Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by Maria 04.06.16 3:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]---"Poll Question

Did any such burglary actually take place?"

For me the answer is clearly 'no', which calls into question everything else she said.

YES.

If the burglary incident never happened, then neither did the crying incident, and consequently no reliance can be placed on anything Mrs Fenn said in her statement.

Mrs Fenn was 81 at the time, was no doubt on friendly terms with the Murat family, and was somehow cajoled into iving a fabricated account to the police.

Little wonder that this vulnerable old lady was distressed when journalists In Portugal got wind of what she had been telling the PJ - and outright denied what the papers had been reporting.

Those who manufactured her statement have a helluva lot to answer for.

With all due respect, and I say that mainly because I don't want to be attacked for disagreeing with you, but how on earth do you know for sure the burglary incident didn't happen and if it actually didnt happen how did you come to the conclusion that the crying incident didn't happen? ( i still cant find her ankle grabbing burglar statement)

I've never paid much attention to Mrs Fenn mainly because I thought it was true, but upon seeing there was doubt I kept an open mind, have recently read as much as I could, I have only found one statement from her and I cant for the life of me say she is a liar, cajoled or not..
If that was her only statement, I can't for the life of me see how anyone thinks she was lying..

I think her statement was honest and her reason for giving the age of the child crying was because of being pushed for perfection by the police/pj, thats what they do, in all countries.

It' s also possible the police leaked her unofficial statement to the press, her official one taken possibly a week or two later.. We have seen this happen throughout the process.

As i say, I'm was more or less ignorant on the mrs Fenn incident, but have read alot in the last day and all I can find is one statement and alot of press garbage.

The woman in my opinion was not lying, she may have been vunerable and intimidated, and heck she was 81, but dont let her age make you thing she was either. I can't find any evidence to lead me to her lying

I don't wish to disrupt and dont want agro but if there are more statements she made that differ from the origional I am open to change my opinions.
If not, then I'm sticking to the one I have, the woman was truthful as much as she could be

by plebgate 04.06.16 7:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
plebgate wrote:Yes I thought why did she differentiate Tony, but maybe she was specifically asked whether she thought it was that of an older child?
I think this is a very remote possibility @ plebgate.

Of course, by the time she was finally interviewed, 111 days after the event, the PJ would have long been aware that the McCanns had three children, two aged 2 years and 2 months, and one aged 3 years and 11 months.

So if you think Mrs Fenn might have been specifically asked if she thought it was one of the twins crying, or Madeleine, how might the question have been put?

Maybe: "Could you tell if it was one of the two-year-old twins or Madeleine, who was nearly four?"

Her statement says: "due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger".

I would still like to hear from anyone who says (after 111 days) that they can remember and distinguish between the sounds of a child crying who is under 3 and one who is 3 years or more.

Maybe we could run an experiment on the forum, play some sounds of children crying, and play 'guess the age of the child'.

I don't in the least mean to be flippant, I am trying to get at the absurdity of someone claiming there is a difference in tone between a child before his/her 3rd birthday and after his/her 3rd birthday.

The whole phrase seems contrived to me and very much as though someone wrote Mrs Fenn's script for her.

@Tony I can see a scenario where Mrs. Fenn went to the police and during the recounting of what happened she said that she had heard crying for 75 minutes. It is very possible that the policeman interjected and asked whether she thought it was the crying of a YOUNGER or OLDER child - quite possibly a grizzle as a younger child would do or a very strong and persistent "wail" - that of an older child. Having had so many children in our family I think I would be able to describe the crying of an older child to that of a younger child. So yes, I can understand the description.

Having given a statement to the police (minor car incident) I know that when I was speaking the policeman did interject and ask me specific questions such as was the colour of the car a light or dark shade.

One does not just walk in and sit and give a statement without maybe a "nudge" for want of a better word when trying to recall the scene one is trying to recall.

I know you are not being flippant Tony and that you take all of your posts very seriously.

by plebgate 04.06.16 7:18

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:I probably shouldn't do this but I can't help myself.

Mrs. Fenn died an old woman after a good long life.

Madeleine McCann was a tiny child who had barely begun to live her life.

We are here trying to find some sort of truth and justice for this child.

For that reason, if an old woman was dishonest, for whatever reason, in her statements about events surrounding the death of this poor child--and it very much appears that she was--- then dead or not her statements deserve scrutiny and even censure. If it comes down to a choice between sentimentality over a deceased, elderly woman and truth for Madeleine I choose Madeleine.

[and frankly it beggars belief that a woman, elderly or not, would not call someone to come and check on a child who has been crying 'daddy daddy' for over an hour, becoming 'increasingly' distressed. who in their right mind wouldn't be thinking of dire scenarios, such as the parents may be lying dead in the apartment as the child wails her head off? I could never in a million years ignore a child's cries for that long. Heck, I couldn't ignore the wailing of a kitten for that long without checking on it myself]
I agree wholeheartedly - this is all about a little three year old child that disappeared off the face of the earth and has been let down by all who should be there for her.

Anything contained in the PJ files and otherwise connected to the case is open to scrutiny, no matter who or what - there is no room here for mawkish sentimentality.

mawkish sentimentality Verdi. I don't see that, I see posters saying give Mrs. Fenn the benefit of the doubt, (if that is what is needed) as opposed to some posters inferring that she was definitely lying.

