Re: 10 REASONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT PAMELA FENN DID NOT HEAR ANY CHILD CRYING ON TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007

by HelenMeg 21.10.15 21:29

Excellent post The Rooster - wholeheartedly agree thumbsup

by **Tony Bennett** 21.10.15 22:09

The Rooster wrote:What human being especially an elderly woman who has had children of her own would allow a child crying and clearly very distressed to continue to do so for such a lon time without seeking assistance. None in my opinion and neither would Mrs Fenn. Therefore no crying. As to why this story has been concocted is beyond reason. Why she wasn't interviewed sooner is consistent with her not being at home.

I don't in fact believe...
The phone offer
The flea in the ear
The We let her down cry from the woman who gave birth to MM
Gerry McCann and the a girl is missing bit
The burglar
The witness statement
The why didn't you come mummy fairie tale
And I don't believe the abrupt stopping of the crying
Why?? Because it never happened!

It has all been made up. Just like so many other things in the case...
Why? Because the MCCanns and their friends are in it up to their necks! Why? Because they know a death occurred and covered it up and tried to simulate a stranger abduction. It's the oldest blag n the book. But it's not believable and that's why they will be arrested and hopefully convicted of the charges against them.

I never thought it would come to this @ The Rooster but I have just awarded you a 'reputation point' for that yes

by The Rooster 21.10.15 22:58

All good TB and thanks.

by worriedmum 21.10.15 23:26

I tend to agree with j.rob. and I think a lot of thought has gone into that post.
I do think that it is a fairly normal reaction to hang back if there is something happening in a neighbouring property. There is a marked difference between the cry of an upset child who becomes more and more upset than the screams of a child in fear or danger. Mrs Fenn must have come to the conclusion that either the adult present was ignoring the child, or that there was no adult present. If it was indeed a child who was crying.

I've raised this before, but I do wonder how, above the sobbing/crying, she could actually hear the door banging shut. More likely IMO is the sudden cessation THEN the door banging. Which gives you a totally different scenario.

by joyce1938 22.10.15 9:34

It has been said before, it could have been someone leaving and shutting door, who was around that time of night and not with the rest of the gang? Just a thought. joyce1938

by Liz Eagles 22.10.15 11:43

I've never really considered Mrs. Fenn's statement in any great depth.

What puzzles me is reports that an elderly woman would be likely to physically tackle a burglar. Calling the police immediately would be most likely. Calling a friend immediately would be the absolute norm.

by Joannep43 22.10.15 12:24

Just thought I'd point out that various studies have confirmed that 80 percent of those over 80 years old have hearing loss. Hearing loss in varying degrees. It's a known fact that as we age our hearing deteriorates. We will never know whether Mrs Fenn's hearing was compromised, but highly likely it was.

by worriedmum 22.10.15 15:52

Joannep43 wrote:Just thought I'd point out that various studies have confirmed that 80 percent of those over 80 years old have hearing loss.Hearing loss in varying degrees.Its a known fact that as we age our hearing deteriorates.We will never know whether Mrs fenns hearing was compromised ,but highly likely it was .

Are you saying that she may have had hearing loss? That there was more crying/door closing that she just didn't hear?

by Joannep43 22.10.15 16:21

Yes, it's my opinion that she did hear some crying. I realise that she would have been listening to muffled sounds from the floor below as all doors and windows would have been closed. In her statement she says she hears no other noises from the family that week.I find that hard to believe that 3 young children would not produce any noise plus all of the comings and goings through the doors in the day. In her statement she is alerted to Kate McCann shouting we've let her down. Yet she didn't hear the commotion of others entering the apartment and their frantic voices. MRs Fenn is alerted to this noise by seeing Kate outside on the balcony, not from sounds inside. I believe crying did occur, but not from Madeleiene.when an adult is absolutely distraught we "cry like a baby". There is a video of Mrs Fenn saying that's it's all rubbish what she said and that she had not spoken to any journalists. I think her statement was truthful. It's my opinion she was horrified at the media attention she was receiving. Newspaper articles were saying she was a prime witness etc and the media attention was unwanted. I do believe her hearing could not have been has sharp as a younger adult, and that's why she heard nothing else.

by snook 22.10.15 16:37

As a mother I certainly wouldn't listen to a child crying, nay sobbing for that length of time, especially one supposed to be so young.
I would have thought at the very least she would have contacted the OC reception? Even as she seems to have no compassion, judging by her annoyance when asked questions I would have thought she would not tolerate wailing for and hour & half?.

