Fiona Payne, Telling it like it was/dR rOBERTS

Fiona Payne, Telling it like it was

Fiona Payne
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
29 December 2011

FIONA PAYNE, TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS

During her rogatory interview at Leicestershire Police headquarters in April 2008, Fiona Payne spelled out to DC 1485 Messiah the reality of that notorious night in Praia da Luz, when parents assumed responsibility for their own children (as they should), not other peoples, 'routines' were inexplicably altered, and the McCanns totally oblivious to events inside 5A.

Reply "Yeah, yeah. Erm, but it worked really well and, you know, everybody was checking, had their own sort of, I mean, we didn't really formally discuss what everybody was doing, we just all felt it was fine to sort of operate our own baby listening service, I guess that's what we thought we were doing, what every MARK WARNER holiday we'd been on before did. Erm, tut, we didn't, Dave and I and my mum didn't because we, we brought our baby monitor, which worked, we'd tested it, it's a digital monitor so it's offering, erm, continuous monitoring of sound every second and it alarms if it loses contact or anything, so on the first day we'd sort of tried that by the, you know, by the Tapas Bar and it worked, so we didn't even go back and check our children, we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen, if they cried we'd hear. Erm, the others had, you know, decided they were sort of going back every twenty minutes, erm, and checking on their own children. I think, on the whole, I wasn't really aware of people cross checking each other's children, although on the night and previous nights there would have been the odd occasion where somebody was, was, was going and saying 'Oh I've listened in at your door and your kids are fine' or 'I've checked on yours and they're fine', so there was a bit of that going on, but, on the whole, people checked their own children. Erm, and, again, on the actual night Madeleine was taken, that was, was very much different, I think, to, to previous nights, in that, there was probably more cross checking that night."

('Probably more cross-checking...' There was absolutely none before, and 'one swallow doth not a Summer make.' Notice also the 'I've listened in at your door' variant of 'cross-checking,' which could just as well have been, indeed most probably was, 'at your window,' sound travelling more easily through glass than solid wood).

Reply "I mean, I think every night we saw all of each other, bar the Thursday, again, that was a different night."

1485 "It was different."

Reply "In that Kate wasn't there with, with the three kids, because we'd all done something different in the early evening, so we were a bit later coming back to the Tapas Bar."

Checking, once more...

Reply "Because I've got no idea who went first and, to be completely honest, I didn't at the time. Erm, but I'd say on, on the first few nights it all seemed, erm, fairly well spaced, you know, like people going together, that was just a feeling, a general feeling that I'm giving you. Erm, whereas, again, that differed on the Thursday night, in that, it seemed more, erm, out of, people were more out of synch."

1485 "Would all nine do the checking at some point?"

Reply "No, Dave and I and my mother never checked anybody."

Gerry McCann, in his own statement to Police of 10 May, 2007, volunteered the following:

'On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, apart from the deponent and his wife, he thinks that DAVID PAYNE also went to his apartment to check that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.'

(Well of course David Payne did not report any abnormal situation with the children. He had no way of knowing whether 'the situation' was abnormal or not. He didn't even look to find out, did he. His wife, Fiona, has told us so).

On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children.

(And which of these group colleagues might that have been? Not David Payne certainly).

Fiona Payne once more:

Reply "Erm, I guess some people were doing more checking and it tended to be the men doing, again, this is a feeling, it seemed to be they did a lot more sort of upping and downing, erm, tut, you know, than, than the women perhaps. Erm, I mean, Gerry and Russell."

1485 "Gerry and Russell?"

Reply "Yeah, I don't know, they, again, a feeling, is they probably did a bit more checking than the girls did."

(One can quite easily relate to DC 1485 Messiah's bewilderment here. Gerry and Russell? Gerry, who claims to have left the table once, around nine, on the Thursday night, and Russell! Not Matthew Oldfield, who 'checked' at least twice as often as Gerry on that occasion and actually entered the McCann apartment, or so he would have us believe. No. Gerry and Russell were doing a 'lot more upping and downing.' Really?)

1485 "And would you pass anybody on the way to the Tapas?"

Reply "Erm, tut, no, erm, not that I'd."

1485 "Any of the group perhaps going to do their checks or?"

Reply "No, because generally, as I say, we, the early part of the week, we were generally all within the same sort of time bracket, so, yeah, we didn't, on previous nights, see anybody coming back. Erm, Thursday night was different,..."

Regarding seating arrangements at the diner

Reply "Erm, Kate was to my left and that I'm positive of. Erm, and I think Gerry was certainly to my right, I think he was immediately on my right. Erm, I know Russell was opposite, he would have been about there. My mum was, my mum and Dave were sat, I think Dave was next to Gerry and mum next to Russell, they were certainly on that side of the table, erm, yeah, I think it was Dave, I'm not a hundred percent on that. And then I think it was Jane and then Rachael. That's how I remember it. And I think possibly we were slightly rotated that way actually, because I remember me and Kate pretty much with our backs, erm, you know, to, to the apartments, so probably turn that round a bit actually. Yeah, Russell was probably, you know, more directly."

