Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

Yes, that's what I think too.

Vague connections between the people involved aren't sufficient reason for false statements to be made.

But why wait all that time to make a statement,regarding something that must have been important.
Tex rightly points out that there was a fuss and bother the night Madeleine disappeared and Mrs Fenn leant over the balcony to ask what was happening,yet two nights previous a child was crying for over an hour and when the parents returned she never mentioned it?

caricature wrote:But why wait all that time to make a statement,regarding something that must have been important.
Tex rightly points out that there was a fuss and bother the night Madeleine disappeared and Mrs Fenn leant over the balcony to ask what was happening,yet two nights previous a child was crying for over an hour and when the parents returned she never mentioned it?

I think people forget one thing. On the night and days following the PJ would have gone round to all the apartments in that block asking questions, with their notepads and pencils!!   Much of the detail they already had,  what then follows is that those deemed to have relevant information are then asked to go to the police station and make a formal statement.  That is how it normally goes.  All the information would get fed back to the co-ordinator and those in charge.  They would have a pretty good idea as to what happened.  I expect Mrs Fenn told theofficers when they came round what happened, surely people don't think that with the case of a missing child, so urgent, the police would wait months to interview someone upstairs with a clear view.  No, they had all the details, she just came in and made it formal at a later date for the files.

Totally agree Admin - was about to say something similar on the same lines of that.

Murat had his mobile switched off from 1500 on 2 May until the evening of 3 May so he didn't call during that time from his mobile, he may have used the landline though.. He seemed to be out late both on the 1st and 2nd and doesn't mention getting a call from anyone about crying or calling the police himself.
So was it him who called the police? If so why would he not mention it when made an arguido? Pretty important.
Was it someone pretending to be him to back up a possibly faked up crying incident ? Or even to emphasise a real incident. But why say you were Robert? Could have been anonymous.
Was it someone else by the name of Robert? No because whoever phoned said he was there as a translator.
Who are the women who heard the crying and who knew Murat well enough to have his number? Why call him? Why not the police direct? Or the OC?
All very strange.

chirpyinsect wrote:Thanks to   Rufus T     over the way for this link to the GNR officer who mentioned Murat 's call re the crying.
What is interesting is that his statement is from 16/5 and he mentions an English speaking woman who has already been interviewed. Mrs Fenn's statement is dated Aug so unless she gave more than 1 statement it can't be assumed it was Mrs Fenn who called Murat.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

Witness Statement


Date: 2007/05/16


Paolo Jorge Carvaihosa da Costa


Occupation: GNR Officer


He has been a GNR officer since 1996. He is a soldier and works at the Lagos GNR post.

On 3rd May when he was at home, he was contacted by the GNR post commander who asked him to go to P da L.

He arrived at the OC at 00.05 on 4th May having contacted his colleague Nelson Costa who informed him about the situation.

After having been informed ha began to search the perimeter of the tourist complex. First he revised the perimeter alone and was later accompanied by Officer Pimentel. During his time on the scene he did not talk to anyone.

Neither did he enter the apartment from which Madeleine had disappeared. There many people at the scene but nobody particularly drew his attention.

When asked he said that he never saw Robert Murat in all the times he visited the scene.

He does remember however, that on a day he cannot recall, an individual who identified himself as Robert, saying that he was in P da L as a translator helping the PJ, phoned the Lagos post saying:

That some foreign women, who had already been interviewed by the police, had phoned him, telling him that there was a child crying in an apartment near to them.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

Let's look at this another way.  This looks to be a few days later, as the Officer cannot remember what day.  This woman may have heard about Madeleine disappearing and had heard a child crying, perhaps she was just thinking it was Madeleine being held in an apartment nearby and the child crying worried her, so she thought it best to report it??  She phoned Murat because she had learned he was the translator and probably and seen him around??  Maybe she didn't want to bother police again.

Admin wrote:

caricature wrote:But why wait all that time to make a statement,regarding something that must have been important.
Tex rightly points out that there was a fuss and bother the night Madeleine disappeared and Mrs Fenn leant over the balcony to ask what was happening,yet two nights previous a child was crying for over an hour and when the parents returned she never mentioned it?

