Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

chirpyinsect wrote:Having looked over the road this morning, I see Candyfloss has been quoted on her question regarding the likliehood of them being able to act all week if M died earlier. I notice they gleefully scorn her question whilst inferring that this "closed shop" has only one train of thought.
Failing to quote my response only serves their blinkered reasoning. As can clearly be seen, we do have differing schools of thought here. We discuss it reasonably, without fear of ridicule and banning and we try to be respectful most of the time.
Spot the difference.

ETA I am keen to discuss the timeline of events with those who believe it happened on the night. Let's leave aside our suppositions that it is, or isn't, likely and see if we can work out what they would have had to do in order to make it work on the night. I'm not sure if that has been done already but it would be good to go back to basics.
Which thread would be best?

To start I guess it goes back to the nanny who saw or says she saw Madeleine at high tea on the 3rd.

chirpyinsect wrote:Having looked over the road this morning, I see Candyfloss has been quoted on her question regarding the likliehood of them being able to act all week if M died earlier. I notice they gleefully scorn her question whilst inferring that this "closed shop" has only one train of thought.
Failing to quote my response only serves their blinkered reasoning. As can clearly be seen, we do have differing schools of thought here. We discuss it reasonably, without fear of ridicule and banning and we try to be respectful most of the time.
Spot the difference.

ETA I am keen to discuss the timeline of events with those who believe it happened on the night. Let's leave aside our suppositions that it is, or isn't, likely and see if we can work out what they would have had to do in order to make it work on the night. I'm not sure if that has been done already but it would be good to go back to basics.
Which thread would be best?

Yep, but not one answer to refute is there.... that is because they cannot -  and  I expect TB may be composing yet another post of epic proportions saying everyone is a liar, they are all in on it, with not a scrap of real evidence, just pure supposition.

It's the same as the tourist question, he thinks because several people say it looked like a tourist  they have been 'briefed' - errr no, it is a standard question the PJ would have asked - as in 'did he  look local or more like a tourist'    Doh!

Bluebag contest's its to muddy the waters,are they really so far up their own backsides that they cannot see that they might even be muddying the waters,no one but no one on any forum from the 3a's through to the justice forum have the foggiest notion on what happened,its all speculation,and until it ever reaches a court room thats all it will be forum wise.

I cannot say for sure how the police go about questioning a witness but it makes sense that they would have certain elimination type questions as you state above Candy. I appreciate they also use "open questions" which will give a broad description of an individual, but things like, "Was he short or tall, wearing glasses or not, bearded or cleanshaven, local or tourist, black or white?"
are the standard things that help to guide the process. They don't put words in someone's mouth.

Heisenburg wrote:
Bluebag contest's its to muddy the waters,are they really so far up their own backsides that they cannot see that they might even be muddying the waters,no one but no one on any forum from the 3a's through to the justice forum have the foggiest notion on what happened,its all speculation,and until it ever reaches a court room thats all it will be forum wise.

Spot on Heisenburg, we do not have half the facts, what was or was not said, who was and was not interviewed, and unless we were actual witnesses and were there  some of it unhelpful imo, trying to change opinion, not allowing any other versions, when we are all capable of making up our own minds.

candyfloss wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:
Bluebag contest's its to muddy the waters,are they really so far up their own backsides that they cannot see that they might even be muddying the waters,no one but no one on any forum from the 3a's through to the justice forum have the foggiest notion on what happened,its all speculation,and until it ever reaches a court room thats all it will be forum wise.

Spot on Heisenburg, we do not have half the facts, what was or was not said, who was and was not interviewed, and unless we were actual witnesses and were there , and some of it unhelpful imo, trying to change opinion, not allowing any other versions, when we are all capable of making up our own minds.

I've no wish to join in any spats but the cmomm has a separate heading of "What really happened to Madeleine McCann?
Why not join our forum and help search for the truth?",if through their speculation they hit upon the truth,who's going to call them out,the McCanns,Carter Ruck,OG,the PJ? cloud cuckoo land.

Then BB goes and post something sensible imo unfortunately with an unnecessary caveat.

Heisenburg wrote:Then BB goes and post something sensible imo unfortunately with an unnecessary caveat.

Hmm, keep an eye on her, would that be a living Madeleine or?  Still doesn't explain how they would have explained to the others where she was the rest of the week, if something had happened.  I certainly do not believe for a nano second all those people are lying.

Heisenberg said.

To start I guess it goes back to the nanny who saw or says she saw Madeleine at high tea on the 3rd.

