Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

Donna Hill once said.... nope forgot. But along the lines of 'i really can't say anymore'... long been whooshed of course.

Her statement is not in the files.

OG did call her in though....

Anyway.. she would know a lot of what was happening around that time.

Fenn/Chaplins...

So the comment from the McCannfiles below is a lie, then. That's interesting. Because it must mean that Mrs Fenn is a very important eye-witness!

Remarkably, given her close proximity to the scene, Mrs Fenn had not been interviewed fully by detectives in the days after Madeleine vanished.

It was only after a team of British officers were called in that her information was acted upon and officers from Portimao police headquarters spent more than three hours going over her statement in fine detail.


---------

Chirpy said:

You have confused the dates Poster. Tues was the 1st, which was the night Mrs Fenn heard crying. It therefore now makes sense that they were in Chaplins that night. Trouble is faithlilly seems to be implying the Chaplins visit was Wednesday night as she overheard staff on the Thursday morning. ( the same day Madeleine went missing)

----

My comment: It is perfectly possible - if it is true that the Mcs left the children alone every night (as Detective Amaral believes) that Mrs Fenn heard crying on Tuesday 1st May AND that on the following evening OC staff overheard crying (Wednesday 2nd May)  which happened to be the night the Mcs were at Chaplins.

Faitthlilly quote:

I also overheard a woman telling the police on one of the following days about a child was crying for a long time as I was standing fairly close by, but I didn’t know that she was talking about Madeleine at the time


Chirpy wrote:

I think this will not be Mrs Fenn but perhaps a member of staff mentioning the crying that prompted them to fetch the Macs from Chaplins ( if indeed that did happen)

My comment: Why would this not have been Mrs Fenn? Surely if it had been a member of staff saying this she would have not said 'a woman' but 'a member of staff' or similar?

Chirpy wrote:

But here is where I have some doubts. Unless this lady speaks Portuguese or the other woman was speaking English, how would she know what was being said? Also how would faithlilly not know it was M that was being spoken about? The news would be all over the place and her name would have been broadcast. Everyone in that resort would have known that a child called M was missing. Perhaps she didn't put 2 and 2 together. But then why would the woman be reporting crying to the police if not related to the case?

My comments: I think that faithlilly (who is English I presume) overheard Mrs Fenn (who we know is English speaking) telling police that she overheard a long period of crying. We know that faithlilly was staying in the resort that week with her family as holiday-makers. Therefore there is no reason that she would know who Mrs Fenn was or, indeed, would know that Mrs Fenn just happened to be a resident in the apartment above where the McCanns were staying that week. So she wouldn't have realized that Mrs Fenn was a particularly important eye-witness. I presume that residents and holiday-makers at the resort reported anything that they felt might have even the slightest importance.

ETA: there are conflicting reports about the night that the McCanns might have been at Chaplins. The hairdresser talking to the undercover reporter states it was the Tuesday which I think is also the day that dumfounded says that the McCanns were at Chaplins.

But the poster faithlilly I think is saying that the McCanns were at Chaplins on Wednesday evening. And that she knows that for sure because she was there too.

Heck, maybe the hairdresser, Dumfounded and faithlilly are all right and the McCanns were at Chaplins on both Tuesday evening (quiz night) and Wednesday evening too??

http://truthofthelie.com/2008/07/theauthor-dumfounded-by-chaplins/

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/the-mccanns-scandal-at-chaplins/

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/Chaplins-1-1182017.html

Thanks admin for moving this to the correct thread.

Poster the reason I mentioned that you had confused the dates was because this is what you wrote.

BOTH Mrs Fenn and the poster above are right then that would mean that there was crying coming from the apartment both on Monday 1st May and on Tuesday 2nd May. And in both cases crying that was serious enough and went on long enough for other people to take action. What is astonishing - or perhaps not - is that the McCanns then cancel the babysitter for the 3rd May


I was pointing out that you had the dates wrong.

But to address your replies to me. I agree faithlily wouldn't know who Mrs Fenn was but I stand by my point of the language barrier. It is much more likely that the police approached Mrs F by knocking on her door for any information with an interpreter. That was probably the next day. I cannot see her speaking to the police in a public place and as she speaks no Portuguese, why would she be addressing a policeman, somewhere where faithlilly would overhear, in a language the police probably didn't understand? Any member of the police who happened to just be around probably wouldn't have an interpreter handy as they were a bit thin on the ground, especially in the early days.

