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

pamela fenn did make a statement to the pj, she had need of a translator and lieve van loock was asked to handle that. the statement was done in praia da luz.

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

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, UEVE 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.


' therefore a police interpreter is present, this little part is enough to show it was statement given in person.

not a written declaration. her status to the investigation was that of a witness. 


about any informal statements nothing is in the files, there is no copy of the casebooks, and no lists avalable who have been heard informal. and that is normal practice. 


only in most continental law systems a witness statement in itself can not be classified as evidence.


also all evidence gathered during an investigation is at best possible evidence. what is and was evidence will be to decided on by a court of law. 


the portuguese have quite a high level of the duty of a witness. during the investigation witnesses are not under oath, they simply only have to speak the truth. we have that in the same original meaning, but the modern citizen has often a bit different opinion. and there is in this case probably showing of how that became a cultural barrier. 


the history of portugal with living under a form of government that had a habit of changing the rules when they wanted at the spot, ended for them halfway through the seventies. when most more northern countries had already had chosen the law would not be that very important could be handled more loosely and by choice. 


amaral was even a bit agitated the non portuguese witnesses did not have much with complying to, the portuguese standard, that a witness has to speak truthful. not that they all just told lies, but that they had a far more loose concept of what truthful stands for. 
so if indeed we are far more used to talk around something asked, instead of a simple yes or no, that could have been felt as very conflicting for the portuguese officers. 


the portuguese like to care much more about the protocols in law, than we do. we do not often see the law as a straight rule, but far more as a guideline. 


the problem with a lot of statements in the pj files is, most are formulated not by the witness its exact wording, but taken in a concise manner with only the points that are of importance of this investigation, on the time the formal statement was made. 


most of the formal statements are already have been known in its informal state, meaning the information is almost never news to the investigation, but there surfaces a reason to formalize points that can be important in a later part of the investigation, or the trial fase, or even a bit earlier, when the statement can be a foundation under the ability to use stronger ways to get to other needed information. all you can do in an investigation is usually divided by how much it can interfere with personal rights of the per-summed innocents. and the prosecutor is usually the one that give permission to step over that line.


these concise reporting style statements are not meant to pick apart, but as summary of what the witness could deliver in important information to the investigation itself on that moment. making a formal statement does never mean you are in it all for ever. or will surely be part of a later trial fase. 
investigations can turn on the spot at any time. the reason is simple, you do not start with a conclusion about what happened, but start with gathering information and all that gets in, gives direction in that investigation. 


and it is almost a rule that investigation can change to a another route, because of what comes to the knowledge of that investigation. 


the information is what guides the investigation on route, and there are always many parts that are worked next to each other. 


the upload of the files and the index do not show the true building up of the investigation, and there is no copy of the casebooks, you use normally in a real investigation. so it is not very easy to understand why a witness was asked for a formal statement. just put all the files on dates would not cover that. 


and they had a lot of lines open at the start, looking for a living child, but at the same time keeping an eye out when it was no longer alive. they needed a strong remit to being able to use as much competences as possible, that is why they accepted an abduction, there was no body or sign that could talk this case at the start into full murder case. 
and because the wacky abduction remit, they had the usual very conservative prosecution against them. 


getting a remit together is always a art in itself. even no one probably is a fan of murder or terrorism, from the outlook of an investigation they are great. because it mean you usually have not even have to speak out half of what you want to ask for, before permissions are granted. all lesser remits means no free reins to an investigation. 


the remit is not the same as being restricted into what you can look into, but will guide what you can use, the way you can use your toolbox. so what you can do always can find barriers that restrict you in getting to the information you want and mostly you want what you think you need. 


for how this all happened in this case, read amaral his first book, it is all there. nothing special even, all that is common in all kind of other investigations, but it gives a good insight in how it works.