(Both McCann parents had their backs to the apartment block therefore. Again, in his 10 May statement to Police, Gerry McCann mentioned that they were seated at the table, in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire back door of his apartment, through which they left and entered and which gave access to the living room. Almost the entire back door no less! Unless he had eyes in the back of his head the deponent would have had to turn around for an 'unimpeded view' through the plastic screen behind him).

A few 'ins and outs'

1485 "What about the rest of the party, Kate and Gerry, did they ever discuss with you whether they locked their doors or their windows when they were in and out?"

Reply "Erm, I mean, I was aware of them swapping their arrangement at some point, because I know they had been coming, using the front door, erm, which is the door with the key, to go in and check the children, and then, at some point, that changed to using the back door, just because, as you can see from the map, it was quicker for them to do that and easier to get in, then just sort of quickly nip in through the French doors and out again. I couldn't tell you what point that was, but I know, I know there was a conversation about, oh we've started nipping in that way rather than going the long way round. Erm, so, I suppose, at that point, that's when they, because you couldn't lock the French doors from outside, that's when they weren't locking it."

1485 "Yeah. How far down the week was that?"

Reply "Erm, I mean, my feeling is, you know, they did it the front way for a couple of night and the rest left it open, but I don't know, I mean, they'd know that, as I say, I just remember the conversation."

1485 "Yeah. Did Kate ever discus that with you, you know, when she discussed about Madeleine, did she ever discuss, you know, the?"

Reply "No, as I say, it came up at that, that conversation, which I think was on the, on the, on the Thursday night, about, erm, you know, whether I would feel happy leaving, leaving a door unlocked, but that was the only time I'd heard Kate sort of almost saying, question whether they should do it or not."

1485 "Did she say that she actually left it unlocked then?"

Reply "Yeah, she must have done, because I knew that it wasn't locked. And I was a bit."

1485 "And did she."

Reply "I mean, I was a bit surprised, I mean, Kate, you were asking about what they're like as parents, and they're certainly not, erm, paranoid parents, what I would call paranoid parents...So, you know, I think, as I said earlier, I think that was something she wasn't quite happy with."

1485 "Did she say that she had confronted Gerry over that matter?"

Reply "No. No, I mean, I think they'd discussed it and, you know...But, you know, I don't think there was an issue between them about it but, as I say, Kate was, it was just something that I’m sure was on her mind that night."

So Fiona, who claims not to know when, exactly, the McCanns desisted from using the main door of their apartment in favour of the rear entrance, learns of Kate's door dilemma, in conversation, only on the Thursday night, when the topic was clearly on Kate's mind. It cannot have been on her mind previously or she would have mentioned it, previously. And it was on the occasion of this very conversation ('at that point') that the McCanns apparently changed their routine, leaving the patio door open ('they weren't locking it'). When prompted as to whether Kate had explicitly described the door as 'unlocked' that night Fiona Payne can only assume so ('she must have done...').

'Far fetched' does not begin to describe an account of events in which predators study the behaviour of their victims for several days, during which time they have every access to their quarry - a young child at their mercy, due to a supposed open-door policy coupled with little or no parental vigilance. Seemingly unable to resist a challenge, these vultures defer seizure of their prey until the very day the guardians 'wise up' and institute a more rigorous system of supervision, i.e., more 'upping and downing.' Yet still they succeed in their crime, despite only a 'small window of opportunity' being open to them (about three minutes, as opposed to the hour(s) they could have enjoyed beforehand).

Change is a fundamental aspect of the universe and parents on holiday have every right to amend their routine, if indeed they have one, at any time. But here things are peculiarly different. Instead of a change from one generally accepted routine to another (generally accepted routine), the shift is, in fact, from no routine whatsoever to a post hoc confection, unconfirmed either by the participants' actions or others' descriptions of said actions.

We may reasonably ask why, therefore, Thursday May 3, 2007 should have been such a landmark day for the McCanns. In fact it has been so asked already (see articles: 'Clairvoyance' and 'What's in a Name?' McCannfiles, 2011). Whilst it could conceivably have been events that night which prompted them to report, in retrospect, a system of inter-family 'checking' - a system to which other so-called participants apparently subscribed in a strangely non-committal way - the decision to leave the rear entrance door open was clearly made to benefit somebody, and made before Madeline McCann was 'aducted.'