Regarding the alleged break-in when she valiantly tackled the intruder at his ankles. Is there any confirmation that it was reported to the local police? Burglars letting themselves in with a key, swarthy strangers loitering around the apartments, screaming children. Sounds more like the Bronx than a sleepy holiday village.

Dr Payne has much to answer for booking them into the badlands. Didn't he check Trip Advisor?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.16 8:46

The issue of the credibility of Mrs Pamela Fenn's statement of 20 August has resurfaced on a thread begun by HideHo a couple of days ago that dealt with the issue of 'What was going on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12369-what-happened-in-the-12-hrs-from-9pm-tuesday-9am-wed-focus-on-tues-night-wed-morning-where-was-kate

Inevitably, the 'Mrs Fenn crying incident cropped up', and on that thread I listed 12 reasons for doubting Mrs Fenn's account. In doing so, I clean forgot that I had already listed 10 reasons here.

I see that to date there have been 151 votes on the subject of whether Mrs Fenn's account is that of a truthful witness, and 100 - just under two-thirds (66%) - think that it is.

51, however (34%), either think that it is not, or have doubts about it.

Here is my update, viz., the '12 REASONS':

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

These are at least TWELVE reasons for disregarding Mrs Fenn's account:

1. She didn't make her statement until 111 days after the date Madeleine was reported missing.

2. She only made this statement after being prompted by members of the McCann Team or those working for them.

3. Two days before she made her statement, there was a flurry of major articles in the British mainstream press, all forecasting precisely what she was going to say before she made her statement (clear breach of the fabled Portuguese judicial secrecy rules, by the way).

4. She made a convoluted statement explaining that the crying was not of a child 'two years or under'. Howe exactly could she tell the difference between the crying of a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old? It's nonsense, isn't it? It looks like it was contrived to suggest this was Madeleine.

5. Only one child crying for 75 minutes? What about the other two?

6. Mrs Fenn says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn about the crying at about 11.00pm. The only thing Mrs Fenn reports is Mrs Glyn saying: "I'm not surprised". How credible is it that these two women would allow a child to be heard sobbing for a continuous 75 minutes and yet not pick up the 'phone to someone?

7. Mrs Fenn claimed she had a 'burglary' attempt. She gave four different dates for this burglary attempt: one week before, two weeks, three weeks, and finally 'several weeks'.

8. She gave different versions of the incident: 'He climbed in through a window' or 'He broke in' or 'He entered with a key.

9. She gave several different versions of whether she contacted the police, including: "So shocked she 'phoned the police immediately" and "Nothing was stolen so I didn't bother reporting it".

10. She gave a highly unlikely account of what actually happened: "Tried to grab his ankle as he jumped out of the window" [this was a first-floor window and the concrete floor below was a 12' to 15' drop].

11. Afterwards, she told journalists to "ignore what I'm supposed to have said", adding: "It's all rubbish".

12. Not one other resident, holidaymaker or staff member head this crying during a period of 75 minutes - so there is no corroboration of it.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.16 9:08

To be fair to my critics, or at least one of them, who think I am talking a lot of unfair rubbish about a lady who is no longer with us and unable to defend herself, here is a response from someone in another place yesterday. I apologise in advance for the bad language which I've opted to leave in.

The person's responses in green:

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

Most of the stuff this gobshite comes out with is easily debunked

These are at least TWELVE reasons for disregarding Mrs Fenn's account:

1. She didn't make her statement until 111 days after the date Madeleine was reported missing.

That was up to the police, not her. There is no evidence she delayed going to them, and her niece spoke to the police within days

2. She only made this statement after being prompted by members of the McCann Team or those working for them.

Absolute cobblers. No evidence to support this claim at all.

