are still free
    XOXO Claudia

  3. C L Á U D I A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    " MY H I J A D EL M Y C O R A ZÓ N "

    BESINOS! I am so happy !

    I hope that You are : CL. de B. !

    Mamacita Portuguesa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    T.C. HI!

    I agree with Text and with You. If i had understood:

    " (if I heard it in another house) and satisfy myself of the child's well being,

    I would consider myself guilty of negligence to a child."




    If you wish to contact any of the authors, please leave a comment with a "DO NOT PUBLISH" and your e-mail. "

    AND TEXTUSA WILL SAY TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!


  5. Cláudia, de B.

    Wenn Sie einer der Autoren an, lassen Sie einen Kommentar mit einem "Nicht veröffentlichen" und Ihre E-Mail.

    UND TEXTUSA werden mir sagen !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Auch wenn Sie nicht beabsichtigen, auf dem Mail zukommen: Schreiben Sie mir, bitte!

  6. According to Kate and Gerry, it was only after Madeleine's complained about their absence(Why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying?)that they "discussed it for a moment" and decided to tighten the checkings. Well, Gerry told Sandra Felgueiras they were checking every 30 m (Sandra said 15m and Gerry corrected her, 30 m, he said), so, one has to wonder, if they upgraded the checks to every 30m, which was the time gap between checks before? 45m, hourly, none at all...? I bet on the latest...
    And , if Mrs. Fenn was so upset about the long crying, wouldn't she have called the O. Club's front desk/reception and report the matter? Ask them to knock on the door or try to locate the parents? If a formal complaint was made to the O.Club, surelly the management would have to talk to the parents about it and ask for it to not happen again, because other residents had been complainong about it. Why call a friend instead, what could the friend do? Was she expecting that friend to tell her what to do? Maybe Mrs. Fenn is one of those persons that are not able to act for themselves unless someone tells them what to do...

    By the way, in the early days, there was a rumour that on aprevious night, the McCanns had to be tracked down by the O. Club's workers. all the way to Chaplin's, because their children were crying their heads off, and guests were complaining about it. I have no idea if it was so or hust another myth around this saga.

  7. Well, it has been mentioned, that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 just invented the CCS - for that particular night only. They even wrote it down in Maddie's book in order not to contradict themselves.
    There were no checkings ever carried out before, that is what I do believe. They just sedated the kids. All of them. Also: how come, all other Tapas "friends" allegedly checked on the McCann's kids (that night only), but the McCanns did not check on the kids of their friends?
    Sometimes, kids cry even when with their parents. I've known a 2 year old, who started crying for 2 hours each night for no reason at all and nothing would make him stop. His parents were scared shitless that neighbours will call the police or youth care on them, but there was nothing, they could do about it, as the kid would not stop crying. Luckily, nobody reported them ever.
    Ms Fenn could have thought, the parents were with the kid (only got to know they had not been there, when she heard the patio doors). Maybe she did not wanna bring the parents into any kind of trouble... many ppl are like this, myself included. As I know from my experience, that kids often cry for no reason at all. For a single incident, I would not call the cops on other ppl, only if it happens regularly.
    Yet, since it was a hotel, I prob. had called the reception. That is a bit odd, that Ms Fenn did not do that AND, what I find odd additionally is, that she heard clearly the "patio doors". Has that been checked by the cops, if it is possible at all to hear it when the patio doors get opened downstairs?

  8. Complain to Amazon for marketing the "account of the truth" book. I already have and I would encourage others to do the same. No more cash for the McScams.

  9. Textusa, do you think it is possible Mrs Fenn heard something worse than crying and 'patio doors', that she only wanted to give a hint and didn't want to be involved?

  10. Anon 7:36

    No, I don't. I don't think Mrs Fenn heard any patio doors, and I don't think Mrs Fenn ever heard Maddie cry. Not on that night, or any other night, not because Maddie might have not cried, or have been killed before, but because she was not isolated so that a crying could be identified with her.

    If you want to know if she cried or not in any of those nights, you just have to ask the person(s) that stayed with the children all those evenings/nights.