I have heard claims by someone calling herself Vera on another forum who said the Macs were at Chaplins on the one night. I think she claimed to be there with her granddaughter so could be one and the same as faithlilly.
I am not necessarily doubting her but I am doubting that she didn't realise it was Madeleine that the person was reporting as having cried.
IF it was Mrs Fenn then surely she would have said I heard crying coming from below for 75 mins or something more detailed than just some generic remark about crying children in general. If faithlilly was close enough to hear that and knew there was a child missing ( who didn't by then?) then surely she would have realised who it was being spoken about.
Of course, we are both just speculating on these matters so you could be correct. I am going by the files though where it is reported the PF heard the crying on Tuesday.
I am going to see if I can work out who faithlilly is.

Looking at your links I see that dumbfound made the comment about Chaplins in the D Express comments section on 24th July 2007. In it he mentioned Mrs Senn ( sic) had told police about a crying child.
This is well before any media reports that Mrs F was going to give a statement. It also is before the date of her statement that is in the files. This, I think proves that Pamela Fenn had already told the police about the crying. It also blows away any speculation made elsewhere that she didn't report the incident before Aug.

Plus Mrs Fenn wasn't at home on the wed night?

dogs don't lie wrote:Plus Mrs Fenn wasn't at home on the wed night?

I think she was as she said this:


She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.

I think she means she was out during the day but home at night DDL. However, as she remembers she was out the following morning, mentioning the date, then it further confirms she heard the crying on Tuesday night.

Ah cheers chirps, don't know why I have it in my head she was not at home wed night, clearly she was, oh, she was home but had nothing to report because that night she didn't hear any crying! Bet that's how I've got mixed up, thanks Hun x

Antonia wrote:The nameless one is using quotes from the tabloids to 'prove' that Mrs Fenn and her niece Carole lied because the tabloid quotes are not consistent with their rogatory statements. Why would they be? Are tabloids always 100% factually accurate including the quotes in articles? And remember, Clarence was bombarding the media with press releases which would have been printed usually with some changes to make it look as if that paper had an 'exclusive.'

the nameless one who is short of socks believes that they would commit perjury as they were part of the Murat (Robert & Jenny) circle whatever that exactly means.  Why has he such a low opinion of people that he believes they will commit perjury based on casual acquaintanceship?

Funny how Mrs Fenn was believed in Nov 2007, second paragraph in 'Evidence' saying he had sent a letter to Mrs Fenn asking if she would give evidence in his case against the Mc's http://truthformadeleine.com/prosecution2/

Benevolent wrote:

Antonia wrote:The nameless one is using quotes from the tabloids to 'prove' that Mrs Fenn and her niece Carole lied because the tabloid quotes are not consistent with their rogatory statements. Why would they be? Are tabloids always 100% factually accurate including the quotes in articles? And remember, Clarence was bombarding the media with press releases which would have been printed usually with some changes to make it look as if that paper had an 'exclusive.'

the nameless one who is short of socks believes that they would commit perjury as they were part of the Murat (Robert & Jenny) circle whatever that exactly means.  Why has he such a low opinion of people that he believes they will commit perjury based on casual acquaintanceship?

Funny how Mrs Fenn was believed in Nov 2007, second paragraph in 'Evidence' saying he had sent a letter to Mrs Fenn asking if she would give evidence in his case against the Mc's  http://truthformadeleine.com/prosecution2/

Bloomin great spot Benevolent. Welcome by the way.

There's also a piece on the Last Photo being a fake which Canada might be able to fathom - it's beyond me as it's talking about the length of shadows etc

Thanks for posting that up, Benevolent (and welcome from me). Very interesting stuff.

Did Tony Bennett write the 'last photo' stuff as well do you know? (or does anybody else)

http://truthformadeleine.com/the-last-photo/

Andrew wrote:Thanks for posting that up, Benevolent (and welcome from me). Very interesting stuff.

Did Tony Bennett write the 'last photo' stuff as well do you know? (or does anybody else)

http://truthformadeleine.com/the-last-photo/

Thanks Chirpy and Andrew.

I'm not sure who wrote the 'last photo' stuff sorry. I'm not sure who's site the 'truthformadeleine' site is. But if its Tony's and he has allowed that write up to stay on there and the stuff about Mrs Fenn, then his contradictions elsewhere make me wonder what he really thinks

I believe The Truth For Madeleine website is Stevo`s. Don`t know his surname.

Maybe Steve Marsden?

http://truthformadeleine.com/2011/05/the-facts-versus-the-fiction/

Yep - you`re right Freedom.

Benevolent wrote:

Andrew wrote:Thanks for posting that up, Benevolent (and welcome from me). Very interesting stuff.

Did Tony Bennett write the 'last photo' stuff as well do you know? (or does anybody else)

http://truthformadeleine.com/the-last-photo/

Thanks Chirpy and Andrew.