I think people forget one thing. On the night and days following the PJ would have gone round to all the apartments in that block asking questions, with their notepads and pencils!!   Much of the detail they already had,  what then follows is that those deemed to have relevant information are then asked to go to the police station and make a formal statement.  That is how it normally goes.  All the information would get fed back to the co-ordinator and those in charge.  They would have a pretty good idea as to what happened.  I expect Mrs Fenn told theofficers when they came round what happened, surely people don't think that with the case of a missing child, so urgent, the police would wait months to interview someone upstairs with a clear view.  No, they had all the details, she just came in and made it formal at a later date for the files.

Fair enough on the statement,but Mrs Fenn shows she was not a shrinking violet because she lent over the balcony some two nights later to ask what was happening but yet a child was left crying for over an hour and she does nothing? as Tex points out (and I'm not saying they are right) the crying child never woke the others up?

Let's look at this another way.  This looks to be a few days later, as the Officer cannot remember what day.  This woman may have heard about Madeleine disappearing and had heard a child crying, perhaps she was just thinking it was Madeleine being held in an apartment nearby and the child crying worried her, so she thought it best to report it??  She phoned Murat because she had learned he was the translator and probably and seen him around??  Maybe she didn't want to bother police again.

Yes Candyfloss that makes sense. It isn't anything to do with the Mrs Fenn incident I don't think. I still think it odd that Murat didn't think of saying anything in his statement but maybe he felt as he had already phoned the police it had been dealt with.
_______________

IMO Mrs Fenn is telling the truth about the crying episode.
What's more, I think she phoned her friend because she already had concerns about the children.
At the time I am guessing that she didn't know if they were alone or if a parent was present. She couldn't know if there was a babysitter there. In her world I don't think it crossed her mind that they would have been left alone. The same as many others find this impossible to believe. And that is why she didn't go down herself or report it at the time to MW. But phoned her friend.

dantezebu wrote:IMO Mrs Fenn is telling the truth about the crying episode.
What's more, I think she phoned her friend because she already had concerns about the children.
At the time I am guessing that she didn't know if they were alone or if a parent was present. She couldn't know if there was a babysitter there. In her world I don't think it crossed her mind that they would have been left alone. The same as many others find this impossible to believe. And that is why she didn't go down herself or report it at the time to MW. But phoned her friend.

I absolutely agree with that dantezebu, and was going to post almost the same thing.  Nowhere does she say the children were left alone, and nowhere in her statement does she say she hears the parents go out.  She must have thought someone was with the kids, one parent at least or one of the others.  Who really would go down and interfere if they thought someone was already with the children, but who might phone a frined and complain about the noisiness and crying!

candyfloss wrote:

dantezebu wrote:IMO Mrs Fenn is telling the truth about the crying episode.
What's more, I think she phoned her friend because she already had concerns about the children.
At the time I am guessing that she didn't know if they were alone or if a parent was present. She couldn't know if there was a babysitter there. In her world I don't think it crossed her mind that they would have been left alone. The same as many others find this impossible to believe. And that is why she didn't go down herself or report it at the time to MW. But phoned her friend.

I absolutely agree with that dantezebu, and was going to post almost the same thing.  Nowhere does she say the children were left alone, and nowhere in her statement does she say she hears the parents go out.  She must have thought someone was with the kids, one parent at least or one of the others.  Who really would go down and interfere if they thought someone was already with the children, but who might phone a frined and complain about the noisiness and crying!

Totally, I'm with this also.

At about 23.45, 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.

She didn't see them but said it was the parents,how does she know they entered not exited.

She may have took it that they'd came back because Madeleine had stopped crying when she heard the doors and from then on all was quiet? That's what I would assume though.

I think anyone would assume that.

You heard a child crying for a length of time. Your concerned and rightly so but then you hear people going back into the apartment and the crying stops. You assume again all is ok. Probably don't give it a second thought.

Lots of assumptions I know. However I genuinely think that Mrs Fenn certainly heard crying which ever way you look at it.

dogs don't lie wrote:She may have took it that they'd came back because Madeleine had stopped crying when she heard the doors and from then on all was quiet? That's what I would assume though.

