No Judge and no Jury

I will put this in this section as The Theory is in here too.....................(my bold)


Dieser Blog


Montag, 30. Mai 2011No Judge and no Jury
Recently my humble blog has been visited more and more frequently, mostly due to my controversal theory. There are heated discussions on various forums some well informed and constructive, on others it only serves as an example of the ludicrous writings of the mentaly disturbed nutters that don't want Madeleine found. Since I can not write on all these forums and blogs I am using this space to elaborate on my attitude towards the theory and how I arrived at it.

In a court of law you will need foolproof evidence for a conviction. The terms and conditions under which this evidence is allowed in a court of law vary greatly from country to country depending on its legislature. E.g. the required number of matching alleles in a DNA sample can vary or whether dog alerts are admitted as circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it even varies from case to case as we can just witness in the trial of little Caylee Anthony's mother.

Now I am neither Judge nor Jury. My opinion does not have to follow the rules of the courts of a certain country. An opinion can be solely based on "gut feeling" but imo should at least be based on common sense and the available facts. The more facts and research are the basis of an opinion the better. I am entitled to one and I am entitled to express it publicly as long as I make it clear that it is an opinion or a theory. Slander without basis is libel but an opinion developed on facts is just that, an opinion. And we should not forget that the opinion of the PJ is close to mine, only that the evidence was not sufficient for charges in said court of law.

Having cleared that point I would like to describe how I arrived at the main point of interest in my blog, my theory regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

My interest in the case initially was minute, an abduction in a foreign country did not capture my curiosity. Only when a German journalist addressed the parents at a press conference in Germany and expressed her suspicion I got baited. How could she accuse the grieving parents?

The first year I visited the Mirror Forum and tried to get hold of the most basic facts, a difficult task because everything was tainted either by good or bad spin. Only when the files were released was it possible to form an unbiased opinion.

After wading through the translated parts and waiting for new translations it soon became obvious that there were three distinct factors that justified the suspicion of the PJ. The dogs on the one hand, signalling at 10 different locations and items all related to the family and not once at one of the other apartments or cars. The discrepancies and changes in their statements that were so plenty and bold that they could just not be put down to translation errors or normal discrepancies. An example: If there is an initial statement that access for the check of the children was via the front door with a key and later changed to the open patio doors, then this is no mistake. One of both is an untruth.

So I started off with the statements one by one, of Kate, Gerry and the 7 friends. Especially in relation to the timeline of the evening it soon became clear that the friends had not always been telling the truth and nothing but. For example a comparison with the interior of the apartments 5A and 5D in connection with the statement of Matthew Oldfield showed the possibility that he had never been inside 5A but had used the description of 5D in his rogatory interview. One by one the accounts of the friends fell apart.

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening. From there it was child's play. Puzzle pieces slid into place where confusion had reigned before. All the changes in routine for the Thursday suddenly made sense in so far as to avoid Dianne noticing that one person was missing. The previously as unimportant regarded statement by Jane about a tantrum on the playground and a child having hysterics in the apartment led the way.

Having explained all this, I have still not addressed the third point that to me indicates a very probable involvement of the Tapas 8 in the cover-up of the death of a little girl. And the malice and ruthlessness frightens me. The way in which an innocent man whose only fault was his helpfulness had been drawn into the sorry saga with the help of the media, overenthusiastic profiling by CEOP and at least 3 of the friends is something that makes me shudder. My analysis of the computer logs of Robert Murat shows clearly that he was at home that evening on May 3rd when almost 2 weeks later three of the friends in a concerted effort claimed he had been at the Ocean's Club although nobody else had seen him there. And I don't give any credence to the nannie and the sisters who SEVEN months later, after having been visited by the crooks from Metodo 3, suddenly remembered having seen him there as well.

For further questions and discussions please refer to the comment section. Thank you

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

[quote]

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening


Anyone agree with this comment about DW?

This theory has been well thought through but it does rely heavily on the assumption that DW was speaking the truth. I`ve just looked quickly at her rogatory statement and whilst she says that she did not see Madeleine on the Thursday,I cannot find anything which says that she " was pretty sure that it had been the Wednesday evening" when she last Madeleine. In fact, the rogatory statement is characterised by vagueness and an inability to recall details with any precision.

alison wrote:This theory has been well thought through but it does rely heavily on the assumption that DW was speaking the truth. I`ve just looked quickly at her rogatory statement and whilst she says that she did not see Madeleine on the Thursday,I cannot find anything which says that she " was pretty sure that it had been the Wednesday evening" when she last Madeleine. In fact, the rogatory statement is characterised by vagueness and an inability to recall details with any precision.

Thanks Alison, did you just look at the rogatory statement or her witness statements as well?