Mrs. Fenn has surviving relatives and I think people should remember that. I would be furious if I thought my mother's name was being bandied about without evidence of any such thing.

Tony has very genuinely posted thought provoking questions which has given rise to vigourous debate and rightly so, but I think some other posters should remember that this lady deserves our respect in that she was none other than an innocent lady in all of it.

by pennylane 04.06.16 8:47

Maria wrote:In trying to have an opinion on Mrs Fenn i can't find more than one statement, and in that she mentions nothing about ankle grabbing burglars..
I think Mrs Fenn was telling the truth, unless she made more than one statement and if so could someone point me in that direction so I can read it please, thank you

Of course an 81 year old lady in poor health never said that. It's all rubbish as Mrs Fenn says. I believe it was a ploy by Mitchell to discredit a witness that knew Maddie had been neglectfully left alone and sobbing two nights before she suspiciously disappeared. Her statement to the police is valid and truthful (imo).

by BarryTheHatchet 04.06.16 9:23

Mrs Fenn would never have written any statement. She would have spoken it orally, and the police officer interviewing her would either have taped it or written it in a notebook. And they would have asked questions - was it a light or dark coloured car? Was the man black or white or of Asian appearance? Was he tall or short? What was he wearing? and so on. Then the written answers quite possibly would look contrived, and that has nothing to do with whether Mrs Fenn was lying or not. I'm with Pennylane on this. I have seen zero evidence to date to show that this lady was lying. Or even manipulated.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.06.16 10:07

Maria wrote:
With all due respect, and I say that mainly because I don't want to be attacked for disagreeing with you, but how on earth do you know for sure the burglary incident didn't happen? - and if it actually didn't happen how did you come to the conclusion that the crying incident didn't happen? (I still cant find her ankle grabbing burglar statement)

I've never paid much attention to Mrs Fenn mainly because I thought it was true, but upon seeing there was doubt I kept an open mind, have recently read as much as I could, I have only found one statement from her and I can't for the life of me say she is a liar, cajoled or not....If that was her only statement, I can't for the life of me see how anyone thinks she was lying.

I think her statement was honest and her reason for giving the age of the child crying was because of being pushed for perfection by the police/PJ, that's what they do, in all countries.

It's also possible the police leaked her unofficial statement to the press, her official one taken possibly a week or two later. We have seen this happen throughout the process.

As I say, I'm was more or less ignorant on the mrs Fenn incident, but have read a lot in the last day and all I can find is one statement and a lot of press garbage.

The woman in my opinion was not lying, she may have been vulnerable and intimidated, and heck she was 81, but don't let her age make you think she was either. I can't find any evidence to lead me to her lying.

I don't wish to disrupt and dont want aggro but if there are more statements she made that differ from the original I am open to change my opinions.
If not, then I'm sticking to the one I have, the woman was truthful as much as she could be.

@ Maria

“IT’S ALL RUBBISH…IGNORE IT”

These were the very words that Mrs Pamela Fenn gave us, live to a TV interviewer. It was her answer to a journalist’s questions about the recent press reports about her statements to the PJ.

Now I believe that on this occasion, she spoke the truth.

Yet you, Maria, and others, are suggesting that Mrs Fenn was being untruthful on this occasion.

We have two possibilities here, either:

A. As I have suggested, Mrs Fenn was persuaded by those with a very bad motive to give an untruthful statement to the police, but later made it plain to her interview that what she was supposed to have had said to the PJ was ‘rubbish...ignore it’

or,

B. Mrs Fenn told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in her PJ interview, but later was untruthful (i.e. lied) by telling the interviewer that her reported evidence was ‘rubbish’ and telling people to ‘ignore it’.

Either, then, Mrs Fenn was untruthful in her PJ statement, or she was untruthful by saying: “It’s all rubbish…ignore it”.

Which is correct? ‘A’ or ‘B’?

Maria, you have taken the trouble to search for Mrs Fenn’s statements, and you are right, she made only one, on 20 August.

This is all that is said in her statement about the alleged burglary (from the translation on pamalam’s site):

“She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence”.

Looking at these words of hers, I make the following observations:

1. She gives no detail whatsoever

2. She does not say that she reported this attempted burglary previously to the police (indeed there is no evidence that she ever did).

I would invite you now to take a look at the plethora of news reports about Mrs Fenn’s evidence that poured out in the British press on Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 August. They have all been nice collected for us by Nigel Moore on the McCannFiles site, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I will reproduce part of just one of them, the one in the Daily Mirror:

“In a new development, a British expat has come forward with dramatic new evidence. Pamela Fenn said a man broke into her flat above the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve, just weeks before Madeleine disappeared. There was no sign of a break-in and it is thought the intruder may have had a key. Mrs Fenn, who is in her 70s, found the man scrambling out of the window and tried to grab his ankle. But he escaped. She reported the incident to Portuguese police but they did not question her again”.