    I think that Mrs Fenn is a "planted" statement as much as is the Gaspars'.

    Things, if you look at them attentively are quite simple, so why complicate them?

  11. I still seeing a line Mccann's- Murat-Jenny-Fenn.
    Somebody close to the place where everything hapenned help them, accidentally or not. A lie like that just survive because has many characters to feed many episodes.

  12. Did Mrs. Fenn ever state that thew child she heard crying was Madeleine? I do not think so...she said she heard "a child" and that the cry sounded like the cry of an older child, meaning not a baby, but she never said it was Madeleine. How could she? Only if she was well acquainted with the child and new what her voice and har crying sounded like.

    From the files:

    "She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger."

    The name Madeleine was never mentioned, it was inferred it could only be Madeleine she heard, that's all.

  13. Planted statement?

    Textusa, you tell people not to complicate matters and then proceed to do so yourself.

    How many witnesses is this now that you have accused of lying? I think you need to take a big step back, you appear to have completely lost the plot. You are trying to make the case fit your theories by calling into question the veracity of any witness whose statement doesn't accord with your mad idea of what went on.

    It's really tiresome

  14. Anon 02:06

    You're welcome to go elsewhere. And if you that tired, do take a day or two off, and rest.

  15. I don't believe Madeleine was there when she was meant to be crying either. This was a good ploy to show that Maddie was still alive at the time.

    However, being rude to readers who do not agree or have their own opinion does not help.

    Perhaps I also need a rest ?

  16. Hiya not been around for a while, but something hit me reading this post. Hope you are all OK.

    HiDeHo wrote this on MCF

    Sunday Matt was sick..
    Monday (no info)
    Tuesday ROB was not at tapas
    Wednesday Rachael was not at tapas
    Thursday timetable shows someone away from table at all times...

    Now I wonder if Monday was in fact Jane Tanners turn to stay behind. (Could have been evasive about Monday because if not that would have given a clear pattern as to the child care arrangements of two of the couples)

    If so, that means the Oldfields and O'Briens could have been looking after each others children. On Tuesday the night of the crying it would have meant that all the children could have been in O'Briens apartment and they might not have heard the crying.

    There seems to be groups within groups. Fiona and David seem to be more pally with McCann's and the Oldfields seem more pally with O'Briens.

    One thing that always has amazed me is this why would you lie for someone you are getting to know? You just would not.

    Now imagine, being in a group, Friday night they would have been preparing to go fly home next day. Would not want to get tanked up and then face flight, getting up early for flight etc with hangover.

    Would it not be Thursday that would be a night where someone encouraged the whole group to leave the children. After all if the McCanns and Paynes had been doing it all week, then they could encourage the others to do it for one night couldn't they?

    And another thing, if Mrs Fenn's statement is true, a child does not stop crying instantly they sob for ages afterwards and would the McCann's admit to their friends that they returned back the night on the Tuesday night and one of the kids was in hell of a state?

    Makes you wonder if the children that were really being neglected were in fact only the Payne and McCann children.

  17. textusa

    Thank you from and another for your article - it raises more questions in my opinion.

    If Mrs. Fenn is speaking the truth - then all the Tapas9 are telling lies.

    If Mrs. Fenn is speaking the truth - only one child was in the apartment and all the Tapas9 are telling lies.

    If Mrs. Fenn is telling a lie - then why is she lying.


  18. I shall ignore your rudeness, Textusa.

    Perhaps you can explain why you think Mrs Fenn made the whole thing up?

    I am going to repeat this - I think you are accusing a perfectly lucid, truthful witness of lying, simply because her statement is at odds with your personal theory. And I happen to find that a most discourteous route to take.

    If you are going to have a blog for which you solicit comment, Textusa, you can hardly throw your toys out of the pram every time someone disagrees with you.

  19. “How many witnesses is this now that YOU HAVE ACCUSED OF LYING?”

    “YOU appear to have COMPLETELY LOST the plot”


    “calling into question the veracity of ANY witness whose statement doesn't accord with YOUR MAD IDEA OF WHAT WENT ON”

    “It's really TIRESOME”

    And then these people have the AUDACITY to say that YOU’RE the RUDE one?!?