So let's suppose everything up to 17.30 is true. That leaves us with 4.5 hrs until the alarm is raised. If we believe that David Payne is telling the truth, M was alive until at least 18.30. So we are at 3.5 hrs.
If we then think it was an accident whilst they were out and the lies only began after 10pm then we have her alive and in bed until 9.05.
If everyone else told the truth in their statements then there was only approx 40 minutes until the police were called to get stories straight. Remember they would have no idea how long the police would take to get there. Could have been round the corner.
Is this enough time to do everything necessary?
1 Remove the body ------ where would you put it if you didn't know the area?
2 Clean the apartment-------it was so clean there was hardly a trace of dna
3 Get everyone that you need to onboard, making sure the others were kept in the dark. Needs at least Jane and Matt but I think also Fiona and David.
4 Think of an abduction plan ------ Jane is needed for this.
5 Get Matt to say he was in the flat at 9.30. ---he may have refused to say he saw M. No time to persuade him.

That's just a start. Add into the mix that this was their supposedly much loved daughter, drink had been taken and they were in a foreign country, you have an idea of how difficult it would be to pull off.
I can't buy that they panicked because they feared being locked up for neglect so hid the body because they risked jail anyway by admitting neglect which led to her endangerment. They had no idea what the law is in a foreign land.
All in all, a far better plan would have been to not discover her gone until the middle of the night or early next day. That way tgey could cover themselves for neglect as they would have been at home and they could have had all night to get stories straight.
It makes zero sense to do what they did on the night.

Opinions welcome but please, let's not go down the "I just can't see it route."

I agree with what HKP has just said! He (?) was a right pain in the rear when he was here though.

"Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

Personally if I wanted to read what was going on candyfloss's forum I would join (if I wasn't banned!) and others can do the same. I can't see what's to be gained by constantly referring to them".

HKP

Freedom wrote:I agree with what HKP has just said! He (?) was a right pain in the rear when he was here though.

"Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

Personally if I wanted to read what was going on candyfloss's forum I would join (if I wasn't banned!) and others can do the same. I can't see what's to be gained by constantly referring to them".

HKP

Not sure I agree about the pain in the rear. I forget what he was banned for but I recall him being extremely helpful during the Wayback thing in particular.

Freedom wrote:I agree with what HKP has just said! He (?) was a right pain in the rear when he was here though.

"Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

Personally if I wanted to read what was going on candyfloss's forum I would join (if I wasn't banned!) and others can do the same. I can't see what's to be gained by constantly referring to them".

HKP

Absolutely agree!

Chirpy, I should have said that he became disruptive at the end of his stay here.

I had forgotten about his useful earlier input.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Freedom wrote:I agree with what HKP has just said! He (?) was a right pain in the rear when he was here though.

"Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

Personally if I wanted to read what was going on candyfloss's forum I would join (if I wasn't banned!) and others can do the same. I can't see what's to be gained by constantly referring to them".

HKP

 Not sure I agree about the pain in the rear. I forget what he was banned for but I recall him being extremely helpful during the Wayback thing in particular.

Agree. Liked HKP and didn't realise he had left because he was banned. He was also banned from CMoMM but made such excellent insights into the Wayback topic as a Guest they let him rejoin again. When it suits...

It was actually me that banned him - it's such a rare event here that it sticks in my mind. He got me at a bad time.

I thought I'd reinstate him but his name has gone from the members list so he must have deleted his account.

That's a shame. Still, if he continues to provoke lengthy responses from HWMBO he may find his posting rights over there removed once again. Perhaps he could apply again over here?

Heisenburg wrote:Then BB goes and post something sensible imo unfortunately with an unnecessary caveat.

Blimey. BB had better watch his back. To say M could have been around on Tuesday night is NOT the official line. How playful of him!

chirpyinsect wrote:

ETA I am keen to discuss the timeline of events with those who believe it happened on the night. Let's leave aside our suppositions that it is, or isn't, likely and see if we can work out what they would have had to do in order to make it work on the night. I'm not sure if that has been done already but it would be good to go back to basics.
Which thread would be best?

Good call.

There are those who say 'it' happened on the Sunday. Others believe it happened as GA believed, on the night.

I still don't know, but would like to bring Chatelaine's excellent theory back to the table. If she is correct, and I think she may well be, Mrs Fenn did not lie, the photo date must have been manipulated (pleasing those calling for the Sunday), and there would have been ample time to get everything 'done'. With her permission (please let me know if I am out of line, Chatelaine, and I will ask Candy to delete), here is her post from February this year:

Châtelaine wrote:IMO and theory and speculation only - for what it's worth and the most "innocent" explanation I can think of - accidental lonely death evening Wednesday May 2. Parents arriving back late, after a "boozy" night, go straight to bed without checking on the kids and only find the poor girl, behind the sofa, the next morning. Most innocent reason for avoiding autopsy - it would have been clear she'd been dead for hours [and maybe sedated] ...