there can be a bonus when you call a witness in for making a formal statement, mostly because they will feel a bit of pressure, but it can be done on all places. and you can use that to steer it a bit, at least most would understand, a formal statement is a official document with legal standing. 
the reasons to do a formal statement can be very different, some only have very empty answers, no i did see not that, no, nothing happened then or there. and that could as important as a almost letter by letter exact rewording of an event that did happened. a lot of statements are also an end result of a part of an investigation. you have looked into it and it gets all together in such a statement, after such a statement you can go on to the next part. getting a witness in, and is is very unusual that you hear what they know for a first time, gives you also the chance to ask extra questions, of course you want some lucky shots. 


and you do not need all statements in a formal manner, and not all formal statement will be a part of the investigation to the end. the more you see of the picture behind a case, the more selection there can be. 
this case did not reach the last pre-trial fase, so a lot could still be in it, but because the casebook is not there and we have no access to the officers itself, it is often a guess how important information in a formal statement really is. because it is there does not tell that. also not all lines and parts have been finalized, so it is pretty impossible to give the statements a raking based on that.


and it is a given, that because the questions did not got an answer, most are still open. and it is mostly the answered question that can tell if a specific statement is important for that or not. 


also every witness only can tell a story as they have lived a situation, no one is perfect in the memory department, and humans are none as bad observants by nature. when we look to the right, we cannot see to the left at the same time, so a statement is just a very personal declaration of one human being. and looking to the right on the magic moment can result in a very different observation, than when another just was looking to the left. also we do not only look and listen, feel , smell and taste, but our minds are processing it all real time too. we do hardly do true gaps, but let our minds fill them with the most likely. 


the best example to show that is a car accident between 2 cars. it is the kind of event that is noticed, but if 10 people did notice it, most are not true witnesses of what happened before the collision happened, most will only pay attention because they heard the bang. but a ears hear bang , eyes fill it with to collided cars and the mind says, well that is a collision, so it is a car accident. it is most times very hard to find a true witness that has seen what happened before the bang, but most will tell is as a story that they have seen a car accident, but they never did that, they only have noticed it after it already happened.


and a lot of that stuff is in this case too, how many people called the police because ugly, and or, blond, strange behaving, lurking or any other way to describe a male that was there. nil. only after the story of missing madeleine got out, a lot of people did go back in their mind and found nice bad males doing bad things. 


very as normal behaving humans , or as normal accepted events before that evening and even on that evening of may 3 2007, so normal people only reacted from their own situation to them and decided they must been harmless to them, otherwise there was talked about it to others, or made a call to the police. only after the missing of madeleine became the news, they had a change in their conclusions. 



and taking a witness interview cost time, but most of what is said has no meaning to your case at all. you have to check their identity, addresses and contact information. you have to make them feel at least a bit comfortable. tell the guidelines. and the rest depends of what they are willing to share. you also need two officers. take notes and pick your mind in how to ask a question to that witness. and follow up ones. 


but back to the statement of pamela fenn. first it is her statement, her personal reflection formed in an answer on questions by the officers. 
you cannot conclude much about the part before she stepped out to see what all the noise was about that late evening of may 3. what you can conclude, and that is because she told it herself, there was nothing happening that made her seek outside assistance. you can conclude she was annoyed at tuesday evening, but not enough to seek assistance to change it. 


we can not conclude what she could or could not hear inside her apartment. and if you ever lived in a row of houses or an apartment building you can just look back in your own experiences about noises. sounds do not travel everywhere in the same manner. it is exactly a simple thing that you cannot conclude at all from only looking at the outside of a building or a picture of a building. 
it is something you have to test , if it becomes important information in an investigation. 


it would not work to use a tape of cd or dvd, they each have quite a large cut off in high and low tones. 
also living with sounds is a very variable and very personal experience. it is even influenced by our bodily and mental condition, and in what we are keeping ourselves busy with at a moment. 


like you can put me within a meter of a very busy motorway and i can block that sound away. i do not have to do it actively, it is just a me thing that automatically happens. and it would not work at all if can hear a lot of still called musical sounds at all. i can hear the alarm of the ambulance on the road as soon as it reaches over a dyke and that is 5 km from my desk. but i can not always directly hear and notice my phone. 
each of us have a very personal hearing range, that are often very different for different types of sounds.
there is also the annoying factor, as soon as a sound that makes you annoyed, you register it more prominent.