    Tex, I think you’ve REALLY hit a hornet’s nest with this one, and they seem to be angry!

  20. Bren. Excellent post.
    'Makes you wonder if the children that were really being neglected were in fact only the Payne and McCann children.'

    I think you are right and maybe the Paynes did 'half-neglect', they used a baby intercom (don't know the reach in connection with the distance).

  21. British Claire22 Nov 2010, 14:33:00

    I think having read and re-read this article and comparing with what I thought I know and understood that it is not a case of Mrs Fenn deliberately lying but more likely being tricked into doing so. I never questioned her statement before but always thought it odd the way she was very sure of the age of the crying child therefore ruling out Sean or Amelie leaving only a crying Madeleine as the possibility. Once a child reaches past about a year old (maybe less) then in my experience it would be very difficult to determine the age by listening to the cry. It reminded me of a time before I had children when one summer evening a heard a baby persistently crying, after a while I felt uncomfortable about the length and tone of the cry and got out of bed, opened the window and looked around...nothing. I got back into bed and listened for a little longer and when it still didn't stop I asked my partner to walk outside the house to try and find where the crying came from and if there was a problem. So I agree that if Mrs Fenn was concerned to notice the cry and call her friend...and to time the length of the incident then I find it very difficult to understand that she didn't proceed to notify the OC reception to ask them to investigate. The statement just doesn't fit right does it?

  22. The doubts are obvious. The Mccann's planted in the Media and in the police the all fairy tale regarding an abduction without providing a single evidence ( and don't tell me that finding evidences is a police job because Kate left 48 questions without answers and was not worried with possibility of damaging the safe recover of her child). Then, why should we accept without questions what the witnesses said? Mrs. Fenn was questionned by the police few hours after the girl been reported missing. If the cry really hapenned and was so dramatic, she must reported it immediately to the police. She wait months to report something with so many details, that I have no doubts to say 'there is an agenda behind her statment and that agenda has nothing to do with an health search of Madeleine or with Madeleine'. Is to suit something else- An abduction. The abduction was discredit by the police and in Augost Eddie and Keela were actively searching the Mccann's belongs with success. That ring bells on your mind, anonymous who don't like the peel of Mccann's theory?
    The Mccann's have a theory. Imposed, never proved. Without any factual support. Textusa is proving that their theory has no legs to walk. Their plan kill their theory and after more then 3 years we know more then in Augost 2007. Somebody is loosing the plot yes. Who lies and dismiss the inteligence of others, always lost the plot.

  23. Angelique,

    Let’s first establish whether she’s lying or not. As you quite correctly say, if she has said the truth, then…. But, we have yet to prove that she’s lying.

    I’ve just left a few of the many clues that have led me to think, and explaining why, that she’s not exactly telling the truth.

    Why is she lying, if she’s lying, that is, is the crucial question to be answered. I could tell you, right now, as I’ve done in other for a where these issues are discussed (much like those where I’m discussed and I haven’t the faintest idea where or by whom), but here, I beg for your patience, for as you know, I prefer to advance very slowly and cautiously, brick by brick

    If she’s lying, there’s the first “why” to be asked… and that is, has she done this voluntarily, or was she tricked into doing it? Or was she convinced? By the way, let me just clarify that “the cup of tea” between Kate McCann and Pamela Fenn was “figure of speech” and a total invention of mine, as I haven’t the faintest idea if either even enjoy the beverage. Just inventing a reason for Mrs Fenn to know what Kate had said. Another reason would be from having heard from Kate herself, as she states.

    The second “why” is, has she anything personal against the McCanns? Her statement, apparently, basically confirms the couple’s negligence, and, apparently, once again, has absolutely no reason to lie.

    The third “why” is has she achieved what she intended with the lie? Do use “she” in a very broad sense, please.

    Lastly the exaggerated reactions this post, remind me of the time when here was said that some people hear sirens nobody else does.

    But, Angelique, rest assured, your question, if we’re able to prove that Mrs Fenn is lying, will be answered. If not by me, by somebody else.

