If Madeleine was heard crying by Mrs Fenn why didnt the McCanns check on her?

[Luz]

Why didn't you spare yourself the grotesqueness of that remark ?

This we have to maintain for posterity:

Quote from: gilet on Today at 01:30:13 PM

And I am shocked that you are so keen all the time to scream defamation at every possible juncture when Portugal is so keen on "freedom of speech" anyway?

How amazing, how fantastic that a defamation trial was started by the alleged victims, the parents of a missing child! The same parents that published a book that I would recommend to be put under a XXX rate advert.

[Carana]

Carana, I find "defamation" suggesting Mrs Fenn was old then could have been deaf, heard another child, had no notion of time, thought she called a friend but didn't etc., first because she died and can't object to this and then because Mrs Fenn behaved an exemplary way, shutting her door to the invading media, not jumping on top of the police to claim she had heard cries, just stating a fact when asked, without giving her opinion on it and finally because she appeared to be a caring person, disturbed up to the point of calling a friend because a child had been crying for a long time.
Why don't you let Mrs Fenn rest in peace ? Why should it be the McCanns who said the truth (though they were out), why should you deduce that Mrs Fenn didn't ?
I'm sorry but I can't find, for your regular bringing back the Mrs Fenn issue, a justification that wouldn't be the discredit one.

I didn't bring up this topic again. Carly hadn't realised that there was already one. I was trying to be helpful and pointed her to the pre-existing thread.

You seem to be insinuating that I doubt her testimony. I don't. I have no reason to doubt that she was a credible witness, to the best of her ability.... questioned only 3 months later, with no apparent double-checking as to whether her recollection was accurate.

What on earth is defamatory?

[gilet]

This we have to maintain for posterity:

How amazing, how fantastic that a defamation trial was started by the alleged victims, the parents of a missing child! The same parents that published a book that I would recommend to be put under a XXX rate advert.

It is a great shame that you find the book that proclaims a child is dead to be fine even though the author has no proof at all that the child is dead.

And yet you would ludicrously restrict the heartfelt pleas of the mother of that missing child to an XXX category because of her honest remarks about her feelings.

No wonder the impression the world is getting of the Portuguese idea of freedom of speech is that it applies only to certain people.

Its abhorrent to me that people claim it to be perfectly OK that a man can pursue a vendetta against the parents of a missing child and spread disgusting libel about their actions when he cannot provide any proof whatsoever that he is telling the truth.   

It is no surprise to me that those parents have sued that man for the vile lies he has published against them.

Till he has some proof that they did what he claimed then he should be held to account and made to admit that he cannot prove anything he has said is true.

[Carana]

Mrs Fenn made a deposition to the PJ


if you care to know the translation go to http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

Thank you for verifying that her statement was taken on 20 August 2007. Have you found an earlier one? I haven't.

[gilet]

Thank you for verifying that her statement was taken on 20 August 2007. Have you found an earlier one? I haven't.

Seriously the PJ failed to interview and take a statement from Mrs Fenn who lived only a few metres from the apartment where a child had gone missing, for over 3 months.

I would personally suggest that amounts to gross negligence on their part. How can it possibly be explained?

Were they not interested in what the locals might or might not have seen?

It is rather reminiscent of the failure to bother to collect the CCTV footage and the fact that they never even checked the Night Creche records, the obvious point where a person carrying a child might have come from.

And of course there is the failure to do the basic checking of the Smith sighting till mid October months after the disappearance and oddly just after the dismissal of Amaral from the case.

Its hardly surprising that the UK media have described it as a 'botched' investigation.

[Benita]

This we have to maintain for posterity:

How amazing, how fantastic that a defamation trial was started by the alleged victims, the parents of a missing child! The same parents that published a book that I would recommend to be put under a XXX rate advert.

oh the irony ..why are you so angry luz ..the case has reopened ..im in a really good mood that it has..cant say the same about you ..chill out man!

[colombosstogey]

Mrs Fenn only heard one child crying on the 1st.     Madeleine refers to both herself and Sean crying - IMO that rules out the possibility that her comment to her parents was related to what Mrs Fenn heard on the 1st - 2 nights before. 

According to Amarals book, Madeleine cried for 45 mins. on the 1st May - although he offers no proof of this - and doesn't mention Mrs Fenn's name, no doubt because that is not what she said.

He then goes on to change the date Madeleine spoke to parents from the 3rd to the 2nd, to convince the reader that it was definitely Madeleine who was crying on the 1st May as it was the very next morning that she spoke to her parents about it.

He also changes what Madeleine said to her parents by claiming she asked why they didn't come when SHE cried (or words to that effect) - completely removing Sean's name from the equation to make it fit in with the claim that only ONE child was heard.

How anyone could claim that everything in his book is taken from the files is beyond me.

I am not quoting any files Mrs McCann her self said that she was admonished by her daughter on the 3rd May because she wasnt there when she woke up and cried. Which would mean the child was crying the night before.

Perhaps the date were translated incorrectly who knows, but the child was upset about being left. And the answer to this by Mrs Mccann was to leave her again that night. THOSE ARE FACTS...

.........

[imustpointout]

I would personally suggest that amounts to gross negligence on their part. How can it possibly be explained?

Maybe they were ignoring her because they had not solved the break in/burglary in her apartment?

[imustpointout]

Is it possible for the original poster to have the decency to correct the name in the title of this thread?

I notice that she is online

[Carana]

Seriously the PJ failed to interview and take a statement from Mrs Fenn who lived only a few metres from the apartment where a child had gone missing, for over 3 months.

I would personally suggest that amounts to gross negligence on their part. How can it possibly be explained?

Were they not interested in what the locals might or might not have seen?

It is rather reminiscent of the failure to bother to collect the CCTV footage and the fact that they never even checked the Night Creche records, the obvious point where a person carrying a child might have come from.

And of course there is the failure to do the basic checking of the Smith sighting till mid October months after the disappearance and oddly just after the dismissal of Amaral from the case.

Its hardly surprising that the UK media have described it as a 'botched' investigation.

I have no problem in accepting that many did the best they could in difficult circumstances due to a lack of resources (with a caveat that the coordinator, by his own admission, seems to have been frequently directing operations from a restaurant).

Is this normal practice?

[AnneGuedes]

Thank you for verifying that her statement was taken on 20 August 2007. Have you found an earlier one? I haven't.

Carana, are you pretending you ignore why this statement was made on that date ?
The reason is illuminating in two ways, on Mrs Fenn side and on the PJ one.

[AnneGuedes]

I have no problem in accepting that many did the best they could in difficult circumstances due to a lack of resources (with a caveat that the coordinator, by his own admission, seems to have been frequently directing operations from a restaurant).

Is this normal practice?

Didn't I suggest already that you write a handbook about "how institutions should function" and send it to the Constitutional Court ?

[ferryman]

If Mrs Fenn was such a crucial witness, why was she not interviewed until about 6 weeks after the crime (particularly as the witness in closest proximity to the crime as the crime was being committed).

And why is Mrs Fenn on record as saying that she didn't even know the McCanns were living in the holiday apartment?

[Carana]

Didn't I suggest already that you write a handbook about "how institutions should function" and send it to the Constitutional Court ?

I don't recall that, but perhaps you could send me your copy. ;)

[Carana]

Carana, are you pretending you ignore why this statement was made on that date ?
The reason is illuminating in two ways, on Mrs Fenn side and on the PJ one.

Could you expand on thhis?