Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

What happened to your post Tigger re Tony Bennett and Mrs Fenn?

Here is the post ..............

Tony Bennett Today at 1:19 pm

I see that this ancient thread has been revived.

Its title is: 'Crying incident, was it taken seriously?'

But did any 'crying incident' actually happen?

We only have Mrs Fenn's evidence for it.

I know I shall be 'panned' once again for raising this, but how do we know for certain that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth?

Mrs Fenn was reportedly a close friend of Robert Murat's mother, Mrs Jennifer Murat.

There are a number of question marks about the evidence of her neice, Carol Tranmer, the one who says she saw a suspicious-looking bloke from Mrs Fenn's balcony.


The wise words of DCI Redwood are surely relevant here: "We were taking nothing for granted..."

Admin wrote:What happened to your post Tigger re Tony Bennett and Mrs Fenn?

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate.

Tigger wrote:

Admin wrote:What happened to your post Tigger re Tony Bennett and Mrs Fenn?

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate.

It was ok, it was only a copy of his post over there wasn't it.

candyfloss wrote:

Tigger wrote:

Admin wrote:What happened to your post Tigger re Tony Bennett and Mrs Fenn?

I wasn't sure if it was appropriate.

It was ok, it was only a copy of his post over there wasn't it.  

Tigger, if it`s his post about not believing Mrs. Fenn, I believe it`s highly appropriate.

PS. A poster has already queried it.

I also believe it to be highly relevant. I think his volte-face over several aspects of this case are very interesting. And worrying.

Another reliable and credible witness that he wants everyone to believe is telling a big fat porkie.. 

Ridiculous. 

RIP Mrs Fenn. Along with Madeleine and Brenda of course.

Andrew wrote:Another reliable and credible witness that he wants everyone to believe is telling a big fat porkie.. 

Ridiculous. 

RIP Mrs Fenn. Along with Madeleine and Brenda of course.

Yes, poor Mrs Fenn who can't answer her accusers. Why would she lie. More to the point why is TB suddenly saying this after 8 years, I can't remember him calling her character into doubt before. All these people would lie to protect Robert Murat, when a child's life was at stake?

Can someone bring the post over..........Tigger or anyone? I will then put it at the start of thread.

  Tony Bennett Today at 1:19 pm
I see that this ancient thread has been revived.

Its title is: 'Crying incident, was it taken seriously?'

But did any 'crying incident' actually happen?

We only have Mrs Fenn's evidence for it.

I know I shall be 'panned' once again for raising this, but how do we know for certain that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth? 

Mrs Fenn was reportedly a close friend of Robert Murat's mother, Mrs Jennifer Murat.

There are a number of question marks about the evidence of her neice, Carol Tranmer, the one who says she saw a suspicious-looking bloke from Mrs Fenn's balcony.


The wise words of DCI Redwood are surely relevant here: "We were taking nothing for granted..."

Andrew wrote:  Tony Bennett Today at 1:19 pm
I see that this ancient thread has been revived.

Its title is: 'Crying incident, was it taken seriously?'

But did any 'crying incident' actually happen?

We only have Mrs Fenn's evidence for it.

I know I shall be 'panned' once again for raising this, but how do we know for certain that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth? 

Mrs Fenn was reportedly a close friend of Robert Murat's mother, Mrs Jennifer Murat.

There are a number of question marks about the evidence of her neice, Carol Tranmer, the one who says she saw a suspicious-looking bloke from Mrs Fenn's balcony.


The wise words of DCI Redwood are surely relevant here: "We were taking nothing for granted..."

Thanks Andrew, I have also included it in the first post.

Here is Mrs Fenn's statement,


Witness statement of Pamela Fenn PJ Files

Processo IX, pages 2412 to 2414

Date: 2007/08/20
Time: 15H30

Comes before the Court as a witness.

Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, LIEVE VAN LOOCK.

Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says that she has lived in the apartment since 2003, which is located on the upper floor, immediately above the room from which the child disappeared.

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.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted "Daddy, Daddy", the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

That night she contacted a friend called XXXX XXXX, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23H00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying.

She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.

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 McCANN apartment, a situation which has been told to the police, her cousin even made a photo fit.

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22H30 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. She then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, she 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. She found it strange that when GERRY said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered GERRY help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22H30.

She said that after the mothers shouts, she had seen many people in the streets looking for the girl. She also refers to an episode when GERRY was speaking to a policeman, she doesn't know what kind of police force, saying that more police officers were needed to carry out the search.

When asked, she replied that on 3rd May she did not hear any noise from the McCANN apartment, not even the opening of doors. She also said that before hearing the shouts she was watching television, as she often stays up late.

When questioned, she said that she never heard any arguments between the couple or with their children. She said that the family would spend much time outside of the apartment and therefore she did not notice their presence.

She said that until that night she had never spoken to the McCANN's, because up until the 3rd May, she only sometimes saw them walking in the street. She never saw them with any vehicle.

She also said that she never told the McCANN's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.

When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence.

Having read and approved the statement, she signs, together with the interpreter.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id331.html#fenn1

You know what...
Mrs Fenn= friend of JM
JM= RMs mother
RM= friend of who? Martin Smith (no!)
What's going on here? Back to discrediting the Smiths?

Yep, it has lead back to the Smiths

Bless her..  WHY would she deliberately make that up..

She wouldn't. She told the truth.

Why does the chap over there have such a big problem with people telling the truth. He certainly doesn't (tell the truth)

The logical thing for the police to do would, of course, be to contact Mrs Fenn's friend, the one she spoke to about the crying, to verify her statement. Assuming the friend is not also deceased, that would at least confirm that Mrs Fenn shared her information with the friend that night, and not after Madeleine was reported missing.

dogs don't lie wrote:You know what...
Mrs Fenn= friend of JM
JM= RMs mother
RM= friend of who? Martin Smith (no!)
What's going on here? Back to discrediting the Smiths?

The Mc's have always been bothered about Mrs Fenn's statement hence the horse shit that came out afterwards about 'the crying incident'. Downplayed and moved on a day.

Smiths been a big thorn in their backsides as well for 8 years. 

TB wants everyone to believe their both lying.

Work that one out.

It's a new game, you have to construct a conspiracy to cover up something that hasn't happened yet, such as Murat being made arguido.

The rules are: you have to include Mrs. Fenn, her friend on the phone, Jenny Murat, Murat, Mrs. Fenn's daughter, strange men in the stairwell and of course all 9 of the Smith Family.

if at all possible, include a blue sports bag, that gives you 2 extra points.

Doors may be open or closed, curtains may whoosh, fleeces may be worn.

It really is unbelievable isn't it?

Another comment from Mr B.

'note it has to interwine the Smiths, Fenn's, Murats. All liars of course' 


First of all, I am making a general plea for everyone to not take every statement as gospel, but to probe and test whether it be true or not. As I have done with the Smith family statements.

Let me be as specific as I can about my reasons for doubting Mrs Fenn's statement.

1. Your claim that Mrs Fenn spoke to Mrs Glyn is based on you accepting as gospel what Mrs Fenn says in her statement. However, a GNR officer made a statement that Robert Murat had told him that he [Murat] had taken the call from Mrs Fenn. Given that we know, as I said above, that Mrs Fenn and the Murats were longstanding friends, that raises at the very least a doubt about whether Mrs Fenn was telling the truth about Mrs Glyn  

2. She claimed that she heard 'not a child aged 2 or under, but an older child'. So, she was claiming she could distinguish between the cries of a child who not yet had reached her third birthday and one who had already reached the age of three. I find that extremely doubtfiul and suspicious, do you not agree?