3. Two days before she made her statement, there was a flurry of major articles in the British mainstream press, all forecasting precisely what she was going to say before she made her statement (clear breach of the fabled Portuguese judicial secrecy rules, by the way).

The police announced they were going to re-interview people they had already spoken to, Mrs Fenn being one of them

4. She made a convoluted statement explaining that the crying was not of a child 'two years or under'. Howe exactly could she tell the difference between the crying of a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old? It's nonsense, isn't it? It looks like it was contrived to suggest this was Madeleine.

There was nothing convoluted or contrived about it. Idiot.

5. Only one child crying for 75 minutes? What about the other two?

What about the other two? What is his point here?

6. Mrs Fenn says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn about the crying at about 11.00pm. The only thing Mrs Fenn reports is Mrs Glyn saying: "I'm not surprised". How credible is it that these two women would allow a child to be heard sobbing for a continuous 75 minutes and yet not pick up the 'phone to someone?

Perfectly credible. How was she to know the children were alone? Neighbours won't usually call the police because a child is crying.

7. Mrs Fenn claimed she had a 'burglary' attempt. She gave four different dates for this burglary attempt: one week before, two weeks, three weeks, and finally 'several weeks'.

No she didn't. You have taken that from tabloid papers

8. She gave different versions of the incident: 'He climbed in through a window' or 'He broke in' or 'He entered with a key.

No she didn't. See above.

9. She gave several different versions of whether she contacted the police, including: "So shocked she 'phoned the police immediately" and "Nothing was stolen so I didn't bother reporting it".

No she didn't. See above.

10. She gave a highly unlikely account of what actually happened: "Tried to grab his ankle as he jumped out of the window" [this was a first-floor window and the concrete floor below was a 12' to 15' drop.

Cobblers. You don't know which window.

11. Afterwards, she told journalists to "ignore what I'm supposed to have said", adding: "It's all rubbish".

No she didn't. There is a transcript available of what she said.*** She denied that she had spoken to any papers. They simply made it up.

12. Not one other resident, holidaymaker or staff member head this crying during a period of 75 minutes - so there is no corroboration of it.

So what? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Bennett is doing his usual - keep repeating until people assume it's the truth. He's a lying arse.

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

*** Just for the record, here are Mrs Fenn's actual words when speaking to a TV journalist, I think on 22 August:

“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 plebgate 26.01.16 13:00

Tony, as usual, has given a lot to think about.

I tend to think that Mrs. Fenn's statement is valid simply because she brought in the information about the phone call to her friend. We do not know whether the police contacted her friend, but Mrs. Fenn would possibly have thought that they would do so to confirm her(Mrs. Fenn's) version of events.

Why would TWO old ladies make up such a story?

by plebgate 26.01.16 13:10

It would be interesting to know whether Mrs. Glyn has been interviewed by any of the Met officers in the new investigation. I know that they would not tell divulge the info., but presumably when the investigation ends all will be revealed when the PJ publish the files of this new Met investigaiton on line?