IMO again, Thursday is the real day all routines changed. The dad could have walked away in tennis gear with the "famous" and "untraceable" blue bag, get a cab to somewhere [nobody would remember, most holidaymakers are sports] and bury her there. Possibly, probably, not the final resting place. They must have some dignity & remorse and reburied her in a place more dignified, like a little chapel in the middle of nowhere.

May 4 another day out of routine, the "abduction" was launched and there had to be proof. For one the non-existing and incredible sighting of one person I shall call sixpence, as well as 9 witnesses seeing someone closely resembling you know who, carrying a blond girl at 10 pm.

As I said, this is the most innocent explanation ...

Mods, remove if you feel it's too direct.

I have brought this over from the Last Photo thread so that it appears on the open forum. It is in response to TB's comments posted about me on CMoMM where I have no right of reply. I invite Mr Bennett to read my reply here, instead. Of course, other members of CMoMM may also read it - I hope they do and would encourage them to join here so we can discuss this and every other Madeleine related issue on a one-to-one basis, like adults. Not a one-sided edited option such as that offered by TB with the edited quotes he posts from here over there.

Dee Coy wrote:Snipped from Guinea Pig's post from yesterday:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Then there was this from dee coy

“The Sunday was the nearest ‘weather’ match that week, but to me the weather looks significantly warmer – very hot – and I think it was taken later in May just before Gerry’s trip to the UK. I think there was pressure to produce a photo proving M was around on the 3rd and the visit was to change the date back in time and add Madeleine (or her head) onto the photo”.

This is brilliant! dee coy can tell how hot it was on a photo just by looking at it! “Hmm, 70 degrees hey? No, I reckon at least 80”.

Or: “Hey dee coy! Look at this photo! Come and tell us how hot it was!”  dee coy: “Ooh, let me see, hmmm, more than 87 but no more than 95, I’d say”.

Helenmeg meekly agrees with this nonsense – “Yes agree with all that”.

Notice that neither of them has bothered to check if there really were any hot days after 3 May.

 

First, Mr Bennett, I do not appreciate you partially quoting me so it becomes a statement out of context. You are essentially misquoting me and thus making false representation.

Second, you know that I, Canada nor very few others have the right of reply on your little dictatorship so cease calling for our responses you silly man.

Third, if you had quoted my full post and included the link to the other thread that gave good evidence for the theory that the photo could have been taken after the holiday your readers would have understood that this evidence included reference to other hot days with dates and temperatures quoted. In addition, those dates corresponded to the occasions when GM and AM were wearing the same clothes as on TLP.

As I am not an authoritarian and welcome debate, I offer you this link again:

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1077p50-pat-brown-blogspot-why-mccanns-love-conspiracy-theorists?highlight=Pat+brown

Please take the time to read it all before making spurious and calumnious assertions that posts are made on whims. I can advise you, sir, that everything I post is after deep consideration.

You call yourself a researcher? You are, in my opinion, the antithesis of that. Instead you peddle ignorance, you skim over facts. You have one theory - yours - and you will manipulate everything, including the minds of your members, to promote your cradled pet. You are, in a word oft used to describe you by veritable McCann researchers, a menace.

Note to the good members of CMOMM - you will need to be registered here to access the above link. Please do. It is a welcoming and open forum. You will be able to see the transparency and honesty of the thoughts of people here for yourself, and not be reliant on the edited snippets Mr Bennett chooses to feed you.

Finally, Mr Bennett, please feel free to post this response in it's entirety on your little site.

Bravo, Dee.

An excellent post indeed.

Thanks to Mr or Ms X who has let me know of Tony's reply to Dee Coy's post on a members only topic.

Dee Coy rant

Post by Tony Bennett Yesterday at 10:14 pm
A few days ago there was a plethora of truly ridiculous versions on candyfloss's forum about the 'creation' of the Last Photo. Not only was there canada12's 'flower pattern' idea, but a series of other improbable ideas, all of them trying to evade the obvious, namely that the Last Photo was genuine photo, almost certainly taken on Sunday 29 April.

One of the most absurd interpretations was that of dee coy who believed she could 'divine' that the weather on the Last Photo was 'too hot' to have been taken on Sunday 29 April (when, by the way, it was 70F in the shade at midday and around 100F+ in the sun - i.e. quite hot). She suggested that it 'must have been' taken on a hotter day some time before Gerry McCann's trip to England 20-22 May (in which case Gerry must have arranged for a photographer to take a pic of him and Amelie by the pool and then somehow shop Madeleine into it as well).

