Carole Tranmer

Witness Statement Analysis:

This ‘witness statement’ is worth mentioning for a number of reasons, but let’s just get into it…

“I am DC Ivor MESSIAH and I am a detective with the Leicestershire police in the Criminal Investigation unit…”

It’s our favourite detective, DC Ivor Messiah.

“…my name is Carol TRANMER and my date of birth is the first day of 1948…”

It should say ‘the first of May 1948’


IM: “What was your occupation before retirement?”

CT: “Humm… Yes, before retirement I worked temporarily for, more or less a year, and before that, I ran an antique business… I owned it for, humm… four years, and before this I worked as a secretary at Windsor Castle.”

Carole worked at Windsor Castle. How many people can say that?

Ivor Messiah digs deeper…

IM: “Did you know the Queen?”

Great first question.

CT: “Yes, I knew her.”

This is the Madeleine McCann story we’re talking about, so of course she knows Queen Elizabeth II.

CT: “Yes. The entire family, the whole royal family, yes.”

You see?

CT: “I worked in the Royal Collection and hummm… I was a personal assistant in the royal library and bookstore. I frequently encountered the royal family in private visits.”

CT: “There was also the Easter Court where the entire Buckingham Palace would usually come. Everyone had a very restricted calendar regarding their duties , thus if anything happened to the royal family, if they brought friends of visitors to Windsor, I had the opportunity to meet them and to show them around.”

It sounds like a very important job to be representing the Royal Family like that…

IM: “And did you speak to the Queen or Philip?”

Carole has just said she knew the Queen and the whole Royal Family. For Carole to know the Queen, she would surely need to have spoken to her.

Jesus Christ Ivor Messiah… pay attention!

IM: “And Diana, did you know Diana?”

Diana gets a mention in the PJ files! Of course she does. How many times has the Madeleine story thrown Diana at us now? We get it, the stories have a lot of similarities.

CT: “No, I never knew Diana. She was not there at the time.”

IM: “That must have been lamentable for you.”

CT: “Pardon”

IM: “Of not having the opportunity to meet her’ Not having the opportunity to meet her is a shame given what happened to her also.”

I love how this whole conversation is just a pathway to the Diana name-drop.

The connections between the Madeleine & Diana news stories have been made numerous times, by many people – so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to find Diana being talked about in the PJ files.

CT: “Yes, a tragedy, but it was a good experience working there.”

I can imagine.


Carole is now retelling the moment when she first heard the news about the disappearance.

Carole and her husband had just returned from a week in Portugal (property hunting) from the 28th April to 5th May 2007.

Whilst in the region, they called in to see Carole’s aunt (Mrs Fenn) who lived in the apartment above the McCanns.

Carole and her husband arrived home from Portugal on Saturday 5th May – two days after the disappearance – yet somehow they didn’t hear the news until Sunday morning! This is when Carole immediately called her aunt:

“‘Did you see’ to which (Mrs Fenn) responded ‘It was been an inferno, terrible since both of you left’.

Who else thinks Mrs Fenn didn’t use the word / adjective ‘inferno’ ? And shouldn’t that say ‘It has been an inferno’?

Shoddy clerksmanship.

CT: “After this I spoke with my cousin, whose son is at Sandhurst”

Of course he’s at Sandhurst. Was he, by any chance, serving with Prince William and Prince Harry? It certainly sounds like he was there the same time as Diana’s children!

CT: “…we (Carole and her husband) thought a bit more about it and I telephoned my cousin who is at Sandhurst.”

You just said that, but why are you calling him? If you have relevant information, call the police.

CT: “…and he told me that I should call the police and tell them.”

He probably wondered why you called him first!

Unless this cousin story is just a way of alluding to Diana? You know, the person you have “coincidentally” just been talking about…

CT: “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.”

Almost there, blimey, remind me not to call you with important information.

CT: “We passed by the Windsor squadron but it is clear that no one was there so I called the Leicester police..”

The Windsor Squadron are the RAF air cadets, so I’ve no idea what Carole was thinking here. Is she just trying to mention Windsor as much as possible? – as mentioning Windsor makes most people think of Windsor Castle / the Royal Family.

It’s allusion central.


I’ve included this part because it amuses me – I just find this section of their conversation to be particularly absurd.

IM: “Okay Carole. I have read your statement from the 8th of May, 2007…”

Ivor Messiah is referring to Carole’s first witness statement – which isn’t available to us.

IM: “I would like to clarify in your statement (when you said) ‘On the 28th of May, 2008’my husband and I, Chris TRANMER, caught a flight to Portugal to spend a week of holidays in the eastern Algarve’”

Do you see the problem yet? Well, just take a look at how these two (supposedly educated people) deal with it.