  24. Look, what I have found on youtube: "People are really insensed at the way the UK police and social Services have almost literally ignored the forensic evidence, the child neglect, and the blatent lie's and deciept's of the McC's and Tapas Crew: but what if Madeleine wasn't actually registered as a human child, what if she was considered a clone in the term's of the law's, and therefore not subject to the same level of human rights? Would this explain why this case is treated in such a perplexiduos manner by the authority's!"

    Would that not explain, why the Portuguese Police did not get the medical reports of Madeleine? - Maybe the messing of the Laboratory in Birmingham with the DNA found, too?

  25. "One thing that always has amazed me is this why would you lie for someone you are getting to know? You just would not.
    Now imagine, being in a group, Friday night they would have been preparing to go fly home next day. Would not want to get tanked up and then face flight, getting up early for flight etc with hangover."

    Hi Bren,
    I was wondering the same. To me, there are only 2 reasons, why others who are not close friends, would lie for somebody: 1. either their own existence/well-being is at stake or 2. they will gain something very important by doing so.
    No.1 could be, that their own kids got sedated or are clones and they want to cover it. Child neglect had not been enough of a threat IMO. No. 2 could be, because they are freemasons, too.
    But the party/boozing took place on Wednesday. On that night all of them went to the bar after dinner, cept Rachel Oldfield. That excludes that they had wanted to repeat that on Thursday, right?

    Textusa: Who do you think was with the kids then, if they never were let alone? Somebody out of the Tapas 9 or another person? And what could have caused Madeleine's death then?
    Why, when they so thoroughly plant "evidences/witnesses" afterwards as you think, were they sooo sloppy when preparing the alleged "crime scene"? Why did they not smack the shutters in, left foot prints in the flower bed or something?
    Also something weird: it was reported, that one shutter got repaired on Tuesday... Gerry broke it. I wonder why? Did he practise on that thing?

  26. Another thing, I have read on the 3Arguidos forum is, that there was a couple (Garrods), who have rented a car from April 28-May 6 or so... that couple is friends with JT, but did not belong to the Tapas 9. They checked into the OC only on May 30. Where did they spend the other 2 nights? The woman was pregnant and it was reported, that on Thursday, DP spoke with a couple/family (they have a little son) in the Tapas Bar and that woman was pregnant, too. Were it them? - They are from Exeter like JT and only 10 days before, MURAT was in Exeter, too. I find it very odd, that friends of JT were there at the same time, w/out joining her group.
    As for Ms Fenn... what could she have gained for lying? Did she do a favor to somebody, the old man who had the key for the church or the Murats?

  27. How many people got into the saga just to have their minute of fame? Mrs Fenn could be one of them. But because she was to close to the crime scene, I don't believe on that possibility.
    Why she mention on her statment that she was alone on her flat when the child cried? A detail apparently insignificant but could be very important. If she was telling the truth, being alone or not was useless, then she will not pay attention to that detail. If she was lying, then being alone is very important and a vital information to pass to the police. Like that, the police will see no reason to try to grab more information from witnesses that dd not exist.
    I'm sorry but I don't buy that story about the clones. Madeleine crime was very simple and same as many others that already hapenned almost in all countries- somebody died in strange circumstances and the body need to be concealed. What was the difference was the destiny the authorities gave to the suspects. Normally the suspects were left in preventive prison without any type of contact between them and the witnesses. The Mccann's were left free and able to control the witnesses, the authorities and the investigation. It is on that control that I fit Mrs. Fenn. Mccann's were desperate to found people who can bring some support to their abduction theory. A neighbour was perfect.

  28. Anon 5:39

    Q: Who do you think was with the kids then, if they never were let alone? Somebody out of the Tapas 9 or another person?

    A: I’ll give my opinion on this as soon as possible. At this point, blurting it out would just spoil the surprise.

    Q: And what could have caused Madeleine's death then?

    A: My opinion on that remains untouched, and that is that David Payne lost his temper on May 3rd, around 18:30, and killed, not intentionally, MBM.

