Pamela Fenn

[ferryman]

Even before the files were opened, the (now late) Pamela Fenn went on record to deny saying anything about ever hearing a child crying in the apartment below.

The relevant quote is in the part below the picture of Madeleine:

I will cite it in an edit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481485/Madeleines-mother-quizzed-Portuguese-police.html#ixzz25DK7w497

Two points are known.

Mrs Fenn wasn't interviewed until several weeks after Madeleine's abduction.

And she was, herself, a victim of a burglary and was interviewed about the crime of which she was a victim.

Sic: Pamela Fenn, 81, lives above the apartment where Madeleine disappeared and is reported to have told police she heard Madeleine screaming below.

But yesterday she broke her silence to say it was "absolute rubbish" she had made any such claims to police. Mrs Fenn said: "I didn't even know that family was in there."

[C.Edwards]

Amazing discovery!

Shame about her police statement that pees on your bonfire though:

Witness statement of Pamela Fenn PJ Files

Processo IX, pages 2412 to 2414

Date: 2007/08/20
Time: 15H30

Comes before the Court as a witness.

Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, LIEVE VAN LOOCK.

Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says that she has lived in the apartment since 2003, which is located on the upper floor, immediately above the room from which the child disappeared.

She states that on the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22H30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted "Daddy, Daddy", the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23H45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.

As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.

Tricky one though - believe the police statement or believe the Daily Mail... hmmm.

[ferryman]

Tricky how?

It's actually the late Mrs Fenn you are accusing of lying.

The Daily Mail article was written about a year before the police files were even released.

So it clearly wasn't made up by the paper that leaks appeared to indicate Mrs Fenn had said something about hearing a child crying.

Why would you rule out that a duplicitous snake in the grass like Pavaia might have corrupted Mrs Fenn's statement?

[C.Edwards]

Tricky how?

It's actually the late Mrs Fenn you are accusing of lying.

The Daily Mail article was written about a year before the police files were even released.

So it clearly wasn't made up by the paper that leaks appeared to indicate Mrs Fenn had said something about hearing a child crying.

Why would you rule out that a duplicitous snake in the grass like Pavaia might have corrupted Mrs Fenn's statement?

Er... do you want to have another go at that?  look at the date of the "daily fail" article and then look at the date of the statement.

Then I think I'd drop this subject if I were you!

[ferryman]

Tricky how?

It's actually the late Mrs Fenn you are accusing of lying.

The Daily Mail article was written about a year before the police files were even released.

So it clearly wasn't made up by the paper that leaks appeared to indicate Mrs Fenn had said something about hearing a child crying.

Why would you rule out that a duplicitous snake in the grass like Pavaia might have corrupted Mrs Fenn's statement?

Er... do you want to have another go at that?  look at the date of the "daily fail" article and then look at the date of the statement.

Then I think I'd drop this subject if I were you!

Last updated at 17:39 13 September 2007

Files released August 2008

August 4th if memory serves correctly ...

[C.Edwards]

Tricky how?

It's actually the late Mrs Fenn you are accusing of lying.

The Daily Mail article was written about a year before the police files were even released.

So it clearly wasn't made up by the paper that leaks appeared to indicate Mrs Fenn had said something about hearing a child crying.

Why would you rule out that a duplicitous snake in the grass like Pavaia might have corrupted Mrs Fenn's statement?

Er... do you want to have another go at that?  look at the date of the "daily fail" article and then look at the date of the statement.

Then I think I'd drop this subject if I were you!

Last updated at 17:39 13 September 2007

Files released August 2008

August 4th if memory serves correctly ...

Are you seriously claiming that Pamela Fenn's statement has been retrospectively amended?  I just wish to know so I can treat your future posts with a necessary level of scepticism.

You other pros - seriously - are you not prepared to step in at this point and point out the silliness here?  Oh I forgot, you only jump on anti-mccann stuff, don't you...?

[C.Edwards]

To be fair, Mrs Fenn never actually says she heard Madeleine crying in her statement so she is correct in the Mail article when she says it was absolute rubbish that she told the police she heard Madeleine screaming that night.   She says she heard a child crying but she could not know with any certainty which child it was.

I concede that point, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention in the initial post. Technically, you're correct.  She does insinuate most strongly that the child would have been madeleine due to her perception of the age of the child and location, but of course she doesn't mention her by name.

[ferryman]

To be fair, Mrs Fenn never actually says she heard Madeleine crying in her statement so she is correct in the Mail article when she says it was absolute rubbish that she told the police she heard Madeleine screaming that night.   She says she heard a child crying but she could not know with any certainty which child it was.

I concede that point, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention in the initial post. Technically, you're correct.  She does insinuate most strongly that the child would have been madeleine due to her perception of the age of the child and location, but of course she doesn't mention her by name.

She says (in her statement to The Mail) that she had no idea family had moved in to the holiday apartment ...

(Sic) "I didn't even know that family was in there."

[C.Edwards]

To be fair, Mrs Fenn never actually says she heard Madeleine crying in her statement so she is correct in the Mail article when she says it was absolute rubbish that she told the police she heard Madeleine screaming that night.   She says she heard a child crying but she could not know with any certainty which child it was.

I concede that point, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention in the initial post. Technically, you're correct.  She does insinuate most strongly that the child would have been madeleine due to her perception of the age of the child and location, but of course she doesn't mention her by name.

She says (in her statement to The Mail) that she had no idea family had moved in to the holiday apartment ...

(Sic) "I didn't even know that family was in there."

Well I'm done with you.  I don't know about any of the rest of the readers, but someone who ascribes more importance to a press article (the Daily Mail at that) than the official police files is clearly not worth debating with!

[ferryman]

To be fair, Mrs Fenn never actually says she heard Madeleine crying in her statement so she is correct in the Mail article when she says it was absolute rubbish that she told the police she heard Madeleine screaming that night.   She says she heard a child crying but she could not know with any certainty which child it was.

I concede that point, although I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention in the initial post. Technically, you're correct.  She does insinuate most strongly that the child would have been madeleine due to her perception of the age of the child and location, but of course she doesn't mention her by name.

She says (in her statement to The Mail) that she had no idea family had moved in to the holiday apartment ...

(Sic) "I didn't even know that family was in there."

Well I'm done with you.  I don't know about any of the rest of the readers, but someone who ascribes more importance to a press article (the Daily Mail at that) than the official police files is clearly not worth debating with!

Beware of accusing the late Mrs Fenn of lying.

In Portugal, you can defame the dead ...

[C.Edwards]

Beware of accusing the late Mrs Fenn of lying.

In Portugal, you can defame the dead ...

Lying!? Based on the Daily Mail report?  Oh my word, you're hilarious! 

[Carana]

Hmmm. My understanding coincides with Martha's on this one (I think).


She'd heard a child crying from the floor below, who was not an infant in her opinion, but had never stated that it was Madeleine.

Was the press allegation that she'd stated that it was Madeleine what she was unhappy with?

[icabodcrane]

What I found most significant in Mrs Fenn's statement was the length of time she heard the crying for  ...  an hour and 15 minutes 

How does that fit in with the McCann's claim that they checked on the children every half hour  ? 

[Carana]

What I found most significant in Mrs Fenn's statement was the length of time she heard the crying for  ...  an hour and 15 minutes 

How does that fit in with the McCann's claim that they checked on the children every half hour  ?

Lots of unanswered questions... did she hear the same child for that entire time? Was the friend she spoke to ever interviewed to corroborate the date/time? She doesn't mention hearing the bottom gate.

It would have been worth interviewing her again to clarify, I would have thought.

[debunker]

As I keep saying, there is inadequate information to decide anything.