But yet three time's on the 3rd,she never heard the doors being opened and closed,GM at 9 -ish,MO at 9-30 ish,KM at 10 ish.

Andrew wrote:I think anyone would assume that.

You heard a child crying for a length of time. Your concerned and rightly so but then you hear people going back into the apartment and the crying stops. You assume again all is ok. Probably don't give it a second thought.

Lots of assumptions I know. However I genuinely think that Mrs Fenn certainly heard crying which ever way you look at it.

Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups,

caricature wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:She may have took it that they'd came back because Madeleine had stopped crying when she heard the doors and from then on all was quiet? That's what I would assume though.

But yet three time's on the 3rd,she never heard the doors being opened and closed,GM at 9 -ish,MO at 9-30 ish,KM at 10 ish.

I suppose on the Tuesday night, whilst all the crying was going on Mrs Fenn had been concerned, phoning a friend too, she'd have been more aware of a door opening and the crying stopped. If on Thursday night she heard no crying, then there was no reason really to listen for doors, instead she may have been watching TV or going about her own business.
IMO

caricature wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:She may have took it that they'd came back because Madeleine had stopped crying when she heard the doors and from then on all was quiet? That's what I would assume though.

But yet three time's on the 3rd,she never heard the doors being opened and closed,GM at 9 -ish,MO at 9-30 ish,KM at 10 ish.

According to one of the tapas lot the shutters were down on the patio door - think it may have been Fiona.  It's hard to know what went on.  Did anyone see them coming and going out of the apartment?  Apart from JW who saw GM outside on the footpath.  They Moyes were directly above on their balcony at that time, yet didn't see or hear anything.

As awful as it sounds I have to agree with caricature on this. The lady has now passed and wonder whether legally her statement is now moot anyway?

I knew I read that before candyfloss, one of them did say that, all shutters down, patio door shutters too.

I think the important statement is CTF
Apologies for the length but I think it deals with lots of issues raised here.....of course you can choose not to read it!


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.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:As awful as it sounds I have to agree with caricature on this. The lady has now passed and wonder whether legally her statement is now moot anyway?

I`m pretty sure a statement made by a person who has since died is still able to be used as evidence TWO, unless there are objections by the opposition. The Judge would decide. I`m not entirely sure about this but surely it would be totally unfair to discount a statement just because a person has since died. Found this which seems to come under Hearsay :-

"Hearsay in criminal cases

In criminal cases, the general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible. But as in civil cases, there is a procedure whereby a party can give the other party notice of its intent to use hearsay evidence. If given such notice, the other party has a right to object to the use of such evidence by applying to the court for a decision as to whether the evidence should be admitted.

There are a large number of exceptions to the rule against hearsay. For example, the court can allow hearsay evidence to be admitted where it is a statement that was made by a person who has since died or become mentally incompetent. There are also exceptions for public records, certain types of business documents, certain admissions or confessions, and a variety of other types of evidence that would otherwise be hearsay."
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/trial/500249.html

caricature wrote:

Russian Doll wrote:
 Tony does not accept Smithman, who is strongly believed in by Textusa, however he is in full agreement with her it would appear as regards the Murat -Fenn and lying about the crying connection.

 I suggest a close read of Kate's phone use from early on morning of 2nd.

This is on twitter at the moment,who is Amanda? any one know?

The Suppressionals
‏@1matthewwright1

The morning after the night before...#mccann



   Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth 9m9 minutes ago

   @1matthewwright1 Amanda whose husband is a pathologist? We can now narrow down MBM's "disappearance" to between 11:45pm and 7:36am.
   #McCann

Read Kate's diary last week. "Amanda" is mentioned in the very first sentence:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/ANTENA3_11_09_2008.htm

"4th May. Barely having slept, I woke Amanda. Gerry and I began to search the streets at six in the morning when dawn began to break. We didn't find anything. I'm desperate".

WTH? Was Amanda there, or does Kate mean she woke her by calling England?

Was Amanda the 10th Tapas?

No - KM phoned Amanda on the 2nd but made out in her book it was the 4th. That's how I'm reading it!

Amanda Coxon,husband Paul Whitaker ( chemical pathologist at time LRI) Amanda I believe cleaned and babysat for the McCanns