apartment buildings can have systems that are build in the horizontal, or the vertical line, a lot of then contain metal structures, like in heating systems, water supply, but also larger pipes for sewage. so it is never only a wall, or floor that makes what you can hear and what not, and from where. 
it would be very helpful if we ever find a solution to the odds of traveling sounds, because it is a clear number one complaint giving situation in almost all multiple housing structures.


so the only way to get a meaning full answer about what from where and under what circumstances pamela fenn could hear the sound of a young child, and rachel oldfield did not is go there and investigate it.


but is it really so important in this investigation, that hearing a child, identity unknown, crying change something. and why is there no room to give some margins for mistakes, why is the only other option to declare without any investigation or knowledge of travelings sounds and all that comes with that aspect, and is commonly known as giving easily mistaken observations, because sound is a bugger to tell where is is coming from at any distance, only be something you can lie about. 


a maybe is just not good enough to incriminate all you like, because you do not want to do the work that is needed to get an answer to your own question. 


because that is not how investigations work, if you get a wild idea, you get into your boots and find out if such an idea could have meaning based on what you already know, even wild idea's need a foundation.  
next you set your mind and that of others put to work, to understand what you need to let that happen, what places you can take a look, who you can speak too, what type of questions you have to ask, what matter you have to learn more about. you have to feed a wild idee with facts and circumstances, and it can only help your self when you at least keep some margins for error. 


i am very used to open up my mind when someone says what if, and there gets something out that can look from a very different direction. we all come from our own paths of life, so that can bring other experiences in how to look at things. i really do like that, but it needs something to chew on. 

by Silentscope 08.11.23 18:34
Has anyone noticed the following from Jane Tanners and Fiona Payne' Statements that contradicts the one possibly written for Mrs Fenn?

by Silentscope Yesterday at 20:34
IMHO Tony, Mrs Fenn probably never knew what someone else quite possibly wrote for her.

by Silentscope Today at 10:26
Silentscope- The Fenn Statement as taken by the PJ I believe to be real and true. How else would they have got all her Personal Data and her Signature?

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

1. Kate and Gerry were possibly setting the Scene with Fiona and Jane because they already knew Madeleine was gone.

2. The English Press had no Access to her Statement that she gave to the PJ on 22 Aug 2007. The PJ Files were not even released until 4 Aug 2008, a year later. So who told the Press what to print about it?

3. The Statement recorded by the PJ I believe is Authentic, the Question is - was Mrs Fenn told to tell the PJ what the British wanted them to hear?

The British already interviewed her niece Tranmer on 08 May 2007.


Tranmer 

Original interview and identikit not included in DVD:

In the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading.

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


Was the reason Mrs Fenn was not in on Wednesday just a coincidence, or was it a U.K. Ploy to stop the PJ from asking too many questions of her and and finding out something? 

Where was Mrs Fenn on WEDNESDAY?

Did anything happen to Madeleine on WEDNESDAY?

Exasperating.



I won't be drawn into such nonsense.

Would the Cleaning up Operation or Madeleine's Body being removed from Apartment 5A on Wednesday fit?

This still allows for an even earlier Death.

Silentscope wrote:Would the Cleaning up Operation or Madeleine's Body being removed from Apartment 5A on Wednesday fit?

This still allows for an even earlier Death.

How would you?

Return home at 5.30 - 6pm
Lose a child
Bath two toddlers and get them to bed
Get over the shock
Move the body
Concoct a cover up story
Obtain the necessary detergents
Forensically clean an apartment
Dispose of the body
Get showered and changed
And get the tapas by 8.30 and act normal

I wish I knew…

How does anyone tell their own Friends Thursday night at Dinner that Madeleine was crying’the Night before’.

Or later tell the PJ there was another Crying incident on Tuesday?

Or that the Curtains had ‘Whooshed’ Thursday night’ over the Bed?

When she allegedly Died earlier that Week?