3. If you look at both the statements of Mrs Fenn and Carole Tramner, they conveniently purport to tell us:
a) that Madeleine was alive on 1 May
b) that there was a burglar on the loose in Praia da Luz (she said she had 'chased away' a burglar from her top floor apartment)
c) that there was a suspicious man hanging around the McCanns' apartment (Tranmer statement)
d) that the McCanns were leaving their children unattended for periods.

4. On top of all that, there is the very suspicious behaviour of Murat (his 17 lies about his movements 1-4 May when first questioned, to start with), and of Mrs Murat, with her stall in Praia da Luz asking for information. The Murats were close friends with Mrs Fenn. Murat had known Martin Smith for at least two years and they had met (according to the Smiths) 'several times'.

5. Mrs Fenn later denied to the press that she had heard anything at all.


Do you not think it is at least a possibility that Murat could have influenced both Mrs Fenn's statement and the Smiths'?

Right back to the Smiths

Yes, everything back to the Smiths. As per...

He won't or can't give up on that avenue. That's for sure.

Here's how important some people think CTF sighting is and if you think about it it is the nearest sighting to Madeleine's disappearance and the only sighting apart from Smithman that doesn't contain a scarfaced pock riddled smelly mutant! He's Caucasian and placed at The later SOC, 5a.TB isn't the only one who doesn't like him,TM think the same,that should ring bells with hairs on them. Don't mean to harp on about Textusa but sometimes you just can't stop. She also thinks Kate loves her as well!

http://www.textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/03/proof-that-kate-mccann-reads-textusa.html

It's a bit lengthy,but you can always ignore it TB would!


The Proof That Kate McCann Reads Textusa


As you know, the “Cutting Edge”, best known as the Mockumentary has at 23:25 of its playing time, a segment dedicated to relevant sightings.

These were supposed to be the big NOVELTY from this video and were supposed to be what would decisively help solve the case quickly because it showed a new suspect: The Pimpleman, who had been seen by THREE different and independent witnesses on FIVE separate occasions.

Let us transcribe what is shown in the referred video:

Cutting Edge Witness #1 (1st Sighting April 29th at 08.00 / 2nd Sighting, May 2nd, at 15:00)

Narrator:
"Witness number one is a British Tourist. She first saw something strange four days before Madeleine disappeared."



Witness:
“I was walking along the road with my daughter when I saw a man. I grabbed my daughter’s hand and brought her towards me, because for some reason he unnerved me.”

Narrator:
"She saw the same man again, this time close to the McCann’s apartment on the day before Madeleine went missing"



Witness:
“The next time I saw him he was standing on the opposite side of the road to the apartment, he appeared to be watching it, he was about 5ft 10, slim built and wearing casual clothes, jeans I think, I would describe him as very ugly, pitted skin with a large nose.”

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on page 373, as Witness Four:

“On Sunday, 29 April 2007, between 8 and 9am, this witness noticed a man loitering on Rua do Ramelhete whose appearance unnerved her. Three days later, in mid-afternoon on Wednesday 2 May, the witness saw the same man on Rua Dr Gentil Martins, on the opposite side of the road to apartment 5A, near the car park across from the entrance to the Ocean Club’s pool and Tapas restaurant area. The witness said that the man was standing still and looking over in the direction of apartment 5A.

Description: Male of Portuguese appearance; approximately 5ft 10ins (1.78m) tall; slim build; ‘very ugly – pitted skin with a large nose’.

Clothing: Casual; jeans.

Portrait: Sketch number 2 in the Picture Section.”


Cutting Edge Witness #2 (1st Sighting April 30th 08.15 / 2nd Sighting, May 2nd, at 12:25)

Narrator:
"The second witness is a schoolgirl who lives near the holiday complex. Three days before Madeleine was taken, she was with her mom outside the McCann’s apartment."