You are right, Mrs Fenn did not give these rather graphic details about the alleged burglary to the Portuguese Police. And if you look at all the other press reports of those two days, these graphic details vary greatly from one report to another, as I set out here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One week before…two weeks…three weeks…several…

Forced entry…not forced entry

Tried to grab his ankle…jumped out of a first floor window…found in the bedroom

Carole Tranmer was there…no she wasn’t

Didn’t bother reporting it to the police…’phoned them straightaway...
etc. etc. - glaring contradictions.

I fully agree with you that Mrs Fenn cannot in the least be blamed for any of these several wild and contradictory statements about this alleged burglary. All that I do assert, for the reasons I gave on the link above, is that she has told the PJ there was a burglary when the evidence (which I am not sure if you have read yet) is that there was no such burglary.

You asked: “if [the burglary incident] didn’t happen, how did you come to the conclusion that the crying incident didn't happen?”

Answer: Very simple, and I think ‘whodunit’ also supplied the answer: If a statement made within a police statement is untrue, how can one rely on anything else in it? All of it becomes suspect.

One thing you referred to is that you think that Mrs Fenn made an ‘unofficial statement’ as well as an ‘official statement’. You think that the PJ ‘may have leaked’ this to the press.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Mrs Fenn made any ‘unofficial statement’ to the PJ.

Let me explain what almost certainly happened.

The fact is that this spate of reports about the alleged crying and burglary incidents didn’t appear in the Portuguese press but in the British press. As we see, they go far far beyond Mrs Fenn’s bald statement that she had been the victim of an attempted burglary ‘the week before’. These British press articles all furthered the McCanns’ agenda – Madeleine alive on Tuesday night, burglars entering apartments.

So who is the prime suspect for planting these articles? Obvioulsy, Clarence Mitchell, whose serial lies were magnificently expose in Richard Hall’s recent short video:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]This was no leak by the Portuguese Police. It is I suggest one of the clearest examples of media manipulation by Clarence Mitchel in the entire case.

Finally, your worries about ‘causing aggro’ or ‘being attacked for disagreeing with me’ are groundless. This thread is clear testimony to the fact that on CMOMM we can have robust debate about the facts of this case without (as a rule) getting nasty about it. Hopefully in the cut-and-thrust of debate, the good arguments prevail and the bad ones are discarded.

What I would add, though, is that to refuse to analyse all the facts surrounding Mrs Fenn’s statement because “She was an 81-year-old woman and she’s dead now and we mustn’t speak ill of the dead” does not help us to get to the truth.

Remember again that the worst thing I am alleging about Mrs Fenn is that certain people took gross advantage of her by getting her to make statements to the police to suit their agenda.

I will try and reply later in the day to other points made by posters overnight.

by pennylane 04.06.16 10:21

BarryTheHatchet wrote:Mrs Fenn would never have written any statement. She would have spoken it orally, and the police officer interviewing her would either have taped it or written it in a notebook. And they would have asked questions - was it a light or dark coloured car? Was the man black or white or of Asian appearance? Was he tall or short? What was he wearing? and so on. Then the written answers quite possibly would look contrived, and that has nothing to do with whether Mrs Fenn was lying or not. I'm with Pennylane on this. I have seen zero evidence to date to show that this lady was lying. Or even manipulated.

Spot on!

by **Tony Bennett** 04.06.16 10:29

I am adding these two items for reference purposes:

=============

Transcript (translated) from Portuguese SIC News TV channel, Wednesday 22 August (excerpts from that broadcast):

“Mrs Pamela Fenn, the British octogenarian who lives above the apartment from where Maddie disappeared, says she has been harassed by the unwanted interest of journalist, and has denied having spoken with the police. She said she didn't have any information about the case.

At the age 81, this quiet, retired British woman seems to have been seriously shaken. “After an outburst by her at her hairdressers, news that she was a witness in the Madeleine McCann case quickly became known to journalists' ears…According to what she was said to have told the police, the night before Madeleine was reported missing, she heard a child crying and calling for her father for a long time.

The fact that she spends most of the day on her veranda, with a view across to the Tapas restaurant, made the police return to the Ocean Club on Monday morning. Detectives quizzed her for about four hours to see if she had seen someone from the McCann group leave the restaurant to go and check on the children. .

Angry at the journalists' questions, Mrs Fenn denied being a witness in the case and said that what the press were saying was ‘pure speculation’.

When doorstepped by a journalist (same day, 22 August), words spoken in English:

“Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months. Until all this happened, I've never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in the newspapers. I've never even uttered a word! I've never (sighing)... it's all rubbish! Please, please, just forget it”.

by whatsupdoc 04.06.16 11:08

Quote TB...

If the burglary incident never happened, then neither did the crying incident, and consequently no reliance can be placed on anything Mrs Fenn said in her statement.

end of quote

That sounds very wonky logic to me , Tony. Two separate unconnected incidents.

To give only an A or B alternative is not satisfactory. I can think of other alternatives.

Mrs. Fenn may have heard crying and if she was on the phone , the other lady would have known if it had been mentioned.

I suspect Mrs. Fenn didn't want the attention of the press and just fobbed them off. I have heard her say "It's all rubbish...just ignore it." There was a lot of traffic noise in the video but I think she just generalised about the whole press coverage and didn't say "What I said was rubbish".