    Q: Why, when they so thoroughly plant "evidences/witnesses" afterwards as you think, were they sooo sloppy when preparing the alleged "crime scene"? Why did they not smack the shutters in, left foot prints in the flower bed or something?

    A: That is the “proof”, at least for me, that Maddie did not die before May 3rd. Things would have been much better rehearsed, attention paid to detail. They were sloppy because an uncontrolled Kate sounded the alarm too soon.

    And the sloppiness is way too “natural” to be able to be in any way planned to happen in the way it did, and if you notice, they only are that sloppy after Kate sounds the alarm.

    In my opinion, the abduction was supposed to be discovered around about 23:30/23:45, when the “negligent” group would return, certainly drunk, to their apartments and be… “surprised”

    Q: Also something weird: it was reported, that one shutter got repaired on Tuesday... Gerry broke it. I wonder why? Did he practise on that thing?

    A: I know the couple’s shutter was fixed… didn’t know that Gerry had broke it. Those things are very fragile in the functionality. No, they’re not easy to open or jemmie… just if you’re not careful, they need to be fixed again. They weren’t in a 5 star hotel, were they?

  29. We know the shutters were fixed during Mccann's stay in the flat. But Kate in an interview ( to Sandra Felgueiras, I think but not sure) said that the shutters were never open before May 3. We know that her finger print was found by the investigation on the window. We know how odd were the cortines on the first PJ pictures. Wonder why she lies on the interview. Maybe because the dogs find evidences of a corpse in the bed flowers and she wants to divert attentions from places near the window/garden having another way then the one leading direct to Maddie room. The interview was recent and the Media spread the picture of MR. Rebelo trying to pass a child trough the window, like what Mccann's described to the police. Mr. Moita Flores, an expert in criminal investigation, said that was impossible for anybody to pass trough that window carrying a child. The windows open sliding to the side and this leave around 60 cm of free space to pass. The window was 91 cm high from the floor. An adult will pass it, alone with alot of exercise. If we add a child, then the child had to be passed first and left on the ground outside to let the adult pass. without leaving the child on the ground, we need two abductors, one in and one out. All the scenarys will leave forensic evidences from the 3 characters on the ground, on the windows, on the shutters and on the places around. The flowers near the window will be broken. The floor will have footprints. The bed behind the window was almost untouched. No signs of Madeleine or of any abductor on the bed. The dogs find evidences of a corpse on the balcony that belongs to Mccann's room and in the bed flowers under that balcony. Evidences were found also in a cupboard belonging to the same room ( Amaral book, pg 164-165). That evidences gave clues to establish the way followed by who remove the body from the flat. And the real way was far away from the window. Then the window was very convennient to be reported to the police immediately after the crime. Will entertain the police there leaving the real way out of police checks(remember that somebody pass to the Mccann's the idea of an incompetent and poor skills police). Later, in the interviews, some information regarding the window need to be dismissed because forensic evidences from Kate were found there, proving that they changed the crime scene. A group of doctors were obliged to know that a crime scene must be preserved when a crime happen. They immediately recognise that was an abduction but they fail to preserve the crime scene. Too strange, too odd for a pair that believe their child was at the hands of a Paedo.

  30. I am not 100% sure, but I think that the shutter that was repaired was not the one in the childrens room, but the one in the parents room. I think the repair report, that is, the Ocean Club's register of a repair request made by the McCanns, are in the files, but I don't know if it specificaly mentions which shutter needed repair, or just repair of "a" shutter in 5A.

  31. The broken shutter:

    It's not easy to "break" that kind of shutters, I mean,(goodness, that sounds like Kate!) that kind of shutter itself is very sturdy, not easy to smash it or punch a hole through it. The weak spot in that kind of shutters is the strap that is used to pull them up and down. With the course of time and constant use the strap becomes thinner and tares quite easily and the shutter collapses all the way down. Other problem that might happen, is when the shutter does not close down completely, it goes down to a certain point and then gets stuck. That usually means that there is some debris(bits of brick or concrete) jamming the rolling mechanism inside the "box" of the shutter, above the top of the window, or...when someone "plays" with the shutter and forces it upwards, pushing from the bottom up, getting it to go all twisted and making the horizontal bars come out of the side tracks, you know, much like a derailed train.
    Is that how Gerry managed to break the window...?