I reported her absurd theory on the forum and indulged in a bit of gentle mockery see below:

Dee Coy wrote:


[Snipped from Guinea Pig's post from yesterday:]



Tony Bennett wrote:

Then there was this from dee coy

“The Sunday was the nearest ‘weather’ match that week, but to me the weather looks significantly warmer – very hot – and I think it was taken later in May just before Gerry’s trip to the UK. I think there was pressure to produce a photo proving M was around on the 3rd and the visit was to change the date back in time and add Madeleine (or her head) onto the photo”.

This is brilliant! dee coy can tell how hot it was on a photo just by looking at it! “Hmm, 70 degrees hey? No, I reckon at least 80”.

Or: “Hey dee coy! Look at this photo! Come and tell us how hot it was!” dee coy: “Ooh, let me see, hmmm, more than 87 but no more than 95, I’d say”.

Helenmeg meekly agrees with this nonsense – “Yes agree with all that”.

Notice that neither of them has bothered to check if there really were any hot days after 3 May.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


She has now responded with this rant which she wishes me to post here:


REPLY FROM DEE COY

First, Mr Bennett, I do not appreciate you partially quoting me so it becomes a statement out of context. You are essentially misquoting me and thus making false representation.

Second, you know that I, Canada nor very few others have the right of reply on your little dictatorship so cease calling for our responses you silly man.

Third, if you had quoted my full post and included the link to the other thread that gave good evidence for the theory that the photo could have been taken after the holiday your readers would have understood that this evidence included reference to other hot days with dates and temperatures quoted. In addition, those dates corresponded to the occasions when GM and AM were wearing the same clothes as on TLP.

As I am not an authoritarian and welcome debate, I offer you this link again:

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1077p50-pat-brown-blogspot-why-mccanns-love-conspiracy-theorists?highlight=Pat+brown [Long post by Pat Brown opposing any theory that Madeleine died earlier than 6pm on Thursday 3 May]

[Note by TB: I have already read Pat Brown’s piece, and sharonl made a long response to it on CMOMM titled: ‘Richard Hall v Pat Brown: Which One is Ignoring the Evidnece?’ ( http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12523-pat-brown-versus-richard-hall-on-madeleine-mccann-which-one-is-ignoring-the-evidence where she concludes that it’s Pat Brown who is ignoring the evidence. Maybe dee coy should read that?]

Please take the time to read it all before making spurious and calumnious assertions that posts are made on whims. I can advise you, sir, that everything I post is after deep consideration.

You call yourself a researcher? You are, in my opinion, the antithesis of that. Instead you peddle ignorance, you skim over facts. You have one theory - yours - and you will manipulate everything, including the minds of your members, to promote your cradled pet. You are, in a word oft used to describe you by veritable McCann researchers, a menace.

Note to the good members of CMOMM - you will need to be registered here to access the above link. Please do. It is a welcoming and open forum. You will be able to see the transparency and honesty of the thoughts of people here for yourself, and not be reliant on the edited snippets Mr Bennett chooses to feed you.

Finally, Mr Bennett, please feel free to post this response in it's entirety on your little site.



Andrew wrote: Bravo, Dee. An excellent post indeed.

____________________
"Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 - "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett

Re: Dee Coy rant

New post by Verdi Yesterday at 11:51 pm
What an eccentric performance big grin !

I will just comment on one little detail. Dee Coy (good name!) wrote, I quote..

"Note to the good members of CMOMM - you will need to be registered here to access the above link. Please do. It is a welcoming and open forum. You will be able to see the transparency and honesty of the thoughts of people here for yourself, and not be reliant on the edited snippets Mr Bennett chooses to feed you."

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? So open and transparent is the forum that you need to register to access a link - and most of the discussion goes on behind closed doors?

Rolling Eyes

____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx


Verdi

Re: Dee Coy rant

New post by BlueBag Today at 6:50 am

You will be able to see the transparency and honesty of the thoughts of people here for yourself


There is nothing honest about the flowers rubbish.

Just deliberate disinformation.


BlueBag

Bennett says that it was 70F in the shade and 100F in the sun on the Sunday.

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Thanks.

... had a quick look at the weather records taken for the 29th April of the airport and the one 'Bluebag' edited for Portimao. (on other thread)

So it says the temp around midday was approx 65F but Bennett is stating that over in Luz it was 100F (and 70F in the shade)...

Really?

Can this be verified or is it the usual deliberate misinformation again....

we are talking about late April and early May - it is not believable that it was 100 degrees and 70 in the shade.