I think she did hear crying as the McCanns made a big effort to wash the idea away and turn it to their advantage of leaving the children alone. I think all the children were in one room being looked after by the "sick" Tapas member.
As for the burglary, that may have happened but I think the door would have been favourite for exiting rather than a first story window.

by **sharonl** 04.06.16 11:19

Maria

If you have time, this link that Tony posted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is all about Pamela Fenn, her statements, news reports etc. It is well worth a read, but it is lengthy.

This is also worth a read, it is Carole Tramners' statement etc. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In her interview, Carole says that she was in Portugal for the same week as the McCanns but staying a few hours away from Luz. Her evidence of actually being there was a photograph taken on Mrs Fenns' balcony. There is however, some confusion over the date of Caroles' trip.

Carole claims to have visited Mrs Fenn on the Sunday and the Thursday. They sat on the Balcony and on Thursday they went for a birthday meal.

Given that the alleged burglary took place weeks before Madeleines' disappearance and that Carole claims to have been around the week that Madeleine vanished, how could she have possibly seen the burglar as reported by the Daily Mail? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another point to note, is the description of Mrs Fenns' apartment by Carole Tranmer in the above link - is this really a good target for a burglar? IMO, It is highly unlikely that he would make a fast get away without being seen.

by nglfi 04.06.16 11:23

I'm going back a few pages now (I've forgotten how to copy and paste a quote) but re why only Madeleine was crying after 75 mins -
Goncalo Amaral suspected that the children had possibly been sedated and was surprised when Madeleine went missing that the twins slept through everything. Perhaps this was another case of the twins not waking up due to sedation,regardless of how loud Madeleine may have been crying? IMO

by pennylane 04.06.16 12:24

Exactly nglfi, there is absolute proof that the twins can remain comatose throughout all sorts of upheaval and commotion! Not only did Mrs Fenn hear the crying on 1st May, it was indeed Maddie imo, and the twins remained out cold just as they did on the evening of 3rd of May.

It's a fact that Calpol (et al) can have a reverse effect on some children and make them hyper. I think Maddie was one of those children? This may have resulted in her being given too much, or something different, on 2nd/3rd May.

by Verdi 04.06.16 12:57

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: Tony has very genuinely posted thought provoking questions which has given rise to vigourous debate and rightly so, but I think some other posters should remember that this lady deserves our respect in that she was none other than an innocent lady in all of it.

Mawkish sentimentality I wrote and mawkish sentimentality I meant. Because Mrs Fenn was an elderly lady and has since deceased doesn't in my mind make her presence in this case sacrosanct. My intention is not to disrespect the lady or her memory, I'm merely trying to make some sense out of her position juxtaposed with that of her niece. This forum prides itself on it's endeavors to uncover the truth behind the mystery of Madeleine McCann, to my way of thinking this means leaving no stone un-turned, to coin a phrase. As I recently said, all statements and other information are open to scrutiny and I don't see why Pamela Fenn should be an exception.

Having said that, my primary reason for griping about sentimentality is because those wretched crusaders out there, that want to see this forum destroyed, use such excuses as Pamela Fenn's disposition as a form of attack but I didn't want to specifically drag the subject up again - hence the generalization.

Tony is a true diplomat, he takes great pains to make everyone feel their contribution is valid, whilst still getting his point across - I truly admire him for his fortitude but alas I can't be the same. I'm abrupt and like to get things done without wasting too much time and energy, it's my nature for which I don't apologize. This flaw in my character doesn't mean my intentions are any less genuine than Tony's or anyone else - maybe the electrician messed-up when wiring my brain.

by Verdi 04.06.16 13:05

Maria wrote:In trying to have an opinion on Mrs Fenn i can't find more than one statement, and in that she mentions nothing about ankle grabbing burglars..
I think Mrs Fenn was telling the truth, unless she made more than one statement and if so could someone point me in that direction so I can read it please, thank you

I didn't say the ankle grabbing burglar incident was mentioned in Pamela Fenn's statement - it was in a tabloid press report that I posted somewhere up-thread.

by pennylane 04.06.16 13:11

sharonl wrote:Maria

If you have time, this link that Tony posted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is all about Pamela Fenn, her statements, news reports etc. It is well worth a read, but it is lengthy.

This is also worth a read, it is Carole Tramners' statement etc. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In her interview, Carole says that she was in Portugal for the same week as the McCanns but staying a few hours away from Luz. Her evidence of actually being there was a photograph taken on Mrs Fenns' balcony. There is however, some confusion over the date of Caroles' trip.

Carole claims to have visited Mrs Fenn on the Sunday and the Thursday. They sat on the Balcony and on Thursday they went for a birthday meal.

Given that the alleged burglary took place weeks before Madeleines' disappearance and that Carole claims to have been around the week that Madeleine vanished, how could she have possibly seen the burglar as reported by the Daily Mail? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another point to note, is the description of Mrs Fenns' apartment by Carole Tranmer in the above link - is this really a good target for a burglar? IMO, It is highly unlikely that he would make a fast get away without being seen.