  32. Q: And what could have caused Madeleine's death then?

    A: My opinion on that remains untouched, and that is that David Payne lost his temper on May 3rd, around 18:30, and killed, not intentionally, MBM.

    Spot on 100%!!

  33. Anon at 12.32

    Is it because MBM saw something, or MBM wouldn't oblige?


  34. Anon Nov 22, 2010 8:02:00 PM

    I'd not dismiss the clone "theory" so lightly. The sheep "Dolly" was cloned in Scotland, UK at the Roslin Institute. It was born ages ago, in 1996 and it died in 2003, when Madeleine was born. Do you think, scientists in UK/Scotland simply stopped their experiments with cloning? I don't one bit. Bearing in mind, that the McCanns - themselves being Doctors - seem to have VIP connections to ppl in the highest positions within Scotland/the UK and its government and EVERYTHING was done, not only to tamper with the alleged crime scene, but also to mess up any and every DNA sample of Madeleine. Read it up on the 3Arguido-Forum. I think, its HiDeho, who makes that one.
    He himself suggests that. Also, Madeleines coloboma is a sign of cloning according to him. KMcCann said, that she dressed one of the twins with Madeleines pyjamas shortly after her disappearing - she did wash the cuddle cat, too. That was for a purpose, not because Ms McCann is a "horrible" or "mentally disturbed" mother. Everybody can tell you, no mother would ever do that after her child went missing, because they wanna keep the smell of their loved kid forever. No DNA sample of Madeleine was found in the whole appartment. They destroyed them all! Why not giving the medical records to the PJ?
    Why the incredible statement of the Birmingham Laboratory, that the DNA found COULD contain the DNA of their 18 scientists, too?
    How does the DNA of 18 scientists come into some DNA-samples found in Portugal, if not deliberately?
    I believe the McCanns (maybe some of the T7 too) are part of a secret science project that runs in Scotland/UK. The McCanns are prob. even members of the Secret Service, thus, all their info got straightened out so that the PJ never got real information about them. Thus, they got all this huge media and politician support. But their scam - which might not even been thought out by the McCanns, but simply instructions they followed - will not work forever. By now, "some vulgar abductor" had contacted them already or long time ago, because there was a reward of more than 1 mio. Asking ppl to donate to get a high reward together made sense. But because no "abductor" tried to get the money, ppl know now, something must be very wrong with the "abduction".

    One more thing: it was said, the brother of Gerry dropped his job. Well, his job was being a Financial Director in the hospital of their other brother.
    Should the Madeleine fund collapse, I am sure, he will get back his old job immediately.
    I am sure, the McCanns did not do all this for money, as some claim. In fact, I was wondering myself, why Gerry would travel shortly after to Washington, DC.
    Somebody wrote somewhere, he HAD to. USA = mother country of freemasonry. I guess, he had to.
    I assume even, that Madeleine could have been stolen by foreign intelligence. Even her body.
    And the McCanns knew, who that could be. Thus, Kate said: "THEY have taken her."
    But this could also be a reference to themselves, sedating the kids. She said that, because she knew, Madeleine could NOT have walked away on her own.

  35. Anon,7:43,
    If Madeleine was a clone, who and where is the original?
    That theory is very interesting to entertain and divert the public attention from a normal and ordinary crime with an extraordinary end. I really don't recognise any intelligence on Kate or Gerry to be involved in sccientific experiments. But on the other hands they show the world how stupid they are and only stupid people will accept to have a clone as a daughter. Clones are developed with the cells with same age as the original-old. This is why they get ill easily and died young( aparently, because in fact they are old). The Mccann's, as doctors, should know that scientific fact.
    Mitchell and Isabel Duarte will be delighted reading that theory. After all, the crime was the fault of somebody else, not the Mccann's. This is exactly the message that the Mccann's want to pass with their own theory, the abduction. If instead of an abduction, there is a clone, good. Thet welcome it. But the well connected Mccann's will use the clone Madeleine to show the world how beautiful was their clone. Will travel around giving VIP interviews and cashing in with little girl, far away from a cheap holidays in PDL.

