Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

"‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

This has been one of the most mysterious KM comments for me at all time.
And every time I read it, I'm reminded of the novel by Dreyfus ...

Poe wrote:

Kate McCann in madeleine wrote:Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.

This is starting to resemble one of those old Ealing comedies where an entire village conspires to cover up a crime  

Simple question: why would Mrs Fenn lie to the police to protect the son of a fellow ex-pat? If he is innocent, the real evidence should exonerate him but, if he's guilty, why take the risk?

The thing is Mrs Fenn heard the crying on Tuesday night allegedly. Robert Murat was not in the frame at that time as M hadn`t disappeared yet so how do we arrive at her lying to protect him? What we need to know is what she said to the police immediately after the event, if indeed she said anything. One has to assume they would question everyone in the vicinity and there is no mention in her August statement of not having reported it before then.

candyfloss wrote:

Poe wrote:

Kate McCann in madeleine wrote:Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.

This is starting to resemble one of those old Ealing comedies where an entire village conspires to cover up a crime  

Simple question: why would Mrs Fenn lie to the police to protect the son of a fellow ex-pat? If he is innocent, the real evidence should exonerate him but, if he's guilty, why take the risk?

Yep everyone is lying

Who? is telling the truth though.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Poe wrote:

Kate McCann in madeleine wrote:Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.

This is starting to resemble one of those old Ealing comedies where an entire village conspires to cover up a crime  

Simple question: why would Mrs Fenn lie to the police to protect the son of a fellow ex-pat? If he is innocent, the real evidence should exonerate him but, if he's guilty, why take the risk?

The thing is Mrs Fenn heard the crying on Tuesday night allegedly. Robert Murat was not in the frame at that time as M hadn`t disappeared yet so how do we arrive at her lying to protect him? What we need to know is what she said to the police immediately after the event, if indeed she said anything. One has to assume they would question everyone in the vicinity and there is no mention in her August statement of not having reported it before then.

Her statement wasn't made until August plenty of time to work to a script,the Tapas lot seem to work to one why not another one.

Question,was the crying incident mentioned before the August statement?

candyfloss wrote:
Yep everyone is lying

There seems an awful long list though,this taken from elsewhere and worth a quote.

Also if the crying incident that Ms. Fenn witnessed to hearing was untruthful because she knew the Murat's as i have seen theorised about, it seems like an awful lot of people lied because of the McCann's. From creche workers, tapas 7, other witnesses, MW and whoever else lied for them or because of them, why would anyone do that when a little almost 4 yr. old girl was missing? What on earth was going on in PDL to warrant such lying & deception by supposedly so many people?

caricature wrote:Question,was  the crying incident mentioned before the August statement?

Does anyone have a link to the supposed outburst in the hairdressers? Did Mrs F or Edna blab? I just don`t get why it impacts on Murat as the parents have never claimed anyone went near M on the Tuesday night. So let`s suppose Mrs F is lying. How does this help Murat? It`s not as if she is providing an alibi.
Sorry if I am being thick here but if she has lied that means there was no crying child that night. Or it was another night or it wasn`t for 75 mins or it wasn't coming from 5a or ...and so on.
Murat was asked to account for his movements from when he arrived in PDL but the focus was on her being alive that Tuesday night and the parents have never said otherwise.

I don't know what to believe.

I have just re-read CT's rog and the interviewing officer really pushes her on the whizkid young Reading officer that visited her at work. It comes across as not believing her or hinting it was someone else. All very suspect.

Of course I really like to believe that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth in her statement, but we don't know if any external pressures were put on her. It wouldn't take much to scare off a old lady. Also no love lost between her and Kate going by that quote from the book.

The only thing I have 100% faith in is the dogs.

KM statement 4/05/2007.

Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.

Some one coordinated the stories,IMO.

Mrs Fenn says Tuesday night but KM says the Wednesday night? How does that work?
Maybe both nights? KM still left all 3 whether it was Tuesday night or Wednesday night

To fit in with the 'Where were you when Sean and I were crying last night?' statement Kate makes attributing to Madeleine demonstrating she was alive on the Wednesday night?

Is Mrs Fenn's statement being twisted to back up this story?

If so, the fact that Mrs Fenn claims the crying took place on the Tuesday demonstrates she's telling the truth and not singing to a McCann hymn sheet, surely?

Let's look at it this way. The McCanns have always claimed that they had child-watching arrangements in place and that they checked their children regularly every night that they were away from their rooms.