And the body was ‘so Swiftly removed’?

the write-up at the beginning of this story can use some extra hindsight i think. 

about point 1.

people do get very easily annoyed by all kind of noises from children, and that can be because we are notice them by nature, at least most people have minds that translates crying into an alarm. and crying can be very functional, because it indeed makes people noticing it. most of us will do it and check for signs in the crying for danger. everything young children do to signal something is not right with me, has crying with it.

and it is an annoying kind of sound, but again most people will put their attention to the sound and decide, usual coloured with experience, decide if it is needed to do something.

and then it started, what can you do, must i really do it, why don't others not do anything, i do not know this child, why bother. it shall be nothing important, all children have their fases, it will go over. 

the police is for most people still a barrier. maybe because they only notice police action if there is a lot of noises and activity, the more silent approach is most times missed completely until it gets by effects.
so there is quite a thick and fat line in the sand, to not so easily make a call to the police.

people are always afraid to be seen as time wasters, noise hypochonders or just busy bodies, who interfer with more important cases. and even if people only feel that, that will keep up a barrier.

another thing is, people have a very much dislike to have to get mingled in with bad things around children, as long these children still have parents of people who look to be parents, a lot could be just carers, or semi-carers as some step family often practice. 
and we are almost all brought up with a barrier, what happens behind a front door of others , is simply not of your business. it delivers many times over a prolonged abuse of many people behind front doors, but as long as it is behind that front door, very little people dare to step in.

and i do know that very well from very personal experience, that front door principle in life is almost a holy rule. and nothing happened in any form of silence. and because i had a problem in understanding why the heck, none of these people ever did something. and i spoke many years later with most of them. 

the most common answer was, yes they had been worried, but afraid to get harmed themselves, already known police and others would not step in before it needed hospital care, and you know, that was indeed a true thing. police and others had that same respect sadly for a closed front door. it was still very normal to correct your child with a smash and shout. 

and after i talked with a lot of people, and i always felt very lucky because i had access to other very nice and good people, who gave me not only moments of escaping a very bad situation at home, but also showed me in their behaviour that all could be done differently. for me was knowing there was a other world outside always kept my hope up, that one day i would reach that part of the world, and i did. and physical abuse never became part of my live as normal. 

but the lesson was mostly, people are often very afraid for taking parts of abusive behaviour behind their own front door, there still is no good system to protect people harmed behind closed doors, and making a call to the police is still not without risk. as soon as gets known, you could have be the one that called, it is not always only the people of next door, but they are often treated as they must have done that.
do i really have to paint the full picture how that often gets played out. 

the abusers do got mad, or do the magic to mr. and mrs. most decent, but are usually given an easy talked out of abuse freebie of society, i i was allowed to paint every one who i heard say; ' it cant be all so bad,  purple, it would not make a small town, but quite a city. even a judge tried that one. i solved that one with an example i just trowed the picture of his son to his wall, and told him, what would that guy say it it was him when that happened, with the body of that son. 

crying is very normal for young children, we all have done it, we had to learn to not keep do it, and there are times we are not successful with the do not cry habits.
but it is true not all crying is the result of abuse, of something that goes wrong. children learn very quickly that crying does not go unnoticed. so it is often part of their ways to communicate. 

but if you have no say about that child, people mostly choose for their own safety, not directly that of bodily harm, but of being not mentally harmed, so they go for distancing. o yes, they do talk about it with others, mostly to get a positive response, that they have made the right response. and it is true, if you do not mingle yourself in the affairs behind the front door of others, you can keep it all on a nice much safer feel behind your own. 

when things end up going very wrong, the same people fill the papers with, yea, i always had the idea there was something going on, it never been very nice people. the coward's walk i call that in my mind. 

but back to a crying episode in praia da luz. 

pamela fenn, was in het eighties, old enough to be of a generation that still had overly respect for the privacy behind the front door of others. she would not have chosen to live there, if she was overly sensitive to noises holiday makers would make, and if she was overwhelmed by it at a time, she always could rent out her home and go on a visit to family in the uk. we know she did that some times in summertime, because caroll her niece told about it.