Please see below for Dianne Webster`s response to the question " when was the last time you saw Madeleine" ( towards the end of her rogatory statement). I imagine that it could be interpreted as a definitive sighting of Madeleine on Wednesday. But I can`t say that I am totally convinced.


When was the last time you saw Madeleine?”

DW: "(Sighs) You see I don’t remember seeing her on the Thursday because I didn’t go to the high tea, err but I was apparently in the play area afterwards but I can’t recall that.”

PC: "Okay.”

DW: "Err so from what I can recall, the last time I would have seen Madeleine would have been the Wednesday at the high tea probably.”

Also i've just posted this on the Missing Madeleine forum:

I have to say i don't agree with the Diane Webster statements matching.

From her interview on 10th May:

Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22h00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from Kate, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the McCann couple in order to find out what was going on.

In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the McCann apartment.



From her Rogatory statement:

Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible."



So did she go on her own (as per the first statement) or did Dave come back and ask her to go to the apartment (Rogatory interview)?

[quote="candyfloss"]

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening


Anyone agree with this comment about DW?

I don't know ... initially I quite strongly believed that Dianne Webster was the weak link - either she wasn't 'in the know' or she wouldn't be as committed to the 'party line' as the other 8.

I really looked forward to reading her statements but to be honest they are vague and woolly - and after all even if she wasn't officially 'aware' of what went on. she must still have her suspicions and she has her daughter and grandchildren to protect so she's hardly going to be completely truthful

The porblem with Webster's testimony, is that if she's telling the truth, she gives Gerry an alibi, by stating that at 10.00pm Kate came back to the table and told Gerry that Maddie was missing.

If this is true then the idea that Gerry was seen by the Smiths at 21.55 goes out of the window.

by stating that at 10.00pm Kate came back to the table and told Gerry that Maddie was missing.

I can't find it now (it's getting late), Me, but on another thread recently, there were questions raised about the timeline. One of the waiters was supposed to have talked to DW at 9.30 - 9.40 when she told him that the others had gone off to look for a missing child, some 20 minutes before Kate had raised the alarm. The waiter thought he might have seen Gerry wandering around the Ocean Club, but the timing is vague, calling into question the alibi - so it's still possible that the Smiths could have seen him.

I personally think that DW was not particularly involved.

WasNew wrote:I personally think that DW was not particularly involved.

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

She was involved here though, getting her share of the payout.

I think DW knew exactly what was going on with the arranged childcare arrangements every night. I think she knew exactly what room they were all in. On the night, after the alarm was raised she turned to Fiona and said "what do you want me to do". Any normal Grandmother would not have to ask that question. Their first thoughts would be, what about my grandchildren and hot footed it right back to her apartment faster than the speed of light.

Yep ufercoffy, DW was there collecting her pieces of silver along with the rest of them.

She is as involved as the rest of them in my opinion.

Stella wrote:I think DW knew exactly what was going on with the arranged childcare arrangements every night. I think she knew exactly what room they were all in. On the night, after the alarm was raised she turned to Fiona and said "what do you want me to do". Any normal Grandmother would not have to ask that question. Their first thoughts would be, what about my grandchildren and hot footed it right back to her apartment faster than the speed of light.

Yep ufercoffy, DW was there collecting her pieces of silver along with the rest of them.

She is as involved as the rest of them in my opinion.

It's a good point ... my grandchild is about the same age as the Payne's youngest and I swear if I ever thought that my daughter had 'done a McCann' (as leaving kids is called in my house) then I would be calling in social services and taking the little one into my care before you could say 'whoosh clunk'.

As for participating in leaving him alone while I went to dinner ... hell would freeze over first! So, assuming that the children were actually being left then, to me, DW is no better than the rest of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and just as likely to be economical with the truth.

That's the thing LittlemissMolly, when the alarm was raised David and Fiona went off searching for Madeleine and DW was happy to sit at the table. Not one of them rushed off to check on their own children. Why?, because they knew they were being looked after by someone else, most likely Jane Tanner in my opinion.

Why?, because they knew they were being looked after by someone else, most likely Jane Tanner in my opinion.

But hang on then - she was wandering around outside at 9:15 because she says she saw the abductor. Assuming that she was outside at that time, where did she go afterwards - did she go back to the children? Was she on her way to see to the children when she 'saw' him?

WasNew wrote:

Why?, because they knew they were being looked after by someone else, most likely Jane Tanner in my opinion.

But hang on then - she was wandering around outside at 9:15 because she says she saw the abductor. Assuming that she was outside at that time, where did she go afterwards - did she go back to the children? Was she on her way to see to the children when she 'saw' him?

I suspect she was relieving Russell, who had been missing for ages, probably taking first shift, hence the "relieving" joke. Arond the time of bundleman, Russell returns to cold steak, Jane never returns !!!