Witness:
“I was walking to the school bus stop, I go this way to school every day, as I was walking down the road near the apartments, I saw a man on the small path behind the block, my grandparents used to live in that apartment so I always look at it as I pass by. The man seemed to be looking at the balcony of the ground floor apartment. He was wearing a black jacket leaning against the wall.”

Narrator:
"She saw him again as well, the day before Madeleine was taken."



Witness:
“I didn’t go to school that day because I had an ear infection, I was walking up the road with my two dogs when I saw the man, he was standing on the road opposite the Ocean Club and he was staring at the apartment.”

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on pages 372 and 373, as Witness Three:

“This witness is a young girl whose grandparents used to own apartment 5A. As this flat is familiar and of interest to her, her report is very precise and credible. She saw the same individual watching our apartment closely on two separate days. On Monday, 30 April 2007, at around 8am, she noticed a man standing on the narrow access path running between the apartments and the pool and Tapas restaurant area. He was leaning with his palms against the wall surrounding the garden area of apartment 5A and looking up at the veranda.

On Wednesday, 2 May 2007, the witness saw the same man near the car park opposite the entrance to the pool and Tapas restaurant area on Rua Dr Gentil Martins. He appeared to be just standing there and watching apartment 5A.

Description: Caucasian male; light-skinned; 1.8m (5ft 11ins) tall; slim build; aged 30–35; short cropped hair, thought to be light in colour. He had spots and was ‘ugly, disgusting even’.

Clothing: Thin, black leather jacket; light T-shirt; jeans with belt; trainers; dark, thick-framed sunglasses.

Portrait: Sketch number 1 in the Picture Section.”


Cutting Edge Witness #3 (One Sighting, May 2nd, or May 3rd at 11.30)

Narrator:
"Witness number three is a man with his partner from Cheshire, he gave a statement to the Police, describing a man he’d seen near the apartment."



Witness:
“I don’t remember whether I saw the man Wednesday 2nd or Thursday the 3rd of May, but as we walked along the road I saw a man standing next to the wall by the parking area. On the opposite side of the road was a white van. I paid particular attention to him because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block. As I walked past him I looked at him and for a split second we had eye contact but then he just carried on staring at the apartment”

In Kate’s book, this witness is referred to, on page 375, as Witness Five:

“This witness was walking down Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins with his partner around lunchtime on either Wednesday 2 May or Thursday 3 May 2007. They passed a man who was standing by the wall near the car park opposite the entrance to the Ocean Club’s swimming pool and Tapas restaurant. The witness followed the man’s line of sight and reported that he was ‘staring fixedly’ at an area close to our apartment block, where a white van was parked.

Description: Caucasian male with dark skin; assumed to be Portuguese and not a tourist; aged 25–35; 1.7–1.75m (5ft 7ins–5ft 9ins) tall; medium build; short, thick, dark hair reaching collar-level at the back.

Clothing: Plain light-coloured T-shirt.

Portrait: Sketch number 3 in the Picture Section.”


As you can see, this is all documented both in the mockumentary “The Cutting Edge” and in Kate’s book. In this book, these sightings begin at #3, because, if you’ve read the book, Witness One is Jane Tanner and Witness Two is Smith.

Personally, and talking just about the Kate's book, I would order the sightings by the time they happened, like it's done between Witnesses 3 and 5; but I wasn’t the editor or author, so I'm just a reader limiting myself to noticing it.

This might seem irrelevant at first but as I told you, the way information is presented is almost as important as the information itself. The way in which the witnesses are sequenced makes it seem that it was done by order of importance, and as such, Kate seems to say that for her the most important sighting is Tanner’s, followed by Smith’s and so on.

As you’ll see, this criterion is far from innocent.

In the same video, in “Edgar & Co Control Room", there’s a board where all relevant information has been drawn up.