Mrs. Fenn states that on one of these nights - it doesn't matter which night - she heard a child downstairs crying for more than an hour.

This, in itself, challenges the McCanns' statements that they were regularly checking on their children.
This, in itself, proves that the McCanns are lying about their child checking arrangements.
It doesn't matter what night Mrs. Fenn heard the crying. The McCanns are lying. And so are their friends, since their friends were apparently exercising the same child-checking arrangements - and they never said they heard Madeleine or any other child crying at all on any of the nights.

I believe this is one of the reasons why there's a push to discredit Mrs. Fenn.

Agree Dee Coy, if Mrs Fenn was told to say anything, then surely it would match with what KM had said, and not get mixed up with the days or even the length of time for the crying. As chirps points out, 15/30 mins would be long enough to prove they left them, prove they really did check and prove Maddie was there?
IMO
Spot on canada12 too.

Châtelaine wrote:
"‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

This has been one of the most mysterious KM comments for me at all time.
And every time I read it, I'm reminded of the novel by Dreyfus ...

KM didn`t like Mrs. Fenn from the instant she heard her plummy accent which tells us a lot about KM - and to blatantly own up to her prejudice in a book as well - amazing.  What`s wrong with `Oh I see` FGS - what was she supposed to say?

P.S. And at the moment in time, Mrs. Fenn had not made a statement to the police or apparently complained, so why did KM instantly take against her.

Mimi wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:
"‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

This has been one of the most mysterious KM comments for me at all time.
And every time I read it, I'm reminded of the novel by Dreyfus ...

KM didn`t like Mrs. Fenn from the instant she heard her plummy accent which tells us a lot about KM - and to blatantly own up to her prejudice in a book as well - amazing.  What`s wrong with `Oh I see` FGS - what was she supposed to say?

P.S. And at the moment in time, Mrs. Fenn had not made a statement to the police or apparently complained, so why did KM instantly take against her.

Compare what Kate says in her book and Mrs Fenn:

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 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. She found it strange that Gerry when 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 22.30.

Different time, talked to Gerry and no mention of Fiona.

I wonder if there was "previous" between Kate and Mrs Fenn?

I'm no conspiracy theorist but Mrs Fenn died early April 2011? And the Books original release date was going to be 28th April 2011. Would what Kate stated in her book be considered libel?

If so, very "lucky".

Perhaps as these were holiday homes she had only been there since March ish.......hence three months,but had apartment longer....only surmising.

It was her full time home so I understood.

I suspect KM and GM were initially concerned that Mrs Fenn had seen more than they would have liked her to that week and wanted to discredit her as soon as possible. Being rude to her kept her away from the initial investigation.
Let's face it, if Madeleine has really been abducted the parents would have been up there instantly grilling her on what she had seen or heard.
She was English and a potential witness.

caricature wrote:KM statement 4/05/2007.

Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered, the interviewee says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom. She thought her daughter's comment strange because it was the first time she had talked about it.

Some one coordinated the stories,IMO.

Km states the crying incident happened on the Wednesday night,it matters not what night,KM made this statement on the 4th May,Mrs Fenn did not make her statement until August,so why the wait,KM didn't make that up to fit around Mrs Fenn unless it was reported to KM that is what happened,but by whom.As usual with this nothing tally's.

I don't believe that it took till August Caricature because CTF said this.........


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. .....

So a few days later eh!

dogs don't lie wrote:Mrs Fenn says Tuesday night but KM says the Wednesday night? How does that work?
Maybe both nights? KM still left all 3 whether it was Tuesday night or Wednesday night

Re the Wednesday early evening, the Tanner girl had a meltdown according to her mother, began in play area and carried on through bath-time.

@Bampots,thats not referring to the crying though is it?

caricature wrote:@Bampots,thats not referring to the crying though is it?

If they took a statement from CT on 8May 2007 from someone who was only visiting the OC, I think it is reasonable to assume the immediate neighbours will have been asked what they saw. Mrs F lives there permanently and is right above.

As far as I can see,three people mention the crying,KM,GM both in their statements on 4/05/2007 and a whole three months later Mrs Fenn.

chirpyinsect wrote:

caricature wrote:@Bampots,thats not referring to the crying though is it?

If they took a statement from CT on 8May 2007 from someone who was only visiting the OC, I think it is reasonable to assume the immediate neighbours will have been asked what they saw. Mrs F lives there permanently and is right above.

The 8th of May statement was made to the Windsor police.Which is no where to be seen,along with a e-fit of some one she alleges she saw leaving by the gate below.