Love Letters Are ALWAYS So Sentimental

This is what a little bird had on it's beak, this morning on my windowsill:

"I see you responded to Alexandra with your customary rudeness, Textusa.

Well, why change the habits of a lifetime? It's a subject of much debate out in the non-insane anti world at the moment - just what is your motivation?

The majority opinion seems to be that you are a mad, deluded and very sad individual, completely obsessed with your own version of events and with a desperate need to be taken seriously.

Those are the charitable ones, tbh.

A significant number believe that far from the rabid anti you claim to be, you are in fact completely pro-McCann, as there is no other explanation for why you seem so determined to harm the cause of those who don't believe the McCanns.

I think you gave yourself away when you decided to turn your venomous attention to Mrs Fenn.

Your suggestion that she made up the story of a crying child and lied to the police is so bloody preposterous that anyone reading it can only assume that the final shreds of whatever remained of your fragile sanity finally gave way.

Even more scary, is the response of the feeble minded beings who lap up your drivel with the devotion usually reserved for the brain-dead fans of a teenage boyband.

We are pretty sure you write most of the shit yourself, as there can't be that many criminally stupid and utterly credulous people alive in the world at the same time. It's just not possible.

You, Textusa, have done more to prop up the McCanns than anyone else. I can actually see why people feel sorry for them when they read the barking mad nonsense you come out with.

If you want to do something positive in terms of finding out what happened to Madeleine then the one contribution you could make would be to pour a pint of water into your computer, and put yourself out of action.

Your column is the Jonestown Massacre of the internet. A crazy, paranoid and vindictive self-styled leader, and a raggle-taggle group of feeble-minded followers, too thick to form opinions of their own, and too scared of you to risk saying ''Actually, I think you're wrong''

You won't print this, will you, Textusa?

Too scared of the truth.

No matter................... Off you go, crazy woman. Back to your pornographic fantasies.

There must be a few more people you haven't accused of lying yet, who you could have a go at; the more the merrier.

Incidentally, were you aware that people who act as you do, and use the internet to lie about people can have their access to the internet removed?

Your ISP can be sued too, you see?

Generally they don't like that. Much easier to get rid of you....... I'll be copying and pasting this elsewhere, so people can see the post you didn't have the balls to publish. You take care now."

Love you too.

Today I feel so eco-friendly, that I'll call myself "Green Soul"... all flowerly, all peace, all love...

Operation Ore’s Appeal

So I hear that Judges rejected Operation Ore’s appeal. Sad news, but not unexpected ones, for the implications of a different decision would be immense, both in National embarrassment and possible libel damages. But I’ll pretend that I trust the “The Establishment’s Judicial System”, and say that I find this decision fair and just. This means that the Operation Ore was executed in Britain in a flawless manner, thus prosecuting ONLY those that deserved prosecution. I got the following from Wikipedia, by searching for Operation Avalanche and Operation Ore: Operation Avalanche was a major US investigation of child pornography on the Internet launched in 1999 after the arrest and conviction of Thomas and Janice Reedy, who operated an Internet pornography business called Landslide Productions in Fort Worth, Texas It was made public in early August 2001 at the end of Operation Avalanche, that one hundred arrests were made out of 144 suspects. It was followed in the United Kingdom by Operation Ore, in Canada by Operation Snowball and other operations worldwide. The FBI also passed identities from the Landslide database to the police organizations of other countries, including 7,272 names to the UK. Operation Ore was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. In the United Kingdom, it led to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations and an estimated 39 suicides. Operation Ore succeeded the similar crackdown in the United States, called Operation Avalanche, though in the US only 100 people were charged from the 35,000 US access records available. Now let’s look at the numbers, extracted from the above information: Per capita, the number of people who were identified as accessing a website reportedly featuring child pornography, is similar for both the UK and US: 0,011%. However it seems that the UK, although it has less 250.000.000 people, it has 50 times more suspects than the US, 37 times more arrests and 18 times more charges. What can we extract from all this? Either the US Police (FBI) is incompetent or the UK has a VERY SERIOUS sociological problem. Apparently something is driving its citizens into seeking child-porn more than any other country of the civilized world. The figures say that, proportionally, it’s a scandal. Someone should alert the authorities of this evil disease that’s eating away the heart of the Nation.

Update: Of course there could be a third option, besides those of FBI's incompetence and UK's sociological plague, and that would be that the UK numbers are completely wrong and exaggerated, meaning that Operation Ore wasn’t that flawless after all. But that would mean that we would have to doubt some decisions from the British Judicial System, wouldn’t we?