by Joannep43 26.01.16 13:23

Tony with respect I disagree with some of the points you have raised here regarding the crying incident.I know that I am not as researched as you but would hope that my opinion and contributions are still valued.As I've written before on this thread I do believe that Mrs Fenn heard crying and was truthful in her statement to the PJ.
1, Mrs fenn didn't make her statement until 111 days after May 3rd.The only way to clear this up is to find out if she gave a statement to the police when they did door to door enquiries.Then that statement could be compared to the one given 111 days later.I don't know if that happened and it may be something that we may never know.
So if no earlier statement was taken then why the delay? Well I can think of quite a few reasons.Mrs Fenn may have contacted the PJ earlier with this information and they may have had other lines of enquiries as priority.The intense media ,numerous sightings all over Europe ,the PJ on a wild goose chase.So I'm left wondering was this info passed to the PJ and because their interest was focussed on May 3rd at that time,this could have been low on their priorities.The early statements taken by the PJ of the McCanns and tapas support that their focus of questions was centered on May 3rd.Not a lot of detail is probed by the PJ on the days leading up to May 3rd.
Mrs Fenn is on video saying she had "never spoken to journalists ,they have written rubbish in the newspapers". I don't see what is wrong with this.Mrs Fenn has not denied she has spoken to the PJ.Ive lost count of how many headlines I've read about imminent arrests,numerous suspects and non stories in the gutter press.I believe she was being truthful unless there is a press article where Mrs Fenn has given an exclusive interview.The attempted robbery evolved to her grabbing the person by his ankles ,just typical of the press to exaggerate on her statement and to emphasise the criminal activity at the resort.If these articles have no direct source to her then maybe they were sensationalised to suit the McCann agenda.
You raised a point about press reports that were printed before she gave her statement.Its possiblle this info was leaked beforehand as she was billed as a "star witness "or whatever.Im sure journalists have a way of getting information no matter what.

by pennylane 26.01.16 15:17

Joannep43 wrote:Tony with respect I disagree with some of the points you have raised here regarding the crying incident.I know that I am not as researched as you but would hope that my opinion and contributions are still valued.As I've written before on this thread I do believe that Mrs Fenn heard crying and was truthful in her statement to the PJ.
1, Mrs fenn didn't make her statement until 111 days after May 3rd.The only way to clear this up is to find out if she gave a statement to the police when they did door to door enquiries.Then that statement could be compared to the one given 111 days later.I don't know if that happened and it may be something that we may never know.
So if no earlier statement was taken then why the delay? Well I can think of quite a few reasons.Mrs Fenn may have contacted the PJ earlier with this information and they may have had other lines of enquiries as priority.The intense media ,numerous sightings all over Europe ,the PJ on a wild goose chase.So I'm left wondering was this info passed to the PJ and because their interest was focussed on May 3rd at that time,this could have been low on their priorities.The early statements taken by the PJ of the McCanns and tapas support that their focus of questions was centered on May 3rd.Not a lot of detail is probed by the PJ on the days leading up to May 3rd.
Mrs Fenn is on video saying she had "never spoken to journalists ,they have written rubbish in the newspapers". I don't see what is wrong with this.Mrs Fenn has not denied she has spoken to the PJ.Ive lost count of how many headlines I've read about imminent arrests,numerous suspects and non stories in the gutter press.I believe she was being truthful unless there is a press article where Mrs Fenn has given an exclusive interview.The attempted robbery evolved to her grabbing the person by his ankles ,just typical of the press to exaggerate on her statement and to emphasise the criminal activity at the resort.If these articles have no direct source to her then maybe they were sensationalised to suit the McCann agenda.
You raised a point about press reports that were printed before she gave her statement.Its possiblle this info was leaked beforehand as she was billed as a "star witness "or whatever.Im sure journalists have a way of getting information no matter what.

I totally agree with your post, joanne!

You only have to look closely at so many of these articles to see that more often than not, much of their contents are not in quotes, but written next to a quote in a manner that makes it appear the person has said much more than is being implied. In addition it is often impossible to know what the person was actually asked in the first place!

I am satisfied that Mrs Fenn did indeed hear Madeleine crying on 1st May.

by Joannep43 26.01.16 15:42

Thank you @pennylane .
"You only have to look closely at these articles" exactly! That's what I did here and I don't believe for a minute Mrs Fenn ever sat down with a journalist to tell them what happened.
These articles in the press demonstrate that they had taken the details of her statement and then they had put their own spin on them.So if she never gave the press an interview she Never did change her account of what she heard.

by pennylane 26.01.16 16:31

Joannep43 wrote:Thank you @pennylane .
"You only have to look closely at these articles" exactly! That's what I did here and I don't believe for a minute Mrs Fenn ever sat down with a journalist to tell them what happened.
These articles in the press demonstrate that they had taken the details of her statement and then they had put their own spin on them.So if she never gave the press an interview she Never did change her account of what she heard.