If they are to be believed, the McCanns had put up with the long walk from the Tapas bar for five nights already, before deciding, with only two nights remaining, that they'd rather put their children in jeopardy instead and save themselves a few steps. And with absolutely no history of extreme neighbourliness in the checking department that week, why should the McCanns assume, come the Thursday, that their carousing companions would be queuing up to add the McCann children to their own inspection rostas?

Neither personal convenience nor shared responsibility makes for a convincing argument; the latter especially, since the McCanns appear to have been wholly unconcerned about the nocturnal welfare of anyone else's children. They did not reciprocally 'check' any apartment other than 5A, at any time.

For whom did they leave their patio door open therefore? Madeleine, in case of fire (which only became a serious risk after five days)? The Paynes (who did not look in on any one else's children either - ditto Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner)? Matthew Oldfield (who unexpectedly volunteered a 'fly past' and was then told he could go in through the open door)? Themselves (fit enough to run for miles that day but not to walk an extra twenty or thirty yards that night)? These options being equally unlikely, there remains a somewhat more sinister possibility, consistent with Kate McCanns perplexing observation, 'They've taken her.' (pronoun 'they': subject understood).

Sorry Dr Roberts Im lost on this one.

Why would David Payne get up and check the McCann kids when Fiona Payne said they didn't check their own kids as they had a monitor.


Why change the 'front door' to 'patio door'..... 2 or even just the 1 night before she went missing.


Why didn't Rachel oldfield hear the opening or shutting off the patio doors on the night she was in the apt when mrs fenn could hear it open or shut on the tuesday night.....more to the point, why didn't Rachel hear Madeleine screaming on that night and go tell KM.

Very interesting post... thankyou.

The Paynes never checked on their own or anyones children because they brought the monitor(hi tec monitor)

Every other couple only checked on their own children

But come "abduction" night...well,Matt listened in on the Mccanns & later entered the apartment on the way to check on his own child

Jane Tanner listened in on the Mccanns children on the way to check her own children-both with doors & shutters locked

The Mccanns on "abduction" night for the first time that holiday left their patio doors open....,just in case of fire....oh f***ing come on... & selfish b*****ds never replicated other couples of checking each others children...just their own

Remind me why this has dragged on for 4+ years

Annabel

Thank you for Dr. Roberts latest.

The bit that first catches my eye and which I never picked up in a ll the times I have read FP's statement is this:

"children, we took the monitor out, erm, and very much felt we were doing what we do at home really, you know, putting them to sleep and listen, if they cried we'd hear. Erm, the others had, you know, decided they were sort of going back every twenty minutes, erm, and checking on their own children. I think, on the whole, I wasn't really aware of people cross checking each other's children....."

I would have thought parents would say something like "putting them to bed" or "waiting until they were asleep".

I still believe that all the children were looked after every night by one or more of the adults, possibly the one that was "sick" every night. I think the "checks" on the Thursday night were invented possibly because of what happened late afternoon/early evening on the Thursday. I don't recall that there is any proper evidence as to where the McCanns or indeed Maddie were late afternoon/early evening of that day.

I am having difficulty believing that caring parents/Doctors would leave their children alone. There is no logical explanation for it. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how they discussed their children's safety and decided that it was safe to leave three tiny children alone in a dark strange room away from home without their toys and home comforts.

I've been out for a meal last night (my birthday today) and one of my cats stayed out and wouldn't come in before I went out. I panicked and looked all around for him but knew he was out but only near. I was only out about an hour but spent the whole meal worrying about where he was. He was in our yard waiting to be let in so no damage done but I realised that if the McCanns have actually left their children alone every night of their holiday including nights when they knew their children they woken up and cried for them then they need locking up and the children taking away from them. I don't believe for one minute the McCanns did this. Something happened on the Thursday that hasn't yet been explained, but it certainly isn't abduction.

Well said Harryfifi. I certainly agree with you. I feel that the "regular checks" story was hastily cobbled together to create the scenario where it was theoretically possible (but certainly not in practice) for Madeleine to have been taken. The McCanns were arrogant enough to think that their social standing and that of their friends meant that their cock and bull stories would be accepted without question. It must have come as a shock to discover that things didn't work like that in Portugal!

I keep coming back to the unsettling belief that this was all a gigantic pre-planned financial hoax. Never has there been another missing person's case where a limited company was set up in near record time to raise funds. Madeleine could have been found at any moment and money was not needed at that time because a full scale hunt was on for her.

I am not confident that the truth will ever be allowed to come out but miracles happen sometimes I guess.

I don't believe Madeleine was being looked after.


She was on her own in that apt hence the screaming on Tuesday but I still don't understand one thing.....Rachel was next door, why didn't she hear as mrs fenn heard upstairs....or did she hear?

Maddie might have been crying because someone was in the room with her. She wouldn't settle to sleep and wanted her Dad.