pamela fenn had first hand experiences with young children from earlier in her own life. and people do use such experiences too, if you ask them questions about it. 
and that was what happened in her formal statement, the question was asked of her and she had given her very own impression of her first hand experience during an evening that week. she gave her answers in person, and they have been translated by a translator. and rewritten in reporting style by the officer.

there is no need to use such an impression as fact, because it is no fact at all. we have not seen the question itself, so we cannot deduct if that was a neutral question, or had a bit of steering in it. but asking for a personal impression is a very good way to find out how sound your witness is. most stories shrink a fair bit in a interview by police. 

she also lived their for some years already, and most people would use earlier noise events to guide themselves to a origin. and most are not even correct half the time. sounds do travel in the oddest ways. 
it can take even people with lots of experience and expertises in that field years to find the true origin of a sound. 
it does not help very much we all have our personal bandwidth in what we can hear, what make us notice a sound.

so no from only taking a look to the outside of block 5, or as most of us just some pictures or video of it, is not really how you can deduct what could be heard, or not heard in what apartment in block 5, or surrounding quarters. it is simply not something that can serve as a foundation when you make up your opinion. 
it would be as baking a bread with sawdust , because you could not find the flour, and tell it is a bread.

block 5 only had 2 units inhabited by people that had no direct connection to the mccanns. so who had to hear it, it is never become known if the moyes above pamela fenn have been in and awake that evening of may 1. on may 3 they told to the media they had an early night. if that was common habit, they already could have been dreaming when the crying pamela fenn describes started. 

also all opinions about was, or wasn't there a sound of a crying child in the ears of pamela fenn, are as personal as her declaration in her formal statement. not mine, not ours. her own words. only she is responsible for her own words, she signed for it. 

so no, it is impossible to answer such questions. and no investigation would put out a full  forensic audio test. it can be done, and there are today very nice and handy thingies so it gets a lot cheaper and easier. but no investigation ever will do it because they can, they only will look into it if it is really important as part of their case. and there is another problem, you can not really prove, or disprove what was there to be noticed.
that last sentence is why witness statements are not seen as evidence of facts at all. and it does not work by a democratic vote, to tell what did happened, so most statements are no more than pencil lines, some a bit darker, some very lightly just there. talking do not leave many traces, writing does, recorded voices do. but spoken words do not.

we are of course allowed a much lower threshold, thinking does cost us very little, also it has little or no effect on any official investigation, so it can be pretty harmless. but i do like the principle that there must be clear signs of guilt to something to restrict all rights to be handled as innocent. 

and the strongest line that we can know of what this investigation was mostly following are from the files, any crying before the evening of may 3, 2007, has not a high place on the list of importance, of what they needed to know. and they did keep all lines open, some more than others. 

and given the date of when the statement was made, it can tell quite a bit more. 
and it is far less prominent in the uk press and media, but the portuguese articles around that date are still on internet, and they have different approaches. 
first the portuguese sources tell us pamala fenn was heard informally shortly after it all started.

the work with the dogs opened up a fresh line for the investigation, so a fresh round of hearing witnesses and formal statement would be in the planning. 

what is lacking in the portuguese press are all that pamela fenn would have said and done next to that what would be part of her statement.

and yes because we have seen the formal statement in the files, we can deduct there was a leak in the investigation, not where or who that was. so basically some of the information was in itself also in the statement, but the seeping source had not all details, or briefed some re-users on all details in a incorrect way.
seeping sources often do keep bits vague or out, because it is often pretty easy to get a very sound idea who had access to the full paperwork. and there are always a lot of people trying to take a look on the floors where it all happened in an investigation, but there are always possible routes of escaping information. 
there is only one way to prevent it 100% and that is keeping it only in your own mind. and do not talk when you sleep too.

the wording of sentences are much nearer to the production of the officer that written the report, than when common speech was used. 

and no, because there was known, as already was very likely, well before the formal statement became needed to the investigation what pamela fenn would have to say. there only be extra questions, because of the direction the investigation took. 
and there is a little indication, that this formal statement was not really a interview on may 20, at 15.30 hours ,but likely much earlier, all the media sources do speak of a up to 4 hours interview in portimao. others do not say how long it took.