Indeed! Spin and deception abound courtesy of Clarence Mitchell!

Similar applies to the Smith family whose (imo) explosive sighting of a man (that looked like GM) carrying a child on the night of 3rd May 2007, had the McCanns shaking in their boots!

"Confusion is good," when you've concocted a tangled mess of a facade that reeks to high heaven, no matter how many revisions are made......

imo

by Joannep43 26.01.16 17:02

Indeed we have only got to look at how many articles have been published since Operation Grange began. None of these have come directly from them regarding arrests, suspects etc. The articles always never give a name of the officer supposedly giving the story or a direct source. The only news Operation Grange have given is in their official updates. Imo, the rest is invented by persons unknown fed to the press to keep the abduction scenario alive.
The same applies to the articles regarding Mrs Fenn and the changing and evolving story of the burglary. I agree Mrs Fenn's statement supports the fact that they went out and that Madeleine was alive on that night, as the McCanns had stated. Imo, it is also very damaging to imply they left the children unchecked for so long. Mrs Fenn gave a statement of what she heard and imo that's the only reason why an elderly vulnerable woman who lived alone would want to involve herself in this.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.16 17:05

Joannep43 wrote:Thank you @pennylane .
"You only have to look closely at these articles" exactly! That's what I did here and I don't believe for a minute Mrs Fenn ever sat down with a journalist to tell them what happened.
These articles in the press demonstrate that they had taken the details of her statement and then they had put their own spin on them.So if she never gave the press an interview she Never did change her account of what she heard.

@ Joannep43 You wrote: "These articles in the press demonstrate that they had taken the details of her statement..."

REPLY: With great respect, you are going to have to reconsider that statement.

The simple fact is that the first articles about what Mrs Fenn was going to tell the PJ appeared in the British press on Saturday, 18 August.

She was going to make her statement on Monday, 20 August - two days later.

The question that you and everyone else needs to address is: "How did the British press get hold of what Mrs Fenn was going to say, two days before she actually made her statement?

Let me make one suggestion that fits the known facts.

A group of people including Mrs Fenn knew days before Monday 20 August exactly what she was going to say on that Monday.

That group talked to Clarence Mitchell.

Mitchell had contacted the British press on or before Friday (17th August) and given them a prepared story with news of what Mrs Fenn was going to say.

If anyone has a better scenario as to how the British press published what Mrs Fenn was going to say, two days before she made her statement, by all means bring it on.

by Joannep43 26.01.16 17:36

There is an article from the Daily Express which states that a Portuguese police officer is the source of this information. That "Mrs Fenn and her niece have been spoken to and will be coming to give a statement on Monday ". I agree that info could have been passed to Clarence Mitchell but it's also very possible that the newspaper quoted the correct source. The article also stated that the police were working on the theory Madeleine had died in the appartment. Doesn't sound like Mitchell prepared that article to me.

by hentie 26.01.16 17:58

Tony Bennett wrote:To be fair to my critics, or at least one of them, who think I am talking a lot of unfair rubbish about a lady who is no longer with us and unable to defend herself, here is a response from someone in another place yesterday. I apologise in advance for the bad language which I've opted to leave in.

The person's responses in green:

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

Most of the stuff this gobshite comes out with is easily debunked

These are at least TWELVE reasons for disregarding Mrs Fenn's account:

1. She didn't make her statement until 111 days after the date Madeleine was reported missing.

That was up to the police, not her. There is no evidence she delayed going to them, and her niece spoke to the police within days

2. She only made this statement after being prompted by members of the McCann Team or those working for them.

Absolute cobblers. No evidence to support this claim at all.

3. Two days before she made her statement, there was a flurry of major articles in the British mainstream press, all forecasting precisely what she was going to say before she made her statement (clear breach of the fabled Portuguese judicial secrecy rules, by the way).