The abductor had been watching their movements all week & he/she goes & picks the night when its all chaos with everyone checking each others kids,the night before he/she would of had a twenty minute window of oppurtunity, but this "abduction" night?...jeeez

Were the SAS in Pdl that week?

kitti wrote:I don't believe Madeleine was being looked after.


She was on her own in that apt hence the screaming on Tuesday but I still don't understand one thing.....Rachel was next door, why didn't she hear as mrs fenn heard upstairs....or did she hear?

Very true, the walls weren't that thick in those apartments, the McCs could hear the Oldfield child crying when she was being bathed every morning after lying in a smelly nappy! So why didn't R. hear Maddie?



For whom did they leave their patio door open therefore? Madeleine, in case of fire (which only became a serious risk after five days)? The Paynes (who did not look in on any one else's children either - ditto Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner)? Matthew Oldfield (who unexpectedly volunteered a 'fly past' and was then told he could go in through the open door)? Themselves (fit enough to run for miles that day but not to walk an extra twenty or thirty yards that night)? These options being equally unlikely, there remains a somewhat more sinister possibility, consistent with Kate McCanns perplexing observation, 'They've taken her.' (pronoun 'they': subject understood)..

So rachel didn't go to see because she didn't have to as someone was in their with Madeleine ..


It wasn't her father as she was crying for him.....

A BABY would scream continually even if their Are people in the room it might recognise but you can pacify a neally 4 year old and stop her from crying hysterically by talking to her, cuddling her or even taking her out off bed.....that would stop her crying even for a while....but this was continual screaming....no....I think she was left to scream in that bedroom and was having a tantrum and didn't stop until daddy walked In.


Remember a relative off the mccanns saying that they would NEVER leave a child to cry....why say that...they don't say things without a reason or to cover up something.


You see KM forgets that we are mothers and that we know kids have tantrums which could last from 5 mins to much longer .....you have to let them get on with it....you cant reason with a screaming child, you either ignore it or place them in their bedroom if at home ....KM is trying to hoodwink us In to believing that Madeleine was the perfect child who never had them.....if a child don't have them they they ain't normal lol unfortunately a relative slipped up and said...'she could throw a tantrum' and 'there was a good Madeleine and a bad madeleine'.

I don't understand, why didn't KM just say...'ok, she was crying but I told Rachel to leave her for a while as she will cry herself to sleep'...instead KM denies any crying.


Why not say they took it in turns to look after each others children, I know it would mean their was no room for abduction but it also shouts that whatever happened HAPPENED whilst ONE off them were present .

kitti wrote:I don't understand, why didn't KM just say...'ok, she was crying but I told Rachel to leave her for a while as she will cry herself to sleep'...instead KM denies any crying.


Why not say they took it in turns to look after each others children, I know it would mean their was no room for abduction but it also shouts that whatever happened HAPPENED whilst ONE off them were present .

You're on form today kitti! I remember grandma McCann's 'that child could throw a tantrum'. It seems most of them did that week.....Tanner's daughter 'went into meltdown'....Oldfield's baby threw a wobbly every morning before being taken to the creche, Matt couldn't stand it so that hard cow Rachel took her even though she was ill. Obviously they didn't mention the tummy upset to the creche staff or they would have been told to keep her away in case it spread right through the lot of them. Not everyone on here has children but most have nieces/nephews and even if they don't they'd know enough to not leave 3 under 4s in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country.

It's a plausible theory ....KM in 5a with a screaming Maddie....she has a fall or KM loses her temper. A head injury which gets progressively worse the following day? Amaral seems satisfied that Maddie was alive on the Thursday.

Not Born Yesterday wrote: I keep coming back to the unsettling belief that this was all a gigantic pre-planned financial hoax.

Yes indeed, my belief too. I believe an investigation into the McCanns finances and the Fund would unravel the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.

Rachel being in her apartment on the night that Madeleine was heard crying by Mrs. Fenn is all smoke and mirrors. The McCanns would like everyone to believe that Madeleine could not have cried for 1 hr 15 min on the WEDNESDAY night because Rachel would have heard her crying in the apartment next door. However, according to Mrs. Fenn (the most believable person in this whole scenario), the crying occurred on TUESDAY night when it would have been Russell who was in his room, which was NOT next to the McCanns, and it would have been much more conceivable that he did not hear the crying.

The "sick" child-minding parent arrangement appears to be Sunday - Matt, Mon - nobody (possibly Kate, as it would have been her turn in the rotation), Tue - Russell, Wed - Rachel. I think it is possible that Kate was really with the kids on Monday, but they didn't want to admit it as the child minding arrangements would be too obvious. Madeleine could have been acting up on the Monday, driving Kate crazy. So they all decided that on the Tuesday it would be best to have her in her own apartment nearby (5A), so she would not bother all of the other children, nor Russell, whom apparently didn't think it was necessary to check on her.