I think the moral of the story is never believe a word of what you read in the press, particularly here in the UK and even more particularly when it pertains to Maddie's disappearance. The only two things in quotes in that article is "scared off" and "I will speak to the police on Monday." The rest is 'a source close to' and 'a friend' so not worth the paper printed on imho.

by HelenMeg 04.06.16 13:47

pennylane wrote:
BarryTheHatchet wrote:Mrs Fenn would never have written any statement. She would have spoken it orally, and the police officer interviewing her would either have taped it or written it in a notebook. And they would have asked questions - was it a light or dark coloured car? Was the man black or white or of Asian appearance? Was he tall or short? What was he wearing? and so on. Then the written answers quite possibly would look contrived, and that has nothing to do with whether Mrs Fenn was lying or not. I'm with Pennylane on this. I have seen zero evidence to date to show that this lady was lying. Or even manipulated.
Spot on!

I am one of those people who believe that Mrs Fenn has no credibility and her statement should be ignored !

Wasn't she a good friend of Jenny Murat? And to distinguish the cry as being of a 3 year odl rather than 2 year old is just plain old ridiculous and a major red flag!

by Maria 04.06.16 14:28

H

Tony Bennett wrote:
Maria wrote:
With all due respect, and I say that mainly because I don't want to be attacked for disagreeing with you, but how on earth do you know for sure the burglary incident didn't happen? - and if it actually didn't happen how did you come to the conclusion that the crying incident didn't happen? (I still cant find her ankle grabbing burglar statement)

I've never paid much attention to Mrs Fenn mainly because I thought it was true, but upon seeing there was doubt I kept an open mind, have recently read as much as I could, I have only found one statement from her and I can't for the life of me say she is a liar, cajoled or not....If that was her only statement, I can't for the life of me see how anyone thinks she was lying.

I think her statement was honest and her reason for giving the age of the child crying was because of being pushed for perfection by the police/PJ, that's what they do, in all countries.

It's also possible the police leaked her unofficial statement to the press, her official one taken possibly a week or two later. We have seen this happen throughout the process.

As I say, I'm was more or less ignorant on the mrs Fenn incident, but have read a lot in the last day and all I can find is one statement and a lot of press garbage.

The woman in my opinion was not lying, she may have been vulnerable and intimidated, and heck she was 81, but don't let her age make you think she was either. I can't find any evidence to lead me to her lying.

I don't wish to disrupt and dont want aggro but if there are more statements she made that differ from the original I am open to change my opinions.
If not, then I'm sticking to the one I have, the woman was truthful as much as she could be.

@ Maria

“IT’S ALL RUBBISH…IGNORE IT”

These were the very words that Mrs Pamela Fenn gave us, live to a TV interviewer. It was her answer to a journalist’s questions about the recent press reports about her statements to the PJ.

Now I believe that on this occasion, she spoke the truth.

Yet you, Maria, and others, are suggesting that Mrs Fenn was being untruthful on this occasion.

We have two possibilities here, either:

A. As I have suggested, Mrs Fenn was persuaded by those with a very bad motive to give an untruthful statement to the police, but later made it plain to her interview that what she was supposed to have had said to the PJ was ‘rubbish...ignore it’

or,

B. Mrs Fenn told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in her PJ interview, but later was untruthful (i.e. lied) by telling the interviewer that her reported evidence was ‘rubbish’ and telling people to ‘ignore it’.

Either, then, Mrs Fenn was untruthful in her PJ statement, or she was untruthful by saying: “It’s all rubbish…ignore it”.

Which is correct? ‘A’ or ‘B’?

Maria, you have taken the trouble to search for Mrs Fenn’s statements, and you are right, she made only one, on 20 August.

This is all that is said in her statement about the alleged burglary (from the translation on pamalam’s site):

“She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence”.

Looking at these words of hers, I make the following observations:

1. She gives no detail whatsoever

2. She does not say that she reported this attempted burglary previously to the police (indeed there is no evidence that she ever did).

I would invite you now to take a look at the plethora of news reports about Mrs Fenn’s evidence that poured out in the British press on Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 August. They have all been nice collected for us by Nigel Moore on the McCannFiles site, here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I will reproduce part of just one of them, the one in the Daily Mirror:

“In a new development, a British expat has come forward with dramatic new evidence. Pamela Fenn said a man broke into her flat above the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve, just weeks before Madeleine disappeared. There was no sign of a break-in and it is thought the intruder may have had a key. Mrs Fenn, who is in her 70s, found the man scrambling out of the window and tried to grab his ankle. But he escaped. She reported the incident to Portuguese police but they did not question her again”.

You are right, Mrs Fenn did not give these rather graphic details about the alleged burglary to the Portuguese Police. And if you look at all the other press reports of those two days, these graphic details vary greatly from one report to another, as I set out here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One week before…two weeks…three weeks…several…

Forced entry…not forced entry

Tried to grab his ankle…jumped out of a first floor window…found in the bedroom

Carole Tranmer was there…no she wasn’t

Didn’t bother reporting it to the police…’phoned them straightaway...
etc. etc. - glaring contradictions.

I fully agree with you that Mrs Fenn cannot in the least be blamed for any of these several wild and contradictory statements about this alleged burglary. All that I do assert, for the reasons I gave on the link above, is that she has told the PJ there was a burglary when the evidence (which I am not sure if you have read yet) is that there was no such burglary.

You asked: “if [the burglary incident] didn’t happen, how did you come to the conclusion that the crying incident didn't happen?”