and look in the header of the original portuguese statement, not the translated one;

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

and we see a date of 2007/08/20, a time of 15.30 hours, and behind local=place; praia da luz.

so we have not even the true time of the interview itself, given the time of 15.30 hours it could have been in the morning in portimao, but it is common protocol that the date and time and place have to be to correspondent with the exact date, time and place of the signing of a legal document.

and you can not really make it into the formal format, directly after an interview, you also have to check if the identity information is correct, for us it meant just walking to the council office to check it all to the database.
as soon as all parties sign a statement it becomes a legal document, and all have a very strict upmake. 
you can get dispensation to get a print out from the council register before hand, but still making a statement report and the checks ask time. at least one hour each interview is lost on formalities and getting a witness a bit comfortable. checking with the translator some bits, writing the report type ,or let it be typed in the official forms. depending on what you scored, briefing the investigation already a bit.

i would not let a 81 year old, waiting on a cheap chair all the time. 

ask the romans or the french, they made us do it. protocol is not there to understand, it is not up for discussion, wacky at times, but you learn to live with it, you can only loose from a protocol, never win.

but it also means, these dates are not proving a formal statement was made on a specific date and time, i had some that could be even months old, the most promising you make when you have a bit of time, but they often not reach a critical point under investigation. the most sound and better quality, the ones that really make a dent in the case, are usually the only ones to proceed with speed. 

if you look at the dates in the media, most of it starts getting more attention on the 18th of august, that was a saturday. also a lot of information has a finger pointing to the earlier interview of her niece. it is the media that puts the interview on a monday, but i cannot find any reaction that is what truly prove that happened. it could be, and that the officers had mercy with an old lady, and chosen to just not her let come to portimao offices, but do a drive by. 

but nothing that places pamela fenn in that police office on monday, and how likely is it, that the interview itself was earlier. if you look at how the sentences are constructed, that is not overheard speech, but very near the exact language in reporting style the officer used. data's are a bit off. but nothing what could not be in a memory after 2 minutes of acces or more. numbers are always more difficult to remember correct, while doing a sneaky peak. 

and if the report was written on monday after the interview how came the media to the formulation of the wording on saturday, it is way of common spoken language. also if she only had to get to portimao for reading the finalized statement and sign it, why is there praia da luz on top. 

the portuguese did never say anything clear, only that they would hear witnesses that week. never who.
it was a point in time it is very unlikely, you just drive by and pick up a witness for a statement, usually you make an appointment. 

also it gives another route,pamela fenn did not talk to journalists, but she surely talked to her friends.

and going by the lack of quotation marks in the tabloids, it is far more likely they used sources who had been in contact with pamela fenn. 

and there was quite a diversity in what pamela fenn must have said, but nowhere is to find to who she said something in person, or by direct conversations. so it is in principle very correct that pamela fenn did said a lot of it, but not to the media. so that makes it second hand stuff, with a little extra for free. we already do know pamela fenn must have talked directly to mrs. glynn, and maybe direct or indirect to a hairdresser. 

and pamela fenn could have talked freely to her friends about her adventures with the police. but there is no indication pamela fenn herself told the same herself to any media. they tried, she said no, and was quoted to that. 

and there was far more stories in the media, than that made it into the statements.

and who knows, it could just be the common tale of an old lady, that made an appointment with the police for monday, and they want to made it this time even into a formal statement, and with the satisfaction of the attention she scored from the ladies of her ex-pat circle, she started to score just more of that in telling her experiences. maybe even with a sherry or two on the go. you get often thirsty of all that talking. give it an hour, and no one knows who actually said what or if it was a suggestion or not.

but it can be done days earlier even. i did not see facts that tell how that all  was exactly arranged at all.

and each of the ladies had their own networks too, there could have been just one, who was in to get a free lunch from it. and she had not even had to say her name, no one was hurt by that, isn't it. the police already know what pamela told them next meeting again, she had already told it much earlier to a copper, such a sweet young guy. very polite, and his english was not that bad. such a shame, they are not even allowed to accept a nice cup of hot tea. nothing bad in getting a bit of excitement from it and a free lunch too. 