In an Emergency call 112, when in a HOAX call 211

I was going to post a rather long post about this, as I think this is the PIVOTAL detail in all this drama.

A detail that I picked up early on, that, in my opinion, PROVES that there were NO DINNERS at Tapas.

If there were no dinners at Tapas, then, you know, there was either absurd negligence (going downtown, or wherever, and leave the kids unattended) or no negligence (going downtown, or wherever, and leave the kids with company).

The first, as said is absurd.

The second nullifies abduction, and implies much, much more…

Let’s start with the Tapas table, as per Kate McCann:

 
Now let’s look again at a Paraiso Bar photo again:
 
Well, as any woman who has ever received a crowd at home knows, you just don’t seat 9 people for dinner around just ANY table:
 That means the dimensions of the table in question would have then to be, AT LEAST, the following:
 
Let’s not forget the bottles of wine, the baby monitor, and, very important, the extra space there HAD to be to allow the seating, for 20 minutes, of guest Ms Najoua, who joined the gang by direct invitation of Gerry McCann.

She noticed an empty seat, but didn't sit in it...

Let’s look at what we know, or we were told, to be Tapas table #211:
 
Do you see any 1,50 – 2,00 metre (4' 11'' – 6' 07'') table?

Or even larger?

I don’t.

Here, size really matters, doesn't it?

Sure, I know you can provide one tomorrow. Or even today. But that will be today, won’t it?

You haven’t provided one up to now.

So don't do it, it's too late.

Look at the size of the thing that Gerry thinks it is when he describes it:
 

Please DO NOT attempt to counter-argument that they joined up tables.

On the reservations, it’s clearly mentioned “211” and not “211+212” or something of the sort.

And on the May 3rd reservation, the singular “mesma mesa” (same table) expression is used, and not the plural “mesas”:
   
There was no Tapas table.  

There were no Tapas dinners.  

That means, not only are the McCanns lying, but also the Ocean Club staff are DELIBERATELY doing it too.

That alone, my friends, changes all the rules of this “game”.

That’s why I wanted you to LOOK at the Paraíso photos.

This information was looking at you.

About the importance of the other thing that was Matt and Russ being fresh and dry little after having had a near life and death experience out in the sea, it was because of Carol Tranmer-Fenn's (CTF) rogatory statement

You see, in her only seeable statement, she's persistently “pushed” by the Leicester Police into saying she saw a man with glasses exiting McCanns apartment.

When we first read it, we thought it was just a blunder with the photo fits.

But now, knowing that CTF’s initial statement was withheld, and realizing that she was asked to confirm TWICE WRONG photo fits, we see that there was no mistake, only an attempted misleading of a witness.

We have to see then to try and see what could she have said that was relevant NOT to be known in Portugal.

From what I read, in the AFTERNOON of May 3rd, she saw a BLONDE, glassless, MAN EXITING STEALTHELY, what seems to be the Oldfield’s apartment, and that the man notices being seen.

By the way, not in the MORNING, and not looking at the McCann apartment as said by our friend Mrs Fenn.

Know any blonde man? I know one, but he has an iron-clad alibi. He was saving an experienced sailor from drowning:

By the way, as one of my wonderful helpers noticed, do any of the Tapas men look equipped for a PLANNED tennis game?

As far as I remember the only one that went to change was David, who, coincidentally, passed by the McCanns apartment when he was headed for his to do exactly that.

Now, can I please go back to my family and friends?

Update: 

As per comment from an Anonymous, Jane Tanner’s rogatory statement:  

31.05 4078 “Was it a table specifically for a large group or had they sort of mackled together a group of tables?”  

Reply “Erm, I think they’d put some together, but it was round, it was just one big round, a big round one. I can’t remember to be honest. But, I mean, I think the first time we’d gone there we’d had the thing we’d had with the Millennium the first night, you know, we was all trying to put tables together, so now they knew we were coming we had a, we had the, erm, you know, the big table there waiting”.

   

Obviously, every evening, they sawed off parts of 8 tables, and “put them together” for “one big round, a big round one” just so that the Tapas could talk to each other comfortably. 

After all, joining up 4 square tables, would be unnecessarily complicated. 

And I've seen people do stranger things for these people... 

By the way, I said that there were NO Tapas dinners, didn’t I? 

Sorry, have to apologise, there was ONE Tapas dinner, that of May 3rd, but only 6 of the Tapas went to that one, so does it really count?

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!

Update:

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.

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.

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.

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.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Mmm
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'
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Yes.
DC1485: This statement is yours
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: Yes.
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.
CAROL TRANMER-FENN: 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:

VOL I
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.

Vol III
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.

Untouchables?

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.

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.