  36. Textusa:

    Q: And what could have caused Madeleine's death then?

    A: My opinion on that remains untouched, and that is that David Payne lost his temper on May 3rd, around 18:30, and killed, not intentionally, MBM.
    That does surprise me, that you think that. I thought, they just made that 18:30 DP "checking on Kate" up, in order to "prove" that Madeleine still was alive at that time/that day.
    DP utterly stutters and talks simply BS about his "visit" there.
    I must say, obviously, the police doubts where he was exactly between 18.00 and 19.00 that day, too and his wife, Fiona, cannot assure either, that he was playing tennis from 18:30 to 19:15 indeed.

    Q: Why, when they so thoroughly plant "evidences/witnesses" afterwards as you think, were they sooo sloppy when preparing the alleged "crime scene"? Why did they not smack the shutters in, left foot prints in the flower bed or something?

    A: That is the “proof”, at least for me, that Maddie did not die before May 3rd. Things would have been much better rehearsed, attention paid to detail. They were sloppy because an uncontrolled Kate sounded the alarm too soon.
    In fact, something must have set them under "time pressure", therefore, they made this horrible mistakes. But WHY was Kate "uncontrolled" or raised the alarm earlier than expected?
    In my opinion, the abduction was supposed to be discovered around about 23:30/23:45, when the “negligent” group would return, certainly drunk, to their apartments and be… “surprised”
    hmmm... yeah, could be. But: look at what the males of the T-Crew did that afternoon. ROB and Matt sailing and all. DP sailing and all. All the women with the kids on the beach. Only Fiona saying, she met Kate/Madeleine and went with her back to the apartments from the creche. Tons of opportunities to get rid off a body, if you ask me.
    Kate phoning a pathologist very early that morning. The corpse of Madeleine must have been for 2hrs behind the sofa at least. If that "incident" happened only at 18:30, why did they let her lay there for 2 hrs further, before putting her into that closet?

  37. Anon. wrote:

    ..."it was said, the brother of Gerry dropped his job. Well, his job was being a Financial Director in the hospital of their other brother."

    What?! Do you mean John McCann? I've always read that he worked for a pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, and that he took an unpaid leave to work in the fund! Where did that "family hospital" come from?!

  38. The shutters only can be openned from inside the flat. The courtines were pushed to the middle of the window ( Amaral book + GNR pictures). One of the side strips that hold the courtines on the side when they are open, was on the floor.

    The crime scene immediately dismissed the Mccann's abduction. Imagine the abductor wasting time with courtines and taking the risk to leave evidences everywhere. No any abductor will gave attention to that details.
    For me Madeleine died later on the afternoon of May 3 and they had not ennough time to plan everything with 100% of success. The crime scene was manipulated incriminating people close to the little girl. This is another point that Mccann's lawyers pay attention to advise them for not reopenning the case. In fact PJ don't need new evidences, just need to comb apropriately the evidences already available in the investigation. Maybe bringing experts from different countries such USA, German, France, Italy and Brazil. People used to deal with serious and mysterious crimes and out of the ring corruption of the Mccann's, their Fund and the British authorities. Uk should be out. Will be expensive, but nothing compared with what portugal is loosing by leaving that charade going on.
    Advertise the Petition in the Media. Let it cross the world to have more signatures. The portuguese will support the reopenning of the investigation with their taxes, without complaint. The country was tired of Mccann's lies, of Mccann's circus, of oportunist lawyers. Now maybe Isabel Duarte can also write a book about " What can be, BEING A LAWYER OF TWO CRIMINALS THAT PERVERTED THE INVESTIGATION OF THEIR ABDUCTED CHILD".

  39. Anon. wrote:

    Must have read that on the 3ArguidosForum, because he has put up all the detailed information.
    I am sorry, should that info be wrong. But takin an unpaid leave from a company is similar... my point was only, that I do not believe that that man will lose his income, once the Madeleine funds collapses - as some ppl believe.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.