Answer: Very simple, and I think ‘whodunit’ also supplied the answer: If a statement made within a police statement is untrue, how can one rely on anything else in it? All of it becomes suspect.

One thing you referred to is that you think that Mrs Fenn made an ‘unofficial statement’ as well as an ‘official statement’. You think that the PJ ‘may have leaked’ this to the press.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Mrs Fenn made any ‘unofficial statement’ to the PJ.

Let me explain what almost certainly happened.

The fact is that this spate of reports about the alleged crying and burglary incidents didn’t appear in the Portuguese press but in the British press. As we see, they go far far beyond Mrs Fenn’s bald statement that she had been the victim of an attempted burglary ‘the week before’. These British press articles all furthered the McCanns’ agenda – Madeleine alive on Tuesday night, burglars entering apartments.

So who is the prime suspect for planting these articles? Obvioulsy, Clarence Mitchell, whose serial lies were magnificently expose in Richard Hall’s recent short video:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]This was no leak by the Portuguese Police. It is I suggest one of the clearest examples of media manipulation by Clarence Mitchel in the entire case.

Finally, your worries about ‘causing aggro’ or ‘being attacked for disagreeing with me’ are groundless. This thread is clear testimony to the fact that on CMOMM we can have robust debate about the facts of this case without (as a rule) getting nasty about it. Hopefully in the cut-and-thrust of debate, the good arguments prevail and the bad ones are discarded.

What I would add, though, is that to refuse to analyse all the facts surrounding Mrs Fenn’s statement because “She was an 81-year-old woman and she’s dead now and we mustn’t speak ill of the dead” does not help us to get to the truth.

Remember again that the worst thing I am alleging about Mrs Fenn is that certain people took gross advantage of her by getting her to make statements to the police to suit their agenda.

I will try and reply later in the day to other points made by posters overnight.

Thank you Tony, I will certainly read the links you provided, as I said my opinion right now is that she was honest in her statement but sometimes my opinions change when I learn more, sometimes they stay the same.

Is it possible her words " it's all rubbish" may be referring to all the garbage the press wrote, rather than about her police statement? I havn't read the links provided so I'm just throwing that out there. I havn't seen the question she was asked. I have never suggested Mrs. fenn was being untruthful with the "it's all rubbish statement, I said I believed her statement to the police, and that does not mean I don't believe the rubbish comment, but I'm sure I'll be more informed when I read all you privided.

I don't actually know if she made an unofficial statement or if the PJ leaked it, or even british police leaked it, It was just another possibility that ran through my head of how the press could have got wind of what she was going to tell the PJ.

I would also never refuse to learn as much as possible about someone because of their age or because they have died.
I'm going to read all links and videos provided by you.
Thank you winkwink

by Maria 04.06.16 14:39

sharonl wrote:Maria

If you have time, this link that Tony posted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is all about Pamela Fenn, her statements, news reports etc. It is well worth a read, but it is lengthy.

This is also worth a read, it is Carole Tramners' statement etc. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In her interview, Carole says that she was in Portugal for the same week as the McCanns but staying a few hours away from Luz. Her evidence of actually being there was a photograph taken on Mrs Fenns' balcony. There is however, some confusion over the date of Caroles' trip.

Carole claims to have visited Mrs Fenn on the Sunday and the Thursday. They sat on the Balcony and on Thursday they went for a birthday meal.

Given that the alleged burglary took place weeks before Madeleines' disappearance and that Carole claims to have been around the week that Madeleine vanished, how could she have possibly seen the burglar as reported by the Daily Mail? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another point to note, is the description of Mrs Fenns' apartment by Carole Tranmer in the above link - is this really a good target for a burglar? IMO, It is highly unlikely that he would make a fast get away without being seen.

thank you Sharonl I will definately make a start at reading these links today

by Maria 04.06.16 14:45

Verdi wrote:
Maria wrote:In trying to have an opinion on Mrs Fenn i can't find more than one statement, and in that she mentions nothing about ankle grabbing burglars..
I think Mrs Fenn was telling the truth, unless she made more than one statement and if so could someone point me in that direction so I can read it please, thank you
I didn't say the ankle grabbing burglar incident was mentioned in Pamela Fenn's statement - it was in a tabloid press report that I posted somewhere up-thread.

Verdi I wasn't saying you said it, I know I read it by several posters but I wouldn't have a clue who. Also at the time when I read some comments about it I assumed the press was reporting something she said, now I know it was just a report in the papers

by Maria 04.06.16 15:42

I have reread Pamelas statement and skimmed through the press reports, I skimmed the press reports because i Believe Mitchell has a strong hand in what is printed so I'm inclined not to believe a word of what they say.

mrs. Fenn claimed in her statement of an attempted burglary the previous week, attempted. She may or may not have reported it, the persom may only have tried to open her door, may never have entered her apartment, may have been a tourist and got mixed up in apartments, We dont know and all we have to go by is what is in her statement. She may have thought it was an attempted burglary at the time her statement was being taken in August because of all the reports of burglarys in the papers, maybe at the time it happened she didn't think it was an attempted burglary. We just dont know and I'm not willing to believe any of the reports printed by the mouth of Mitchell. After watching that short youtube video Tony provided reminded me of what a liar he is and how much influence he has. It took all my strength to watch him perform.