The police announced they were going to re-interview people they had already spoken to, Mrs Fenn being one of them

4. She made a convoluted statement explaining that the crying was not of a child 'two years or under'. Howe exactly could she tell the difference between the crying of a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old? It's nonsense, isn't it? It looks like it was contrived to suggest this was Madeleine.

There was nothing convoluted or contrived about it. Idiot.

5. Only one child crying for 75 minutes? What about the other two?

What about the other two? What is his point here?

6. Mrs Fenn says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn about the crying at about 11.00pm. The only thing Mrs Fenn reports is Mrs Glyn saying: "I'm not surprised". How credible is it that these two women would allow a child to be heard sobbing for a continuous 75 minutes and yet not pick up the 'phone to someone?

Perfectly credible. How was she to know the children were alone? Neighbours won't usually call the police because a child is crying.

7. Mrs Fenn claimed she had a 'burglary' attempt. She gave four different dates for this burglary attempt: one week before, two weeks, three weeks, and finally 'several weeks'.

No she didn't. You have taken that from tabloid papers

8. She gave different versions of the incident: 'He climbed in through a window' or 'He broke in' or 'He entered with a key.

No she didn't. See above.

9. She gave several different versions of whether she contacted the police, including: "So shocked she 'phoned the police immediately" and "Nothing was stolen so I didn't bother reporting it".

No she didn't. See above.

10. She gave a highly unlikely account of what actually happened: "Tried to grab his ankle as he jumped out of the window" [this was a first-floor window and the concrete floor below was a 12' to 15' drop.

Cobblers. You don't know which window.

11. Afterwards, she told journalists to "ignore what I'm supposed to have said", adding: "It's all rubbish".

No she didn't. There is a transcript available of what she said.*** She denied that she had spoken to any papers. They simply made it up.

12. Not one other resident, holidaymaker or staff member head this crying during a period of 75 minutes - so there is no corroboration of it.

So what? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Bennett is doing his usual - keep repeating until people assume it's the truth. He's a lying arse.

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

*** Just for the record, here are Mrs Fenn's actual words when speaking to a TV journalist, I think on 22 August:

“Honestly, I have... I know nothing.

I have been here three months.k

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”.

Thank you Tony for this. I am sure it will be your excellent and painstaking research that will stand the test of time.
Others can mock, but look further into their claims and dispute of your research and it floats away into the mists of time along with the foul allegations.

I suggest anyone reading the alternative should read your research on the main CMOMM forum to blow away the cobwebs.
Always worthwhile and vital to get facts before engaging opinion big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.16 18:14

Joannep43 wrote:There is an article from the Daily Express which states that a Portuguese police officer is the source of this information....I agree that info could have been passed to Clarence Mitchell...

We have to examine the credibility of a claim that "a Portuguese police officer is the source of this information".

We cannot IMO do so without considering Clarence Mitchell's possible role in the generation of this story - and his overall role in the case from start to finish (if there is ever a finish): "My job is to control what comes out in the media".

Consider the question 'Cui bono' (Who benefits?).

What did the Portuguese police have to gain from this story? What did the McCanns have to gain from this story?

Consider how likely it is that Mrs Fenn would tell the Police all that she was going to say - and then, several days later, make a more detailed statement. What would be the point of releasing this information ahead of a formal statement?

Was Mrs Fenn told by anyone, I wonder, that her proposed statement would be broadcast to millions in the UK? It doesn't look like it from her reaction.

Bearing in mind also the much-vaunted Portuguese 'Judicial Secrecy' rules? Would Mrs Fenn have compromised that? Would the police have broken their own secrecy rules to leak what Mrs Fenn was going to say?

And finally let's recall Mrs Fenn's own words: "It's rubbish".

I may of course be wrong - but I see the hand and brain of the master media manipulator at work here

Why was it the British press and not the Portuguese press that broke the Mrs Fenn stories?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.16 18:40

Joannep43 wrote:Tony with respect I disagree with some of the points you have raised here regarding the crying incident. I know that I am not as researched as you but would hope that my opinion and contributions are still valued.