most portuguese papers do write about an earlier statement. most uk ones do not.

so you see with a different work of fantasy, most of that saga can be just be the usual spell of a bunch of older ladies, who have nothing better to do than talk to all who want to hear. and just one of them was a reporter. 

there are indications there was a seeping source around the investigation, but most likely they had a second one in a talking old biddy from pamela fenn her network.

if the sun had a reporter that spoke in person to pamela fenn herself, they would not have left the usual quotation marks away. they do cite the stuff in the context they like most, but the words are always said at least once in person or by phone. 

so yes there could very well be another side to all of it, instead of a 81 year old biddy who starts a new criminal career. there is nothing surfaced ever she could be associated with criminal minds at all. and most people are guilty of crimes, i mean a parking ticked , or just over the speeding limit is a crime too. but for most that it as high as the get in life. 

but it is always nice to have at least some indication that can put a finger at a accomplice in a serious crime. 
and my impression of pamela fenn is just very different. 

but the real big fat pink olifant in it all is that because of the indications they gathered from the dogs and findings, they got enough legal stance to set more of the investigation line; it all started in 5a, and that the child most likely died there. so that meant they had need on more statements of the people who have been around. 

the investigation at that time had gone from unsure if the child was still alive or not, and if she could have left 5a alive or not. before the dog indications they still had empty hands, pamela fenn her statement could not change something in that, but it was not useless.

it could put foundations under the not so consequent looking in on the kids, and that the tapas 9 had no problem with setting the stage at least a bit to a more acceptable standard for the world. 
it is one of many points in the stories of the mccanns, that give room to get that they are not overall as truthful as they like to present themselves. 

the events in pamela fenn her statement are in itself not directly that special at all, they become of importance, because they are opposite of the declarations of the mccanns. 
i cannot think of any logical reason why this statement would do anything good to the position of the mccanns. nothing that became known between the mccanns versus pamela fenn has any positive flow on the first party. 

the other important information is about the evening of may 3, and that is mostly what was lacking. 

the crying could if needed, and it was not probably seen as needed to prove it at that time, easily be proven bij reconstruction.
and if that would be needed and was successful, it would even make the not hearing a thing on the evening of may 3 much stronger. and going by the mccann lines it was very noisy well before pamela fenn stepped out to ask what was going on. it works often well into breaking open a not fully true told story, when you can bring on a statement of others.

the answer why that stage of the investigation found it necessary to get a formal statement and exactly why is never published. but there are way more explanations possible and for me far more likely, certainly in connections with the dog indications, than reasoning pamela fenn in the case as a assistent/accomplice of the mccanns. 

i have a problem that when something is being used as if it is a fact, or even stronger to call it evidence, but in itself do never be able to qualify to be that under legal standings. most we see are not even reach into being an indication. 

and i do look from many angles, time after time, and there are certain points to make, but they do not like to make enough of a pattern to become really telling the story. and i agree fully that the story for the thursday evening has also not enough body to tell a full story. but making a story is not the task of solving a crime. 
it does not matter witch point you take as zero hour, you can only get it out by too much speculating and very little to build the foundation, to let it be the full story of what happened. 

and i have no problem with building a story, but i do have when i can build many different ones based on the same information. and what looks a strong point in one, is nothing in another angle. 

the media do not be of help in that at all. truth usually do not sell news, mystery does. so they are there to make only their own beds, and there are probably even d-notices out in the uk, and the rest of the world of media is probably just told by the juridical advisors to just no go, where it can have costly consequences, and that is not only  restricted to this case, they all use and need each other, you do not want to be black listed in any agenda. 

the people who can tell bits of the story have mostly chosen to just keep all as far out of their lives as possible, and in my experience that happens only when there is indeed a realistic reason to fear for real negative impacts in their own lives, and when they know that open their mouth's would not change anything for the victim. but it does not tell what the story really is.