These are just some possibilities and Im certainly not saying this is what happened regarding the attempted burglary, but logic will tell me it would be something like that rather than her lying or being cajoled into helping the McCanns.

How the press got wind of her statement before she made it, in my opinion it was leaked to the papers and if it was only in the British press in my opinion a Policeman leaked it. Ot certainly wasn't the first or last bit of information that was leaked to the press, either in the UK or Portugal.
Its very possible Mrs Fenn told the police at some stage what she heard and saw, possibly by phone, possibly even soon after the event, and was asked to come in and make a formal statement at a later date to be arranged.
Who knows? It may have taken them a while to get round to interviewing her because of all the fake sightings amd false leads they were forced to follow up. I don't think that on the 20th of August she simply walked in and made that statement. I know I can't prove this but logic tells me this.

I believe right now that the papers grabbed at the small comment about the attempted burglary and ran with that because it benefitted the McCanns, they added a whole lot of lies that Mr.s Fenn hadnt even stated. But it helped the McCanns. Some even said her report of the crying happened the night before the 3d. I'm inclined to believe wholeheartedly that the papers fabricated all of this to aid the McCanns and there is no proof that Mrs Fenn said a word of it.

Her statement that it was all rubbish, in my opinion, is about all the lies and crap that was in the papers and If I was in her shoes at that time, when she was being badgered and harassed by a bumch of reporters, an elderly lady, I would have said I didn't know anything and didn't make a statement and hadn't a clue what they were on about, simply for a bit of peace.

I know the McCanns/Mitchell influenced alot of people but I honestly don't think Mrs Fenn was one of the statements they influenced. Nothing of what she stated benefitted them. i know they ran with the burglar part but the greatly fabricated it. it's what they do.

We will have to agree to disagree on this bit, I have taken all you said into account Tony, and of course your entitled to your opinion also and your own logical reasons why you came to your conclusions and here I have tried to explain mine as best I could.

I understand alot of you think she was pressured or cajoled or whatever, but I disagree.

I have yet to read properly her nieces statement but will do shortly.

by **HiDeHo** 04.06.16 15:52

Until now I have not looked at the details that have been thoroughly researched by Tony regarding why he believes Mrs Fenn was lying about the crying incident, so I looked at the 10 reasons and it certainly is something to keep in mind.

However, as many know I follow the facts from the files and direct attributable quotes (in context) and cannot take an omission as a 'fact'.

I have done my best to read as many 3A threads as possible on the subject to try to get a feel for the discussions at the time, also recognising that not everything was 'fact'.

My thoughts have always been that Mrs Fenn was approached initially by police that took her comments (along with 400+ other 'neighbours' which were added to the investigation but not recorded in the files.)

As I see it, around August 18th weekend there were reports that a UK citizen was possibly going to be charged before the warrents 48 hrs ran out. Police were pulled from their holidays because of the impending possible arrest.

This was not confirmed in the files (I have searched for any details about the search warrant) but the reports appear credible and we know that not all actions/activities of the police are recorded in the files.

There is the suggestion that Mrs Fenn and others were called in for formal statements because of what was happening at the time.

Apparently the claims of 'rubbish' etc may have been regarding the article where Mrs Fenn claims that Kate was 'out of control'

The reports also quoted witnesses who have given statements to police.

Pamela Fenn, who was in an apartment above the family on May 3 - the night Madeleine disappeared - is quoted as saying she believed Mrs McCann sometimes became violent and "out of control" in the room below.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Madeleine McCann

She claimed that "the little girl's screams calling for her daddy were very audible".

Another witness is quoted as saying that Mrs McCann "seemed to have moments of aggressiveness towards her children" and that her husband, "though more absent, had more emotional control".

Mrs McCann is said to have strongly denied both these allegations in police interviews.

Using the quotes only this does not appear to be something that would have been comments urged by Team McCann, but as with everything we don't know when she (or the other witness) made those quotes.

The Silvia Batista comment about suggesting to Kate about the babysitting service which was refused and that they seemed unconcerned (prior to the disappearance) may well have been PR damage control later or it may have been (as suggested in many threads) that it was following reports regarding 5A.

Informal statements have not been recorded in the files but these would have existed and be known and we have no idea what any of them hold regarding information.

To claim something doesn't exist does not create a fact.

We must all choose to follow what we belive is the most probable as none of us know anything is a fact. I applaud Tony for his research on Mrs Fenn's credibility and what he has discovered may very well be correct.

Personally I still feel that there are many 'facts' that we are not aware of and I cannot base a theory on what we don't know.

I give Mrs Fenn the benefit of the doubt and unless/until I see 'facts' based on knowledge and not reliant on omissions even though they may be correct and explain an interference of the McCanns, which is also very possible.

We must remain true to our own beliefs but always keep in mind, and respect, the amazing research.

RIP Mrs Fenn

by Maria 04.06.16 16:10

Agree, huge respect to all the reaserch and effort put into this case by alot of members in here, although some bits I may disagree with I have the greatest respect for the members who dig up and produce stuff that was almost forgotten, even the smallest things can turn out to be something much bigger because of the reaserch done by members here.

by **HiDeHo** 04.06.16 16:27

Just to add... I have always felt that the claims of Maddie coming to them about the crying were to place Maddie alive on May 4th.