REPLY: YES. I'm sure you know that opinions and contributions of all kinds are welcomed here, but especially if they are well argued and evidence-based.

As I've written before on this thread I do believe that Mrs Fenn heard crying and was truthful in her statement to the PJ.

1. Mrs Fenn didn't make her statement until 111 days after May 3rd. The only way to clear this up is to find out if she gave a statement to the police when they did door to door enquiries. Then that statement could be compared to the one given 111 days later. I don't know if that happened and it may be something that we may never know.

REPLY: There is absolutely no evidence that she did, and there is a presumption that when the police knocked on her door, as they undoubtedly did on 3 or 4 May, she had nothing of interest to tell them.

So if no earlier statement was taken then why the delay? Well I can think of quite a few reasons.Mrs Fenn may have contacted the PJ earlier with this information and they may have had other lines of enquiries as priority. The intense media, numerous sightings all over Europe, the PJ on a wild goose chase. So I'm left wondering was this info passed to the PJ and because their interest was focussed on May 3rd at that time, this could have been low on their priorities.

REPLY: This is all complete speculation without any evidence in support: 'may have', 'could have been etc. There was a delay of 111 days. And two days before she went to Portimao Police Station to make her statement, what she was going to say was broadcast all over the British press. These are the bare facts, and we are left to interpret them. What, what prompted her to suddenly make this statement after 111 days.

The early statements taken by the PJ of the McCanns and Tapas 7 support that their focus of questions was centred on May 3rd. Not a lot of detail is probed by the PJ on the days leading up to May 3rd.

REPLY: But we are talking about why Mrs Fenn didn't contact the police for 111 days. There are clear indications that she was prompted to go to the police. Who by? Why?

Mrs Fenn is on video saying she had "never spoken to journalists, they have written rubbish in the newspapers". I don't see what is wrong with this. Mrs Fenn has not denied she has spoken to the PJ. I've lost count of how many headlines I've read about imminent arrests, numerous suspects and non stories in the gutter press. I believe she was being truthful unless there is a press article where Mrs Fenn has given an exclusive interview.

REPLY: These are her actual words:

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”.

The attempted robbery evolved to her grabbing the person by his ankles, just typical of the press to exaggerate on her statement and to emphasise the criminal activity at the resort.

REPLY: If you look at all the descriptions in the newspapers (and I've written about this elsewhere on the forum), you simply cannot get a clear picture of what happened. They do not harmonise at all. Did he jump out of the window or walk out of the door.? Did he 'enter with a key' or 'climb in through the window'? Was the burglary reported? - or not. The stories are all over the place.

If these articles have no direct source to her then maybe they were sensationalised to suit the McCann agenda.

REPLY: Possibly you are right. But then any group of people prepared to 'sensationalise' the truth to 'suit their agenda' might well be prepared to go the extra mile and wholly invent something?

You raised a point about press reports that were printed before she gave her statement. It's possible this info was leaked beforehand as she was billed as a "star witness "or whatever. I'm sure journalists have a way of getting information no matter what.

REPLY: Let me conclude with a clear note of agreement. We are agreed there was, or 'possibly' was, a deliberate leak. But we don't know for sure who leaked it and why. It's my settled belief however - based on the knowledge of how Clarence Mitchell worked - that the 18 August stories about Mrs Fenn were planted by Clarence Mitchell. Remember the Murdoch journalist who told Leveson he spoke to Mitchell 'almost every day'?

by Joannep43 26.01.16 18:47

"Why was it the British press and not the Portuguese press that broke the Mrs Fenn stories".? Like I said before, I am not as researched as you and I had no way of knowing that.
You're right the Portuguese police would have nothing to gain. Their reputation only tarnished as it would become knowledge that their judicial secrecy had been compromised.
What did the McCanns gain? Burglars about, Madeleine alive on that night, and a statement from Mrs Fenn's niece of another dodgy man hanging around?

10 REASONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT PAMELA FENN DID NOT HEAR ANY CHILD CRYING ON TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007

Mrs Pamela Fenn's Witness Statement of 20th August 2007...