It’s nicely detailed and shown in a way that we’re not used to seeing, and that is putting Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins horizontally, which normally appears vertically. Right by Edgar’s head is apartment 5A (red circles):



As can be seen, Edgar and his team have identified on the board all the sightings referred by the 3 witnesses shown in the in the Mockumentary:



The Tanner sighting is added, which is natural, and the Smith sighting doesn’t appear, which is totally comprehensible because where it happened, Rua da Escola Primária, doesn’t appear on the board.

Kate, also has a picture with sightings, in her book on page 374, which I’ve replicated below:



The stars, according to Kate’s word on the same page, “indicate the locations of the sightings described in this section”.

On the same page, there’s another drawing above this one, where Tanner and Smith sightings were. This drawing isn’t relevant for this post, so let's concentrate on the one that is.

Let’s put Kate’s drawing above in the same position as the one on Edgar’s board:



The drawing doesn’t have as much information as the one in Edgar’s board but clearly there’s a correlation between them, as there should be, although she ignores the “Cutting Edge’s” Witness One’s first sighting (supposedly for the same reason Edgar omits Smith’s and that’s because the location falls outside the respective map)



Kate omits Witness One, as explained but has the upper hand on Edgar as she shows where Smith’s sighting happened, on the other drawing, the unimportant one, not on this one.

What? One is missing? You don’t say…

You say that there’s one that’s in Kate’s book, but NOT on Edgar’s board? Let’s then compare the two:



You’re absolutely right. There is one that is in Kate’s book, but NOT on Kate’s board. This one:



As can be clearly seen, inset, on Edgar’s board there appears one and ONLY one sighting in the pathway.

So what sighting is this that Kate sees but Edgar doesn’t? It’s Kate’s Witness Six, as per pages 375 and 376:

“On 3 May 2007, this witness was standing on the veranda of a first-floor apartment in the same block as 5A, overlooking the pool and Tapas restaurant area. Some time between 4pm and 5pm, she noticed a man coming out through one of the little gates leading from the terraces of the ground-floor apartments to the access path. His behaviour struck the witness as suspicious: he appeared to be trying to close the gate quietly, using both hands, and very slowly and deliberately checking in both directions before walking to the end of the pathway and on to Rua Dr Gentil Martins. The witness thought this was the first gate along the pathway from the road. If her recollection is correct, it was the gate to apartment 5B, where our friends Matt and Rachael were staying. That afternoon, Rachael, Matt and their daughter were on the beach at Praia da Luz with the rest of our friends. They were away from the Ocean Club complex from before 3pm until 6pm.

Description: Caucasian male; fair-skinned, assumed not to be Portuguese; aged 30–40; medium height; medium–slim build; very fair, cropped hair.

Clothing: Pale T-shirt.

Portrait: Sketch number 4 in the Picture Section.”

You know what sighting this is don’t you? It’s Carole Tranmer-Fenn’s (CTF) sighting.

So why does CTF’s sighting appear in Kate’s book but NOT on Edgar’s board? It seems to be a VERY IMPORTANT sighting.

It’s the nearest independent sighting, both in time and location, to the event in question isn’t it?

We were led to believe that the “Cutting Edge” was made after a very attentive reading of all documentation so it’s impossible for Edgar’s team have missed this one, isn't it?

Kate says that only after August 2008, when they had access to PJ Files, did they get to know about all these sightings. The Mockumentary was made in April 2009. Did the McCann team miss this sighting in all that translation, revision and attentive readings?

This particular sighting is mentioned, as far as we can tell, in the PJ Files, three times by two supposedly independent witnesses.

Firstly, on May 8th, 2007 by CTF, a statement that only the privileged are able to lay their eyes on. It isn’t part of the PJ Files but it’s mentioned in them;

Secondly, the first time it appears in the PJ Files, by Mrs Fenn, at end of August 2007;

And thirdly, exactly also where the May 8th statement is first mentioned, on CTF’s rogatory interview in 2008.

Quite hard to miss, isn’t it?

And yet, the McCanns, Edgar and his team and the script-writers for the “Cutting Edge” all missed it!