However if this report is true...

There, the statement of Pamela Fenn, the English citizen that lived in the apartment that was located above the one that was occupied by the McCanns, became fundamental again. On the day before the day that the child disappeared, the local resident heard Maddie's screams. The child cried and screamed for her father, while the emotional lack of control from her mother was audible.

Pamela Fenn even spoke to the McCanns about the noise the children made, which disturbed her, and the McCanns promised that the situation would not be repeated.

This could be considered the 'damage control' that they were aware of the crying and and chose to preempt and explain it away and use it as a possible abductor entering the night before... knowing that possibly Mrs Fenn would make it known (if true)

Many of you remember beachy... I just want to share her comment about that (im)possible trial run... big grin

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by dottyaussie 04.06.16 16:41

I have been lurking for a bit but not contributing due to being poorly. Im on the mend now but this post may not be totally coherent so I apologise in advance lol.

Poor Mrs Fenn. I actually believe her. It has been said that she was spoken to by the police prior to her statement of 20/8/07 which would be true given the fact that she lives above where the McCanns were staying. What she said to police on that first occasion we may never know. What we do know is that at some point BEFORE her statement of 20/8/07 she had told at least two others, her friend and her hairdresser about the crying incident. Did she also mention it to the Management and was this why the McCanns were offered the babysitting service? What date was the video at the hairdresser taken ?? When was Mrs Fenn at the hairdresser when she mentioned the crying incident? A week before, two weeks a month ?
Was it due to the video that all the stories came out in the MSM and that was the reason for her making an 'official statement' ? I don't think this story would have been made up or had anything to do with the McCanns as they were made arguidos the following month. So it didn't help them at all. And they had already mentioned several different versions of a crying incident in their statements before Mrs Fenn's story. One being 6th September Kate said that on Weds nite it was 45 mins between a check and that they had arrived back at 11.50pm. Was it mentioned in their statements because several people other than Mrs Fenn knew about it and they wanted to get their version out first ?

As far as her saying someone broke into her apartment I don't see what the problem would be if that did happen and nothing was taken and she didn't report it to the police. Not everyone would report it either, I wouldn't but I would be more security conscious. She may have reported it to Management. Ms Batista did say they had a registry of robberies etc. Has anyone had a look at this registry to see if Mrs Fenn reported it? As Mrs Fenn was also part of the Residents Association did she mention it to them? Has anyone asked anyone from the Residents Association. ?

We also don't know what was said in Carole Tranmer's first statement either about whether Mrs Fenn mentioned the crying incident. After reading her second statement its seems all the police were interested in was the dodgy character she saw from her Aunts balcony. Incidentally she does mention her aunt as being reserved and astute.

After the journalists got hold of the story, twisted it, added to it, and embellished it I am really not surprised Mrs Fenn reacted the way she did.

by Roxyroo 04.06.16 16:44

dottyaussie wrote:I have been lurking for a bit but not contributing due to being poorly. Im on the mend now but this post may not be totally coherent so I apologise in advance lol.

Poor Mrs Fenn. I actually believe her. It has been said that she was spoken to by the police prior to her statement of 20/8/07 which would be true given the fact that she lives above where the McCanns were staying. What she said to police on that first occasion we may never know. What we do know is that at some point BEFORE her statement of 20/8/07 she had told at least two others, her friend and her hairdresser about the crying incident. Did she also mention it to the Management and was this why the McCanns were offered the babysitting service? What date was the video at the hairdresser taken ?? When was Mrs Fenn at the hairdresser when she mentioned the crying incident? A week before, two weeks a month ?
Was it due to the video that all the stories came out in the MSM and that was the reason for her making an 'official statement' ? I don't think this story would have been made up or had anything to do with the McCanns as they were made arguidos the following month. So it didn't help them at all. And they had already mentioned several different versions of a crying incident in their statements before Mrs Fenn's story. One being 6th September Kate said that on Weds nite it was 45 mins between a check and that they had arrived back at 11.50pm. Was it mentioned in their statements because several people other than Mrs Fenn knew about it and they wanted to get their version out first ?

As far as her saying someone broke into her apartment I don't see what the problem would be if that did happen and nothing was taken and she didn't report it to the police. Not everyone would report it either, I wouldn't but I would be more security conscious. She may have reported it to Management. Ms Batista did say they had a registry of robberies etc. Has anyone had a look at this registry to see if Mrs Fenn reported it? As Mrs Fenn was also part of the Residents Association did she mention it to them? Has anyone asked anyone from the Residents Association. ?

We also don't know what was said in Carole Tranmer's first statement either about whether Mrs Fenn mentioned the crying incident. After reading her second statement its seems all the police were interested in was the dodgy character she saw from her Aunts balcony. Incidentally she does mention her aunt as being reserved and astute.

After the journalists got hold of the story, twisted it, added to it, and embellished it I am really not surprised Mrs Fenn reacted the way she did.

Just that one fact about them arriving back at 11.50 pm makes me want to cry! It also makes me think that surely they couldn't have been stupid enough to leave them in the first place! It makes no sense to me, but then my son is never out my sight except when he's at nursery!

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.