CT: “This is not correct. We arrived on Saturday”

IM: “Well then, it was after, after the disappearance of Madeleine. Was it not?”

CT: “No, no because this, humm… was in April, it was the 1st of May, Tuesday.”

IM: “Yes.”

CT: “We arrived more or less in the end of April.”

IM: “Yes.”

CT: “Therefore, it was… my birthday was on the 1st, Tuesday, and Thursday was the 1st of May.”

(Thursday was 3rd of May)

IM: “Yes.”

CT: “Thus, we arrived the Saturday before.”

For a start, the statement itself is dated the 8th of May, so why would she be talking about what happened on the 28th of May?

Secondly, her explanation isn’t great. Why doesn’t she just say she arrived on Saturday 28th of April?

Thirdly, she arrived in 2007, not 2008 – as IM incorrectly states when reading from the statement.

Unbelievable. It’s like Ivor Messiah has zero background knowledge of this story – like it’s his first day on the case.

IM: “Let me show you what you said, where I want to arrive, ma’am, you returned to Portugal after the disappearance of Madeleine’

Are you the clown police? The statement is dated the 8th May, and she’s just explained it to you.

IM: “So that date is incorrect’

CT: “Yes. It was in fact in April.”

IM: “April, this is it then”

CT: “Yes, I should have read this.

IM: “Yes.”

IM: “Or no, I don’t know.”

IM: “It says here, Saturday, the 28th of May.”

You’re an idiot.

CT: “It was the 28th of April because it was on the 3rd, Thursday, when we took my aunt to lunch. Yes, and after we went to visit her on Sunday. We visited her on the 29th of April.”

That’s a bit clearer Carole, but there’s still too many details for DC Brainlet to fully understand…

IM: “And here it says May, thus this statement is incorrect, right”

Are you for real? Oh right, I forgot…

IM: “Good. Let us clarify the statement collected on the 8th of May, relative to the dates referred to…”

CT: “Yes, it was wrong, it was in April.”

IM: “In fact it should be Saturday, the 28th of April.

Well done Sherlock. You are surely the greatest detective ever to grace the Leicestershire police force.

CT: “I got confused when I read this.”

IM: “Yes, I would also get confused.”


Carole’s witness statement – like everything else I cover – is not some random statement. Over the years, this statement has been continuously highlighted by the online McCann critics (even though I’m not sure how it fits with any of their theories) and more recently it has been pushed by the mainstream media.

NOTE: In the statement Carole recalls sitting on Mrs Fenn’s balcony whilst observing a ‘strange man’ closing the McCann’s gate. This is the ‘cover story’ – it’s a way to draw attention to the statement.

Here is a news story from May 2019 linking Carole’s description to German criminal Martin Ney:

“A BRITISH pal of The Queen who saw a suspicious man lurking outside Maddie’s apartment told cops he was foreign-looking and made her feel “strange”, it has emerged.”

Then one year later, June 2020, the mainstream media link Carole’s description to another German criminal, Christian Brueckner:

“Another witness, Carole Tranmer, 72, also gave police a description in 2008 which appeared to match that of Brueckner.”

Carole’s ‘strange man’ story is just a way to draw attention to her witness statement. The authors are proud of their allusions, they don’t want them buried somewhere in the PJ Files. They need to be out in the open and right in front of people.

We’ve seen this before with the Gaspar Statements, Fatima’s statement, David’s visit, the balloon photograph, and virtually everything else I’ve covered…


We have already seen in ‘Front Page News: The McCanns’ how many times the Madeleine story shares a front page with the Diana story.

That noted, when we see Diana being mentioned in the “official police records” by name, then surely that warrants a closer look. The fact Carole’s statement is already well-known and highly publicised, is also a signifier – as we’ve seen before.

We can now understand the author’s reasons for talking about Sandhurst and Windsor. They’re just devices used to add meaning – they are allusions.

This is why the primary interpretation doesn’t make much sense. Nobody would take the steps Carole took to call the police. They’ve just constructed a narrative around their allusions.

It’s exactly the same with the Gaspar Statements:

They had to find a way to allude to David & Bathsheba. So a narrative was constructed where David was watching over / bathing each other’s children! It’s not believable in the slightest, but when you know it’s a literary allusion, then it makes sense.

Carole’s journey to phoning the police, is exactly like that. You’re thinking: why is she calling her cousin, then her cousin’s son, then checking in the Windsor Squadron, all before calling the police? It’s not a believable thought-process, but once you realise it’s fiction, then we understand the various references.

Thanks for reading

Peter James Cullen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s