I'm not sure who wrote the 'last photo' stuff sorry. I'm not sure who's site the 'truthformadeleine' site is. But if its Tony's and he has allowed that write up to stay on there and the stuff about Mrs Fenn, then his contradictions elsewhere make me wonder what he really thinks

Seems to me that his thoughts differ greatly pre and post contempt case. As does the amount he is, shall we say, 'permitted' to publish without apparent censure. Could just be me, of course. too!

No I don't think that it is just you, Dee Coy!

He certainly isn't keeping his thoughts on the case private as he is quoted as saying here!

Freedom wrote:No I don't think that it is just you, Dee Coy!

He certainly isn't keeping his thoughts on the case private as he is quoted as saying here!  

Maybe Mr Bennett will be along shortly to explain our puzzlement. After all he demands answers from anyone who is in disagreement with him. A brief explanation of why he is allowed to comment on the case at all would go a long to appease our concerns.

Well, we know that he gets to hear about everything here so let's look out for a mention on CMoMM.

There was another clip where he looked genuinely stressed out and actually said words to the effect of this is the end of the road, I'll never talk about the McCanns again but that seems to have been whooshed.

@1:28 on the vid.

TB says:

"Erm.. and I hope that the way forward I've suggested to erm.. their solicitors will result in erm.. both of us drawing a line under the situation...."

Those very solicitors let him off paying an extortionate amount in the end.

So what he 'suggested' must've worked.

What did he suggest?

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out considering some of his views and opinions changed dramatically and immediately.

Blimey, good spot Andrew. So there we have it! The way forward was agreed, the tune appeared to change, and despite continuing to pontificate most prolifically about the case (contrary to his pledge to button it completely) the Mcs have taken no further action.

Now why on earth would that be?

I have noticed TB doesn`t discuss or give his opinion on what happened to MBM anymore. Perhaps that was what he promised.

Mimi wrote:I have noticed TB doesn`t discuss or give his opinion on what happened to MBM anymore.  Perhaps that was what he promised.

Yes he still bleats on about when photos were taken or who put a bow in her hair but if you think about it he never says anything detrimental to the Macs.
This is a man who believed so earnestly in the neglect scenario he was prepared to take them to court. So if he now goes along with the LP exif data being changed, he must, logically be thinking that the neglect was fabricated. After all they went to the Millennium on Saturday night and that doesn't leave much of a pattern of neglect if, by implication, he thinks she died by the Monday. But he never actually says that afaik.
Could the vehement refusal to accept any talk of photoshopping of the LP be part of the alleged arrangement? He can't be seen to do a complete volte face, but maybe rigorous defence of the LP being genuine helps the cause in some way. And of course, his denial of Smithman's veracity certainly helps the McCanns. Some of us think it was Gerry with a decoy and some think it was Gerry with Madeleine but he is the one putting it out there that this meeting never happened at all.
Given that Kate wants to ruin GA, I can't see her going easy on TB unless........
Not stating any if this as fact but it bears examination imo.

FOI request anyone hehehe

chirpyinsect wrote:

Mimi wrote:I have noticed TB doesn`t discuss or give his opinion on what happened to MBM anymore.  Perhaps that was what he promised.

Yes he still bleats on about when photos were taken or who put a bow in her hair but if you think about it he never says anything detrimental to the Macs.
This is a man who believed so earnestly in the neglect scenario he was prepared to take them to court. So if he now goes along with the LP exif data being changed, he must, logically be thinking that the neglect was fabricated. After all they went to the Millennium on Saturday night and that doesn't leave much of a pattern of neglect if, by implication, he thinks she died by the Monday. But he never actually says that afaik.
Could the vehement refusal to accept any talk of photoshopping of the LP be part of the alleged arrangement? He can't be seen to do a complete volte face, but maybe rigorous defence of the LP being genuine helps the cause in some way. And of course, his denial of Smithman's veracity certainly helps the McCanns. Some of us think it was Gerry with a decoy and some think it was Gerry with Madeleine but he is the one putting it out there that this meeting never happened at all.
Given that Kate wants to ruin GA, I can't see her going easy on TB unless........
Not stating any if this as fact but it bears examination imo.

TB, and others, argue that the last photo was taken on the Sunday, not Thursday so therefore it's not genuine.

If you argue that the LP was taken on the Sunday and not the Thursday, and that is the only discrepancy, then you're allowing the McCanns to get away with saying, yeah, ok, hands up, we admit it, we lied about when it was taken but that's all.

However if you argue that the LP is completely fabricated and the EXIF info is just one aspect of the fraud, then you open up a can of worms because who, among their friends and contacts, would have had the skills to create this fabrication?

Gerry and Kate could claim, if it's just the EXIF info that was changed, that they did it themselves.

If the LP was created completely in Photoshop then other people have to be involved - and that might lead to all kinds of interesting discoveries, which the McCanns (and The Powers That Be) might not be happy about. Hence the vehement arguments about just the EXIF data being altered.