Or they might have thought it unimportant… but then why Kate’s change of heart from April 2009 and May 2011?

It’s also symptomatic that Kate lists it as the SIXTH and LAST witness, isn’t it?

Almost as if out of all of them, it’s the one that least matters… like if it’s meant to go unnoticed.

Also, it’s the ONLY sighting in the book where she questions the witness's correction and that she justifies the whereabouts of the apartment residents.

Why didn’t she apply the same criteria to the other sightings and say where they, the McCanns were when each of the other ones happened?

Why was it so important to state the whereabouts of the Oldfields?

But the important question remains: why does CTF’s sighting appear on Kate’s book, in May 2011 and but NOT on Edgar’s board, in April 2009?

I’ll tell you why, because Kate McCann, or whoever helped her write that book pays close attention to Textusa’s blog.

Why?

CTF’s sighting wasn’t mentioned ANYWHERE on the net (except the in the PJ Files where we found it), BEFORE we did on our Thanksgiving post in 2010.

Textusa’s Thanksgiving post, in November 2010, was the only difference about CTF’s sighting between the time the “Cutting Edge” was made, in April 2009 and Kate’s book’s being published in 2011.

We got our information from the PJ Files and nowhere else, because it wasn't anywhere else at the time.

This proves that Kate McCann reads this blog. And that she takes it seriously. So seriously that she felt the need to react to it in her book.

It proves that this blog has forced the other side to make a move, a major move, because now we have the recognition from the McCanns of a sighting of someone exiting the Oldfield’s apartment on the afternoon of May 3rd described as “Caucasian male; fair-skinned, assumed not to be Portuguese; aged 30–40; medium height; medium–slim build; VERY FAIR, cropped hair” and not your usual monstrously looking text-book abductor.

Is Textusa, maybe also “setting the pace” somewhere else? Say, in some HQ of some famous police force of some country out there?

And you thought blogs weren’t that important?

These days, it’s our opinion that they, be it on this case or on any other, they are your only voice.

On this particular subject, the Maddie Affair, we sincerely hope that Textusa will have decisively contributed in helping people realize, which we hope to be soon, that there were no Tapas dinners, no child checking and NO NEGLECT.

All simple and straightforward as we always said it really was, just a collective cover-up of something that unexpectedly went awfully wrong.

Then we'll see how human memory really does work.


Post Scriptum: NOW, we're going on the said break.

Oh and as usual I pad don't do pictures....sorry!

TB states.
1. Your claim that Mrs Fenn spoke to Mrs Glyn is based on you accepting as gospel what Mrs Fenn says in her statement. However, a GNR officer made a statement that Robert Murat had told him that he [Murat] had taken the call from Mrs Fenn. Given that we know, as I said above, that Mrs Fenn and the Murats were longstanding friends, that raises at the very least a doubt about whether Mrs Fenn was telling the truth about Mrs Glyn

I have just had a quick look at the GNR officers` statements and I can see no reference to the bolded part above. Perhaps Myositis would be kind enough to provide a link.
Also is it not possible that if Murat did take a call from Mrs Fenn she could have phoned Mrs Glynn as well? If they were friends it is likely she could have asked for more than one opinion.

This issue has been raised before over on CMoMM as I remember Sharon saying that she was in agreement with Tony on it.

I think it would have been about two years ago.

I would like to see some proof that Mrs Fenn was a close friend of Mrs Murat. Maybe they knew each other to say hello to in the street but that's not the same thing.

I would equally like to see proof that Sharon and Tony aren't working to a script.

Freedom wrote:This issue has been raised before over on CMoMM as I remember Sharon saying that she was in agreement with Tony on it.

I think it would have been about two years ago.

I would like to see some proof that Mrs Fenn was a close friend of Mrs Murat. Maybe they knew each other to say hello to in the street but that's not the same thing.

I remember that too Freedom because I was shocked.